String Theory

[bezdomni]

I think it is nothing more than science fiction being taken far too seriously. String Theory is based on a huge premise that, in all likelyhood, cannot be empirically verified. That premise is the existence of higher dimensions (above four). Hyperspace String Theory asserts that there are ten dimensions, and as the four dimensions that we can perceive expand exponentially, the six dimensions that we cannot see shrink exponentially until the "big crunch"...then the opposite will occur.

Basically, it is a ton of bullshit.

Does anybody disagree?

[Axel1917]

I don't really know much about it, but it seems like nonsense. Unfortunately, I lack knowledge of this theory, given my lack of free time.

[GraylySquirrel]

I really couldn't say.

IMO, such a complicated theroy is way beyond my, or almost anyone's understanding. Until I'm a top flight astro-physicist, I'll reserve my judgement.

[CCCPneubauten]

Actually, they are trying to test it as we speak.

But....

Since the influence of quantum effects upon gravity only become significant at distances many orders of magnitude smaller than human beings have the technology to observe (or at roughly the Planck length, about 10-35 meters), string theory, or any other candidate theory of quantum gravity, will be very difficult to test experimentally. Eventually, scientists may be able to test string theory by observing cosmological phenomena which may be sensitive to string physics, such as primordial black holes.


. For example, if observing the Sun during a solar eclipse had not shown that the Sun's gravity deflected light, Einstein's general relativity theory would have been proven wrong. Not finding cosmic strings would not demonstrate that string theory is fundamentally wrong — merely that the particular idea of highly stretched strings acting "cosmic" is in error. While many measurements could in principle be made that would suggest that string theory is on the right track, scientists have not at present devised a stringent "test".

I'd suggest checking out The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene

Gives you a lotta info, as I think many people can't grasp the idea.

[ComradeRed]

Part of the problem of quantum gravity stems from the insistence of nostogliac use of classical canonical mechanics and field theory...the math gets so insanely complicated that it takes computers to calculate it all out! (For uses in practice, of course...)

This leaves huge room for interpretation of what does it all mean?!?

Well, I think that first you should look at the mathematical structure of the "uncertainty" of variables and note that it is exactly like standard deviation.

The problem that catches most people is that the variable with said standard deviation is in all those states at once; when observed it is in one of them. One feasible solution is that the dimensions of the particle is not taken into account (to carry this further, a particle may not be a well defined sphere like a billiard ball -- it could be like a piece of lint!).

But this leaves a lot of liberty to interpret quantum mechanics (viz. when applied to fields): are all fields reducible to particles? Is there always a pair of canonically conjugate variables? What about general relativity, what's the conjugate pair there? :huh:

Theoretical physics, as it exists now, is in a sorry state (very much like it was a century ago prior to the discovery of radiation). This leaves a lot of room for innovation, and most likely a revolution.

The biggest problem I have with String theorists is their line of reasoning that: 1. In order to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, we must first 2. Unify every other field known at the present (because no other possible fields could ever exist) into the aforementioned unification (as though this were a) practical and b) happened during the other unifications of fields).

The line of thought is similiar to the thought that particle physicists had about Strong force and the eradication of the renormalization process in the 1980s; we could "only" know how a nucleus holds itself together IF we know how to eliminate the renormalization process. Speak about non-sequiturs!

The first step to a real quantum theory of gravity is to integrate quantum mechanics into a dynamical background, introduce diffeomorphism invariance. Otherwise, one'd just be whistling dixie.

[Janus]

I agree that there are a lot of inconsistencies and a serious lack of empiricism in string theory. Also, the idea of many additional dimensions is also quite bizzare.

The PBS miniseries "The Elegant Universe" is a good intro for those who are interested.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

String theory is incredibly interesting, but it is quite esoteric. The PBS documentary (or the book, which I haven't read) are probably good staring sources on the issue. I definately don't think it's complete bullshit - it might even been accurate.

[More Fire for the People]

This is kind of related, but what do the phycisist and math wizards at RevLeft think of Michael Kaku? I ask because his Hyperspace was the first book I read on 10+ dimensional space.

[ComradeRed]

I assume you mean Michio Kaku?

It's hard to say, since he has only contributed to String theory and particle physics; I've read up on canonical Quantum Gravity extensively whilst reading only on the "basics" of advanced String theory (what I suppose would be considered grad level introductions).

Kaku is, I think, first and foremost a super-symmetry-ist rather than a String theorist; though I don't make much of a difference of the two in practice. I sympathize with him since Super Symmetry is so appealing, a sort of "Why can't you just accept this as the end answer?" kind of theory.

But I don't like him none ;)

[bezdomni]

Kaku is pretty much a hack. He literally writes entire books based on the assumptions that there are higher dimensions.

Hyperspace, although very interesting, is hardly "real" science.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel/Volkov:


I don't really know much about it, but it seems like nonsense. Unfortunately, I lack knowledge of this theory, given my lack of free time.

That did not stop you pontificating about Formal Logic; why so reticent here?

And, for those who think Einstein's theory was or was not confirmed by Eddington's observation of the displaced apparent position of certain stars in a solar eclipse, I recommend you read the relevant chapter in 'The Golem. What you should know about Science', by H Collins and T Pinch.

[Basically, Eddington fiddled his figures....]

[ComradeRed]

Hyperspace, although very interesting, is hardly "real" science. Hyperspace, as I was introduced to it, was used to describe the curvature mathematically with a hypothetical higher dimensional space (with a hell of a lot of emphasis on this being only mathematical to see to what extent Riemannian geometry works).

It was also, coincidentally, used for a Lagrangian/Hamiltonian interpretation of General Relativity...rather some Lagrangian/Hamiltonian formalisms incorporate hyperspace into them.

I don't think it's anything of value other than a mathematical excursion; like Prime Numbers :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red, it is refreshing to meet a physicist with his feet so firmly planted in this material world!

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21 2006, 08:50 AM
Axel/Volkov:


[b]I don't really know much about it, but it seems like nonsense. Unfortunately, I lack knowledge of this theory, given my lack of free time.

That did not stop you pontificating about Formal Logic; why so reticent here?

And, for those who think Einstein's theory was or was not confirmed by Eddington's observation of the displaced apparent position of certain stars in a solar eclipse, I recommend you read the relevant chapter in 'The Golem. What you should know about Science', by H Collins and T Pinch.


The fact that you show no demonstration of knowledge of dialectics leads me to believe that you also know little about formal logic as well. :rolleyes:

[ComradeRed]

The fact that you show no demonstration of knowledge of dialectics leads me to believe that you also know little about formal logic as well. :rolleyes: Uh...so knowledge of dialectics is equal to knowledge formal logic? :huh:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel/Volkov:


The fact that you show no demonstration of knowledge of dialectics leads me to believe that you also know little about formal logic as well.

