How to explain the benefits of string theory to my grandmother

[Demystifier]

... evolution seems to be a fundamental aspect of nature that particle physicists and cosmologists have not really taken into account so far... if it applied to organic molecules, why not to the fundamental constituents of our universe ?

Because they are, by assumption, fundamental. Unless you think that "fundamental" constituents are not really so fundamental?

 

[chrisina]

but isn't that precisely the idea behind trying to find some logic in the whole "zoo" of of particles in the standard model ?

There might be no logic, I agree, but that statement should not stop people from trying to find one... We might discover something, in the same way as we discovered something when we tried to explain the periodic table of elements.

I'll be away for a couple of weeks...

 

[chrisina]

and by the way, I'm more and more inclined to believe that the key lies in our understanding of the vacuum.
This is just a crackpot hypothesis, I know, but maybe one day someone will come up with a model for the vacuum which will explain the "zoo", the uncertainty principle, and the foundations of GR.
And I bet it will be some form of deterministic system and will entail dimension reduction, not augmentation.

Just a bet, who wants to take it ?

In that line, there's one paper I love from G. 't Hooft

gr-qc/9903084 "quantum gravity as a dissipative deterministic system"

BTW, the latest paper by E. Witten (see other thread by Ensabah 6) seems that more people are looking in what happens when one simplifies GR and looks at it in 2+1 dimensions.

The question will of course be, if something comes out of this, how to derive from this a model for the real world (3+1). But let's wait and see, I'm inclined to think that it is a new direction, and certainly opposite to the old ST multiplication of solutions.

 

[Fra]

Because they are, by assumption, fundamental. Unless you think that "fundamental" constituents are not really so fundamental?

IMO, there is at least a certain way they are not "fundamental".

IMO the "fundamental" constitutents are IMO, first of all, really a part of of our model, our best understanding of how things seem to work. We like to think that this models reflects the true nature of things, but the real question is, what is the difference between the nature of things and our best knowledge of how things seems to behave. Because the fundamental thing here is IMO, is that whatever the "nature of things is", it is not given to us. We have to learn, and find out. The truth is not given to use, it's something we apparently acquire or "find out". And this the process of "finding out" - the scientific process - can at least IMHO not be trivially separated from the result.

Understandings tend to improve, and what was believe to be fundamental several thousand years ago, is not considered to be fundamental today. And finally the point would be that even if some constitutiens ARE fundamental - what is the sense in such a statement until we have acquired support for it? It's simply not there.

So IMO the better attitude is to consider expected fundamental constitutents. But we should have learned the lession that expectations tend to change, so I would be reluctact to carve anything in stone.

I suspect that some may feel the above argumentation seems to much hung up on "human understanding" but this is not necessarily so, because the idea is that there is close analogies and similarities with learning processes and physical processes.

This is why I personally take the attitude that the fundamental "constituents" are not irreducible facts, but rather the rule how we arrive by reasoning to this _supposed_ irreducible facts.

That is not perfect and foolproof, but I do not see a better way (atm) to the limit of my current understanding. That's all I'm asking of myself. In either case I can't stretch myself to ignore the possibility that even the to mankind best scientific knowledge of what is fundamental and is not, may come to be revised, as many times before.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

I'm more and more inclined to believe that the key lies in our understanding of the vacuum.
This is just a crackpot hypothesis, I know, but maybe one day someone will come up with a model for the vacuum which will explain the "zoo", the uncertainty principle, and the foundations of GR.
And I bet it will be some form of deterministic system and will entail dimension reduction, not augmentation.

Just a bet, who wants to take it ?

I agree that the "vacuum" is very interesting and is probably a key focus point. The critical scientific reasoning should also be applied to the vacuum. It seems "nothing" is not so innocent what you try to define the question better. The fact that we ask questions about vacuum seems to suggest that there is at minimum a connection to the questioner. A "vacuum" that has any meaning whatsoever to us, must have a connection to us, like a boundary. So it seems the qualifying support for the vacuum itself must emerge from the boundaries. To just picture complete vacuum with no boundaris and no interacting observer seems very ambigous. There is always a faint connection, or the question would hardly have appeared. At least I could't picture how.

