Slashdot Mirror
String Theory in Two Minutes
An anonymous reader writes "Most of us have heard of string theory, many of us know what it is and some of us may even be experts in the field. But could you explain it in two minutes? Discover Magazine recently had a contest to do precisely that: create a two minute or less video of everything you need to know about string theory. You can view some of the best entries (video) as well as the winning video: String Ducky!"
The winning video is "The Problem with Math.", according to the site. "Ducky" placed fourth.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Most of us have heard of string theory, many of us know what it is and some of us may even be experts in the field. But could you explain it in two minutes?
I can't, but MC Hawking can. And he can get the bitches at the same time.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Stretched analogy
of beauteous harmony,
thou art String Theory.
http://xkcd.com/171/ So true!
I could explain it in two minutes, but I would need A LOT of silly string...
Something that should belong in Philosophy or Religion but is in Science as that's where all the grant money is.
string theory in less than a paragraph. strings "vibrate" in higher dimensional space. [specifically M-theory suggests 11 dimensions] energy states are quantised, including mass at some level. String theory's ultimate goal is to eliminate infinities and non-sensical probabilities that result from the current standard model. Also, at some level the forces merge into a single force, this force splits at lower energies which may cause some very interesting phenomenae [spatial expansion for one] one of the major hurdles to string theory is gravity. why is it as weak as it is? what are the consequences of higher dimensions to its relative strength etc. [even some theoretical work suggests gravitons leak between dimensions] very little of it is testable at the moment, one major prediction that could in principle be tested is that of varying velocities of photons according to energy/wavelength. the models suggest that a lag of around a minute or less over a distance of several billion light years while this isn't unique to string theory.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I'm a string theory expert now. not really, but I found the video informative.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
...we need someone to explain string theory in TFS. Or, better yet, in the title.
I can easily explain string theory in less than two minutes, but the explanation can only be heard in 6 tiny dimensions that nothing larger than a small flea can fit into. And the fleas didn't seem all that interested.
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
...I'm a physicist and frankly I don't see the reason why should somebody waste time explaining a theory to the vast public that hasn't been proved right for over than 30 years now. It's quite beautiful (from the seminars I have attended) but... not verified by experiement...so... let's create some hype for the masses to consume and maybe publish a book or two and some opeds with the NYT!
Scientific value vs. politics = 0 - 1 this morning...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
Columbia University physicist Brian Greene recently chose the winner of the String Theory in Two Minutes of Less user-generated video contest Two minutes of less? Have dumbass blogging typos become suddenly acceptable on mainstream intertubes websites?
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
String "theory" is not a theory at all, it is merely a hypothesis. It will not become a "theory" unless and until it can be tested by experiment! Come on, people! I am not nitpicking: the scientific among you know the difference. Do not accept the name "string theory" at face value. That is just String Propaganda.
And if that were not bad enough, there are other hypotheses, such as MoND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) that explains most if not all what is explained by the string hypothesis, without having to imagine all those other dimensions. In fact, it is so much simpler than the string hypothesis that Occam's Razor is practically screaming, "No! Over here, you idiots!"
Yes, there are problems with MoND, but there are very big problems with strings as well. The fact that an idea is popular in the media or has been around longer is not evidence that it is true, any more than the others.
The 3 hours video of The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene also explains String Theory pretty well. Although the video is quite old, it was the first video that made me feel so interested and excited about String Theory.
In addition to quirky physics videos (seventh one down on the list) we do thrown and pirate flag relocation, have the blow shit up, cheapest tuition / worst food, and wicked rock climbing routes.
We also have girls^H^H^H^H^H a girl.
(PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE come to our school if you are a girl. Naked Sam (per video) is usually kept indoors.)
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
In my experience, a major obstacle to a proper "relationship" to fundamental physics is the idea that somehow it can be understood in a visual or sensory way. Mathematics can model things that just don't make any sense. Our sensory organs are not equipped to experience fundamental reality. Possibly after studying mathematics long enough, the brain grows a sensitivity to the math. But trying to visualize this stuff is ultimately an exercise in frustration. What happens is that you risk taking that flawed visual model seriously, and trying to extrapolate. Which gets in the way of learning the math necessary to solve the problems.
Be heard || Be herd
Bullshit.
Or I could do it in three words: Religion for Physicists.
