|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What are M-Theory and String theory etc. and are they valid scientific theories? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Neutralmind Member (Idle past 6144 days) Posts: 183 From: Finland Joined: |
This is a response to Message 38 by Cavediver in the thread Hawking's Information Paradox solution and Message 40 by Cavediver in the same thread.
So, what in fact are the M-theory, String theory and the like? And are they valid science? Do they have any predictable outcomes we should expect? Is there any way of falsifying them at the moment? This thread is for the purpose of educating me and others about what String theory and the likes are about, the evidence for them and if they are considered as science at the moment. If you pull up with some fancy math don't expect me to understand them in any way though
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3663 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I guess I asked for this, but you could have timed this better... I'm off on holiday in 2 days Oh well, if it's a whole thread, we may as well take our time and do it right
Some background: We like things simple, and it appears that the Universe does too. How anyone at the end of the 19C thought we could be coming to an end of physics, I just don't know. What kind of decent universe is going to be made up of around fifty to one hundred basic buliding blocks (atoms) plus some mysterious ultra-light electron thing? Splitting the atom into protons, neutons and electrons was the simplification we were looking for - rather than over one hundred different atoms, we have just three particles. Unfortunately, two of these particles (neutron and proton) look so similar that they are obviously slight variations of the same thing - a hint of some deeper structure. Now we understand that the neutron and proton are actually each a package of three quarks - which is ok, becasue there are only two flavours of quark: up and down. So we still just have three particles: up, down and electron. Nice BUT - we now discover that there are actually six flavours of quark in total, two extra pairs which are just like heavier copies of the up and down. Even worse, there are also two heavier versions of the electron: the muon and tauon - and associated with each electron type there is a neutrino! So we are now up to twelve different particles, many of which are extremely similar and so point to a deeper structure. It's worse than this as we also have all of the force particles: the photon, W+/-, Z0, and eight types of gluon! Finally, we have gravitation (and the graviton) to somehow squeeze into all of this. This is the current state of known physics - a complete mess!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Neutralmind Member (Idle past 6144 days) Posts: 183 From: Finland Joined: |
cavediver
I guess most of us are on holiday now. Don't ruin your holiday time for answering here though
I guess I asked for this, but you could have timed this better... I'm off on holiday in 2 days Oh well, if it's a whole thread, we may as well take our time and do it right
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
It's not complicated really...
In order to rescue the 'chance hypothesis' and escape the moral implications of an orderly creator, 'scientists' (prophets) and their 'followers' (sheep), have offered a metaphysical theology of their own. The only difference is that the word 'Theos' (meaning God) which comes from the Greek, is called 'theory' in science, instead of 'theology' in traditional and openly metaphysical religious tradition. So either way you have religion, but only one school admits to that reality. They are not verifiable theories, so what is their purpose in the 'scientific sense' other than what I have proposed? Happy Easter!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Rob writes:
Ok, for now I'll take your word for it. They are not verifiable theories, so what is their purpose in the 'scientific sense' other than what I have proposed? Perhaps you could enlighten us what these theories are and how they fit in with current observations? Perhaps you could also tell us how they can be falsified? Your post comes out very strong, so I must assume that you are an expert on these theories. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3663 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Don't ruin your holiday time for answering here though Don't worry, I wasn't planning to I shall be playing with sharks, mantas and turtles for the week But don't worry, it seems like Rob is an expert - probably knows more than me - and he'll keep you informed until I can get back
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5540 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
In order to rescue the 'chance hypothesis' and escape the moral implications of an orderly creator, 'scientists' (prophets) and their 'followers' (sheep), have offered a metaphysical theology of their own. This thread is not about morality. It is OFF TOPIC here. but there are are threads currenly open where it would on topic. Why don`t you post there instad??? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Fallacycop:
This thread is not about morality. Excellent! Then I won't have to worry about others imposing their subjective morality onto me. I can speak freely for a change... You realize don't you, that you have answered Tazmanian Devil's question to me above? The problem with these theories is that they undermine the moral reality that you affirm with your moralizing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Because he usually drags those off-topic, too. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Rob, if you try to drag this off topic with things that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic (and that should have been obvious to you right off) then you will quickly earn suspensions.
The science in this area is freakin' tricky and we don't need someone who is so arrogant to think he knows anything about it but, in fact, knows nothing at all to be mixing things up. No more warnings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
The only difference is that the word 'Theos' (meaning God) which comes from the Greek, is called 'theory' in science, instead of 'theology' in traditional and openly metaphysical religious tradition. wrong. try looking up the real etymologies of the two words instead of coming up with your own invalid ideas (just because they both have "theo" does not mean they share a root). Here's the etymology for "theory", from the Online Etymology Dictionary (quoted from Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com:
1592, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1613. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1638. The verb theorize is recorded from 1638. here's "theology"
1362, from O.Fr. theologie "philosophical treatment of Christian doctrine" (14c.), from L. theologia, from Gk. theologia "an account of the gods," from theologos "one discoursing on the gods," from theos "god" (see Thea) + -logos "treating of." The two words do not have the same etymology. Too bad you were attacking a straw man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Also NOT on topic for this thread Kuresu!
Do NOT continue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Removed out of respect for our admin...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Rob writes:
Can you explain to me how M-theory or string theory undermine morality? The problem with these theories is that they undermine the moral reality that you affirm with your moralizing.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024