An Exercise in nothing semantics.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
1) Thanks. I hope to read that book.

2) Yes, but I hope you recognize the problem. The model of the atom etc. were only done after practical experiments were made at that level of matter. For string theory it works the other way around.

I don't think it is very usefull if theory development goes miles forward to practical experiments.

And pls. recognize you need an accelarator the size of the solar system to create energies needed to investigate at the Planck lenght, so it can be stated that such experiments will not be carried out for the next hundred years or more (at least), if ever.

Why develop a theory which can not be verified for hundred or more years?

Because it is so perfect. It's true that it can't be verified, but it unifies QM and GR; it explains Gravity and all of the rest of the forces; it explains the cause of the BB; it explains BHs... a good few string theorists really just badly want it to be true. String Theorists (IMO) are following Einstein's footsteps, not just in their use of curvature to explain the "forces", but (more importantly) in their search for an elegance, or beauty, behind the physical phenomena.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Because it is so perfect. It's true that it can't be verified, but it unifies QM and GR; it explains Gravity and all of the rest of the forces; it explains the cause of the BB; it explains BHs... a good few string theorists really just badly want it to be true. String Theorists (IMO) are following Einstein's footsteps, not just in their use of curvature to explain the "forces", but (more importantly) in their search for an elegance, or beauty, behind the physical phenomena.

Maybe that's the problem, it implies too much of a human vision on the universe (perfectness) that it is too good to be true.

Further, the development in brane cosmology open up a wide landscape of possibilties, for instance branes can gravitationally interact with each other. It opens up any possibility to explain anything.

I still think experiment is the only thing we can use to make sense of the universe. Our drive to know about the universe in all it's details has become larger then our experiments and equipment allow us to know, so in theory development we head miles forward the actual data that can proof us right or wrong.

We should restrict ourselves to those parts of knowledge, that can be experimentally verified, at least within a few decades.

Else, we are allowing science development to be given a way to the realms of a few "high priests" in which only a few people have access to the fabulous complex mathematical models, which stand on their own.
This ain't science any more, it is all highly speculative theoretical science.

We should recognize that based on our experimental data, we cannot have true knowledge about some things, for instance we can not distinguish between different types of cosmology yet.

Several decades of data are at least necessary to make any real progress in that field.

 

[Mentat]

Well, I think that the candidates for the T.O.E. will all, eventually, be verified or rejected by experiment. However, I agree that there may be a problem with "wanting" so badly for a certain theory to be right. And yet, I really want it to be right.

BTW, we've wandered off-topic.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, I think that the candidates for the T.O.E. will all, eventually, be verified or rejected by experiment. However, I agree that there may be a problem with "wanting" so badly for a certain theory to be right. And yet, I really want it to be right.

BTW, we've wandered off-topic.

I am affraid that a TOE is a fruitless exercise, and history will at some time drop it into the waste basket as an unfruitfull approach.

Besides that, any attempt I have seen on a TOE places limits on 'everything', it sticks to mathematical and physical concept of reality, and does not involve knowledge on other terrains (for example how the brain works, how society works, etc).

One theory that emerged however got my attention, and might indeed lead to something, which is the theory of 'eternal' or 'chaotic' inflation. At least the theory comes up with verifyable predictions, and has positive philospohical implications (it drops the need for a begin of time, for example).

 

[Eh]

heusdens,

I think it's time for a new thread, since this is getting off topic. But the question of eternal inflation models is interesting. The theory suffers from some problems, and is not very testible (even if basic inflation models may be). I'll start a new thread.

 

[Mentat]

Let's try another topic, to run through my exercise. It's possible that my idea is incorrect, and the only way to find out is by testing it. Any ideas?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
heusdens,

I think it's time for a new thread, since this is getting off topic. But the question of eternal inflation models is interesting. The theory suffers from some problems, and is not very testible (even if basic inflation models may be). I'll start a new thread.

Well I suggest creating a thread about this model of Inflation.

The model is ascribed of successfully solving some fundamental problems of the BB model, makes testable predictions about the visible universe, and comes with a bonus (don't remember what), and has interesting philosophical implications.

 

[Ernies]

May I remind everyone that you cannot 'verify' a scientific theory. you can at best show that it predicts results correctly--- if you are lucky results not predicted by any other theory.
As I understand it the String theory sinks or swims by the prediction of particle masses by means of the Higgs Field/Particle.
What happens if the CERN new accelerator doesn't find it? Simply say the Higgs particle has a higher mass?
Yes, I have read ' Warped Passages'.

Ernies