Thema: Art = toe ?
Einzelnen Beitrag anzeigen
  #30  
Alt 11.06.21, 15:51
kwrk kwrk ist offline
Profi-Benutzer
 
Registriert seit: 29.12.2016
Ort: Mainz
Beitr?ge: 171
Standard AW: Art = toe ?

Ein wunderbarer Artikel beim Quantamagazine, der sich mit meinem -zugegebenermaßen oberflächlichen- Eindruck bez. QFT/Standardmodell deckt:
Das Standardmodell hat keine belastbare Basis in der Mathematik.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-m...olve-20210610/
Ein paar Zitate:

QFT, is indisputably incomplete. Neither physicists nor mathematicians know exactly what makes a quantum field theory a quantum field theory.

Quantum field theories are by far the most complicated objects in mathematics, to the point where mathematicians have no idea how to make sense of them

two quantum fields interact... this calculation — multiplying two infinite-dimensional objects that are infinitely close together — is difficult. “This is where things go terribly wrong,”

if you keep making the interactions stronger, the perturbative approach eventually overheats…. This suggests that while the perturbation method is a useful guide for experiments*, ultimately it’s not the right way to try and describe the universe: It’s practically useful, but theoretically shaky.

while QFT has been successful at generating leads for mathematics to follow, its core ideas still exist almost entirely outside of mathematics.


und vor allem, passend zu diesem Thread:
It’s a degree of imprecision that’s out of step with the other great physical theories that QFT aspires to supersede. Isaac Newton’s laws of motion, quantum mechanics, Albert Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity — they’re all just pieces of the bigger story QFT wants to tell, but unlike QFT, they can all be written down in exact mathematical terms.

*useful guide for experiment = Fit (imho)
Mit Zitat antworten