Well, you can confirm (or refute) your latest impression of 'His Holiness' by visiting my site and seeing how I handle myself.



And, even if I knew everything there is to know, or nothing, about logic, you would still know even less than me.

[You can easily prove me wrong by say, constructing a disjunctive Normal Form, just for starters, or translating this sentence into First Order Logic: 'Anyone who knows everything about most numbers, knows something about all the rest'.]

[b]But, still you pontificate about it.

Why? Perhaps it is because your very own dialectical Magii, Woods and Grant, do the same (and do it badly)? [They can't even get Aristotle right!!]

And, as I have pointed out to you scores of times, every single dialectician who has written about the subject has shown he/she knows nothing about it either (so, if I do not, I am in good company), since they are all incapable of explaining it in material language.

Prove me wrong....

[This is the umpteenth time I have challenged you on this, but you always run away. I have every confidence in your capacity to repeat that feat indefinitely.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel/Volkov:


The fact that you show no demonstration of knowledge of dialectics leads me to believe that you also know little about formal logic as well.

Well, you can confirm (or refute) your latest impression of 'His Holiness' by visiting my site and seeing how I handle myself.



And, even if I knew everything there is to know, or nothing, about logic, you would still know even less than me.

[You can easily prove me wrong by say, constructing a disjunctive Normal Form, just for starters, or translating this sentence into First Order Logic: 'Anyone who knows everything about most numbers, knows something about all the rest'.]

[b]But, still you pontificate about it.

Why? Perhaps it is because your very own dialectical Magii, Woods and Grant, do the same (and do it badly)? [They can't even get Aristotle right!!]

And, as I have pointed out to you scores of times, every single dialectician who has written about the subject has shown he/she knows nothing about it either (so, if I do not, I am in good company), since they are all incapable of explaining it in material language.

Prove me wrong....

[This is the umpteenth time I have challenged you on this, but you always run away. I have every confidence in your capacity to repeat that feat indefinitely.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel/Volkov:


The fact that you show no demonstration of knowledge of dialectics leads me to believe that you also know little about formal logic as well.

Well, you can confirm (or refute) your latest impression of 'His Holiness' by visiting my site and seeing how I handle myself.



And, even if I knew everything there is to know, or nothing, about logic, you would still know even less than me.

[You can easily prove me wrong by say, constructing a disjunctive Normal Form, just for starters, or translating this sentence into First Order Logic: 'Anyone who knows everything about most numbers, knows something about all the rest'.]

[b]But, still you pontificate about it.

Why? Perhaps it is because your very own dialectical Magii, Woods and Grant, do the same (and do it badly)? [They can't even get Aristotle right!!]

And, as I have pointed out to you scores of times, every single dialectician who has written about the subject has shown he/she knows nothing about it either (so, if I do not, I am in good company), since they are all incapable of explaining it in material language.

Prove me wrong....

[This is the umpteenth time I have challenged you on this, but you always run away. I have every confidence in your capacity to repeat that feat indefinitely.]

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21 2006, 08:50 AM
Axel/Volkov:


[b]I don't really know much about it, but it seems like nonsense. Unfortunately, I lack knowledge of this theory, given my lack of free time.

That did not stop you pontificating about Formal Logic; why so reticent here?

And, for those who think Einstein's theory was or was not confirmed by Eddington's observation of the displaced apparent position of certain stars in a solar eclipse, I recommend you read the relevant chapter in 'The Golem. What you should know about Science', by H Collins and T Pinch.


Right, you are saying one of the most important events in human history was fiddled. Uumm, OK. Following from this are you also saying, as a result, that the geometry of space/time doesn't bend light? I utterly doubt you are. But why bring the Eddington thing up? Why cloud the debate, which is about string theory? Its pointless.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21 2006, 08:50 AM
Axel/Volkov:


[b]I don't really know much about it, but it seems like nonsense. Unfortunately, I lack knowledge of this theory, given my lack of free time.

That did not stop you pontificating about Formal Logic; why so reticent here?

And, for those who think Einstein's theory was or was not confirmed by Eddington's observation of the displaced apparent position of certain stars in a solar eclipse, I recommend you read the relevant chapter in 'The Golem. What you should know about Science', by H Collins and T Pinch.


Right, you are saying one of the most important events in human history was fiddled. Uumm, OK. Following from this are you also saying, as a result, that the geometry of space/time doesn't bend light? I utterly doubt you are. But why bring the Eddington thing up? Why cloud the debate, which is about string theory? Its pointless.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21 2006, 08:50 AM
Axel/Volkov:


[b]I don't really know much about it, but it seems like nonsense. Unfortunately, I lack knowledge of this theory, given my lack of free time.

That did not stop you pontificating about Formal Logic; why so reticent here?

And, for those who think Einstein's theory was or was not confirmed by Eddington's observation of the displaced apparent position of certain stars in a solar eclipse, I recommend you read the relevant chapter in 'The Golem. What you should know about Science', by H Collins and T Pinch.


Right, you are saying one of the most important events in human history was fiddled. Uumm, OK. Following from this are you also saying, as a result, that the geometry of space/time doesn't bend light? I utterly doubt you are. But why bring the Eddington thing up? Why cloud the debate, which is about string theory? Its pointless.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter:


Right, you are saying one of the most important events in human history was fiddled. Uumm, OK. Following from this are you also saying, as a result, that the geometry of space/time doesn't bend light?

I am saying nothing, except pointing to a historical analysis that shows the books were cooked (all major scientists do this -- Ptolemy did, so did Kepler, and Galileo, and Newton, and Einstein, and Millikan....).

And I am not denying that scientists tell us that warped spacetime bends light.

I just note that this is the latest theory, and will no doubt be changed some day soon.

The history of science, if it tells us anything, tells us that all theories are replaced in the end.

So, you draw from this whatever conclusion you like (and as you are a 'dissenter', this should be music to your dissenting ears....).

[And I brought Eddington up because his work was mentioned (indirectly) in CCCPneubauten's post.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter:


Right, you are saying one of the most important events in human history was fiddled. Uumm, OK. Following from this are you also saying, as a result, that the geometry of space/time doesn't bend light?

I am saying nothing, except pointing to a historical analysis that shows the books were cooked (all major scientists do this -- Ptolemy did, so did Kepler, and Galileo, and Newton, and Einstein, and Millikan....).

And I am not denying that scientists tell us that warped spacetime bends light.

