Nobel Laureate Physicists on Why/Where String Theory Has Been Going Wrong
Hedge Fund Physics
Wrong
Below please find some quotes from Nobel Laureate physicists, as well
as other esteemed scientists, on "Why/Where String Theory Has Been
Going Wrong."
Long story short, string theory fails as a physical theory because
there is no such thing as strings--they are not a physical reality.
The same thing can be said for the tiny, little loops of loop quantum
gravity, as well for quantum gravity itself, as the graviton is not a
physical entity. Also, the maths of string theory and lqg are not
consistent nor unified nor even agreed upon. But do not take my word
for it--heed the words of those far greater than I:
The first page of String Theory in a Nutshell states in a footnoted
sentence:
String Theory has been the leading candidate … for a theory that
consistently unifies all the fundamental forces of nature, including
gravity. It gained popularity because it provides a theory that is UV
finite.(1) . . . The footnote (1) reads: “Although there is no
rigorous proof to all orders that the theory is UV finite...” –STRING
THEORY IN A NUTSHELL
So you see, string theory is not a finite theory, but this is
generally kept to the footnotes, when mentioned at all. Many Nobel
Laureate physicists harbor reservations regarding strings:
We don’t know what we are talking about . --Nobel Laureate David Gross
on string theory
It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a five-
dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one of
those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does
not manifest itself. -Einstein to Ehrenfest (Imagine doing this for
10-30+ dimensions!)
String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses . –
Feynman, Nobel Laureate
String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick. -
Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate
Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a
“theory” rather a “model” or not even that: just a hunch. After all, a
theory should come together with instructions on how to deal with it
to identify the things one wishes to describe, in our case the
elementary particles, and one should, at least in principle, be able
to formulate the rules for calculating the properties of these
particles, and how to make new predictions for them. Imagine that I
give you a chair, while explaining that the legs are still missing,
and that the seat, back and armrest will perhaps be delivered soon;
whatever I did give you, can I still call it a chair? –‘t Hooft, Nobel
Laureate
It is tragic, but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of
them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They
just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when
one person spends 30 years, it's a waste, but when thousands waste 20
years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that
curious. -Glashow, Nobel Laureate
I don't like that they're not calculating anything. I don't like that
they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that
disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation-a fix-up to
say, “Well, it might be true.” For example, the theory requires ten
dimensions. Well, maybe there's a way of wrapping up six of the
dimensions. Yes, that's all possible mathematically, but why not
seven? . . . So the fact that it might disagree with experience is
very tenuous, it doesn't produce anything; it has to be excused most
of the time. It doesn't look right. –Nobel Lareate R.P. Feynman
But superstring physicists have not yet shown that theory really
works. They cannot demonstrate that the standard theory is a logical
outcome of string theory. They cannot even be sure that their
formalism includes a description of such things as protons and
electrons. And they have not yet made even one teeny-tiny experimental
prediction. Worst of all, superstring theory does not follow as a
logical consequence of some appealing set of hypotheses about nature. —
Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow
The great irony of string theory, however, is that the theory itself
is not unified. . . For a theory that makes the claim of providing a
unifying framework for all physical laws, it is the supreme irony that
the theory itself appears so disunited!! Introduction to Superstrings
& M-Theory –Kaku
Is string theory a futile exercise as physics, as I believe it to be?
It is an interesting mathematical specialty and has produced and will
produce mathematics useful in other contexts, but it seems no more
vital as mathematics than other areas of very abstract or specialized
math, and doesn't on that basis justify the incredible amount of
effort expended on it.
My belief is based on the fact that string theory is the first science
in hundreds of years to be pursued in pre-Baconian fashion, without
any adequate experimental guidance. It proposes that Nature is the way
we would like it to be rather than the way we see it to be; and it is
improbable that Nature thinks the same way we do.
The sad thing is that, as several young would-be theorists have
explained to me, it is so highly developed that it is a full-time job
just to keep up with it. That means that other avenues are not being
explored by the bright, imaginative young people, and that alternative
career paths are blocked.
