I know what it is and I know how it works but do we actually have anything evidence for it to exist?
its only a mathematical theory
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?
Please cite one "evidence" of string theory.
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.
What you call something that is a wild deduction from an accepted theroy but has never been observed is uncertain. Hypothesis maybe? You can do a lot of math with Einstein's equations and come up with some wild stuff; much of it seems physically fishy and nobody has seen any of it, but some people, including some very respectible physicsts, like to fool around with it.
may be but some of them in the interview were pretty sure it is a matter of time b/f it will be proven, they there has never been a theory with this much time dedicated to it, this many funds, and mathematical analysis to it and been proven wrong.
One of them said it is possible though that we end up w/ some kind of variation of this string theory.
I mean nobody is saying that it is perfectly theoretical but to disregard it completely is also not acceptable.
You need to watch that show again and pay attention to Sheldon Glashow's criticism of string theory, especially the part where they keep repeating the phrase that unless String Theory can produce testable predictions, it isn't physics but rather philosophy. Pay attention to that part, because if String has "evidence", they wouldn't have said that!
And this is why I insist that people who come here and ask or use stuff they read or head about, make accurate citation of their sources, because things like this happens all the time where people make the wrong interpretation of things they barely know in the first place. This is one such clear example.
I get your point and I wouldn't do this again but about that, he was just one of those scientist, I don't remember the other one's name but he said that there hasn't been a theory that has had this much hard spent at and being theory. He did refer to another theory which scientist spent 10 years on and ended up being a blockhole but that one didn't have that much mathematical analysis in it. 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.
To directly answer your question: No, there's no evidence that worm holes actually exist naturally. All discussions I've seen about creating/maintaining macroscopic wormholes involve "negative" mass, so it's quite possible they can't be created artificially, either.
What data? Just because it has mathematical "support" does NOT make it physics! I can show you a gazillion mathematical derivation of stuff that went nowhere.
This is physics. It isn't mathematics. Physics is not done simply by theoretical development. If it is, we would not need experimentalists. If you think you are comfortable putting your life, and the lives of your loved ones, on something that has mathematical derivation but ZERO experimental verifications, then be my guest.
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.
Again, you should review the show. Brian Greene was suggesting (why is it that I can remember who said what, while you can't, and yet, you think you got the content right?) that String Theory deserves to be considered because of the theoretical pedigree. Nowhere was he suggesting that it is valid physics. He, of all people, knows better.
Unfortunately, it's the rest of the population that is being seduced by it. I'm not going to go into this any further because you can easily read all my complaints about this in the String/Beyond SM forum.
I can't remember their names b/c I don't know them. The only person I know is Brian Greene and he said that it is a theory b/c he had to speak the facts and I am not saying that he believed or any other person believed in it. 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.
What is a "mathematical data"?
I can generate "results" out of my mathematical model. Tons of them. So this makes it valid?
I challenge you to go look at the program again, and see if you have interpreted it right. Honestly, mathematical data?
And oh, you might also want to take a sneak peak at a number of assumptions that various flavors of String Theory have made. Want an example to start your goose chase? Try figuring out how many forms of the Higgs bosons is required in one version of String Theory. Now, armed with all your "mathematical data", tell me what would happen if neither the Tevatron nor the LHC would have found the Higgs? Could you then tell me how much all of those "mathematical data" be worth now?
alright, I will watch it again and get back to youj. Its gonna take me some time though since I will watch it on the channel, I only borrowed its dvd from someone, I dont 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.
But there's a difference between "belief" and "verifications". If you were saying this way in the beginning, that you "believe" in this thing not based on valid empricial verification, but simply as a matter of TASTES, then I wouldn't have spent all this time trying to get it through you that physics just doesn't work this way and show you the way to the Philosophy forum.
However, we are in the physics forum, and in physics, UNTIL something has empricial evidence, it isn't considered to be anywhere close to being valid! Grab ANY example of accepted physics and try and find one that doesn't come with a baggage load of experimental verifications!
You have shown that you are still rather new in dealing with not only the various areas of physics, but also the workings of physics. I hate to think that you have a very skewered view of how we do things in this field of study. You like String Theory (ignoring the question on whether you even understand it at all)? Good for you. But do not fool yourself (or try to convince others) that this is a done deal just because it has a boatload of "mathematical data". In physics, one valid and verified experimental evidence will trump ALL the mathematical data that you can cook up!