I just note that this is the latest theory, and will no doubt be changed some day soon.

The history of science, if it tells us anything, tells us that all theories are replaced in the end.

So, you draw from this whatever conclusion you like (and as you are a 'dissenter', this should be music to your dissenting ears....).

[And I brought Eddington up because his work was mentioned (indirectly) in CCCPneubauten's post.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter:


Right, you are saying one of the most important events in human history was fiddled. Uumm, OK. Following from this are you also saying, as a result, that the geometry of space/time doesn't bend light?

I am saying nothing, except pointing to a historical analysis that shows the books were cooked (all major scientists do this -- Ptolemy did, so did Kepler, and Galileo, and Newton, and Einstein, and Millikan....).

And I am not denying that scientists tell us that warped spacetime bends light.

I just note that this is the latest theory, and will no doubt be changed some day soon.

The history of science, if it tells us anything, tells us that all theories are replaced in the end.

So, you draw from this whatever conclusion you like (and as you are a 'dissenter', this should be music to your dissenting ears....).

[And I brought Eddington up because his work was mentioned (indirectly) in CCCPneubauten's post.]

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22 2006, 09:18 AM
Dissenter:


Right, you are saying one of the most important events in human history was fiddled. Uumm, OK. Following from this are you also saying, as a result, that the geometry of space/time doesn't bend light?

I am saying nothing, except pointing to a historical analysis that shows the books were cooked (all major scientists do this -- Ptolemy did, so did Kepler, and Galileo, and Newton, and Einstein, and Millikan....).

And I am not denying that scientists tell us that warped spacetime bends light.

I just note that this is the latest theory, and will no doubt be changed some day soon.

The history of science, if it tells us anything, tells us that all theories are replaced in the end.

So, you draw from this whatever conclusion you like (and as you are a 'dissenter', this should be music to your dissenting ears....).

[And I brought Eddington up because his work was mentioned (indirectly) in CCCPneubauten's post.]
I can't argue with that. All theories are ultimately replaced and they are replaced by a better understanding of our universe. We know that light is bent when it travels near to matter, our understanding of why it does, may not be up to scratch. I think string theory could be one of the great discoveries of mankind. I have read Brian Greene's books 'Elegant Universe' and 'The fabric of the Cosmos' and he gives a compelling argument for super-strings.
I would say strings is a one of many attempts at understanding reality, but a leading one, which has promise. But super-string theory has no emperical backing like all the other theories and so who knows what is true?
In saying that though I believe that we will develop better and better ways to test theories like strings and test what they predict. If we find the graviton then were on to something.

The idea of other dimensions is absurd because humans are so used to 3 spacial dimensions. Our intuitive view of reality is 3 spacial dimensions. Extra dimensions whilst is anathema to the classical viewpoint makes great sense in super-string theory. It is also a fantastic explanation as to why gravity is so weak compared to the other 3 forces. Gravity is leaking in to these extra dimensions.

Lots of people have lots of ideas about a unified theory. As time goes on all will fall exept one. I am a betting man and I would put money on super-strings being the one thats left.

I'm in no position to say super-string theory is correct. I'm in no position to say super-string theory is incorrect. Who is really?

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22 2006, 09:18 AM
Dissenter:


Right, you are saying one of the most important events in human history was fiddled. Uumm, OK. Following from this are you also saying, as a result, that the geometry of space/time doesn't bend light?

I am saying nothing, except pointing to a historical analysis that shows the books were cooked (all major scientists do this -- Ptolemy did, so did Kepler, and Galileo, and Newton, and Einstein, and Millikan....).

And I am not denying that scientists tell us that warped spacetime bends light.

I just note that this is the latest theory, and will no doubt be changed some day soon.

The history of science, if it tells us anything, tells us that all theories are replaced in the end.

So, you draw from this whatever conclusion you like (and as you are a 'dissenter', this should be music to your dissenting ears....).

[And I brought Eddington up because his work was mentioned (indirectly) in CCCPneubauten's post.]
I can't argue with that. All theories are ultimately replaced and they are replaced by a better understanding of our universe. We know that light is bent when it travels near to matter, our understanding of why it does, may not be up to scratch. I think string theory could be one of the great discoveries of mankind. I have read Brian Greene's books 'Elegant Universe' and 'The fabric of the Cosmos' and he gives a compelling argument for super-strings.
I would say strings is a one of many attempts at understanding reality, but a leading one, which has promise. But super-string theory has no emperical backing like all the other theories and so who knows what is true?
In saying that though I believe that we will develop better and better ways to test theories like strings and test what they predict. If we find the graviton then were on to something.

The idea of other dimensions is absurd because humans are so used to 3 spacial dimensions. Our intuitive view of reality is 3 spacial dimensions. Extra dimensions whilst is anathema to the classical viewpoint makes great sense in super-string theory. It is also a fantastic explanation as to why gravity is so weak compared to the other 3 forces. Gravity is leaking in to these extra dimensions.

Lots of people have lots of ideas about a unified theory. As time goes on all will fall exept one. I am a betting man and I would put money on super-strings being the one thats left.

I'm in no position to say super-string theory is correct. I'm in no position to say super-string theory is incorrect. Who is really?

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22 2006, 09:18 AM
Dissenter:


Right, you are saying one of the most important events in human history was fiddled. Uumm, OK. Following from this are you also saying, as a result, that the geometry of space/time doesn't bend light?

I am saying nothing, except pointing to a historical analysis that shows the books were cooked (all major scientists do this -- Ptolemy did, so did Kepler, and Galileo, and Newton, and Einstein, and Millikan....).

And I am not denying that scientists tell us that warped spacetime bends light.

I just note that this is the latest theory, and will no doubt be changed some day soon.

The history of science, if it tells us anything, tells us that all theories are replaced in the end.

So, you draw from this whatever conclusion you like (and as you are a 'dissenter', this should be music to your dissenting ears....).

[And I brought Eddington up because his work was mentioned (indirectly) in CCCPneubauten's post.]
I can't argue with that. All theories are ultimately replaced and they are replaced by a better understanding of our universe. We know that light is bent when it travels near to matter, our understanding of why it does, may not be up to scratch. I think string theory could be one of the great discoveries of mankind. I have read Brian Greene's books 'Elegant Universe' and 'The fabric of the Cosmos' and he gives a compelling argument for super-strings.
I would say strings is a one of many attempts at understanding reality, but a leading one, which has promise. But super-string theory has no emperical backing like all the other theories and so who knows what is true?
In saying that though I believe that we will develop better and better ways to test theories like strings and test what they predict. If we find the graviton then were on to something.