But if they really want a little more, I guess I could say the following:
A idea which cannot be tested in any known scientific manner at the moment and has yet to demonstrate anything new and relevant. It is an interpolation of existing data into an exceedingly and overly complicated mess of mathematics. The only good that has come out of string theory thus far is that it has generated some interesting maths. Peter Woit's description (quoting Wolfgang Pauli) is perhaps the most apt: not even wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
Have a nice day.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
One thing that is a huge theme throughout the Bible is the worship of God through music. God created music. He likes it. He thinks it's beautiful. Like God (since we're made in His image) we like music too. Yet from a materialist perspective, I can find biological reasons for many senses we have. Women look good because of an innate imperative to procreate. Food tastes good because we need it to build our bodies and for energy. Smell's attraction can be good to motivate us toward mates and food. The sense of touch can be exhilarating for many obvious biological reasons too. But sound is unusual in the context of music. Why do rhythmically and harmonically organized vibrations of air sound good? What biological imperative is fulfilled by music? Then I got to thinking about this. String theory. The entire existence of everything in the universe is explained the best (so far) by a scientific theory known as string theory. Is music the hint that God gave us to how He did it all? Consider, only string theory so far can explain the 4 dimensions we can conceive (length, width, height and time) but also the electromagnetic force, gravity, the weak sub atomic force, the strong sub atomic force in addition to the 4 dimensions. It postulates that the difference in protons, neutrons, electrons and all other sub-atomic particles can be explained as being different vibrating little strings. This theory can explain other things like dimensions beyond our 4. It postulates other dimensions as many as 6 though 26! It can explain things like black holes, wormholes, parallel universes and other cosmic anomalies. In other words, everything can be explained by the way little strings vibrate. Is it a Grand Unifying Theory (in physics known as a GUT) of everything? You can break a longer string that is a neutron down to a shorter strings that are combinations of quarks. Quarks are particles even smaller than our basic hadrons (neutrons, protons and electrons). They're explained as the constituents of these larger particles. They're tinier strings in theory. The very fabric of the universe can be explained as an analogy of music? Is it all organized vibrations in harmonies and rhythms? Maybe. Worship music certainly must transcend the vibrations of air molecules in heaven. Sound here is limited to a wave propagating through air at 769 mph at sea level atmospheric pressure and at an ambient temperature of 70 degrees F. It has to be beyond that in eternity. That's a crude physical limitation. Then does music point to its originator? Is this the hint He gives us on how it's all held together? Is it the key that points to the beauty of God Himself? Is it that simple? I think so and it maybe. I see a pattern emerging. This is just one little gray wet bag of warm protoplasm trying to makes sense of it all. Now, how 'bout them Dodgers? http://discovermagazine.com/twominutesorless?bcpid=716091875&bclid=686943766&bctid=687029421 Rudeman
Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
Click here or here.
Until now hearing "string theory" made me think of infinitely long, parallel strings that run through the entire cosmos. Then, since that seemed to reduce our 3 dimensions to 2, I thought every string had an infinite "resolution" as well, holding different particles/energies at different parts of it. I *think* A Brief History of Time used a similar explanation, but more probably I'm remembering it wrong. :)
What the videos told me:
"Protons are made up of something smaller, which doesn't look like a ball, but like a vibrating loop of string. This may mean the world is 11-dimensional."
I was quite off the beat, then
Click here or here.
This is the kind of thing which makes the audience of talk shows think their psychic knows more about physics than physicists. It's a dumbed down abstraction, nothing more, nothing less. It's cool on that level, but saying that one understand string theory after watching it is like a kid thinking they understand gravity because they saw something fall to the ground.
Everything will be taken away from you.
Its working here with Gentoo, Seamonkey and Flash 9.0.48.0.
Just watched them using Ubuntu 7.10 + Firefox 2.0.0.8.
I can understand string theory but what I don't understand is why we need string theory and what it actually tells us about the universe. Vibrating "strings"... please. I think a lot of people have either smoked way too much weed and think this is actually plausible or they have over active minds from not watching enough TV.
That's simply not true. A theory has to explain observations. This is what current cosmological theories do. It is an observation, that galaxies seem to fly away from us, the faster the farer away they are. The standard cosmological theory with its Big Bang can explain it. One of the predictions of this theory was, that there should be a background radiation. That radiation was found and its temperature is in accordance with the calcualations. The theory of inflationary universe, which is an extension to the standard theory can explain why the radiation is so homogenous, why the world is more or less flat and it even can explain to some level the observed distribution of galaxies.
Can the cosmological theories explain everything? No. Have they gaps? Definitely. But this is something nearly every theory has to live with. When Newton came up with his theory of gravitation he also could give absolutely no explanation for the source of gravitation, he himself was not happy with the fact that a body has an influence at a place where it is not present.
I never heard about that. I am not an expert in cosmology, so I would be interested if you could point me to a source to read about this claim. And what do you mean with "long time"?
- EHT (Extended Heim Theory) allows to easily calculate particle masses using only some physical constants. You can check this Heim Mass Calculator: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/HeimCalculator
- Succesful prediction of masses of neutrinos.
- Prediction of Heim-Lorentz force which most likely is being observed in ESA experiments performed by Dr. Martin Tajmar.
During these experiments artificial gravity is being created.
- ESA news about Tajmar experiments http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html and some other news.
- M.Tajmar recent papper which references EHT (Droscher&Hausner): http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806
- Theoretical explanation of Tajmar Gravito-Magnetic experiments by Droscher&Hausner: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/LauncherSymPaper2007-0-42JHCorrected22April.pdf
- Reasonable explanation why CMB Cold Spot appears to be cold without mumbling about Dark Matter/Dark Energy, thanks to Heim's corrected gravitional law.
