What is the nature of reality? Is it really 11 or more dimensions of string theory, which has had millions of hours poured into it with no results? The cutting room floor of the physics department is littered with the contenders.
On the other (or is that the same?) hand, we also have the notion that every theory is both inaccurate in a percentage sense and completely wrong in a conceptual sense. Newton’s theory of gravity is so good that it predicts the motions of the solar system to within a hair’s breadth. Yet even Newton could see problems with the instantaneous transmission of effect that his gravity predicted.
For some reason that I can’t figure out, quantum mechanics seems to hold some sort of cherished position in physics today – many physicists believe that whatever theory is postulated, it must agree with QM to succeed. What it really means of course is that to be taken seriously, every theory must agree with QM. These are two very different things, and is at the heart of the reason why everyone is trying to quantize General Relativity, rather than the reverse (which is what the proposals on this site try to accomplish).
This race for a quantum theory of gravity has been full of rewards and surprises, but real major breakthroughs have not been forthcoming, despite the decades of work in this field.
At the least, I hope this site is more fodder for that floor.
Tom Andersen
