| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andres64" |
| Date: |
31 May 2007 08:12:17 AM |
| Object: |
OT: String/M theories |
Ok, I've seen "The Elegant Universe" with Brian Green a couple times
and have a few questions. Please forgive my ignorance on the
subject. Has anyone else seen it?
I guess a general thought I have is that while string/M theories may
explain somethings, they don't do it very convincingly. For example,
their explanation that we live on membrane that's like a slice of
bread and that there are other universes (slices). They theorized
that the big bang was caused by two universes colliding. But it still
doesn't seem to explain where the universes came from. So what does
it really accomplish? It seems like it just creates another layer and
says that this is the beginning without any way to verify/test it.
Or am I looking at it the wrong way? Is M theory simply trying to
create a unified theory?
.
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: String/M theories |
31 May 2007 11:29:14 AM |
|
|
Andres64 <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Ok, I've seen "The Elegant Universe" with Brian Green a couple times
and have a few questions. Please forgive my ignorance on the
subject. Has anyone else seen it?
I guess a general thought I have is that while string/M theories may
explain somethings, they don't do it very convincingly. For example,
their explanation that we live on membrane that's like a slice of
bread and that there are other universes (slices). They theorized
that the big bang was caused by two universes colliding. But it still
doesn't seem to explain where the universes came from. So what
does it really accomplish? It seems like it just creates another layer
and says that this is the beginning without any way to verify/test it.
Or am I looking at it the wrong way? Is M theory simply trying to
create a unified theory?
I've researched it a bit, and consider it just another cosmological
model or theory which can't really be tested, so I don't really care
if it's true or not. It's just another idea to consider, to me.
If there comes a time when it can actually be tested and verified
by independent scientists, I'll pay more attention to it, but until
then, I don't consider it any more important than any of the other
untestable cosmological theories or ideas out there, including
"God did it."
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: String/M theories |
31 May 2007 05:48:42 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 12:29 pm, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Ok, I've seen "The Elegant Universe" with Brian Green a couple times
and have a few questions. Please forgive my ignorance on the
subject. Has anyone else seen it?
I guess a general thought I have is that while string/M theories may
explain somethings, they don't do it very convincingly. For example,
their explanation that we live on membrane that's like a slice of
bread and that there are other universes (slices). They theorized
that the big bang was caused by two universes colliding. But it still
doesn't seem to explain where the universes came from. So what
does it really accomplish? It seems like it just creates another layer
and says that this is the beginning without any way to verify/test it.
Or am I looking at it the wrong way? Is M theory simply trying to
create a unified theory?
I've researched it a bit, and consider it just another cosmological
model or theory which can't really be tested, so I don't really care
if it's true or not. It's just another idea to consider, to me.
If there comes a time when it can actually be tested and verified
by independent scientists, I'll pay more attention to it, but until
then, I don't consider it any more important than any of the other
untestable cosmological theories or ideas out there, including
"God did it."
Thank you. That's exactly how I felt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tokay Pino Gris" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: String/M theories |
31 May 2007 10:19:24 AM |
|
|
Andres64 wrote:
Ok, I've seen "The Elegant Universe" with Brian Green a couple times
and have a few questions. Please forgive my ignorance on the
subject. Has anyone else seen it?
I guess a general thought I have is that while string/M theories may
explain somethings, they don't do it very convincingly. For example,
their explanation that we live on membrane that's like a slice of
bread and that there are other universes (slices). They theorized
that the big bang was caused by two universes colliding. But it still
doesn't seem to explain where the universes came from. So what does
it really accomplish? It seems like it just creates another layer and
says that this is the beginning without any way to verify/test it.
Or am I looking at it the wrong way? Is M theory simply trying to
create a unified theory?
Yes. On both counts.
Firstly, the question where it came from is still open (just a step
further away). And secondly, that is exactly (If I understand it
correctly) what M-theory is trying to do.
Tokay
--
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in
rats.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: String/M theories |
31 May 2007 12:47:17 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 8:12 am, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
Ok, I've seen "The Elegant Universe" with Brian Green a couple times
and have a few questions. Please forgive my ignorance on the
subject. Has anyone else seen it?
I guess a general thought I have is that while string/M theories may
explain somethings, they don't do it very convincingly. For example,
their explanation that we live on membrane that's like a slice of
bread and that there are other universes (slices). They theorized
that the big bang was caused by two universes colliding. But it still
doesn't seem to explain where the universes came from. So what does
it really accomplish? It seems like it just creates another layer and
says that this is the beginning without any way to verify/test it.
Or am I looking at it the wrong way? Is M theory simply trying to
create a unified theory?
They are just trying to create a unified theory, but there is, so far,
no evidence for it. The main argument for it at this point is that the
mathematics is so elegant that, by Fullerian logic, it should
therefore be true. If my understanding of the situation is not dated
(or simply wrong), the main work in M Theory is manipulating the math
to find testable hypotheses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: String/M theories |
31 May 2007 05:52:44 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 1:47 pm, Chris Johnson <effig...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 31, 8:12 am, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
Ok, I've seen "The Elegant Universe" with Brian Green a couple times
and have a few questions. Please forgive my ignorance on the
subject. Has anyone else seen it?