- EHT explains why it appears that there is not enough mass observable in the Universe without using Dark Matter concept.
- EHT most likely explains weird effects measured during Gravity Probe B experiment, see: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/FieldPropulsion.pdf.
- Droscher&Hausner paper about space propulsion based on Heim theory http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf was awarded by AIAA in 2004.
Now, I would like to ask a question.This paper also contains proposal of modified experiment which will allow to verify if EHT is true and also allow to build very effective propulsion engine for spaceships. See this article: http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200
These effects are in agreement with Martin Tajmar findings, see: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806
Are there any similar achievemets of Strings Theory?
If you want to know more about EHT please refer to wiki page and this huge discussion thread.
/Z
In science a theory is a falsifiable claim. Hawking put it pretty well in that a theory "must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." So until the string concept can make testable statements, or future predictions, or however you want to talk about it, it's not a theory.
Don't confuse math with science. They are related, but not the same. Math is, as it has been said "rules without a game." It is simply discovering relationships in numbers. That's great, and it is a wonderful pursuit since you can prove things deductively, and since it turns out that often the relationships have real world applications. However just because you find a mathematical relationship, doesn't mean it applies to the real world. That's a separate question.
For example all the rules relating to triangles are true, independent of the existence of real triangles. Even if there were no triangles in the actual world, the rules for how they work in math are true. Ok, fine. Now then we believe we see objects in the real world that are triangles. So we theorize that these are in fact triangles and that the mathematical rules apply to them. Testing shows that is the case. We have inductively proven, or more accurately repeatedly failed to falsify, the theory that the triangles we see in the world follow the same rules as mathematical triangles.
But that doesn't mean that any field of math has application in the real world. Take for example Mersenne primes. Those are prime numbers in the form of 2^P-1. They are interesting, and there's a program to search for them (that also happens to be good at stressing FPUs, hence why I'm aware of this). However there's no real world application, at this point. That these numbers exist and that we know what they are isn't useful in the real world. It doesn't predict anything, model anything, show anything. It's just number games at this point.
String "theory" seems similar and you'll find some heavy hitters in the scientific community (like Neil Tyson) who aren't so happy with all the pushing of it for this reason. It's a wonderful little mathematical model that's internally consistent. Great, but that doesn't mean it has shit to do with reality. That doesn't make it worthless, but really there shouldn't be any pushing of it especially to non-scientists until it can at least start to make some testable predictions.
This is one of the kind of things that helps ID idiots jump on evolution as "just a theory". Theory, in a scientific context, does not mean "shit we though up but haven't tested." However that's basically how it's used for string theory. They came up with a neat idea that they have no idea what the implications are.
The videos played fine for me in Firefox 2.0.0.6 using Shockwave Flash 9.0 r48 on Fedora Core 3.
Every theory has to fight with data which don't seem to fit. Theories are rejected, when the problems become overwhelming or if somebody comes up with an alternative, which has the at least the same power and can explain some of the difficultiers. Seems this didn't happen up to now.
I don't know who this guy is, but when reading this on his page (as criticism about the current explanation for gravity):
it is quite obvious that this guy didn't understand even the basics of the General Theory of Relativity. I made a similar logical error - when I was fifteen, after reading some popular science books without understanding what exactly they were talking about. There are other parts in his text, where he clearly - and with no doubt left, shows that he has no clue about what Relativity is about. Although I am not an expert on it, I studied physics and had a course in General Theory of Relativitiy - and it is obvious that he made errors like somebody who never had a formal introduction into Relativity. And frankly, I don't care the least about people who criticize a theory when they have only a vague, layman's understanding of it - which in this case is even severely flawed.
I never heard about that. I am not an expert in cosmology, so I would be interested if you could point me to a source to read about this claim. And what do you mean with "long time"?
Any time is too long if you consider the current theory that nothing can escape the event horizon of black holes AND that everything inside will be squashed into a singularity within a finite, short time. This is hard to reconcile with a claim that the universe itself started from a singularity. Certainly we have no experimental evidence that "the space" can mysteriously expand and allow faster than light speeds necessary to escape a singularity.
Ok, then please explain why the universe should have been inside a Schwarzschild-radius or point me to a source where this is explained. As I said: I never heard about this claim before.
The best way to popularize string, apart from having a theory about it, is to have a slogan.. like this selection by the Goodies:
Or of course, the song:
String, string, string, stringEverybody loves string!
String, string, string, string
Everybody needs string!
Pull on your pants
Slip on your vest
Everyone agrees
String is best!
String, string, string, string
Everybody loves string!
The Goodies were ahead of their time... if there is such a thing as time.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
string theory, [...] could you explain it in two minutes?