—Philip W. Anderson Physicist and Nobel laureate, Princeton
If Einstein were alive today, he would be horrified at this state of
affairs. He would upbraid the profession for allowing this mess to
develop and fly into a blind rage over the transformation of his
beautiful creations into ideologies and the resulting proliferation of
logical inconsistencies. Einstein was an artist and a scholar but
above all he was a revolutionary. His approach to physics might be
summarized as hypothesizing minimally. Never arguing with experiment,
demanding total logical consistency, and mistrusting unsubstantiated
beliefs. The unsubstantial belief of his day was ether, or more
precisely the naïve version of ether that preceded relativity. The
unsubstantiated belief of our day is relativity itself. It would be
perfectly in character for him to reexamine the facts, toss them over
in his mind, and conclude that his beloved principle of relativity was
not fundamental at all but emergent (emergent from MDT!) . . . It
would mean that the fabric of space-time was not simply the stage on
which life played out but an organizational phenomenon, and that there
might be something beyond. (MDT!) -A Different Universe, Laughlin,
Nobel Laureate
[String Theory] has no practical utility, however, other than to
sustain the myth of the ultimate theory. There is no experimental
evidence for the existence of strings in nature, nor does the special
mathematics of string theory enable known experimental behavior to be
calculated or predicted more easily. . . String theory is, in fact, a
textbook case of Deceitful Turkey, a beautiful set of ideas that will
always remain just barely out of reach. Far from a wonderful
technological hope for a greater tomorrow, it is instead the tragic
consequence of an obsolete belief system-in which emergence plays no
role and dark law does not exist. —A Different Universe, Laughlin
Sir Frederick Martin
"String theory" may be considered a form of qualia,
just as 'red' is a quale. 'Red' doesn't exist 'out there',
as it is a wholly fabricated (confabulated) representation
of and about sensor data, that is pragmatic (works),
in certain contexts. "String theory" came about because
the mathematics describing certain known string like
structures best described measured sub-atomic events,
it seemed to work in certain contexts. Actually 'we' don't
know what is going on, just as 'red' is mysterious, so is
"string theory". Pragmatism is only a tool.
M Purcell
wrote:
I think we should add more dimensions with the assumption that there
are independent variables we are unaware of.
Kevin
wrote:
> Nobel Laureate Physicists on Why/Where String Theory Has Been Going
> Wrong
> Below please find some quotes from Nobel Laureate physicists, as well
> as other esteemed scientists, on "Why/Where String Theory Has Been
> Going Wrong."
>
> Long story short, string theory fails as a physical theory because
> there is no such thing as strings--they are not a physical reality.
> The same thing can be said for the tiny, little loops of loop quantum
> gravity, as well for quantum gravity itself, as the graviton is not a
> physical entity. Also, the maths of string theory and lqg are not
> consistent nor unified nor even agreed upon. But do not take my word
> for it--heed the words of those far greater than I:
> The first page of String Theory in a Nutshell states in a footnoted
> sentence:
>
> String Theory has been the leading candidate … for a theory that
> consistently unifies all the fundamental forces of nature, including
> gravity. It gained popularity because it provides a theory that is UV
> finite.(1) . . . The footnote (1) reads: “Although there is no
> rigorous proof to all orders that the theory is UV finite...” –STRING
> THEORY IN A NUTSHELL
Since when does any physics theory need to have anything to do with
the physical reality? Anything post Einstein operates on the
assumption that Einstein's result is never valid... The more it
operates on this assumption, the better it is as a physics theory...
There certainly isn't any such thing as quantum gravity but that
doesn't mean there are not gravitrons. In the abstract, a gravitron
says that while good things come in threes... Good things coming in
twos are the exception that proves the rule.
Marvin the Martian
hypothesis) is no different than Einstein's Hidden Variable Hypothesis:
1) It depends upon variables that cannot be observed, and is thus not a
scientific hypothesis but non-science bullshit.
2) There is no experiment that can falsify it. That makes it great for
continued funding! But as it makes no useful predictions, it cannot be
falsified and is thus not a scientific hypothesis.
String theory is one of the crap ideas that is plaguing science because
the fundamentals of the philosophy of science are not taught anymore.
If you don't think there is a lack of teaching the fundamentals of
scientific philosophy is a problem, look at how many ignorant people with
science degrees actually believe that "peer review" is part of the
scientific process.