I guess a general thought I have is that while string/M theories may
explain somethings, they don't do it very convincingly. For example,
their explanation that we live on membrane that's like a slice of
bread and that there are other universes (slices). They theorized
that the big bang was caused by two universes colliding. But it still
doesn't seem to explain where the universes came from. So what does
it really accomplish? It seems like it just creates another layer and
says that this is the beginning without any way to verify/test it.
Or am I looking at it the wrong way? Is M theory simply trying to
create a unified theory?
They are just trying to create a unified theory, but there is, so far,
no evidence for it. The main argument for it at this point is that the
mathematics is so elegant that, by Fullerian logic, it should
therefore be true. If my understanding of the situation is not dated
(or simply wrong), the main work in M Theory is manipulating the math
to find testable hypotheses.
OK, that's what I thought. So M theory is saying that since the math
is right, the theory must be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: String/M theories |
31 May 2007 07:53:14 PM |
|
|
On 31 May 2007 15:52:44 -0700, Andres64 <andresc64@excite.com> wrote:
OK, that's what I thought. So M theory is saying that since the math
is right, the theory must be?
Not that the math is "right", that it's elegant. 1 + 1 = 2 is right.
A simple proof of Fermat's last theorem would be elegant.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: String/M theories |
31 May 2007 05:59:32 PM |
|
|
On 31 May 2007 15:52:44 -0700, in alt.atheism , Andres64
<andresc64@excite.com> in
<1180651964.277099.302700@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On May 31, 1:47 pm, Chris Johnson <effig...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 31, 8:12 am, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
Ok, I've seen "The Elegant Universe" with Brian Green a couple times
and have a few questions. Please forgive my ignorance on the
subject. Has anyone else seen it?
I guess a general thought I have is that while string/M theories may
explain somethings, they don't do it very convincingly. For example,
their explanation that we live on membrane that's like a slice of
bread and that there are other universes (slices). They theorized
that the big bang was caused by two universes colliding. But it still
doesn't seem to explain where the universes came from. So what does
it really accomplish? It seems like it just creates another layer and
says that this is the beginning without any way to verify/test it.
Or am I looking at it the wrong way? Is M theory simply trying to
create a unified theory?
They are just trying to create a unified theory, but there is, so far,
no evidence for it. The main argument for it at this point is that the
mathematics is so elegant that, by Fullerian logic, it should
therefore be true. If my understanding of the situation is not dated
(or simply wrong), the main work in M Theory is manipulating the math
to find testable hypotheses.
OK, that's what I thought. So M theory is saying that since the math
is right, the theory must be?
Nope. First, you have to understand that String/M theory is not
current best science, it is, according to some, a reasonable area to
explore with the hope it will be the best. There is hope/expectation
that we will eventually be able to determine if some String/M theory
is correct. At the moment the math "works", but the theories really
don't tell us much.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: String/M theories |
31 May 2007 09:12:28 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 5:52 pm, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
On May 31, 1:47 pm, Chris Johnson <effig...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 31, 8:12 am, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
Ok, I've seen "The Elegant Universe" with Brian Green a couple times
and have a few questions. Please forgive my ignorance on the
subject. Has anyone else seen it?
I guess a general thought I have is that while string/M theories may
explain somethings, they don't do it very convincingly. For example,
their explanation that we live on membrane that's like a slice of
bread and that there are other universes (slices). They theorized
that the big bang was caused by two universes colliding. But it still
doesn't seem to explain where the universes came from. So what does
it really accomplish? It seems like it just creates another layer and
says that this is the beginning without any way to verify/test it.
Or am I looking at it the wrong way? Is M theory simply trying to
create a unified theory?
They are just trying to create a unified theory, but there is, so far,
no evidence for it. The main argument for it at this point is that the
mathematics is so elegant that, by Fullerian logic, it should
therefore be true. If my understanding of the situation is not dated
(or simply wrong), the main work in M Theory is manipulating the math
to find testable hypotheses.
OK, that's what I thought. So M theory is saying that since the math
is right, the theory must be?
Not really. One way to think of it is that you have some mathematical
statements, which can be manipulated to derive existing laws of
physics. (Any new theory must account for old facts.) Some of the
implications of the math are the existence of strings and branes and
other such things. But this doesn't necessarily tell us anything about
reality. By deriving other, testable hypotheses, M theorists hope to
support the whole with new, accurate predictions.
The math is necessarily consistent -- or rather, I assume they've
checked that it is, as physicists would be wasting a great deal of
time otherwise -- but that doesn't say anything about reality. It is
the elegance, the simplicity of the math that leads physicists to hope
that M theory is right. But there is always an understanding that it
may fail to pan out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
