| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2006 05:47:22 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Broken Strings |
OH, you know the fundies are going to have a field day with this one:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1890340,00.html
"For decades, physicists have been sure they could explain the universe
in a handful of complex equations: now many are starting to fear they
have been led down a cul-de-sac"
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Broken Strings |
08 Oct 2006 11:39:58 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:k6qnv3-f4t2.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
OH, you know the fundies are going to have a field day with this one:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1890340,00.html
"For decades, physicists have been sure they could explain the universe
in a handful of complex equations: now many are starting to fear they
have been led down a cul-de-sac"
When science cannot explain the answer to a question, the scientific answer
is, "I don't know."
When science cannot explain the answer to a question, the religious answer
is, "gawdidit."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Broken Strings |
11 Oct 2006 02:59:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 10:47:22 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in alt.atheism
OH, you know the fundies are going to have a field day with this one:
All fundies can do is pass gas. It may be a case of expecting 16th
century scientists to design the Apollo Command Module.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1890340,00.html
"For decades, physicists have been sure they could explain the universe
in a handful of complex equations: now many are starting to fear they
have been led down a cul-de-sac"
String theory: Is it science's ultimate dead end?
For decades, physicists have been sure they could explain the universe
in a handful of complex equations: now many are starting to fear they
have been led down a cul-de-sac
Robin McKie, science Editor
Sunday October 8, 2006
The Observer
The most ambitious idea ever outlined by scientists has suffered a
remarkable setback. It has been dismissed as a theoretical cul-de-sac
that has wasted the academic lives of hundreds of the world's cleverest
men and women.
This startling accusation has been made by frustrated physicists,
including several Nobel prize winners, who say that string theory -
which seeks to outline the entire structure of the universe in a few
brief equations - is an intellectual dead end.
Two new books published in America question its very basis. Far from
providing mankind with the answers to the mystery of the cosmos, the
theory is bogus, they claim.
As one scientist put it: 'The uncritical promotion of string theory is
now damaging science.'
However, string theory proponents - who also include several Nobel prize
winners - have denounced the criticisms and robustly defended their
field. It has already led to many major breakthroughs in mathematics and
physics, they say.
Suddenly string theory is tying scientists in knots - although the
idea's origins are innocuous enough, and can be traced to physicists'
attempts to get out of an intellectual impasse.
Last century, they created quantum mechanics to explain how tiny things
- atoms and electrons - behave, while Einstein produced his theory of
general relativity to account for the behaviour of huge objects such as
galaxies.
Both theories work well - but they are incompatible. Quantum physics
cannot explain massive things and relativity cannot account for little
ones. By comparison, biologists have Darwin's theory of natural
selection to explain living things, big and small, from whales to
bacteria. Physicists have no unified code - a prospect that upset
Einstein so much that he spent his last 20 years hunting, fruitlessly,
for a unified theory of everything.
Then, in the Eighties, a group of scientists created string theory.
Matter is not made up of small dot-like entities such as neutrons or
quarks, they claimed, but of incredibly small threads of energy that
vibrate. A string that vibrates one way becomes an electron. Another,
vibrating differently, becomes a neutron. And another becomes one of the
carriers of the force of gravity.
'You can think of the universe as a symphony or a song - for both are
made up of notes produced by strings vibrating in particular ways,' said
Professor Michael Green of Cambridge University.
It sounds intriguing. Unfortunately, to make their equations work,
scientists had to add another six dimensions to the universe: four were
not enough, though we cannot see these extra dimensions because they are
so tightly crumpled up that they are invisible, it was argued. To the
general public, of course, all this is faintly baffling.
Nevertheless, string theory proved encouragingly effective - at a
theoretical level - to explain both the very small and the incredibly
large, and so it began to dominate the study of fundamental physics at
universities through the world. According to protagonists, it would soon
be possible to describe the cosmos in a few simple equations that could
fit on a T-shirt.
But as the years have passed, scientists failed to produced a single
practical observation to support the theory. One problem, they said, was
that the energy needed to break open matter and study the strings inside
it is so colossal that it would require machines big enough to cover the
planet.
On top of these problems, recent calculations have produced a surprising
prediction from string theory: that there may be an almost infinite
number of different universes, some of which would be like our own, and
others that would be very different.
And it is at this point that the rot set in. An unprovable theory that
talks of unseeable parallel universes and 10-dimensional space has
proved too much for some physicists. 'Quasi-theology' and 'post-modern'
have been among the most polite terms used; 'bogus' and 'nonsense' among
the less forgiving.