Sam Wormley
> String "theory" (in quotes because it is not a theory, it is a
> hypothesis) is no different than Einstein's Hidden Variable Hypothesis
One difference--Einstein's Hidden Variable Hypothesis was eventually
tested.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem#Importance_of_the_theorem
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem#Practical_experiments_testing_Bell.27s_theorem
"Bell test experiments to date overwhelmingly violate Bell's inequality.
Indeed, a table of Bell test experiments performed prior to 1986 is
given in 4.5 of Redhead, 1987.[16] Of the thirteen experiments listed,
only two reached results contradictory to quantum mechanics; moreover,
according to the same source, when the experiments were repeated, "the
discrepancies with QM could not be reproduced".
"Nevertheless, the issue is not conclusively settled. According to
Shimony's 2004 Stanford Encyclopedia overview article:
"Most of the dozens of experiments performed so far have favored Quantum
Mechanics, but not decisively because of the 'detection loopholes' or
the 'communication loophole.' The latter has been nearly decisively
blocked by a recent experiment and there is a good prospect for blocking
the former".
Neon
> On 6/7/11 2:09 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> > String "theory" (in quotes because it is not a theory, it is a
> > hypothesis) is no different than Einstein's Hidden Variable Hypothesis
>
> One difference--Einstein's Hidden Variable Hypothesis was eventually
> tested.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem#Importance_of_the_theorem
>
> "Bell test experiments to date overwhelmingly violate Bell's inequality.
> Indeed, a table of Bell test experiments performed prior to 1986 is
> given in 4.5 of Redhead, 1987.[16] Of the thirteen experiments listed,
> only two reached results contradictory to quantum mechanics; moreover,
> according to the same source, when the experiments were repeated, "the
> discrepancies with QM could not be reproduced".
>
> "Nevertheless, the issue is not conclusively settled. According to
> Shimony's 2004 Stanford Encyclopedia overview article:
>
> "Most of the dozens of experiments performed so far have favored Quantum
> Mechanics, but not decisively because of the 'detection loopholes' or
> the 'communication loophole.' The latter has been nearly decisively
> blocked by a recent experiment and there is a good prospect for blocking
> the former".
say how far has UK caught up so far since 'de-evolvement issue' ?
guess they are misusing ID to increase populations alone? Say where
have those guys gone to wiv those bits for info requestsa and
proceedures?
Marvin the Martian
First of all, the EPR "paradox" is not the same as Einstein's hidden
variable hypothesis. Einstein didn't like QM because of it's statistical
nature so he postulated hidden variables that would make it certain. He
was once again full of bullshit and paraded his ignorance of the
philosophy of science.
Secondly, as you say, EPR was tested and failed, that's because that
bunch of idiot who dreamed it up didn't have a clue as to what SR said:
as long as no information or energy is sent, things can happen faster
than light. EPR only expresses the ignorance of the idiots who formulated
it, as I said. There is no "paradox", only some idiots having a lack of
understanding.
ghost
Please discuss the ideas of Nobel Laureate physicists on string theory
& physics.
Below please find some quotes from Nobel Laureate physicists, as well
as other esteemed scientists, on "Why/Where String Theory Has Been
Going Wrong."
The purpose of this thread is to support a discussion pertaining to
the ideas and views of Nobel Laureate physicists whom I quote below.
What are your thoughts and feelings on their ideas? Please do share
and discuss your own philosophies, and I will share more of mine mine
as the discussion evolves. Thanks!
Let me begin the discussion by stating that long story short, I
believe that string theory fails as a physical theory because there is
no such thing as strings--they are not a physical reality. What do you
think? Please discuss. The same thing can be said for the tiny,
little loops of loop quantum gravity, as well for quantum gravity
itself, as the graviton is not a physical entity. Also, the maths of
string theory and lqg are not consistent nor unified nor even agreed
upon. But do not take my word for it--heed the words of those far
greater than I, reflect on them, and present your own ideas:
Please discuss how these words, ideas, and philosophies of Nobel
Laureates are informing your own ideas regarding what physics is and
ought be, and how we might best develop new theories extending beyond
the standard model.
Thanks! :)
Edward Green
<snip rest>
I thought your original post was very good, and demonstrated a lot of
research. However, it is very bad form, and kind of crackpotty, to
repeat yourself so soon. You make your post, you take your chances.
