Hacker News Reader

Well this doesn't seem like such a conundrum. We know for sure that ND is wrong because it predict things incorrectly which GR predicts correctly. We know GR is wrong because it is incompatible with any form of QM and we know some form of QM is more or less correct. Essentially, GR and ND are both wrong, but ND is more wrong than GR.

View on HN

> We know GR is wrong because it is incompatible with any form of QM and we know some form of QM is more or less correct.

It’s not really about one model being correct. GR is not a perfect model because its predictions don’t match what’s observed on the scale where QM gives predictions which do.

"Wrong" is overall a poor way of thinking about models. People would like a model which is both general and elegant, not simply a model which is "right". A large and very general model with a lot of parameters which can be well tuned to fit all the observations we have would be "correct" but I am not convinced it would be very useful.

> we know some form of QM is more or less correct

This is a wild take, given all the issues QM and QFT have.

Sure, a better way of saying it is tat we observe natural phenomena which are explained by something like QM and for which we have no other explanation. I think people got the idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com