/Fredrik

 

[rewebster]

Now---There's two terms that seem to be at the heart of the matter:


Logic

&

String/MWI theory



Two definitions of logic here?:

logic = a type of philosophy

or

logic = using math

(term usage: something seems to have happened about mid-century with the term 'logic' + and the 'math' of computers gaining prominence to push the 'term' 'logic' more toward a 'math' definition)



I know for myself that it (logic) SHOULD be some (a compatible level) combination of both (reasoning and possibilities).
---------------------------
String/MWI theorists would really, REALLY like their theory to be FUNDEMENTAL. Green's NOVA broadcast tried to push that thought through. ('did everyone buy the book right after the broadcast?', some 'anonymous' person asks.

 

[rewebster]

What percentage (0%-> 100%) do you (as personal opinions) assign to the logic (reasoning) and to the logic (math) of string/MWI theory, where the total of the two totals 100%?

-----------------------------------
For me:



logic (reasoning)= 5%

logic (math)= 95%

nb: not understanding some/all the math (for me) of string decreases the 'logic (reasoning)=' number.

 

[Fra]

IMO, mathematics has been the language of preference for any "theory" that is to make quantitative predictions, may it be physics, economy or many other things, because it's hard to quantify something without ending up inventing some kind of number system, and all the other stuff that unevitably follows from applying that. So to be into that business without at least some minimum of skills on the tools, makes it a lot harder. So math is good and necessary at least from an effective point of view.

However I think there is a substantial difference between understanding the language, and understanding whatever you are trying to say using that language. Neither do I think you need to be a math professor to have an opinion on string theory. Perhaps that explains my position.

It seems that the need to express something, often drives the development of tools and new formalisms and tools. But for me the tools has their main justification in the very questions they were originally designed to answer.

To apply a given well known and working theory, that's "applied science" to me. To learn how to use a given, and proven tool, is something different than reasoning why we need to invent new tools. And the inventive process is different than the application process.

In the inventive case I'd obviously put a massive emphasis on logical reasoning. But even in the process of reasoning mathematics is sometimes a tool.

Sometimes different tasks may have differently tools of choice, or perhaps sometimes some things can be done with different choices of tools. But it seems to be sometimes, certains tools are simply outperforming other tools in terms of effiency for certain tasks. This can be both in favour and in disfavour of math. Sometimes plain english outperforms symbolic math, in several ways, but more often in physics the opposite seems true.

Some people often argue that physics is just hard math, and everything else is just philosophy that leads nowhere. I couldn't disagree more with that attitude.

So I agree we need both. About the percentages I think I could put almost any numbers there, and find a way to defend it, depending on how the question is interpreted.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

I often find myself experiencing the almost paradoxal (though it's not really a paradox) situation that sometimes overly stringent and "narrow minded" formalisms may prevent you from even understanding a new questions. You simply don't see it, because what is outside the defined language, is by definition not "heard", it's silently disposed of as noise. You need to shutdown the anality and try to be more sensitive to even the most fuzzy apperances, before the question is understood, but then, in the process of answering the question, I often find myself, refining the question and eventually rediscovering a need to sharpen the view into a more "narrow minded" search again to find an (answer,question) set that is to satisfaction.

OTOH getting stuck in the wide but low res mode, may not yield satisfactory answers to any questions. Because the resolution in the language is too poor.

/Fredrik

 

[rewebster]

IMO, mathematics has been the language of preference for any "theory" that is to make quantitative predictions, may it be physics, economy or many other things, because it's hard to quantify something without ending up inventing some kind of number system, and all the other stuff that unevitably follows from applying that. So to be into that business without at least some minimum of skills on the tools, makes it a lot harder. So math is good and necessary at least from an effective point of view.