You cast your pearls before swine, now listen to the grunting. You are
not likely to get results more to your liking by repeating your quotes
verbatim, and adding "discuss".
Thomas Heger
> Nobel Laureate Physicists on Why/Where String Theory Has Been Going
> Wrong
> Below please find some quotes from Nobel Laureate physicists, as well
> as other esteemed scientists, on "Why/Where String Theory Has Been
> Going Wrong."
>
> Long story short, string theory fails as a physical theory because
> there is no such thing as strings--they are not a physical reality.
> The same thing can be said for the tiny, little loops of loop quantum
> gravity, as well for quantum gravity itself, as the graviton is not a
> physical entity. Also, the maths of string theory and lqg are not
> consistent nor unified nor even agreed upon. But do not take my word
> for it--heed the words of those far greater than I:
> The first page of String Theory in a Nutshell states in a footnoted
> sentence:
>
> String Theory has been the leading candidate … for a theory that
> consistently unifies all the fundamental forces of nature, including
> gravity. It gained popularity because it provides a theory that is UV
> finite.(1) . . . The footnote (1) reads: “Although there is no
> rigorous proof to all orders that the theory is UV finite...” –STRING
> THEORY IN A NUTSHELL
>
Is it justified to demand 'valid' theories? Can the general public deal
with something like 'inconvenient truth'? Why do scientists like to
march in the wrong direction like lemmings?
(Its wrong, because the used method is wrong. Correct would be to set up
a hypothesis and than try to test it. Maybe try something else and test
that: Which one is more promising?)
How do we want to spent the money and where do we want to go?
Are there already ideas, that are promising? How about testing one of those?
Those questions were asked, but not answered. Instead the 'dissidents'
got trouble and some had bad personal fate.
> So you see, string theory is not a finite theory, but this is
> generally kept to the footnotes, when mentioned at all. Many Nobel
> Laureate physicists harbor reservations regarding strings:
>
> We don’t know what we are talking about . --Nobel Laureate David Gross
> on string theory
>
> It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a five-
> dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one of
> those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does
> not manifest itself. -Einstein to Ehrenfest (Imagine doing this for
> 10-30+ dimensions!)
>
More important than the number of dimensions would be to describe the
physical meaning of their units.
It is no problem at all to make use of a lot of dimensions. In
statistics many dimensions could be used. But in physics we mean
dimensions of space (of type length). What could one mean with eleven of
them?
Possibly nature would require such models and our little part of the
universe only occupies a small subset of these dimensions.
What could that mean? Is there any evidence for such an assumption? If
not, it would certainly be wiser to try something else.
TH
Marvin the Martian
> Am 07.06.2011 19:16, schrieb Hedge Fund Physics:
>> Nobel Laureate Physicists on Why/Where String Theory Has Been Going
>> Wrong
>> Below please find some quotes from Nobel Laureate physicists, as well
>> as other esteemed scientists, on "Why/Where String Theory Has Been
>> Going Wrong."
>>
>> Long story short, string theory fails as a physical theory because
>> there is no such thing as strings--they are not a physical reality. The
>> same thing can be said for the tiny, little loops of loop quantum
>> gravity, as well for quantum gravity itself, as the graviton is not a
>> physical entity. Also, the maths of string theory and lqg are not
>> consistent nor unified nor even agreed upon. But do not take my word
>> for it--heed the words of those far greater than I: The first page of
>> String Theory in a Nutshell states in a footnoted sentence:
>>
>> String Theory has been the leading candidate … for a theory that
>> consistently unifies all the fundamental forces of nature, including
>> gravity. It gained popularity because it provides a theory that is UV
>> finite.(1) . . . The footnote (1) reads: “Although there is no rigorous
>> proof to all orders that the theory is UV finite...” –STRING THEORY IN
>> A NUTSHELL
>>
> There are many questions with this theory and with physics in general:
>
> Is it justified to demand 'valid' theories?
If you want to do science, yes, hypothesis must be valid. They must make
useful predictions and they must be falsifiable.
Getting funding for junk science like string theory is an error at best
and is probably fraud.
> Can the general public deal with something like 'inconvenient truth'?