'Far from a wonderful technological hope for a greater tomorrow, string
theory is the tragic consequence of an obsolete belief system,' said
Stanford University's Robert Laughlin, winner of the 1998 Nobel prize
for physics.
For a theory that purports to explain the entire structure of the
universe, such a high-level attack is very serious. Nor is Laughlin
alone: for example, Peter Woit, of Columbia University, and Lee Smolin,
of the Perimeter Institute, Canada, have just published books attacking
string theory.
'Too many people have been overselling very speculative ideas,' said
Woit - author of Not Even Wrong - last week. 'String theory has produced
nothing.'
This point was backed by Smolin, whose book is called The Trouble with
Physics. Scientists have poured all their energies into a theoretical
approach that is proving sterile, he said. 'It is as if every medical
researcher in the world had decided there was only way to fight cancer
and had concentrated on this line of attack, at the expense of all other
avenues,' he said. 'Then that approach is found not to work and
scientists discover they have wasted 20 years. That's the parallel with
string theory.'
Part of the problem, say critics, is that, in the Eighties, talented
young physicists were encouraged by professors to take up string theory
because of its immense promise. Now they are middle-aged department
heads who have committed their lives to the subject and cannot see it is
bogus. It is the scientific equivalent of the emperor's new clothes.
Not surprisingly, such accusations are angrily rejected by string
theorists. A theory of everything cannot be created overnight, they
argue. It is like complaining about the sound made by an unfinished
violin. 'String theory is on the right path,' said David Gross, of the
University of California, Santa Barbara, and another Nobel prize winner.
'But this path is quite long. Further breakthroughs are required.'
Nor is it correct to argue that the theory is wrong because it makes no
provable or disprovable predictions, said Sanjaye Ramgoolam, of Queen
Mary, University of London. 'There are a number of ways that we could
prove - or disprove - string theory. For example, Europe's new Large
Hadron Collider [being built at Cern in Geneva] may well be powerful
enough to provide evidence that suggests we are on the right road.'
And as for the notion that string theorists have their heads stuck in
the sand and refuse to see the truth, this is firmly rejected by Green:
'All scientists are excited by new ideas. That is why we are scientists.
But when it comes to a unified theory, there have been no new ideas.
There is no alternative to string theory. It is the only show in town -
and the universe.'
A dinner party guide to string theory
· Matter is made up of infinitesimally small strings of vibrating
energy.
· Different vibrations produce different particles, like the quark and
the electron.
· We live in a 10-dimensional universe.
· Proponents say it is the only hope we have of producing a unified
theory of everything, the holy grail that eluded Einstein.
/end
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Broken Strings |
09 Oct 2006 06:22:23 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 10:47:22 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
OH, you know the fundies are going to have a field day with this one:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1890340,00.html
"For decades, physicists have been sure they could explain the universe
in a handful of complex equations: now many are starting to fear they
have been led down a cul-de-sac"
So? It won't be the first time a scientific theory was challenged.
That's why it's science, folks, to extract the knowledge that can be
proven, and keep looking for more while recognizing that some ideas
are in fact wrong. That's why they use theories. Acknowledging mistake
is necessary in any undertaking that is supposed to succeed. The point
is to build an organized body of knowledge that *does work, while
working on theories that may provide more verifiable knowledge, all
the time refining it so that it's a reliable base to build on.
Even finding out you're wrong is valuable piece of knowledge, and a
powerful one at that.
If you're afraid to think because you might be wrong, you will never,
ever learn anything. But you'll be a prime candidate for a scam like
religion.
SunYata ! from Earth, watching America.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Broken Strings |
08 Oct 2006 07:12:51 PM |
|
|
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
OH, you know the fundies are going to have a field day with this one:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1890340,00.html
It always sounded fishy to me....maybe there's something to string
theory, but how would we ever know?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "leo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Broken Strings |
08 Oct 2006 10:50:59 PM |
|
|
J Forbes ha escrito:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
OH, you know the fundies are going to have a field day with this one:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1890340,00.html
It always sounded fishy to me....maybe there's something to string
theory, but how would we ever know?
Jim
Religion is what sounded fishy to me, since I was 12 years old.
Science never pretended to solve all the mysteries of the Universe. A
few of the scientists are mad enough for dreaming about this, but this
was a general trend. Scientists want to solve problems, and to
understand a little bit the mysteries of Nature, that's all.
What are stupid through and through are the freaks of god.
Leopoldo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