The idea of other dimensions is absurd because humans are so used to 3 spacial dimensions. Our intuitive view of reality is 3 spacial dimensions. Extra dimensions whilst is anathema to the classical viewpoint makes great sense in super-string theory. It is also a fantastic explanation as to why gravity is so weak compared to the other 3 forces. Gravity is leaking in to these extra dimensions.

Lots of people have lots of ideas about a unified theory. As time goes on all will fall exept one. I am a betting man and I would put money on super-strings being the one thats left.

I'm in no position to say super-string theory is correct. I'm in no position to say super-string theory is incorrect. Who is really?

[ComradeRed]

I think string theory could be one of the great discoveries of mankind. You should get out more.


I have read Brian Greene's books 'Elegant Universe' and 'The fabric of the Cosmos' and he gives a compelling argument for super-strings. Yeah, the lack of empiricism just makes it even more compelling!

The reasoning behind this makes one's mind reel :wacko:


Gravity is leaking in to these extra dimensions. IF this is true (which it may or may not be, who knows), THEN String theory is definately wrong based on its framework alone; chiefly from the lack of a renormalization constant...the number of dimensions thus predicted is infinite.

We can dismiss it here and now based on that alone.


Lots of people have lots of ideas about a unified theory. As time goes on all will fall exept one. I am a betting man and I would put money on super-strings being the one thats left. But it makes no sense to say that in order to unify two fields, we "must" first (!) unify every field. What the hell kind of logic is that?

Further, what if we haven't experienced every sort of field that exists? What if there are particles that exist only under certain conditions that we haven't seen? How can Strings then unify those prior to unifying QM and GR but after discovering these fields?

Why is it the frequency of the strings and not the arrangement of the strings that determines the characteristics of a particle? Why are Strings well defined even though according to the Unruh effect, they should be blurry?

And perhaps most importantly: why does String theory behave so classically? :huh: I think it's this appeal to classical notions like symmetry and whatnot that makes it so compelling; it's also what makes it so wrong.

[ComradeRed]

I think string theory could be one of the great discoveries of mankind. You should get out more.


I have read Brian Greene's books 'Elegant Universe' and 'The fabric of the Cosmos' and he gives a compelling argument for super-strings. Yeah, the lack of empiricism just makes it even more compelling!

The reasoning behind this makes one's mind reel :wacko:


Gravity is leaking in to these extra dimensions. IF this is true (which it may or may not be, who knows), THEN String theory is definately wrong based on its framework alone; chiefly from the lack of a renormalization constant...the number of dimensions thus predicted is infinite.

We can dismiss it here and now based on that alone.


Lots of people have lots of ideas about a unified theory. As time goes on all will fall exept one. I am a betting man and I would put money on super-strings being the one thats left. But it makes no sense to say that in order to unify two fields, we "must" first (!) unify every field. What the hell kind of logic is that?

Further, what if we haven't experienced every sort of field that exists? What if there are particles that exist only under certain conditions that we haven't seen? How can Strings then unify those prior to unifying QM and GR but after discovering these fields?

Why is it the frequency of the strings and not the arrangement of the strings that determines the characteristics of a particle? Why are Strings well defined even though according to the Unruh effect, they should be blurry?

And perhaps most importantly: why does String theory behave so classically? :huh: I think it's this appeal to classical notions like symmetry and whatnot that makes it so compelling; it's also what makes it so wrong.

[ComradeRed]

I think string theory could be one of the great discoveries of mankind. You should get out more.


I have read Brian Greene's books 'Elegant Universe' and 'The fabric of the Cosmos' and he gives a compelling argument for super-strings. Yeah, the lack of empiricism just makes it even more compelling!

The reasoning behind this makes one's mind reel :wacko:


Gravity is leaking in to these extra dimensions. IF this is true (which it may or may not be, who knows), THEN String theory is definately wrong based on its framework alone; chiefly from the lack of a renormalization constant...the number of dimensions thus predicted is infinite.

We can dismiss it here and now based on that alone.


Lots of people have lots of ideas about a unified theory. As time goes on all will fall exept one. I am a betting man and I would put money on super-strings being the one thats left. But it makes no sense to say that in order to unify two fields, we "must" first (!) unify every field. What the hell kind of logic is that?

Further, what if we haven't experienced every sort of field that exists? What if there are particles that exist only under certain conditions that we haven't seen? How can Strings then unify those prior to unifying QM and GR but after discovering these fields?

Why is it the frequency of the strings and not the arrangement of the strings that determines the characteristics of a particle? Why are Strings well defined even though according to the Unruh effect, they should be blurry?

And perhaps most importantly: why does String theory behave so classically? :huh: I think it's this appeal to classical notions like symmetry and whatnot that makes it so compelling; it's also what makes it so wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter:


I have read Brian Greene's books 'Elegant Universe' and 'The fabric of the Cosmos' and he gives a compelling argument for super-strings.

Brian Greene is a first rate mathematician/physicist, but a confused Idealist into the bargain.

For example, he cannot make his mind up whether the things he speaks of in his book are real or whether the language he uses about them is merely 'instrumental' (i.e., not necessarily about real things, but merely a calculating device).

And he is amazingly coy about what these strings are made of ('energy' is too vague a word to do any good, you might as well use 'spirit'), but as soon as you say they are made of something, particles re-enter the picture. On the other hand, if they are made of nothing, then they do not exist (in any meaningful sense).

I agree, though, it is an amazing theory, and even if it does not pan out, it brings in its train some incredible mathematics.

I suspect, though that it will collapse, because no physical sense can be made of the dimensions it needs, and hence it cannot be part of the physics of material reality.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter:


I have read Brian Greene's books 'Elegant Universe' and 'The fabric of the Cosmos' and he gives a compelling argument for super-strings.

Brian Greene is a first rate mathematician/physicist, but a confused Idealist into the bargain.

For example, he cannot make his mind up whether the things he speaks of in his book are real or whether the language he uses about them is merely 'instrumental' (i.e., not necessarily about real things, but merely a calculating device).

And he is amazingly coy about what these strings are made of ('energy' is too vague a word to do any good, you might as well use 'spirit'), but as soon as you say they are made of something, particles re-enter the picture. On the other hand, if they are made of nothing, then they do not exist (in any meaningful sense).

I agree, though, it is an amazing theory, and even if it does not pan out, it brings in its train some incredible mathematics.

I suspect, though that it will collapse, because no physical sense can be made of the dimensions it needs, and hence it cannot be part of the physics of material reality.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter:


I have read Brian Greene's books 'Elegant Universe' and 'The fabric of the Cosmos' and he gives a compelling argument for super-strings.