The public believes whatever they see on TV. Their inability to think
critically and to be lead around like sheep is by design.
> Why do scientists like to march in the wrong direction like lemmings?
They march after funding. BTW, the whole lemming myth was junk science
created for a Disney nature film.
> (Its wrong, because the used method is wrong. Correct would be to set up
> a hypothesis and than try to test it. Maybe try something else and test
> that: Which one is more promising?)
>
> How do we want to spent the money and where do we want to go?
Give the money to me. I would give you no lies back. No truths either,
but would you rather be lied to?
> Are there already ideas, that are promising? How about testing one of
> those?
>
> Those questions were asked, but not answered. Instead the 'dissidents'
> got trouble and some had bad personal fate.
Huh?
Arindam Banerjee
"Hedge Fund Physics" <hedgefun...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:775c61bd-f18f-4bf8...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Nobel Laureate Physicists on Why/Where String Theory Has Been Going
Wrong
What was it that anyone found right about it, or even mildly convincing?
Anyway who cares what a bunch of einsteinians frauds think?
Sam Wormley
Thanks for the quotes, ghost. :-)
-Sam
Thomas Heger
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 01:04:19 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> (Its wrong, because the used method is wrong. Correct would be to set up
>> a hypothesis and than try to test it. Maybe try something else and test
>> that: Which one is more promising?)
>>
>> How do we want to spent the money and where do we want to go?
>
> Give the money to me. I would give you no lies back. No truths either,
> but would you rather be lied to?
>
>> Are there already ideas, that are promising? How about testing one of
>> those?
>>
>> Those questions were asked, but not answered. Instead the 'dissidents'
>> got trouble and some had bad personal fate.
>
> Huh?
You mean 'who' ?
Herman Minkowski
Nikola Tesla
Victor Schauberger
Andre Sacharow
Royal Rife
Stan Mayer
John Hutchinson
.. and many others ..
TH
Jonathan
> ae65-889...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> Nobel Laureate Physicists on Why/Where String Theory Has Been Going
> Wrong
> Below please find some quotes from Nobel Laureate physicists, as well
> as other esteemed scientists, on "Why/Where String Theory Has Been
> Going Wrong."
> Long story short, string theory fails as a physical theory because
> there is no such thing as strings--
More likely string theory is an attempt to fill some hole
in another theory. In other words, contrived.
And always keep in mind, math is only self-consistent, not
necessarily consistent with reality. As Einstein said....
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not
refer to reality."
The more precise or simplified, the less it corresponds to reality.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> > "Hedge Fund Physics" <hedgefundphys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:775c61bd-f18f-4bf8-> >
> > ae65-8896f8395...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> > Nobel Laureate Physicists on Why/Where String Theory Has Been Going
> > Wrong
> > Below please find some quotes from Nobel Laureate physicists, as well
> > as other esteemed scientists, on "Why/Where String Theory Has Been
> > Going Wrong."
> > Long story short, string theory fails as a physical theory because
> > there is no such thing as strings--
>
> More likely string theory is an attempt to fill some hole
> in another theory. In other words, contrived.
>
> And always keep in mind, math is only self-consistent, not
> necessarily consistent with reality. As Einstein said....
>
> "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
> are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not
> refer to reality."
>
> The more precise or simplified, the less it corresponds to reality.
Just like religionists, scientists move off to the subjective fantasy
realm, and like the 'advanced priestcraft' use an exclusive language
common only to their sect..
Such is the nature of 'the' mind, regardless of how it is labeled.
BOfL
Robert L. Oldershaw
wrote:
> Nobel Laureate Physicists on Why/Where String Theory Has Been Going
> Wrong
> Below please find some quotes from Nobel Laureate physicists, as well
A very nice set of quotable quotations on the 35-year failure called
string/M theory.
Without fairly continuous guidance from the empirical testing of
definitive predictions, theoretical physicists tend to run amuck
almost immediately. Off into Platonic fantasy land. Then good luck
trying to tell them they are way off track, and to lead them back to
the physical world.
You might ask: how could this possibly happen after 400 years of
scientific advance and increasing sopistication? Answer: the danger is
always present if the Platonists take over the reins of science, as
they did between 1925 and the present.
