I believe that also. And this new theory will have to agree with *both* GR and QM in the areas where they agree with observations. In particvular, the universe has been expanding from a hot dense state and the universe is, at the sub-atomic level, probabilistic in nature.<quoted text>
You missed the point completely.
Someday a theory will be found to replace these theory's I do believe.
And this is part of the problem: we have not seen either one of these theories fail! We absolutely *know* that some sort of modification will be required. But we simply do not have any data to show how this is to be done. We have not observed *anything* where these theories do not work.These should no longer be called theory's as once a theory fails it must be reworked to work where it failed perversely before it can be called a theory again.
Exactly what *observations* show these have failed? There aren't any. There is an awareness that at the horizon of a black hole and at very early stages of the expansion of our universe, these must be modified. But we have not actually observed data from either of these, so we simply do not know how to merge them. String theory is *one* possibility. It actually gives a quantum theory of gravity. But we have not been able to produce the energies required to test it.Science is calling these three theory's yet all three have failed at least one test and have not been corrected to work where they have failed.
1) The Theory of Relativity
2) The Theory of Quantum Mechanics
3) String Theory.
What *evidence* disputes any of these? Not philosophical whining, but *actual observations*?Why won't science follow there own rules as to what defines a scientific theory?
" A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it."