Well, even particle physics itself is fundamentally flawed as particle physics *itself* is following more of a chemistry model of sticks and balls rather than wavepackets. I’m sure he’s well aware of it too, but it’s very easier to work with quantum effects considering things as “fields and particles” rather than considering them “hard waves” or particle clouds of probabilities.
I find his perspective refreshing in a way. For years, I ate up the “oo double-slit” mystery aspect, which has almost a religious component to it, rather than seeing what’s possible once we crack the deeper mysteries of quantum realities.
But consider nano-technology. For a long time, defeating the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect was a very big hurdle in dealing with quantum effects.
But as things get smaller and smaller, the Casimir effect is child’s play compared to what’s ahead.
We’re finding workarounds at the moment; building with different materials and such… but these things are tangible irritations in engineering – hurdles to be overcome.
It’s quite likely to me that some of these things being figured out mathematically and theoretically and experimentally with projects like the LHC will be tackled by an engineer paid to create something scientifically improbable at extremely small scales… and from that practical discovery will arise some new theories.
agreed. I put them as science fiction and bedtime stories supported by mathematics or plausible concepts. Nothing wrong with them really; they’re all inspirational in their own fashion; but ultimately they come down to stories.