A major correction is long overdue and is in progress.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Jonathan
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7e583c34-0c85-4deb-b526-?
92e972...@o10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Well that's the big problem with figuring out how reality works.
Reducing to parts, or classical objective methods, results in
countless narrow disciplines, all with their own axioms and
unique languages. A physicist can't really talk shop to a
biologist, or to a sociologist or an artist. And so on.
So every day the mountain of data grows, every day the
specialties becomes narrower and more detailed. Every day
the ability for /any one person/ to comprehend the totality of
all that information grows less and less. Objective methods
take us...farther...from the 'answers' each and every day.
But if reducing to objectivity brings us an incomprehensible
amount of information, then inversing the scientific method should
have the opposite results. Expanding to the...behavior...of the
whole...instead of the details of the parts...ends up creating
a SINGLE scientific language for ALL THAT EXISTS!
Only with a common abstract scientific language can we see
what is ....common...throughout ALL the disciplines.
And the light switch is suddenly flipped to the on position.
Which is why Complexity Science claims it's the ultimate of
interdisciplinary sciences.
Dynamics of Complex Systems
"The study of complex systems in a unified framework has
become recognized in recent years as a new scientific discipline,
the ultimate of interdisciplinary fields. Breaking down the barriers
between physics, chemistry and biology and the so-called
soft sciences of psychology, sociology, economics, and
anthropology, this text explores the universal physical and
mathematical principles that govern the emergence of
complex systems from simple components."
(full online textbook)
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/
> Such is the nature of 'the' mind, regardless of how it is labeled.
Objective methods have been so successful, it's easy to assume
that method will be the best for any and all questions. But that's
not really the case. It's the synthesis of objective and subjective
methods which can answer the questions of meaning.
We can see this truth simply by perceiving objective and subjective
methods as defining the input and output sides of reality respectively.
We need to know both at once, else our view in incomplete
by half.
But how can we build a single mathematics which can deal
with objective and subjective methods with equal ease?
A 'unified' approach is only possible if the duality of reality
is recognized. In this case the duality is that any given object
can be treated as either a part, or a system unto itself.
The observer makes that subjective decision by arbitrarily
defining system boundaries. Which is to decide which object
is the part, and which set is the whole. And applying objective
or subjective methods as is appropriate.
The observer, not the object, defines if we use objective or subjective
methods at any given time. (part detail vs system behavior).
And subjective methods means to compare an object to...itself, instead
of comparing it to other things as is our habit. In a non-linear or
subjective frame of reference, we define an system relative it's
opposing possible extremes in behavior.
Or in other words, we compare what is, to what could be.
Or in other words, observing the world by comparing the present
to the future possible.
For instance, when looking at a cloud, the question becomes
'what could it become'? The answer is the opposite possibilities
are to become either water or vapor.
water > cloud < vapor
And becomes a cloud only when those two opposites
in possibility are entangled so that neither dominates
system output. This is the 'complex' realm where /both/
possibilities coexist as one.
Or if looking at a society, the opposite extremes in
...behavior...tend to be either some form of dictatorship
or anarchy.
rule of law > democracy < freedom
And becomes a democracy only when those two opposites
in possibility become entangled so that /neither/ dominates
the system output.
So how would something like Darwinian evolution be defined?
genetics > selection < mutation
Same for a universe.
gravity > space-time < cosmic expansion
And when you go around the universe redefining everything is
this way, you see the SAME relationship in everything.
Which is simply....
Order > Emergence < Disorder
Is that spontaneous order, or evolution of all things, results
when neither order or disorder dominates the system output.
Emergence or...CREATION...results when one can't really
tell whether the forces or order or disorder (classical or quantum)
realms dominate. When both contribute equally, that's when
evolution emerges.
At the complex realm. Where uncertainty is highest.
As in a Mona Lisa smile. As in a wave, a cloud, or
an emotion. Even ideas can be defines as one would
describe a cloud.
Facts > Ideas < Imagination
And all the maths of attractor theory and AI and self organization
can be applied to any and all of the disciplines that exists. From the
physical universe, to the living and even intellectual systems all
described by a single concept.
Based on the abstract template for a complex adaptive system.