No.
sudo ergo sum
If we learn something new that blows an old theory away, we start with new hypotheses and continue from there. We use it as a learning experience to continue exploring what makes things tick. The anti-science rhetoric of the creationists think this is a flaw, which always confused me. Creationists want everything to start and stop with the idea of god, which isn't even a hypothesis (it's totally untestable!). How a creationist can be happy with such a non-answer as 'god' is astounding to me, personally. The concept of god answers no questions, and encourages us to stop looking for answers.
....What was the bit about the string? :/
God Be Gone
In November 1986, a young 9th grade Junior High student read Discover Magazine's cover article about String Theory, in the school library, and his horizons were expanded by the possibilities and such an impression was made on him that he never forgot it and has since been curious about science. But he did not understand it.
Twenty years later, remembering String Theory from his youth, he read Brian Greene's book on String Theory, thinking that now, after having been college educated and taking science classes and learning a little bit about math, he might understand it. But he did not understand it.
So he went from Brian Greene to David Grene ...
No video has been filmed. The library isn't there anymore, because the school has been reconfigured, so we'd have to build a set based on the student's shaky memories, and there's no budget for that.
Never let physics get in the way of a good story.
Perhaps explaining String Theory (or Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or QCD, or etc..) in any amount of time is pointless. It takes longer to explain relativity and quantum mechanics; so explaining any of the theories which try to tie them together will be out of context and not many people learn things when out of context, even if they understand.
:)
My approach would be to explain (as Brian Greene does in T.E.U.) what the fundamental problems are with current theories: primarily is the glaring difference between gravity and the 'other' fundamental force -- the strong/weak-nuclear-electromagnetic force; however you want to call it, electroweak etc... but the other fundamental forces have been united and this leaves gravity by its lonesome. (Inject public interest with the mention that Einstein was trying to do unite gravity and electromagnetism before he died, if you so wish.)
That covers motivation uno and I think most of the public would be able to understand what gravity and EM are; you may be able to get away with saying the strong nuclear force is 'what holds atoms together', but I don't think you would have any way of explaining the weak nuclear force as it isn't relevant to Joe Public's day-to-day activities.
Then you would need to teach them the teeniest bit of science: namely, the point-particle approach. If you could get them to understand this then you may be able to impart that as you get smaller and smaller, the point particle is still infinitely small, and that there is a very clear problem with anything being infinitely small when you get to as small as you can get. String theory thus, instead of treating everything as infinitely minute 'points' _with no dimensions_ (a previously pointed out LIMIT - not flaw - to current models/approximations), takes the next obvious step and says okay, so instead of no dimensions we will have one dimension: a 'string'. Then you can cut to the XKCD comic, which someone linked to above
This is of course a heuristic explanation for the general public and in no way to be used as actual science, which most will not be able to understand due to missing four + years of solidly studying physics. It would be seemingly too hard to explain the Gamma function, super-symmetry, and crazy amounts of dimensions, all of which are academic. Note, I didn't need to explain quantum mechanics or relativity in the two minutes.
I don't want to start any flame wars; my belief is that there are _too many_ fundamental gaps in knowledge required to understand string theory, even on a qualitative level, for an average person. I argue that to teach one of these gaps would take more than the two minutes allowed.
MOND predicts Galactic Rotation curves very well. That is all there is to it. It is a law not unlike Kepler's laws and must be explained by any gravitational theory, just like Newtonian theory did for Kepler's Laws. It doesn't work very well on larger than galactic scales and the real underlying theory may behave differently at larger scales. There are known problems at Cluster scales.
String theory on the other hand is just a mathematical framework which tries to build reality from a single basic structure 'string'. The Mathematics requires many dimensions (or variables) to become consistent. The real problem with the theory is that there have been no significant successes in relating its results to reality. Some of its predictions like Super Symmetry which looked very appealing have been proved to be false. Recently it has been determined that there are infinite number of string theories, some of which can be used to model bits of reality, but never all by the same theory. This is a big problem. Now String Theorists say that all string theories are part of a superset which they call M-Theory. The real funny thing about M-theory is that nobody knows what it is. And even more interesting is that nobody is working on it. It is expected to reveal itself at some time in the future when the time is right. So String theory is now in a state of working on other problems while waiting for the revelation.
On a positive side String Theory has given some very powerful mathematical tools to physicists for probing the Unified Gravity problem. LQG has benefited a lot from these tools. I wish that String Theory was termed as a mathematical theory instead of a physical one.
Seriously!
It must be the truth, why else would he say "seriously". I mean it's not a jest, so much is certain!
ID is ridiculos and I'm soooo tired of seeing it dragged into every single discussion about any science.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
We're having enough trouble convincing the public that when we say "evolution is a theory," we really mean "evolution is a set of statements that have each been experimentally verified multiple times." Let's not make it easier for ID nuts to confuse the public about what scientific theories are. A theory must be something that has overwhelming empirical support. Under this definition, string "theory" isn't a theory--it's a set of hypotheses.