However I think there is a substantial difference between understanding the language, and understanding whatever you are trying to say using that language. Neither do I think you need to be a math professor to have an opinion on string theory. Perhaps that explains my position.

It seems that the need to express something, often drives the development of tools and new formalisms and tools. But for me the tools has their main justification in the very questions they were originally designed to answer.

To apply a given well known and working theory, that's "applied science" to me. To learn how to use a given, and proven tool, is something different than reasoning why we need to invent new tools. And the inventive process is different than the application process.

In the inventive case I'd obviously put a massive emphasis on logical reasoning. But even in the process of reasoning mathematics is sometimes a tool.
Sometimes different tasks may have differently tools of choice, or perhaps sometimes some things can be done with different choices of tools. But it seems to be sometimes, certains tools are simply outperforming other tools in terms of effiency for certain tasks. This can be both in favour and in disfavour of math. Sometimes plain english outperforms symbolic math, in several ways, but more often in physics the opposite seems true.

Some people often argue that physics is just hard math, and everything else is just philosophy that leads nowhere. I couldn't disagree more with that attitude.

So I agree we need both. About the percentages I think I could put almost any numbers there, and find a way to defend it, depending on how the question is interpreted.
/Fredrik

1) yes--absolutely

2) invention/discovery always comes first

3) I'm just asking your opinion (for placing the percentages) --not to be etched in stone

-----------------------------------------

and try to be more sensitive to even the most fuzzy apperances, before the question is understood,

sort of like those 'fuzzy stars' from before the 1920's or 1930's

 

[Fra]

3) I'm just asking your opinion (for placing the percentages) --not to be etched in stone

I figured that, but the above was my version of the answer :) But to give numbers how about

logic (reasoning)= 95% / logic (math)= 5%, during the early phase where the theory is nothing but a speculation on a fuzzy question, because in this early stage I think more effort should be spent on trying to understand what we are doing and what options we have...

...but suppose in the future IF this theory is largely supported by more experiment and finally ends upp accepted as a working TOOL, then most of the fuzzy is resolved already, and hopefully transladed into computational schemes... so in this later - mature state, I think perhaps one can axiomatize it and then perhaps logic (reasoning)= 5% / logic (math)= 95% seems more reasoanble.

As for right now, at least I've got a feeling that the early part has been rushed over, in eager to dig into juicy math. So I would personally like to see more reasoning, than what is typically seen.

/Fredrik

 

[rewebster]

Now, there's something 'metaphysical/paranormal'---the last few posts of this thread disappeared

---------oops different thread--never mind

 

[rewebster]

and by the way, I'm more and more inclined to believe that the key lies in our understanding of the vacuum.
This is just a crackpot hypothesis, I know, but maybe one day someone will come up with a model for the vacuum which will explain the "zoo", the uncertainty principle, and the foundations of GR.
And I bet it will be some form of deterministic system and will entail dimension reduction, not augmentation.

Just a bet, who wants to take it ?

In that line, there's one paper I love from G. 't Hooft

gr-qc/9903084 "quantum gravity as a dissipative deterministic system"

BTW, the latest paper by E. Witten (see other thread by Ensabah 6) seems that more people are looking in what happens when one simplifies GR and looks at it in 2+1 dimensions.

The question will of course be, if something comes out of this, how to derive from this a model for the real world (3+1). But let's wait and see, I'm inclined to think that it is a new direction, and certainly opposite to the old ST multiplication of solutions.

Define the BET a little more (since you initiated it)---and what the 'prize' for winning will be


--------------------------------------

Most ideas from theories, even relativity, can be usually 'translated' into a layman's language with 'illustrations' and 'analogies'. They may not be prefect in 'translation' , but even when Green 'tried' to animate strings in 'El.. Uni..', it (string) seemed like all the best they could do was similar to a piece of spaghetti bouncing around on a trampoline.

(I kept looking around for the fork to appear)