The balance between
Static > Dynamic < Chaotic
The answers are always found at the union of opposites
extremes in possibility. And when I take this math and
point it at religion, and see only the constant theme
that ...love is the answer. And on the other hand the math
says that ...the union of opposites...is the answer.
I can't help wondering if both camps end up with the same
answer in the end. Just coming from different paths of
observation.
Science > Wisdom < Religion
The middle emergent realm is 'the answer' to all questions
of meaning. IMHO. Not just to defining the duality of light.
Matter > Light < Energy
But to all systems, the duality of the Uncertainty Principle holds.
Objective > Complex < Subjective
The complex realm is the source of all visible order, up to
and including life and intelligence.
Calresco Themes (*in essay form)
http://calresco.org/themes.htm
Self-Organizing Faq
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
Steinhardt
Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physics
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cycliccosmology.html
s
BOfL
herbert glazier
I like the "string theory" #1 the string is a one dimensional
object #2 Strings give out a vibration(make a pattern of winding)
Strings do away with "point particles"(which I hate) #3 String theory
could merge GR and QM (I like that very much) #4 it could unite micro
realm with macro realm (good stuff) #5 Easy to knock the string
theory to get your name in print. (enlarge your ego. I see strings as
loops(circular) I see anti-loops that vibrate out of tune. These
vibrating loops do not collide They in reality keep all stuff apart.
I image these string loops the same way I see tachyons. TreBert
herbert glazier
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7e583c34-0c85-4deb-b526-?
>
> 92e972527...@o10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Steinhardt
> Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physicshttp://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cycliccosmology.html
>
> s
>
> BOfL
Gravity,Spacetime,and space inflation are all three sides to the same
pyramid . TreBert
Puppet_Sock
Generally speaking, quote mining is a poor plan.
Socks
Androcles
"Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e63b83f-e10f-407d...@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
=======================================
Generally speaking, just plain bitching is a far worse plan, you pathetic
moron.
Raymond Yohros
excellent post.
everything it's righ on.
this SUPER theories follow a harry potter kind of plot and
it is tragic indeed. it is like the creativity on how to proceed
its gone for this people so they have to start inventing crap.
and what can be worst that deluting yourself into "multiple
dimensions"
i suspect that the whole deal it's a scam to gain attention and waiste
money
in vain. true theories should not only have a logical consistency but
also
make predictions that can be tested in the field.
there are so many properties to play with that are observable
and finding creative empirical approaches its fundamental
for the future not only of physics but all the other fields as well.
r.y
PD
wrote:
Thanks for this.
I do think there's a problem.
I have concerns that there is too much attention paid to "aesthetic
value" of theories, which is driven by meta-theoretical principles.
While it is useful to notice things like connections between
symmetries and gauge interactions, the question becomes more about the
value of symmetry itself, rather than about explaining the fundamental
interactions. It's like SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) dazzled some people into loss
of focus.
The idea of M-theory, which is a theory that we KNOW NOTHING ABOUT,
but postulate anyway, is a case in point. Here the meta-theoretical
observation is merely that a single physical principle can yield
multiple solutions of differing character but with interesting
connections, and these solutions express themselves in nature as
different observations. To state then that the notice of multiple
*theories* of differing character but with interesting connections
then suggests that these are all "solutions" of some deeper "theory"
is in my mind the unwarranted and foolish step. A tar-baby of
hypnotizing blackness, so pure in high concept and so useless in terms
of benchmarking measurable progress.
Lofty Goat
> ...
> [String Theory] has no practical utility, however, other than to sustain
> the myth of the ultimate theory....
Dial-a-Theory, add enough parameters one could get any result one wished.
Reminds me too much of Ptolmey's explanation of orbits. Pile on enough
epicycles and one can get an orbit of any shape, even square. Be
interesting to see what simplifying assumption will make all that
complexity vanish.
Meanwhile, you can't fault 'em for coming up with some interesting
mathematical tools. If Ptolmey's adherents had devised a method of
fitting a collection of epicycles to an arbitrary closed curve we might
have had something like Taylor's theorem a few centuries early.
-- RLW
cjcountess
called me a crank. because of my theory that "c^2" geometrically,
means "c in the linear direction x c in the 90 degree angular
direction = c in circular and / or spherical motion, as a balance of
centrifugal/centripetal forces, giving rise to "Rest Mass"..
