|
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 08/30/2006 : 17:03:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Short but interesting interview with Lee Smolin on the trouble he sees with String Theory.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/stringtheory.html
From the article:
quote:
So you're calling bullshit on a big chunk of modern physics.
I wouldn't put it that way, but that's fair. The field of fundamental theoretical physics is in trouble, and this book is about why. But I have enormous respect for everybody whose work I'm criticizing. If string theory is a mistake, it's not a trivial mistake. It's a deep mistake and therefore kind of worthy.
I think what makes these sorts of "interdimensional ideas" seem "plausible" to some astronomers is the fact they include a lot of nifty math that looks really great on paper. Because the math seems to work out on paper, it's hard to know if the idea is technically "impossible". The fact it looks good mathematically however is no guarantee that it is applicable in the real world. String theory actually started out as a particle physics theory that was ultimately abandoned. I'm not quite sure why it's enjoyed it's more recent renissance in astronomy, but I suspect that this book is probably going to mark the end of that era. String theory has always seemed a little "wacky" to me personally, especially since we would have to simply take for granted the existence of several additional dimensions. There is simply no observational evidence to support this idea, even if it does look attractive from a mathematical perspective. |
 |
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2006 : 18:20:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
[quote]To say it predicts nothing is insane.
No _testable_ predictions. Which is correct. Many of the things string theory predicts we are unable to test, or don't know how, or whatever.
Since it's a candidate for a TOE, hopefully, we'll beable to get out currently well known theories. e.g. set mass to something small, and electromagnetic forces will dominate. Like taking limits on the Lorentz factor.
But yeah, treading dangerously close to philosophy ... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2006 : 20:13:48 [Permalink]
|
| Michael, you're simply saying all the wrong things about String Theory. People can and have made proper scientific objections to it. Yours are not included in that category at all. Why would you even bother saying any of that garbage when there are valid objections to be made? Does it make you somehow feel better? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2006 : 20:32:01 [Permalink]
|
Michael said: "Me no like math. Math is hard. Physics is no fair because bad science man use too much math. Me just pretend me no need math to do physics."
To which I reply: "Wow, that's eerily similar to how the creationists claim that they don't actually need to know any biology or geology to pontificate about the history of life."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 07:26:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert...
Michael said: "Me no like math. Math is hard. Physics is no fair because bad science man use too much math. Me just pretend me no need math to do physics."
To which I reply: "Wow, that's eerily similar to how the creationists claim that they don't actually need to know any biology or geology to pontificate about the history of life."
Oh, H., H., H., would you please knock off the ego posturing? Or to quote Michael's words directly from one of his more scientifically poignant and articulate moments, "Fuck you asshole." Apparently you've never noticed where he has "laid the math on the table for all to see". And no, not just once, several times. But since you obviously missed it, let me bring in one example of his mathematical prowess and dexterity (well, the only example, but with wisdom and insight like this, how could any real scientist ask for more?). The math, in Michael's own inimitable style, "A+B=C".
There you go, H., voila, math! Now "A+B=C" might not seem like much, but why clutter up a perfectly ludicrous delusion with all kinds of complicated icky formulas and calculations? Besides, as you'll recall, Michael did say he needs help. And boy does he ever. But if you had been paying attention you'd know that someday, when he can find the help, that special someone who possesses a rare combination of enough lunacy to believe Michael's wacky solid surfaced Sun fantasy and the mathematical capability to actually balance a checkbook, Michael will be well on his way to picking up that coveted Nobel Prize! And you dare to scoff. Hmmmph!
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 08/31/2006 08:10:07 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 15:07:19 [Permalink]
|
For the damned good reason of my incompetence in the field, I won't touch the surface of the sun with 10-foot pole. For the same reasons, I probably should not comment upon string theory, either. So, having discounted the value of what I'm going to say in advance, here it is, anyway:
I think the key objections to string theory are its unfalsifiability, and the lack of any variant that actually works as a ToE (for "Theory of Everything," meaning a workable combination of "macro" Einsteinian physics, with "mico" quantum physics). There seem to be as many variants of string theory as there are string theorists. Any fault which is found can be handily fixed by adding a new, undetectable, dimension.
It all reminds me once again of epicycles. Someone in these fora once mentioned that, before Copernicus, epicycles had become so refined by adding further sub-epicycles to them that they actually became fairly accurate for predicting the position of planets.
Some new variant hypothesis of string theory may indeed someday qualify for promotion as the accepted ToE. But I tend to agree with Smolin that other avenues should also be pursued in the meantime. Smolin is not a crackpot who is trying to overturn established scientific theory. He's really only pointing out that there so far is no scientific theory of ToE. Though they are the dominant group working toward a ToE, the string theorists have not (yet) been successful. Other rational approaches should get equal effort until a breakthrough is made in ToE, either by the string theorists, or by others.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