If I were you, I would ask myself this question: Is there any precedent, in the history of physics, where a theory has been worked on THIS LONG, by this many people, and getting this much hype, without even having ANY (we're talking about even ONE here) single shred of experimental evidence to indicate that it is even in the right direction?
When you have done your research to be able to answer me that question, then come back here and tell me you "believe" in String Theory.
I would bet the theory in question was "energetics" which didn't believe in particles and tried to use energy as the fundamental building block of physics. And no, it didn't have much of a mathematical structure; the people who adhered to it were either philosophers or experimentalists; two categories that like to go as far without math as they can. (cf. "downward causation").
Einstein's famous big three papers in 1905 were aimed at energetics as much as anything; he showed the utility of quanta, explained the kinematics of electromagnetism operationally, and defended the reality of subatomic particles in his work on brownian motion and Avogadro's constant.
It takes a solid math infrastucture to create a breakthrough theory that isn't going to fall apart, but the math-physics connection is "degenerate" in the sense of having multiple solutions. Only some of them will correspond to experience. So math by itself cannot sustain a theory, just as Peter Woit keeps insisting, a theory which doesn't make clear falsifiable predictions is Not Even Wrong. The day of reckoning can be put off, but eventually it comes.
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 thoery" said that. For my sake though,(I have to review a lot of things) I am going to watch it again.
Btw, I don't find anything wrong w/ energetics, isn't energy the building fundamental blocks of physics?
So does that mean if I put ANOTHER physicist on TV and tell you that String Theory will not solve anything, you'd believe it?
The problem with the majority of people who watches TV (and most media) is that they fall in love with sound bites, attractive styles, and bells and whistles, without paying significant attention to the CONTENT, or the validity of it. You yourself admitted that you are clueless about String Theory, yet you bought what was sold to you wholesale to the point that you BELIEVE in it. You were seduced by the style without understanding the substance. This is dangerous.
Now get this very clear - I'm NOT telling that (i) String theory is wrong or (ii) you shouldn't be studying it. I'm telling you that there is a serious FLAW in the way YOU derive your decisions and conclusions! This is no longer about string theory or wormholes. It is about your flagrant acceptance (or beliefs) in something that isn't even fully verified and accepted by MOST physicists, all based on what? A seductive TV program? You don't find this scarry?
Having an enthusiasm for physics is wonderful. I wish we have more people like that. However, being tempestuous and careless with "evidence" and what are accepted as facts would do you more harm than good, because it ruins your credibility and reputation. People spend a lifetime buidling those two things, and yet they can be destroyed within the blink of an eye. Just ask Fleishman and Pons, and Hendrik Schon.
PF is not like any other forums you may have encounted. There are professional physicists, engineers, biologists, etc on here. Most of us will not let anyone get way with loose facts or abusing them. So unless you can defend what you claim, it is best to just sit tight and learn from what is being posted. If not, be prepared to get this type of grilling.
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?
Geez superw, I have to sleep sometime!
The point was that they reified energy and insisted that energy-stuff, not particles or fields, was what the world is made of. This is not so; neither quantum theory nor general relativity holds that.
well, I wasn't aware of that, but still, energy is the building fundamental block of physics, right?
No, not right. Energy comes in various forms and is a property of other things, such as particles and fields. Believe me superweirdo, no physicist begins with the energy. Mostly they begin with interactions of things, and the key concept (NOT building block!) there is action, which starts with the momentary energy of the interaction; (thus a function of time) multiplied by the differential of time. This is integrated from the beginning time of the interaction to the end time, and the result is the action. Now it is an accepted axiom that the interaction will proceed along a set of states for which this action is stationary; i.e. if you look at the action of all states nearby to the ones that occur, the action varies little; in the limit the variation is zero. This could mean the action along the set of actual states is a minimum, or a maximum, or possbly some kind of inflection point. Whatever, the variation of the action along the path of the interaction vanishes, as they say. Lagrange showed how you could use this vanishing to derive the equations of motion for the interaction (it's a very easy calculation if you know the math). And that's how both classical and quantum physics start out.
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?
Separate names with a comma.