They stated that electron has no geometry and is just “point
particle”, “probability wave”, amongst other things.
Recent threads below indicate that evidence is mounting against,
“Point Particles”, “Probability waves”, “String Theory" and more in
favor of my point of view.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/f2c4f4c11bc74065?hl
=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/954839c397c4a2f8?hl
=en&scoring=d&
My theory is
1) c in linear direction
2) x c in 90 degree angular direction
3) = 90 degree arc trajectory, which if constant, creates a circle
=
“c^2” = “c x 2pi” as energy in circular and or spherical rotation, as
a result of a
balance of centrifugal / centripetal forces, and has angular momentum
of “h/2pi”, for circle, and “h/2pi/2”, for circle making two rotations
to complete one wave cycle, and is “spin1/2”. The speed of light
squared, or “c^2”, also = “G” as highest possible “L/T^2” or “v^2”,
and is “UV” cut off point on EM spectrum, where energy attains "Rest
Mass", and the "EM spectrum", is clearly revealed to be not only the
“electromagnetic”, but the “Energy/Matter”, spectrum.
This makes (c^2 = h/2pi/2 = G) on this quantum level, as attributes of
the same particle, the "electron" uniting Special and General
Relativity,
and Quantum Theory around its geometry.
Again I ask;
how many points of similarity or coincidence must a fingerprint have
before it is considered a match? How many coincidences such as pieces
of a puzzle must fit together to form a picture? All.
Energy = mc^2, h/2pi/2, spin ½, -1charge, all empirically verified,
experimental, mathematical facts, measured points of coincidence, that
fit logically seamlessly together, to form this picture, and cannot
statically be considered just coincidence in negative sense of word,
but a complete match.
(The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and/or
sphered), is fairly easy to explain and visualize.
How “String Theory’s” version of “Quantum Gravity”, can be saved if it
is put in
simplest form, which is 4 D space-time in this
manner.
1)As with Newton’s first law of motion, anything moving at constant
speed in straight line, is equivalent to being still, the constant
speed of light in straight line with momentum of “h”, can be
considered the foundation upon which all waves and rest mass is built.
It and would also be Cosmological Constant centrifugal force. This can
be represented by straight line string.
2)As with Newton’s second law that: Any deviation from constant speed
in straight line, or being at rest, is acceleration, and requires
force of “F=mv^2”.Wavy line or strings produced from this displacement
has energy “E=hf/c^2”, which we can show = “E=mc^2”, just as
“deBroglie”, with his “E=hf=mc^2”, at high end of EM spectrum, as well
as “F=mv^2”. When highest frequency is attained “E=hf=mc^2” , energy
attains “Rest Mass”, and these energy “strings” moves in circular, and
or
spherical motion.
3)As Newton’s third law states that: Every action causes an equal and
opposite reaction, for every quantum of “E=mc^2” which condenses from
pushing against the speed of light barrier, space pushes back on this
“Standing Spherical Wave”, with an equal and opposite or right angular
F=mv^2.
And “Loop Quantum Gravity theory” as well as “String Theory” can still
claim that gravity rest mass comes about because of closed loops, and
all in simple 3D or 4D counting time.
Presenting my case to Discovery Blog:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/11/21/confirmed-scientists-unders
tand-where-mass-comes-from/.
Presenting my case to Sylvester James Gates:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dsn5q6f_105cmq85bgt&hl=en
See: http://gsjournal.net/science/countess.pdf
Conrad J Countess
Arindam Banerjee
e=mcc is a whole pile of the most outrageous nonsense.
e=0.5mVVN(N-k) found since 2000AD by myself, and elaborated upon in
many usenet posts since.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Dono.
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
wrote:
Sam Wormley
Reminds me of the witches laughing in Purcell's ,"Dido and Aeneas".
Get a library card... and use it!
Arindam Banerjee
No, you are all incompetent and envious devils jumping up and down and
making yourselves more and more ridiculous with every absurd theory
bloating like noxious bubbles through the stinking mud that is your
brains.
> Get a library card... and use it!
Did all that, hardly anything worth reading there any more, what with
all you einsteinian devils in charge everywhere.