Balancing theories and empirical data, especially concerning string theory

[Fra]

How does a person construct a discrete object from purely points? It would require infinite points. That gets into counting infinities, with some infinities larger than others... set theory.

Not sure I follow you here. But without diverging too much, the kind of question I intented to to ask is was rather more like

How does a finite physical observer, construct and encode at least apprioximately or as a limiting case, a continous map from it's discrete observations (detector clicks if you want), ie or how to go from a boolean [true,false] to a a real number [0,1]. Indeed here, one runs into the question of how far the observer can count? And what happens then?

And then the association from there to strings, n'th quantisation orf p-branes, vs (n+1)'th quantized (p-1)-branes is fun and interesting association.

I admit it's a long wild train of thought but can someone come up with an "interpretation" of a string, from this puzzle? Ie something that is more satisfying than simple thinking it's litteraly a mechanical string, given that we seem to agree that it's very ad hoc. This is why kind of thought that ran to my head when i read that baez post years ago.

/Fredrik

 

[jaketodd]

I think the fact that humans etc. can comprehend infinity, and with set theory, different-sized infinities, shows that we are not "finite" observers.

 

[jaketodd]

So, is there ever a time when a theory should be disregarded, long term? If it's had many years to produce results, and it hasn't, is there a time when resources should stop being used for it? Sometimes the resources used are in the millions or even billions of dollars. And brain power can be refocused, so effort is producing actual verifiable progress with other theories. But what's the threshold? When is it time to call it quits on a theory?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sometimes the resources used are in the millions or even billions of dollars.

Please give an example of spending billions of dollars on a theory that should be abandoned. Multiple examples would be even better.

 

[Demystifier]

I think the fact that humans etc. can comprehend infinity, and with set theory, different-sized infinities, shows that we are not "finite" observers.

Humans comprehend infinity by reducing it to something finite. All explanations of infinity take a finite number of symbols.

Or to paraphrase Janis Joplin, infinity's just another word for something left to gain.

 

[ohwilleke]

Please give an example of spending billions of dollars on a theory that should be abandoned. Multiple examples would be even better.

SUSY.

 

[jaketodd]

Please give an example of spending billions of dollars on a theory that should be abandoned. Multiple examples would be even better.

I was talking about the LHC: https://www.google.com/search?q=lhc+cost

 

[jaketodd]

Humans comprehend infinity by reducing it to something finite. All explanations of infinity take a finite number of symbols.

Or to paraphrase Janis Joplin, infinity's just another word for something left to gain.

The symbol of infinity is infinite. Just like a circle is.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I was talking about the LHC:

And what theory "that should be abandoned" has caused us to spend billions on the LHC?

Here's what I think. I think you just Made It Up. You will find that's not how PF works and that's not how science works.

 

[Demystifier]

The symbol of infinity is infinite. Just like a circle is.

No, it's finite but without boundary.

 

[jaketodd]

And what theory "that should be abandoned" has caused us to spend billions on the LHC?

Here's what I think. I think you just Made It Up. You will find that's not how PF works and that's not how science works.

It's my opinion that way too much money is spent on "science." A lot of the time, tons of money is spent on complicated operations and research that yield very little actual advances. That's the gist here.

 

[Frabjous]

It's my opinion that way too much money is spent on "science." A lot of the time, tons of money is spent on complicated operations and research that yield very little actual advances. That's the gist here.

So in a world of ~8000000000 people, supporting a couple of 1000 string theorists is excessive?

 

[jaketodd]

So in a world of ~8000000000 people, supporting a couple of 1000 string theorists is excessive?

I think there are times in life when it's time to call it quits, in many areas.
And it's not a purely monetary subject. Convoluted, over-complicated, confusing, charlatan theories exist in physics and all areas. And they just confuse people and waste time.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's my opinion that way too much money is spent on "science." A lot of the time, tons of money is spent on complicated operations and research that yield very little actual advances.

First, you are shifting your ground. You originally said this was pursuing "theories that should be abandoned." But you couldn't give any examples. This is reinforcing my conclusion that you just Made It Up. You will not go far on PF if you insist on just Making Things Up.

Second, how much is too much? How much do you think should be spent on science? Or as you say, with scare quotes, 'science'. 10% of GDP? 5%? If you think it is too much, tell us what it should be, and defend your number.

Finally, using the World Wide Web and devices using transistors and ICs manufactured using UV lithography to complain about a lack of benefits of science...excuse me...'science'...is, well hilarious.

 

[Frabjous]

I think there are times in life when it's time to call it quits, in many areas.
And it's not a purely monetary subject. Convoluted, over-complicated, confusing, charlatan theories exist in physics and all areas. And they just confuse people and waste time.

String theory is not a charlatan theory. It may prove to be wrong or unverifiable, but that is completely different. The resistance to string theory is arising from the physics community itself, so the idea that it will go in perpetuity “as is” is naive and a waste of our time. Most research areas do not die, they go fallow.

 

[jaketodd]

First, you are shifting your ground. You originally said this was pursuing "theories that should be abandoned." But you couldn't give any examples. This is reinforcing my conclusion that you just Made It Up. You will not go far on PF if you insist on just Making Things Up.

Second, how much is too much? How much do you think should be spent on science? Or as you say, with scare quotes, 'science'. 10% of GDP? 5%? If you think it is too much, tell us what it should be, and defend your number.

Finally, using the World Wide Web and devices using transistors and ICs manufactured using UV lithography to complain about a lack of benefits of science...excuse me...'science'...is, well hilarious.

You're trying to put words in my mouth, and are just plain rude.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Which words?

 

[weirdoguy]

Convoluted, over-complicated, confusing, charlatan theories exist in physics and all areas.

Since you are not a physicists, what are the grounds you are basing this opinion on? What theories you have in mind? You surely don't know that much about string "theories" to say such things.