Brian Greene is a first rate mathematician/physicist, but a confused Idealist into the bargain.

For example, he cannot make his mind up whether the things he speaks of in his book are real or whether the language he uses about them is merely 'instrumental' (i.e., not necessarily about real things, but merely a calculating device).

And he is amazingly coy about what these strings are made of ('energy' is too vague a word to do any good, you might as well use 'spirit'), but as soon as you say they are made of something, particles re-enter the picture. On the other hand, if they are made of nothing, then they do not exist (in any meaningful sense).

I agree, though, it is an amazing theory, and even if it does not pan out, it brings in its train some incredible mathematics.

I suspect, though that it will collapse, because no physical sense can be made of the dimensions it needs, and hence it cannot be part of the physics of material reality.

[Delta]

As a physics graduate student (albeit one who is NOT in string theory), I feel that many of your assertions that it can't be true because you think the number of dimensions is odd to be completely unfounded. There are many aspects of quantum mechanics which seem absurd to your everyday experience, and yet quantum mechanics has been tested rigorously and has proven to be correct to a very high degree of accuracy. Whether or not an idea seems weird to you is completely irrelevent to whether or not it is physically correct.

[Delta]

As a physics graduate student (albeit one who is NOT in string theory), I feel that many of your assertions that it can't be true because you think the number of dimensions is odd to be completely unfounded. There are many aspects of quantum mechanics which seem absurd to your everyday experience, and yet quantum mechanics has been tested rigorously and has proven to be correct to a very high degree of accuracy. Whether or not an idea seems weird to you is completely irrelevent to whether or not it is physically correct.

[Delta]

As a physics graduate student (albeit one who is NOT in string theory), I feel that many of your assertions that it can't be true because you think the number of dimensions is odd to be completely unfounded. There are many aspects of quantum mechanics which seem absurd to your everyday experience, and yet quantum mechanics has been tested rigorously and has proven to be correct to a very high degree of accuracy. Whether or not an idea seems weird to you is completely irrelevent to whether or not it is physically correct.

[ComradeRed]

As a physics graduate student (albeit one who is NOT in string theory), I feel that many of your assertions that it can't be true because you think the number of dimensions is odd to be completely unfounded. Well, have you taken QFT? What I mean is that the observable in String theory's quantization is the number of dimensions (intuitively this makes sense from the Relativists' perspective that GR is the geometry of spacetime).

However, the canonical QFT has a Renormalization process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization) for precaution against singularities in calculations.

String theory has yet to introduce such a thing for its number of dimensions. It logically follows that a singularity will arise.


There are many aspects of quantum mechanics which seem absurd to your everyday experience, and yet quantum mechanics has been tested rigorously and has proven to be correct to a very high degree of accuracy. Whether or not an idea seems weird to you is completely irrelevent to whether or not it is physically correct. Well, the problem with quantum mechanics (why it's so confusing) is that it is quantized canonical mechanics; from the naive perspective, it is nonsensical to speak of a manifold with an infinite degrees of freedom (albeit a configuration manifold).

But if we discuss things in terms of quantized Newtonian mechanics, it can make a lot more sense.

I assume you know the structure of the uncertainty of a variable; you can set each of them to be 1 (in the planck scale), and all you'd need is 9 "quick" calculations (in addition to a sort of cohomological gluing of them) then you have a quantized relation.

But so what? Well, the important part is that 99.7% of the times the particle has a momentum between p-3*(dp) and p+3*(dp) for the uncertainty dp (and these are of course discrete values, so there is nothing in between p and p+dp besides a planck momentum) and has a position between q-3*(dq) and q+3*(dq) for the uncertainty in position dq.

<Devil&#39;s Advocate> Isn&#39;t it logical to conclude that, based on the Unruh effect, the uncertainty in position is because position becomes less well defined in curved space (as the momentum/energy increases, the curvature increases)? So we no longer have well defined spheroid particles but "fuzzy things"?</Devil&#39;s advocate>

If ya integrate relativity into it, viz. GR, you would theoretically get relativistic QM; just plug this into GR and you&#39;d get QGR (or something completely different :P).

[ComradeRed]

As a physics graduate student (albeit one who is NOT in string theory), I feel that many of your assertions that it can&#39;t be true because you think the number of dimensions is odd to be completely unfounded. Well, have you taken QFT? What I mean is that the observable in String theory&#39;s quantization is the number of dimensions (intuitively this makes sense from the Relativists&#39; perspective that GR is the geometry of spacetime).

However, the canonical QFT has a Renormalization process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization) for precaution against singularities in calculations.

String theory has yet to introduce such a thing for its number of dimensions. It logically follows that a singularity will arise.


There are many aspects of quantum mechanics which seem absurd to your everyday experience, and yet quantum mechanics has been tested rigorously and has proven to be correct to a very high degree of accuracy. Whether or not an idea seems weird to you is completely irrelevent to whether or not it is physically correct. Well, the problem with quantum mechanics (why it&#39;s so confusing) is that it is quantized canonical mechanics; from the naive perspective, it is nonsensical to speak of a manifold with an infinite degrees of freedom (albeit a configuration manifold).

But if we discuss things in terms of quantized Newtonian mechanics, it can make a lot more sense.

I assume you know the structure of the uncertainty of a variable; you can set each of them to be 1 (in the planck scale), and all you&#39;d need is 9 "quick" calculations (in addition to a sort of cohomological gluing of them) then you have a quantized relation.

But so what? Well, the important part is that 99.7% of the times the particle has a momentum between p-3*(dp) and p+3*(dp) for the uncertainty dp (and these are of course discrete values, so there is nothing in between p and p+dp besides a planck momentum) and has a position between q-3*(dq) and q+3*(dq) for the uncertainty in position dq.

<Devil&#39;s Advocate> Isn&#39;t it logical to conclude that, based on the Unruh effect, the uncertainty in position is because position becomes less well defined in curved space (as the momentum/energy increases, the curvature increases)? So we no longer have well defined spheroid particles but "fuzzy things"?</Devil&#39;s advocate>

If ya integrate relativity into it, viz. GR, you would theoretically get relativistic QM; just plug this into GR and you&#39;d get QGR (or something completely different :P).

[ComradeRed]

As a physics graduate student (albeit one who is NOT in string theory), I feel that many of your assertions that it can&#39;t be true because you think the number of dimensions is odd to be completely unfounded. Well, have you taken QFT? What I mean is that the observable in String theory&#39;s quantization is the number of dimensions (intuitively this makes sense from the Relativists&#39; perspective that GR is the geometry of spacetime).

However, the canonical QFT has a Renormalization process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization) for precaution against singularities in calculations.

String theory has yet to introduce such a thing for its number of dimensions. It logically follows that a singularity will arise.


There are many aspects of quantum mechanics which seem absurd to your everyday experience, and yet quantum mechanics has been tested rigorously and has proven to be correct to a very high degree of accuracy. Whether or not an idea seems weird to you is completely irrelevent to whether or not it is physically correct. Well, the problem with quantum mechanics (why it&#39;s so confusing) is that it is quantized canonical mechanics; from the naive perspective, it is nonsensical to speak of a manifold with an infinite degrees of freedom (albeit a configuration manifold).

But if we discuss things in terms of quantized Newtonian mechanics, it can make a lot more sense.

I assume you know the structure of the uncertainty of a variable; you can set each of them to be 1 (in the planck scale), and all you&#39;d need is 9 "quick" calculations (in addition to a sort of cohomological gluing of them) then you have a quantized relation.

But so what? Well, the important part is that 99.7% of the times the particle has a momentum between p-3*(dp) and p+3*(dp) for the uncertainty dp (and these are of course discrete values, so there is nothing in between p and p+dp besides a planck momentum) and has a position between q-3*(dq) and q+3*(dq) for the uncertainty in position dq.

<Devil&#39;s Advocate> Isn&#39;t it logical to conclude that, based on the Unruh effect, the uncertainty in position is because position becomes less well defined in curved space (as the momentum/energy increases, the curvature increases)? So we no longer have well defined spheroid particles but "fuzzy things"?</Devil&#39;s advocate>

If ya integrate relativity into it, viz. GR, you would theoretically get relativistic QM; just plug this into GR and you&#39;d get QGR (or something completely different :P).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Delta:


As a physics graduate student (albeit one who is NOT in string theory), I feel that many of your assertions that it can&#39;t be true because you think the number of dimensions is odd to be completely unfounded. There are many aspects of quantum mechanics which seem absurd to your everyday experience, and yet quantum mechanics has been tested rigorously and has proven to be correct to a very high degree of accuracy. Whether or not an idea seems weird to you is completely irrelevent to whether or not it is physically correct.

So was Ptolemy&#39;s theory, and for over 1000 years, and it got more accurate with time, but that did not make it more realistic, in the end.

I always reach for the theory trash can when I hear scientists talking like this....

The fact that a theory has been tested, and &#39;works&#39;, does not make it correct -- as we know from the history of science; there all kinds of sociological reasons why theories are accepted, only some of which are to do with their being able to picture nature aright.

And the fact that Quantum Mechanics has to use nearly as many metaphors as there are scientists on the planet to make it work, suggests that it is not doing too good a job at &#39;depicting&#39; nature literally.

Indeed, it is in effect a sort of mathematical poetry.

I think I&#39;ll stick with commonsense....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Delta:


As a physics graduate student (albeit one who is NOT in string theory), I feel that many of your assertions that it can&#39;t be true because you think the number of dimensions is odd to be completely unfounded. There are many aspects of quantum mechanics which seem absurd to your everyday experience, and yet quantum mechanics has been tested rigorously and has proven to be correct to a very high degree of accuracy. Whether or not an idea seems weird to you is completely irrelevent to whether or not it is physically correct.

So was Ptolemy&#39;s theory, and for over 1000 years, and it got more accurate with time, but that did not make it more realistic, in the end.

I always reach for the theory trash can when I hear scientists talking like this....

The fact that a theory has been tested, and &#39;works&#39;, does not make it correct -- as we know from the history of science; there all kinds of sociological reasons why theories are accepted, only some of which are to do with their being able to picture nature aright.

And the fact that Quantum Mechanics has to use nearly as many metaphors as there are scientists on the planet to make it work, suggests that it is not doing too good a job at &#39;depicting&#39; nature literally.

Indeed, it is in effect a sort of mathematical poetry.

I think I&#39;ll stick with commonsense....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Delta:


As a physics graduate student (albeit one who is NOT in string theory), I feel that many of your assertions that it can&#39;t be true because you think the number of dimensions is odd to be completely unfounded. There are many aspects of quantum mechanics which seem absurd to your everyday experience, and yet quantum mechanics has been tested rigorously and has proven to be correct to a very high degree of accuracy. Whether or not an idea seems weird to you is completely irrelevent to whether or not it is physically correct.

So was Ptolemy&#39;s theory, and for over 1000 years, and it got more accurate with time, but that did not make it more realistic, in the end.

I always reach for the theory trash can when I hear scientists talking like this....

The fact that a theory has been tested, and &#39;works&#39;, does not make it correct -- as we know from the history of science; there all kinds of sociological reasons why theories are accepted, only some of which are to do with their being able to picture nature aright.

And the fact that Quantum Mechanics has to use nearly as many metaphors as there are scientists on the planet to make it work, suggests that it is not doing too good a job at &#39;depicting&#39; nature literally.

Indeed, it is in effect a sort of mathematical poetry.

I think I&#39;ll stick with commonsense....

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:34 PM
Well, have you taken QFT?


Actually no, I&#39;ll be going into my second year of grad classes this fall, and I&#39;ll be starting my field theory courses then. I&#39;ve done a little QED, but this is in my advanced QM class.

So once I&#39;ve taken these courses, I may be able to discuss these issues better. I was simply trying to make the point that opinions of "that seems weird" doesn&#39;t mean anything in modern physics. It&#39;s the math, and ultimately the experiments, that count.

ComradeRed, what sort of math/physics background do you have?

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:34 PM
Well, have you taken QFT?


Actually no, I&#39;ll be going into my second year of grad classes this fall, and I&#39;ll be starting my field theory courses then. I&#39;ve done a little QED, but this is in my advanced QM class.

So once I&#39;ve taken these courses, I may be able to discuss these issues better. I was simply trying to make the point that opinions of "that seems weird" doesn&#39;t mean anything in modern physics. It&#39;s the math, and ultimately the experiments, that count.

ComradeRed, what sort of math/physics background do you have?

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:34 PM
Well, have you taken QFT?


Actually no, I&#39;ll be going into my second year of grad classes this fall, and I&#39;ll be starting my field theory courses then. I&#39;ve done a little QED, but this is in my advanced QM class.

So once I&#39;ve taken these courses, I may be able to discuss these issues better. I was simply trying to make the point that opinions of "that seems weird" doesn&#39;t mean anything in modern physics. It&#39;s the math, and ultimately the experiments, that count.

ComradeRed, what sort of math/physics background do you have?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Delta, the mathematics did not count for much in older, obsolete theories, and neither did the experiments. They still went down the tubes in the end.

With Quantum Mechanics, things are even worse, since no one understands it (according to Feynman).

And there are alternative theories whose supporters claim account for the phenomena far better, and are much easier to understand.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Delta, the mathematics did not count for much in older, obsolete theories, and neither did the experiments. They still went down the tubes in the end.

With Quantum Mechanics, things are even worse, since no one understands it (according to Feynman).

And there are alternative theories whose supporters claim account for the phenomena far better, and are much easier to understand.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Delta, the mathematics did not count for much in older, obsolete theories, and neither did the experiments. They still went down the tubes in the end.

With Quantum Mechanics, things are even worse, since no one understands it (according to Feynman).

And there are alternative theories whose supporters claim account for the phenomena far better, and are much easier to understand.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Delta+--> (Delta)So once I&#39;ve taken these courses, I may be able to discuss these issues better. I was simply trying to make the point that opinions of "that seems weird" doesn&#39;t mean anything in modern physics. It&#39;s the math, and ultimately the experiments, that count. [/b] Unfortunately, a lot of scientists tend to hold this perspective: it must be verified by either math or experiment.

This really isn&#39;t too scientific; viz. since science deals with experiments.



ComradeRed, what sort of math/physics background do you have? I don&#39;t see how this is relevent, and since there is no way to verify whatever I say it&#39;s pointless.

That being said, would you believe I have a Ph,D.? :D


Rosa

With Quantum Mechanics, things are even worse, since no one understands it (according to Feynman). I don&#39;t think that it&#39;s that no one understands it because it&#39;s difficult; rather, it&#39;s because it&#39;s ambiguous.

How would you interpret the uncertainty principle? Why is it there?

Well, because QM is quantized canonical mechanics, it&#39;s hard to say.

There are a number of interpretations which are equally "valid" but rather confusing (e.g. the "Democracy of histories") and up to a degree (e.g. the Quantum potential&#39;s incompatibility with Special Relativity).

I think that something has to come along that simplifies it drastically. Until we have quantized Newtonian mechanics, no one can really understand QM.

Just my personal thoughts on it ;)

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Delta+--> (Delta)So once I&#39;ve taken these courses, I may be able to discuss these issues better. I was simply trying to make the point that opinions of "that seems weird" doesn&#39;t mean anything in modern physics. It&#39;s the math, and ultimately the experiments, that count. [/b] Unfortunately, a lot of scientists tend to hold this perspective: it must be verified by either math or experiment.

This really isn&#39;t too scientific; viz. since science deals with experiments.



ComradeRed, what sort of math/physics background do you have? I don&#39;t see how this is relevent, and since there is no way to verify whatever I say it&#39;s pointless.

That being said, would you believe I have a Ph,D.? :D


Rosa

With Quantum Mechanics, things are even worse, since no one understands it (according to Feynman). I don&#39;t think that it&#39;s that no one understands it because it&#39;s difficult; rather, it&#39;s because it&#39;s ambiguous.

How would you interpret the uncertainty principle? Why is it there?

Well, because QM is quantized canonical mechanics, it&#39;s hard to say.

There are a number of interpretations which are equally "valid" but rather confusing (e.g. the "Democracy of histories") and up to a degree (e.g. the Quantum potential&#39;s incompatibility with Special Relativity).

I think that something has to come along that simplifies it drastically. Until we have quantized Newtonian mechanics, no one can really understand QM.

Just my personal thoughts on it ;)

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Delta+--> (Delta)So once I&#39;ve taken these courses, I may be able to discuss these issues better. I was simply trying to make the point that opinions of "that seems weird" doesn&#39;t mean anything in modern physics. It&#39;s the math, and ultimately the experiments, that count. [/b] Unfortunately, a lot of scientists tend to hold this perspective: it must be verified by either math or experiment.

This really isn&#39;t too scientific; viz. since science deals with experiments.



ComradeRed, what sort of math/physics background do you have? I don&#39;t see how this is relevent, and since there is no way to verify whatever I say it&#39;s pointless.

That being said, would you believe I have a Ph,D.? :D


Rosa

With Quantum Mechanics, things are even worse, since no one understands it (according to Feynman). I don&#39;t think that it&#39;s that no one understands it because it&#39;s difficult; rather, it&#39;s because it&#39;s ambiguous.

How would you interpret the uncertainty principle? Why is it there?

Well, because QM is quantized canonical mechanics, it&#39;s hard to say.

There are a number of interpretations which are equally "valid" but rather confusing (e.g. the "Democracy of histories") and up to a degree (e.g. the Quantum potential&#39;s incompatibility with Special Relativity).

I think that something has to come along that simplifies it drastically. Until we have quantized Newtonian mechanics, no one can really understand QM.

Just my personal thoughts on it ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red, thanks for those comments:


I don&#39;t think that it&#39;s that no one understands it because it&#39;s difficult; rather, it&#39;s because it&#39;s ambiguous.

I was, of course, using the word &#39;understand&#39; in its normal sense, i.e., of being able to explain something without the use of specialised jargon (and jargon that cannot be translated into ordinary terms without the use of metaphors and &#39;scare&#39; quotes all over the place).

In that case, QM is understood by no one.

As to the &#39;uncertainty principle&#39;, I am not the one to ask, since I can make no head or tail of it, and I am a mathematician (as you know).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red, thanks for those comments:


I don&#39;t think that it&#39;s that no one understands it because it&#39;s difficult; rather, it&#39;s because it&#39;s ambiguous.

I was, of course, using the word &#39;understand&#39; in its normal sense, i.e., of being able to explain something without the use of specialised jargon (and jargon that cannot be translated into ordinary terms without the use of metaphors and &#39;scare&#39; quotes all over the place).

In that case, QM is understood by no one.

As to the &#39;uncertainty principle&#39;, I am not the one to ask, since I can make no head or tail of it, and I am a mathematician (as you know).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red, thanks for those comments:


I don&#39;t think that it&#39;s that no one understands it because it&#39;s difficult; rather, it&#39;s because it&#39;s ambiguous.

I was, of course, using the word &#39;understand&#39; in its normal sense, i.e., of being able to explain something without the use of specialised jargon (and jargon that cannot be translated into ordinary terms without the use of metaphors and &#39;scare&#39; quotes all over the place).

In that case, QM is understood by no one.

As to the &#39;uncertainty principle&#39;, I am not the one to ask, since I can make no head or tail of it, and I am a mathematician (as you know).

[ComradeRed]

As to the &#39;uncertainty principle&#39;, I am not the one to ask, since I can make no head or tail of it, and I am a mathematician (as you know). Well, my question was a rhetorical one.

Actually, thinking about it, it seems to come from "nowhere" in some interpretations. How odd...

[ComradeRed]

As to the &#39;uncertainty principle&#39;, I am not the one to ask, since I can make no head or tail of it, and I am a mathematician (as you know). Well, my question was a rhetorical one.

Actually, thinking about it, it seems to come from "nowhere" in some interpretations. How odd...

[ComradeRed]

As to the &#39;uncertainty principle&#39;, I am not the one to ask, since I can make no head or tail of it, and I am a mathematician (as you know). Well, my question was a rhetorical one.

Actually, thinking about it, it seems to come from "nowhere" in some interpretations. How odd...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fair enough&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fair enough&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fair enough&#33;

[Free Floating Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:21 AM
I really couldn&#39;t say.

IMO, such a complicated theroy is way beyond my, or almost anyone&#39;s understanding. Until I&#39;m a top flight astro-physicist, I&#39;ll reserve my judgement.
Good for you&#33;

This is an honest and intelligent response from a non-expert.

I am deeply concerned about a tendency I see among some soi-disant Leftists, there are a number of examples on this thread, who do not possess math ability and are not familiar with scientific method to dismiss that which they are not capable of doing as not being "empirical".

If that tendency were to take hold in a Socialist society it would severely hamper scientific progress.

It is a conservative and highly reactionary way of thinking by people who aren&#39;t in the top IQ ranges and it is dangerous to the very intelligent. It puts an artificial ceiling on what they can produce and contribute to society.

One of the dangers of Communism is that those who are not the very brightest can come to control what their intellectual superiors are able to contribute. This is certainly true in Capitalist society. Communism can be no less, and perhaps more, restrictive if the masses, who are not, by definition, in the highest IQ echelons will make decisions for the very brightest.

Someone on this board who does possess mathematical skills and is familiar with scientific method gave the correct answer: Science is not a matter of whether or not something sounds reasonable to us. The math gives us an idea of what the phenomena are and how we might expect them to behave. The proof lies with experiments carried out according to scientific method.

We are not responsible for our innate level of intelligence, but everyone can acquire wisdom and genuine generosity of character.

It is essential that we do not try to limit the next one due to jealousy and lack of personal ability to do what others can in a Communistic society.

[Free Floating Radical]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 10:27 AM
Delta, the mathematics did not count for much in older, obsolete theories, and neither did the experiments. They still went down the tubes in the end.

With Quantum Mechanics, things are even worse, since no one understands it (according to Feynman).

And there are alternative theories whose supporters claim account for the phenomena far better, and are much easier to understand.
QP and QM are not understood because scientists are still trying to apply classical math to the phenomena.

Classical math is but a subset of mathematical systems that are far more encompassing, elastic and which allow for greater potential.

When those higher mathematical systems will be employed to understand QP and QM they will no longer be baffling.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FFR:


The math gives us an idea of what the phenomena are and how we might expect them to behave. The proof lies with experiments carried out according to scientific method.

Well the history of science shows that those with the tip &#39;IQ&#39;s, as you call them, invented theories whose mathematics was first rate (for the time), and which enjoyed 1000 years of evidential support (and which became more accurate over time), but which turned out to be wrong.

If the evidence of science tells us anything, it is that scientists are far more often wrong than they are right. Indeed, the vast majority of theories are wrong.

So, perhaps democratic control is more important than a high &#39;IQ&#39;.

[By the way, I have a mathematics degree.]

[Free Floating Radical]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28 2006, 11:43 AM
FFR:

Well the history of science shows that those with the tip &#39;IQ&#39;s, as you call them, invented theories whose mathematics was first rate (for the time), and which enjoyed 1000 years of evidential support (and which became more accurate over time), but which turned out to be wrong.

If the evidence of science tells us anything, it is that scientists are far more often wrong than they are right. Indeed, the vast majority of theories are wrong.

So, perhaps democratic control is more important than a high &#39;IQ&#39;.

[By the way, I have a mathematics degree.]
The process is called learning.

We are capable at any given time of perceiving in outer space what we are capable of perceiving in inner space.

When we peer "out there" we are doing aught but peering within and seeing physical representations of how our brains work. We are learning about ourselves.

Our terminology about both inner and outer space reveals that we, at least subconsciously, recognize that they are one and the same. In both cases we use such terms as: nebulous, brilliant, expanding and so on.

To halt that research would immediately halt the care we can provide to people on the ground.

For instance: The Doppler was first invented in order to detect stealth battleships. Later, the very same technology, which allows us to determine the physical make-up of bodies from the wavelengths of radiation being given off came to be used to determine the physical make-up of suns and then other astronomical phenomena. Additionally, the very same Doppler was modified to become the "ultrasound" that we all know from medicine that shows us the development of feti and if there is pathology in the body without invasive surgery.

I know from my years on kibbutz that one of the most dangerous aspects of Communism is that it can become a Dictatorship of the Mediocre. I saw it happen. It is one of the reasons we left kibbutz.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FreeR:


The process is called learning.

Well, precious little has been learnt about the nature of science by scientists themseleves (in my experience they know very little about the history of the subject, beyond the few standard myths, and as much as well educated amateurs about other areas of science outside their own narrow specialism): they still make the same bold claims, and then the next generation comes along and trashes their theories.

As I said, that is one of the few truths about science we do know for sure.


We are capable at any given time of perceiving in outer space what we are capable of perceiving in inner space.

Do you mean that in outer space we can perceive things like headaches and itches?

Or, what do you mean?


When we peer "out there" we are doing aught but peering within and seeing physical representations of how our brains work

I am sorry, but does this mean that, say, the moon is really in our heads?


Our terminology about both inner and outer space reveals that we, at least subconsciously, recognize that they are one and the same. In both cases we use such terms as: nebulous, brilliant, expanding and so on.

Well, I do not know what this means, but it seems pretty dubious to me.

Once more does it mean that tooth aches and sore throats exist on Jupiter?

If not, what does it mean?


I know from my years on kibbutz that one of the most dangerous aspects of Communism is that it can become a Dictatorship of the Mediocre. I saw it happen. It is one of the reasons we left kibbutz.

Well, that is because no Kibbutz was communist -- the latter is about the ending of class rule by ending class division, following on from a working class revolution -- not a load of people living together and sharing stuff.

You can&#39;t even pretend to do that if you have kicked all the Palestinians off their land, and are systematically oppressing the rest.

[And I say that as Jew, myself.]