- #1
superweirdo
- 156
- 0
I know what it is and I know how it works but do we actually have anything evidence for it to exist?
superweirdo said:like string theory? B/c string theory has got a lot of evidence behind it but still not enough to prove it, does this have any evidence behind it?
superweirdo said:I just saw it in a pbs presentation by nova "the string theory" dvd that there are a lot of mathematical data that support it but not enough to call it a fact but still a lot more than just a theory, hence, the only proof I can give you is to suggest you to rent, borrow, or buy the dvd and see it for yourself. You can also turn to pbs channel, it is on there a lot of times. The greatest science dvd ever created in my direction.
superweirdo said:I just saw it in a pbs presentation by nova "the string theory" dvd that there are a lot of mathematical data that support it but not enough to call it a fact but still a lot more than just a theory, hence, the only proof I can give you is to suggest you to rent, borrow, or buy the dvd and see it for yourself. You can also turn to pbs channel, it is on there a lot of times. The greatest science dvd ever created in my direction.
superweirdo said:Basically what he said is that there hasn't been a theory which has had this much mathematical supportive analysis in it and being proven wrong. This data simply can't be ignored.
superweirdo said:Look I didn't say that, a highly respectable physicist said it, I just happen to agree w/ him b/c all hte physics is based on mathematics, like it or not, we have to give some thought to a theory that JUST HAPPENS TO have a lot of mathematical data behind it. I do agree w/ you that a lot of others theories had it too, but nowhere as much as this one, he said it himself, perheps, the one you should argue is him, not me.
superweirdo said:I am just saying that it has the most mathematical data supporting it than any other theory. And that is a FACT that you can't ignore. End of discussion.
superweirdo said:alright, I will watch it again and get back to youj. Its going to take me some time though since I will watch it on the channel, I only borrowed its dvd from someone, I don't own it. But I will tell you this, I trust my memory and I remember one of those guys saying something like this, "There was a theory in the early 1900s that scientist spent almost a decade on but it turned out to be a dead end, however, that theory didnt have as much mathematical proofs into it." One more thing that convinces me to believe this theory is that it is so far the only theory that can be the unification of quantum mechanics and special relativity.
superweirdo said:alright, I will watch it again and get back to youj. Its going to take me some time though since I will watch it on the channel, I only borrowed its dvd from someone, I don't own it. But I will tell you this, I trust my memory and I remember one of those guys saying something like this, "There was a theory in the early 1900s that scientist spent almost a decade on but it turned out to be a dead end, however, that theory didnt have as much mathematical proofs into it." One more thing that convinces me to believe this theory is that it is so far the only theory that can be the unification of quantum mechanics and special relativity.
superweirdo said:I agree w/ you zapper, I bet I don't fully understand String theory, I also am new to this forum and have only taken physics honors class.(this year, I am going to physics ap) But the guy on tv really convinced me, I am not saying it is a fact, however, I am not calling it a fiction either, all I am saying taht you can't call it philosophy b/c it has all of evidence to it. Don't ask me, the guy in that video, "the string theory" said that. For my sake though,(I have to review a lot of things) I am going to watch it again.
superweirdo said:you are right, I'll watch out from now.
Btw, you still havn't answered my question, what is wrong w/ the theory energetics? I thought this is what we believe today?
superweirdo said:When I said building block, I meant it as how you keep getting deeper and deeper. For example, we have molecules, then we have atoms and bonds, then we have electron, nuetron, protons, etc. but if we get deeper, we end up w/ energy. Don't we?
I'm sure its speculative assumptions and lack of experimental support have nothing to do with it...interested_learner said:String Theory is neither eloquent or spare. It is a mess. It is ugly. That is the main argument against it.
Then you take it on faith that QED is wrong? Field theories are quite ugly you know!The Universe is not ugly. That much is obvious to anyone looking at nature. Therefore its foundations can't be ugly. I take that on faith, but it is faith based on much history and observation.
A wormhole is a hypothetical tunnel-like structure that connects two distant points in space-time. It is often referred to as a "shortcut" or a "bridge" between two points, allowing for faster travel between them.
While there are currently no confirmed observations of wormholes, there is some theoretical evidence that suggests they may exist. Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts the existence of these tunnels, and some mathematical models have shown that they could potentially form in certain scenarios.
According to general relativity, space-time is curved by the presence of mass and energy. This curvature can create a "shortcut" between two points, which is what a wormhole essentially is. The concept is often compared to folding a piece of paper and poking a hole through it, creating a shorter distance between two points on the paper.
While the concept of time travel through wormholes is a popular one in science fiction, it is currently not supported by scientific evidence. The laws of physics do not allow for traveling back in time, and even if wormholes do exist, they would likely not be stable enough for time travel.
There are ongoing studies and experiments in the field of astrophysics and theoretical physics that explore the possibility of wormholes. Some scientists are also trying to find ways to detect and observe potential wormholes through gravitational lensing or other methods.