= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on What science needs - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (83)
I have a lot of evidence. On a per-dollar basis, science today is many orders of magnitude less productive than it was a century ago. I have a paper in draft I can email you.
Frankly, a draft of that paper would be far more interesting than this post itself. I'm curious what your metric is. Denominators is dollars, and numerator is what?
Email my username at gmail.com, and I'll send it to you.
ADDED: Now online here. Please leave comments there if you have any. It looks like you can't do line-by-line comments on a Word document in google docs, though.
Done.
Alternatively, scientific problems might have got a lot harder! Compare the sheer amount of maths needed to understand quantum mechanics compared to something like gravitation.
(and I'm assuming you're taking into account inflation etc.)
As far as I know, general relativity isn't any mathematically simpler than quantum mechanics is.
I think in context bryjnar meant simply Newtonian gravity.
Yep.
You ought to compare it to quantum field theory, not to non-relativistic quantum mechanics.