this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
50 points (96.3% liked)

Science

13166 readers
1 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nougat@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

At first blush, this article seems to say that there's a solid hypothesis for which the math works consistently, and they know what they want to do in order to test that hypothesis. It's just a matter of designing and performing experiments.

But then, I read this:

[Co-author] Weller-Davies added: “A delicate interplay must exist if quantum particles such as atoms are able to bend classical spacetime. There must be a fundamental trade-off between the wave nature of atoms, and how large the random fluctuations in spacetime need to be.”

I know atoms aren't "particles," and I'm pretty damned sure they're also not quanta.

[–] anzich@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Atoms are composite particles. And they surely are quantum particles as you need quantum mechanics to describe their behavior

[–] style99@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

So, we're just calling anything a "theory" nowadays? How about the scientific method? Or is that just too much work for anybody in a post-Einstein world?