Sounds like a job for Yahtzee (see Zero Punctuation reviews on The Escapist
"after you do the math it works out that if you don't have supersymmetry you need precisely 26 dimensions to fit what we observe, with supersymmetry you only need 10 or 11, the 11th unique to M-theory seems to explain phenomenae predicted by the 5 major string theories common a few years ago."
The only problem being that SuperSymmetry is not observed in reality. But still nobody talks that 10/11 dimensions are actually not allowed and string theory will need 26 dimensions.
Why is nobody working on finding M-Theory? Seems like some grants problem.
"except that we have observed objects in the universe that seem to have wrenched dark matter out into the open, free of most of the visible matter."
Except that MOND predicts Rotation Curves in Galaxies pretty well. Why should Dark Matter try to align itself the way MOND predicts? Isn't it a very big and problematic fine tuning problem.
Ofcourse there maybe dark matter at the Cluster level. I am not against dark matter. I am just against its having no degrees of freedom, and being Cold. Any Cold matter affected by gravity must clump. And Clumps must be seen more easily, near our galaxy.
"space is in fact expanding, not only that but the expansion is accellerating over time"
That is a fact, and nothing not even Standard theory explains why. That was the GPs contention.
"we have a few years or less before we can start really testing some of the predictions of quantum gravity and string theory in general"
Not in General, rather in particular. Quantum Gravity is the general thing. I don't know if we have any predictions for quantum gravity yet. I had thought that we were not even at that stage. At least LQG people don't claim that they can predict anything. For predicting anything you must first explain somethings that are happening around us. SuperSymmetry has already failed as it doesn't exist for the particles that are observed. No amount of it's working on unobserved particles will help it. It should have worked for all particles to have been valid.
What a the strings made of? What causes the strings to vibrate? What determines the frequency at which they vibrate? Given notions like that of entropy and chaos theory, what accounts for the order? (ie. the strings ultimately seem to work in harmony, typically creating stable atoms. what causes this harmony?)
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
For the record, this contest was done by Discover Magazine, which is NOT the same thing as Discovery Channel. One additional note on the DiscoverMagazine.com website that could be of interest to Slashdot readers is that it was built on an open source content management system - Plone.
Honestly, from my perspective, any belief in god seems completely irrational, if not just a little bit nutty (schizophrenic, at the least). I really don't see how you it's possible to separate out the nutjobs from any given religious crowd. Unless, by nutjobs, you mean the people who have completely different, unfounded, irrational belief systems than the one you grew up in.
The precocious kids claim String is only a theory until it is proven. It can't BE a theory until it is proven. Let's not fall into the trap set by the anti-science arch-conservative politicos slandering the term "theory" as anything less than a provable, repeatable, tested, vetted, and accepted model. String is a theory BECAUSE it was proven with math. That we have not developed the technology to test the equations in the natural space does not devalue what the math says.
One string to rule them all, One string to find them, One string to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
But another retirement is that the theory be testable/falsifiable and that it make predictions. The problem with string theory to this point is that they are predicting that it has so-and-so many dimensions (different depending on the flavor you choose), but none of the values for the dimensions are supplied. You have to fill-in-the-blanks for the dimensional values (if they are limited in scale, or infinity if they are not) in order to start to use the theory anywhere but on a white-board, and so far no-one has figured out values that seem to make sense. And since you have x numbers of degrees of freedom, you can pretty much find one of these theories that models any particular set of data. If the model chances, then you change your numbers.
Something may come out of string theory, but for the moment it is something that should stay on the whiteboard, and not be bandied about as a real theory.
If you like mixing your music and science, check out The Guild of Scientific Troubadours: music where science is the muse.
I come here for the love
In science a theory is a falsifiable claim. Hawking put it pretty well in that a theory "must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." So until the string concept can make testable statements, or future predictions, or however you want to talk about it, it's not a theory.
By that argument, wouldn't Evolution disqualify as a scientific theory ? After all there is nothing that the theory of Evolution can predict vis-a-vis biology nor even the future of a species. Not that I disagree with Hawkings statement, but it would seem that predictability is not always the heart of a scientific theory - scientific usually refers to the method of predicting, not the result predicted.
String theory could thus be 'scientific theory' that explains (through scientific methods) a certain observable order - it's lack of predicting something doesn't necessarily imply that it is unscientific. Especially since we treat the theory of Evolution as scientific when it also has failed to produce anything resembling a prediction of observable phenomena.
Though one could argue that Evolution is not a scientific theory on the basis that it is also a non falsifiable claim as it is non-predictive, more of a set of constructs and fundamental ideas (axioms) like string theory rather than a descriptive representation of reality.
i can do it in two minutes ... but we're going to need a really fast spaceship. and maybe a wormhole.
My remark was not regarding String-Theory. I answered to the claim that current cosmological theories are based on faith. Current cosmological theories are not based on String Theory.
