Timeline for No-go theorems: when can we go there?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 11, 2015 at 18:40 | comment | added | WillO | What step in the proof of some no-go theorem did you find unconvincing? | |
| Sep 11, 2015 at 15:38 | history | protected | Qmechanic♦ | ||
| Sep 11, 2015 at 15:26 | answer | added | StarDrop9 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 10, 2015 at 22:32 | answer | added | CR Drost | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 10, 2015 at 21:46 | answer | added | StarDrop9 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 10, 2015 at 20:51 | comment | added | CuriousOne | In science all you need is one exception to invalidate an entire theory. However, the things you mention are on roughly equal footing with classical mechanics' no-go theorem for perpetual motion... learn to use these things as learning tools for how nature works, don't imagine that there have to be technological workarounds. These impossible devices are not being discussed in textbooks to pose challenges but to have handy shortcut arguments for the understanding of many more complex situations. | |
| Sep 10, 2015 at 20:40 | comment | added | Danu | No, not as long as the conceptual framework developed over the past century is not completely changed, these theorems will always be exactly true, with no possible experimental violations. If an experimental violation is nevertheless found, this will mean that our entire understanding of QM needs to be reworked. | |
| Sep 10, 2015 at 20:38 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 10, 2015 at 23:56 | |||||
| Sep 10, 2015 at 20:36 | history | asked | Leo's Lizard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |