String Theory linked to Alchemy
-
I think the problem people have always had with string theory is that it's not falsifiable - there's no way to disprove it, there's no experiment that anyone can think of.
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
hmm, that's not logical and not open-minded (so it seems). Just because a way to falsify it hasn't been thought of doesn't mean it's not.
-
Hans Dietrich wrote:
string theory purports to offer a complete but possibly unprovable explanation
i thought the idea behind a theory is that it is accepted as "fact" until proven false, i.e., is it falsifiable...
-
Hans Dietrich wrote:
string theory purports to offer a complete but possibly unprovable explanation
i thought the idea behind a theory is that it is accepted as "fact" until proven false, i.e., is it falsifiable...
In the scientific method, skepticism is everything. In physics, it is presumed wrong until someone shows a case where it works. Than it is still presumed wrong, and people try and disprove the supporting experiment. Only after a bunch of people working on PhD and post-docs try and disprove it, but end up supporting it, does it move to the 'probably correct' category. But that does not stop additional PhDs and post-docs from trying to prove it wrong. People are still coming up with novel approaches to try and prove General Relativity and QM wrong. At its core, that is what String theory is trying to do - they are claiming that they have a 'better' theory than either of those two. And they might be right, but until they can predict something that the other two don't, and prove to be correct in their prediction, it is just (at best) a more complex way of doing QM or GR. And nobody needs a theory that is harder to use than one we have now that works.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
hmm, that's not logical and not open-minded (so it seems). Just because a way to falsify it hasn't been thought of doesn't mean it's not.
If you can't disprove it, you can't prove it either.
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
-
In the scientific method, skepticism is everything. In physics, it is presumed wrong until someone shows a case where it works. Than it is still presumed wrong, and people try and disprove the supporting experiment. Only after a bunch of people working on PhD and post-docs try and disprove it, but end up supporting it, does it move to the 'probably correct' category. But that does not stop additional PhDs and post-docs from trying to prove it wrong. People are still coming up with novel approaches to try and prove General Relativity and QM wrong. At its core, that is what String theory is trying to do - they are claiming that they have a 'better' theory than either of those two. And they might be right, but until they can predict something that the other two don't, and prove to be correct in their prediction, it is just (at best) a more complex way of doing QM or GR. And nobody needs a theory that is harder to use than one we have now that works.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
hmm, ok.
RichardM1 wrote:
And nobody needs a theory that is harder to use than one we have now that work
that's for sure. seems like a restatement of Occam's Razor.
-
If you can't disprove it, you can't prove it either.
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
ah, sounds like the whole existence of God argument.
-
I think the problem people have always had with string theory is that it's not falsifiable - there's no way to disprove it, there's no experiment that anyone can think of.
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
The problem people have with ST is that it does not actually do anything new. And it is much harder to grasp and apply. 'You can walk north 200 meters and you are there. But people have been doing that for a hundred years. If you REALLY want to know how to get there, walk west to 4th St. and turn left. Walk down to J St, catch the W St. bus and take it to the Main St. subway station ...' I'll walk north 200 meters.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
hmm, ok.
RichardM1 wrote:
And nobody needs a theory that is harder to use than one we have now that work
that's for sure. seems like a restatement of Occam's Razor.
-
In the scientific method, skepticism is everything. In physics, it is presumed wrong until someone shows a case where it works. Than it is still presumed wrong, and people try and disprove the supporting experiment. Only after a bunch of people working on PhD and post-docs try and disprove it, but end up supporting it, does it move to the 'probably correct' category. But that does not stop additional PhDs and post-docs from trying to prove it wrong. People are still coming up with novel approaches to try and prove General Relativity and QM wrong. At its core, that is what String theory is trying to do - they are claiming that they have a 'better' theory than either of those two. And they might be right, but until they can predict something that the other two don't, and prove to be correct in their prediction, it is just (at best) a more complex way of doing QM or GR. And nobody needs a theory that is harder to use than one we have now that works.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
And nobody needs a theory that is harder to use than one we have now that works.
But a theory is needed to handle the situation where neither QM nor GR seem to work, i.e., very small and very dense matter. Isn't that part of what string theory is trying to do? OTOH, intuitively, speaking as a pure layman who's only perused one or two popularisations, string theory doesn't seem right to me. It's just my gut feel.
Kevin
-
ah, sounds like the whole existence of God argument.
Yes, exactly. Irrational belief systems are irrational precisely because they're not falsifiable. All religions are irrational belief systems.
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
-
Yes, exactly. Irrational belief systems are irrational precisely because they're not falsifiable. All religions are irrational belief systems.
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
Hans Dietrich wrote:
All religions are irrational belief systems
Rather strong statement, but I think I understand what you're saying. BTW, I believe in God and for very rational reasons. (And I would contend that I have personal proof that He exists, but it's not evidence that I can share unfortunately -- each person must get their own.) And before this digresses, let's not.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
And nobody needs a theory that is harder to use than one we have now that works.
But a theory is needed to handle the situation where neither QM nor GR seem to work, i.e., very small and very dense matter. Isn't that part of what string theory is trying to do? OTOH, intuitively, speaking as a pure layman who's only perused one or two popularisations, string theory doesn't seem right to me. It's just my gut feel.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
But a theory is needed to handle the situation where neither QM nor GR seem to work, i.e., very small and very dense matter.
That is correct. I like it myself (also as a laymen) since it holds the promise of solving some real problems. If it was able to make real, experimentally verifiable predictions that were different from either QM or GR, people would run experiments and check it. As I understand it, it just isn't there yet. But it looks like it might, and that's why people are working on it. Still trying to prove QM and GR wrong ;)
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
I think the problem people have always had with string theory is that it's not falsifiable - there's no way to disprove it, there's no experiment that anyone can think of.
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
The issue is that string theory is a framework for a theory, not a theory itself. You can disprove a particular implementation of string theory by showing that expected particles or forces do not appear at a given energy, but then you can just tweak a parameter to create a new theory that works at higher (and untestable until they build the Super-dooper large hardon colider) energies.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
...at the cutting edge of modern physics, string theory purports to offer a complete but possibly unprovable explanation of the universe based on 11 dimensions and imperceptibly tiny strings. Alchemists wouldn't recognize the mathematics behind the theory. But in its grandeur, in its claim to total authority, in its unprovability, they would surely recognize its spirit. Read more here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/15/good_as_gold/[^]
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
-
peterchen wrote:
Is XKCD still quotable
No.
print "http://www.codeproject.com".toURL().text Ain't that Groovy?
-
Hans Dietrich wrote:
All religions are irrational belief systems
Rather strong statement, but I think I understand what you're saying. BTW, I believe in God and for very rational reasons. (And I would contend that I have personal proof that He exists, but it's not evidence that I can share unfortunately -- each person must get their own.) And before this digresses, let's not.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
...I believe in God and for very rational reasons.
Fine, but believing in God is completely different to following or believing in a religion. Religion, the opiate of the masses, is a powerful tool used by people for personal gain. Anyone not using it for this purpose is on the other end of the stick; brainwashed and blissfully ignorant to the reality of organised dogma. ALL religions ARE irrational belief systems. Believing in God, as far as I am concerned, is a way to negate the fear of mortality, which can hardly be regarded as irrational. It's quite rational. It takes balls to stand against the universe believing you are on your own, and actually be comfortable with this belief. Religion/God as a way of escaping the thought of a meaningless existence would be, for me, too easy. Arrgh! Religion! It's a bastard of a topic. I mean NO OFFENCE to anyone, this is purely my opinion. If you don't like it, ignore it, cheers!
-
I remember watching a documentary about evolution and creationism and the guy they were interviewing was a scientist who believed strongly in the big bang event, and also in creationism, meaning that he believed that God logically created the universe and everything in it, but no in seven days; he believed that God created the big bang itself. ( Sounds much more likely than anything i've heard from fundamentalist christians, etc, but I still disagree ;P ) Anyway, the guy being interviewed said something like
Scientist on TV said:
"When I tell people about a theory such as the big bang, or evolution, they say 'Yeah, thats right, it's JUST a theory!' and, baffled, I explain to them that a theory gains credibility based on many variables, one of which is the number of people who accept said theory as a possibility. Evolution, as a theory, is accepted widely by the scientific community, by thousands and thousands of educated and accredited professors and intellectuals. To the majority, the word theory has connotations of some crazy hair-brained scientist sitting in a dark cellar for decades with a half-baked idea. [they believe this].. most likely because the majority are barely educated, and tend to react rather than reason..."
NOTE: that hair-brained scientist was a reference to Einstein I think, among others. Not to say a theory is validated due to popular opinion alone, but it does help. The theory of Evolution has millions of peices of evidence pointing to it being true, yet it is still classified as a THEORY, primarily because of the religious and evangelical people in the world... a lot of people realise that upsetting them would be a bad, bad thing, hence they stick with a "theory", but believe it completely. rant rant rant, don't even know whats in the first sentence! :confused: anyway, let the dictionary do the talking: 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. :-\ 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather
-
...at the cutting edge of modern physics, string theory purports to offer a complete but possibly unprovable explanation of the universe based on 11 dimensions and imperceptibly tiny strings. Alchemists wouldn't recognize the mathematics behind the theory. But in its grandeur, in its claim to total authority, in its unprovability, they would surely recognize its spirit. Read more here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/15/good_as_gold/[^]
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
Hans Dietrich wrote:
But in its grandeur, in its claim to total authority, in its unprovability, they would surely recognize its spirit.
That's because any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, regardless of the advanced state of the culture. Oh, wait... Marc
-
The issue is that string theory is a framework for a theory, not a theory itself. You can disprove a particular implementation of string theory by showing that expected particles or forces do not appear at a given energy, but then you can just tweak a parameter to create a new theory that works at higher (and untestable until they build the Super-dooper large hardon colider) energies.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Super-dooper large hardon colider
Ah, you've met my ex then? :)
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
...I believe in God and for very rational reasons.
Fine, but believing in God is completely different to following or believing in a religion. Religion, the opiate of the masses, is a powerful tool used by people for personal gain. Anyone not using it for this purpose is on the other end of the stick; brainwashed and blissfully ignorant to the reality of organised dogma. ALL religions ARE irrational belief systems. Believing in God, as far as I am concerned, is a way to negate the fear of mortality, which can hardly be regarded as irrational. It's quite rational. It takes balls to stand against the universe believing you are on your own, and actually be comfortable with this belief. Religion/God as a way of escaping the thought of a meaningless existence would be, for me, too easy. Arrgh! Religion! It's a bastard of a topic. I mean NO OFFENCE to anyone, this is purely my opinion. If you don't like it, ignore it, cheers!
There's a lot that I could say, but this isn't the forum for it. I respect your right to hold your opinion. But, I don't agree with all of it. As for the personal gain comment, yeah there's way too much of that, but some people are genuine. Priestcraft is evil and counter to true religion. Cheers and have a fantastic day!