Creationists want everything to start and stop with the idea of god, which isn't even a hypothesis (it's totally untestable!). How a creationist can be happy with such a non-answer as 'god' is astounding to me, personally. The concept of god answers no questions, and encourages us to stop looking for answers.
Your claims to personal omniscience aside (how do you know X "answers no questions", where X is anything whatsoever?), it would be nice if you qualified your statement to correspond to reality--that is, that it is at most (presumably you know the future of the whole scope of science, as part of your omniscience), "untestable" by the terms of -your methodological preference-.
I have tested it, and verified it for myself by the methods provided as relevant. Perhaps, God is not that interested in your perception that He must be discoverable by -your- preferred means.
Really, you want no means by which that could happen, anyway.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Someone with his bio has studied GR, and no doubt he did apply GR as part of his research. I think you make the basic error of equating theory (GR in this case) with truth. And hence any criticism of GR as being somehow suspect. Any theory, including GR, must withstand experimental tests You may be surprised to learn that there is actually quite a bit of experimental evidence that is in conflict with relativity, even down to basic light-speed invariance measurements. For an example, take a look at what Michelson and Moreley actually reported. You'll find that they found a small but experimentally very significant anisotropy.
Anyhow, cosmological observations also run into conflict with relativity. That's why the whole field of cosmology is so controversial: cosmology as such is not that relevant, but physics certainly is.
Lots of scientists have been working on the theory for 30 years, as you say. It might be useful to explain to the scientifically inclined nonexperts just what all those eggheads are doing. The duck video gives a clear and intriguing introduction to the theory. It might be the trigger to get some young student to realize how much there is still to be discovered about physics, and maybe encourage him/her to become a scientist.
Visualizing All 10 Dimensions
And yes, you will have to click through my personal blog to get to it. Nyah nyah. But it's also quite worth it, and is by far the biggest outgoing link from my blog, with 10,000+ people viewing the site simply because *I* talked about it.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I hate to break it to you, and I know this is hard for people to get their heads around, but you don't prove most of the things you believe in your life, and I mean /you/ as a person.
/believe/ most everything you /believe/ on faith at some level. Faith in your own senses, in others' senses, that others' minds work similarly to yours, that scientists and peer review work, etc.
Proofs are hard. You
A lot of this faith has testing involved, some of it does not, as there's too much pre-conceived thought to even document your lifetime assumptions much less prove them.
This is the area of philosophy and meta-physics of course, but ignoring it is to ignore the nature of reality at some level -- if you're not aware of how and why you think what you think, you've got no leg to stand on when you say science is based on proofs and faith in an omnipotent god is stupid or silly.
That is to say, most persons of faith believe they do have sufficient evidence or proof in their own lives and experiences to support their beliefs, whereas you believe the same about what you believe. Accepting each others' assumptions, proofs, experiences and beliefs is where the problem often actually lies.
I'm not saying you have to agree with anyone here, just do a little introspection rather than hand-wavingly writing off others' thought systems.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
These videos don't really help me much. They say that different particles are defined by their strings (or the frequency of said strings, or something like that), then go on to mention some interesting implications like extra dimensions. The thing I'm interested in in the first place is WHY the strings define the particles and WHY it implies extra dimensions. Granted, that's way too much, I'm sure, to answer in a two-minute video, but that WAS the goal of the contest. In other words, I think everyone lost.
Property is theft.
But why don't use use larger dimensions so you'd only need 10?
Ours goes up to 11 !
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Honestly, its reads better than anything I've seen Michio Kaku write about string theory.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHI-foSNccA
These are the same people that cannot understand why Bush won over Gore, even though more people voted for Gore. The popular vote is not the same of the officiated vote.
Click here or here.
http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash.php
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
YOU are annoying and bland, karma-whore (I'm a link-whore, not a karma-whore). :)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
"A idea which cannot be tested in any known scientific manner at the moment "
Einsteins theories couldn't be tested 'at the moment' either.
That fact in no was discredits the theory.
In fact a predictions from string theory has come true. Yes it's only 1 data point.
Test for string theory have be proposed, but those kinds of tests take a lot of time to set up. Many years.
As for Peter Woit:
"First, string theory predicts that the world has 10 space-time dimensions, in serious disagreement with all the evidence of one's senses. "
Seriously, one of his complaints is that he can not physically see other dimensions, or that we would, as a species, have some need to sense them. I can't see infra red, but it exists.
AS for quoting Wolfgang pauli, that's just bad form in that context.
There are many well established, very smart people who claimed Einstein was wrong. There have been some changes, and many indications about string theory since 1958, so maybe he would have a different view?
I use Einstein as an example to help people understand that none of these naysayers have anything that disproves it, they just don't want to believe it. Hopefully some tests will be done in the next few years that will either:
A) Show some predictions in a repeatable test or
B) The prediction will fail, and we can close the book.
In the mean time, both sides of this discussion need to watch out for the 'Argument from authority ' logical fallacy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
600 people visit every day to read something, and I have sent 10,000+ links to various sites that would not have gotten them otherwise. Oh, and I've had reporters contact me to incorporate some of my material in legitimate newspapers. I'm getting 50,000 views every 2 months now. So, others disagree with your assessment!
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The truth of a proposal is not necessarily proportionate to the complexity of the math. In fact, if anything, the opposite is more true. String theory is a theoretical framework developed to defend the beauty of the concept of the mathematical interconnectedness of the physical world. The intelligent design theory is a theoretical framework developed to defend the beauty of the concept of the conscious design and intentional interconnection of the physical world.
The majority of useful work that is done in science is indeed dispassionate and methodical. However all of the great theoretical discoveries have been possible only because the human mind is capable of recognizing beauty in things that are true.
According to the big bang theory, universe started from a singularity, that is zero radius. According to current black hole theory, even objects with huge initial radius and tiny mass compared to the whole universe collapse into black holes with no possibility of releasing the stuff inside again in a big bang. It is generally accepted that heavier objects have a larger Schwarzschild radius. Any questions?
Since what you just said takes less than two minutes to digest, I choose not to learn it. :P
Einsteins theories couldn't be tested 'at the moment' either.
That fact in no was discredits the theory.
You are ill-informed. If that had indeed ever been the case, that would indeed have completely discredited the theory. As it happens, he proposed several tests for general relativity, and confirmation started coming in 1919 (summary). No hypothesis that comes without proposed ways of testing it should ever be taken seriously (or at best, a thought-experiment).
Apparently, the key to the universe is the quack.
That's just silly. You're trying to tell us that just because we can't SEE atoms, that we should accept at face value that everything's made of popcorn flavored jelly beans. It just doesn't follow. Not all assumptions are equal!
Practically the whole of human progress has involved finding assumptions and testing them. Sure, I haven't personally tested whether individual electrons flow through wire when I flip a switch, but I can validate that all those theories work with a multimeter, some batteries, and a lightbulb. Scientific knowledge is built layer upon layer of discovery and verification. It works!
Sure, I have to exercise belief when I read about how paleontologists have discovered the sequence of creatures leading from a land mammal to modern whales, but I've been to fossil dig sites, I have touched ancient bones, and if I wanted to I could go to those paleontologists and have them show me all the evidence. It's been verified in several different ways by many other people too.
On the other hand, some guy can tell me his bizarre interpretation of a book written by our educational inferiors thousand of years ago that contains passages that blatantly contradict itself and reality. And you're going to tell me that's an equally respectable position?
Let's get straight to the point...
Popcorn jelly beans taste terrible.
Insulting me is a sure-fire way to recruit me to your way of thinking.
Don't take it personally. From my viewpoint, I'm addressing an argument, which, I'm pretty-much obliged to do. And some arguments really can't be validly addressed in any kind of compromising or finessed way--they have to be refuted outright or let stand.
;)
If you want, blame my previous years as an Objectivist--or if you really want to consider it on a personal level, you should probably forward it to Dawkins.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
The word "explain" normally means that at the end of the explaination the reader should understand it. Sorry, but what you've written is totally unintelliglible to any lay person
That's Feynman, not Einstein ... the universality of the laws of nature, the relationship of things, without an understanding of mathematics. There is no other way to do it.
<headfullofphysics author="Richard Feynman">
One cannot understand
</headfullof physics>
Be heard || Be herd
This is not a valid excuse for doing that "semantic twisting". That was my point in the first place... somebody is twisting the definition in order to push their pet hypothesis. That is not sufficient reason. It is nothing but propaganda.
This is not a popular media exercise. It does not matter whether "string hypothesis" has the same punch. This is a scientific principle, not a goddamned popularity contest. That was my whole point. It is not appropriate to try to redefine science just to support someone's favorite idea... most especially when we have no data that actually supports that idea over others.
The hypotheses of which I speak are hypotheses. The theories of which I speak are theories. Neither size or scope have anything to do with the issue, and they do not overlap... they are different things!
Quote: "A theory is a big old (mathematical, preferably) framework for explaining how something works."
False. An attempt at explanation is a hypothesis. A theory must predict.
As you mention, string speculation has come up with some ideas that may be testable. If so, more power to it. But it must be remembered that in order for the experiments to actually support the string idea, the results of those tests must not only be accurately predicted, but also predicted better than other competing ideas. Some people seem to have lost sight of the latter point.
This is not true. Big Bang theory starts a fraction of a second *after* the supposed beginning of the universe, when classical mechanics in form of Einstein equations are valid (that's why I asked for what you mean with "long time" - whether it extends to this moment). The standard theory makes no assumption about what happens at the beginning - exactly because the known limitations. What scientists are quite sure about is, that if they want to go nearer to the beginning, they have to incorporate quantum effects. And this changes the whole thing - including the fixed limitations of the Schwarzschild radius. An accepted try in this direction is the theory of the inflationary universe. But this theory as well goes nearer to the origin - but not fully. It even says, that it makes no sense to go to the very beginning, because the inflationary mechanism will wipe out all traces of information from the beginning, making it impossible to deduce anything.
You make the mistake to make a naive extrapolation - and then blame the theory for it.
MOND is wrong - or at least dark matter does exist, so if it's correct, then it still needs to account for dark matter. See here.
Your posts would be much easier to read if you started your sentences with capitals.
"... and encourages us to stop looking for answers." That, sadly, is why it's not astounding.
I was about to respond eloquently to everything you wrote but realized it can be summed up thus: I said nothing of the sort.
Please re-read my post without reading into it every piece of stupid tripe you've heard from creationists over the years. I was talking about worldview and metaphysics and philosophy -- areas that have been left at the roadside in scientific circles of late.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Hmm, meant to reply to this after work but forgot about it.
I'll (try to) be brief.
First off, I'm not accusing you of saying anything specific about creationism, I'm sorry if it came off that way and prevented you from responding with something insightful. It was merely analogy. Bsmoore01 bashed on some flaky ideology a bit, naming creationism as an example. Your reply, while quite possibly being more about blanket dismissal rather than defending particular beliefs (feel free to enlighten me), appears to be saying that no idea can be criticized because they all need some belief. That extrapolates to science being equivalent to demented insanity like creationism. Please clarify your meaning explicitly, because the manner of your post in context seems to support that. I think we can both understand that it's easy to make assumptions, but hard to make them correctly.
Going a little off that topic now, I really honestly would like to hear what you think metaphysics and philosophy can contribute to science. My idea on the matter is that philosophy has taught us a great many lessons, among them how fallible a persons perception is*, and from logic we've learned how, if not to ensure truth, to at least reinforce progress toward truth. The result is the basis of science, a guiding principle that, as bsmoore would probably agree, is the only defense against the known problem of necessary belief you talked about in your first post. The hard sciences then become the grown up metaphysics, and philosophy is the assumed backdrop to any enlightened, rational reasoning. I can understand that those versed in scientific thought and method might have become fairly arrogant, but it's not yet clear that it's unwarranted - the phenomenal amount of technological progress we've made is a pretty good indication they're on the right track.
* -- this is why the 'evidence' of someone's life experience isn't considered valid - it can't be repeated or tested, and psychology has conclusively shown time and again that any such evidence is not only untrustworthy, but such an artifact of the human psyche that it is expected - and this, again can be used to turn your words against you - to blithely state that such evidence should be accepted is to ignore the nature of reality at a very explicit and well defined level.
I'm really not trying to start a flame war. While I don't think I've understood your entire point clearly, I do believe that the arguments you've made don't fully support the case you're trying to make. If I am merely misunderstanding them, I'd appreciate the opportunity to see them clarified.
Cheers,
Michael H.
And I suck at being brief.
I'll bite.
"I have tested it, and verified it for myself by the methods provided as relevant."
What are the methods, from whence are they provisioned, and by what criteria are they relevant?
Well it was brief compared to some good metaphysics papers I've read :-)
Lets say that I was trying to explain how metaphysics and philosophy contribute to how you see the world and help explain how you think and how you perceive reality perhaps also what is in fact real.
Science describes a way of studying the subset of what is real that can in fact be studied repeatedly of course. There is the question of things we describe as science that do not in fact use the scientific method, and the fringe sciences that deal with things most scientists dismiss out of hand. Nonetheless, anything studied scientifically can be thought to be science.
I've done quite a bit of thinking compared to some, and quite a bit less than others about what exactly we know about the world around us as individuals rather than as a collective. What do I know to be right an true and verifiable, and what do I have to take on faith (in science or otherwise) simply because I have better things to do with my mind than to ponder everything I think in any real depth (much as that may not appear to be the case after reading the above).
The result of the above is that as an individual I have no ability in 99% of cases to dismiss any thought of any other person as unproved silliness without myself indulging in the same as I have no personal provable expertise in whatever I'm dismissing. I choose to accept or dismiss it because of what I believe and how I think about things in general (read up on "worldviews"), not necessarily what I actually, provably know.
Just my $0.02 that could go on for hours and hours, and may in fact if I ever bother writing it up in more depth.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Science does not require repetition. Repetition is a tool that is useful where it applies but it's not part of the scientific method. The actual criteria is that a prediction be made that can be tested and to perform those tests when possible.
I can understand your argument as a statement of personal views and conduct, but it is somewhat ironic that your stance would be that you can't dismiss other's thoughts, yet you entered into this conversation dismissing the argument of someone who doesn't share your view.
I, also, would disagree a great deal. I feel that no idea should ever be considered unquestionable. If I believe a fact, everyone is free to challenge it. And their rebuttals are likewise challengeable. Yes, this would become cumbersome after a point, but we're good at heuristics. The problem I see, very different from the one you mentioned of lack of acceptance of belief, is that too many people refuse to accept critique.