Lay-lines:- anything measurable at them?

  • Thread starter jim_990
  • Start date
  • #1
35
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

Lay-lines although not visible seem to be findable by some people, & points seem to line up on these lines. Churches are often built upon them. But has anyone ever measured any electrical, magnetic, or gravitational signals on these lines, or are they a complete scientific mystery.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
SGT
Ley-lines are not a scientific mystery. They are New Age BS, so there is nothing to be measured.
 
  • #3
35
0
They are certainly not new, most middle-aged churches in England are arranged on straight 'ley-lines'. You may think they are BS but with an attitude like yours its a good job you are not a scientist, as you need an open mind for this job. I am sceptical about them, however, without measuring EMF & Gravity etc on known ley-lines you cannot say one way or the other. There may be good scientific reasons behind a diviner moving on such points
 
  • #4
SGT
jim_990 said:
They are certainly not new, most middle-aged churches in England are arranged on straight 'ley-lines'. You may think they are BS but with an attitude like yours its a good job you are not a scientist, as you need an open mind for this job. I am sceptical about them, however, without measuring EMF & Gravity etc on known ley-lines you cannot say one way or the other. There may be good scientific reasons behind a diviner moving on such points
Churches were not built along ley-lines. They were built haphazardly along the centuries and in the 20th century some woo-woo noticed that lines could be drawn connecting some of the places.
No measurements were made on gravity and EMF because there is no reason to do so.
 
  • #5
1,134
7
Wikipedia According to data obtained by investigators of ley line theories, some ley lines points possess higher magnetic energy than the average geomagnetic intensity. This has been investigated and published about in sources such as "Places of power" (Paul Devereux; Blandford Press, 1990) and "Lodestone Compass: Chinese or Olmec Primacy?" (John B. Carlson; Science, 1975) among other sources.
 
  • #6
matthyaouw
Gold Member
1,153
4
hypatia said:
Wikipedia According to data obtained by investigators of ley line theories, some ley lines points possess higher magnetic energy than the average geomagnetic intensity. This has been investigated and published about in sources such as "Places of power" (Paul Devereux; Blandford Press, 1990) and "Lodestone Compass: Chinese or Olmec Primacy?" (John B. Carlson; Science, 1975) among other sources.
I'm unconvinced. Geomagnetic intensity varies with the underlying geology, which could be the cause.
A quick google search hasn't brought up any specifics about the research, so I can't comment in any detail.
 
  • #7
1,134
7
I'm unconvinced too, I was just showing that some one had actually done some research.
In the middle of U of Michigan is a green lawn. Over the years well defined paths were made, so they put sidewalks where the paths were made. These Uni-ley lines are simply just the easiest way to get to get from one building to another. Which is why I suspect other things also line up, its just the shortest most direct way.
 
  • #8
35
0
ley-lines in England are quite consistent and well known. Unfortunately most churches were built on these lines long before America was discovered, so I doubt your perspective is as interesting, as ley-lines in michigan are more likely to be random things invented by American UFO nutters, at least theres some consistency over herem worth at least looking at
 
  • #9
35
0
Roads dont & never have run along these lines either & in a lot of cases(such as over hills, which is quite common) they would be the worst way to travel. but a good point. I thought that maybe as dousing rods were supposed to move, there may be heavier rock undergrounds affecting gravity slightly or EMF, however some people use wooden dousing rods rather than metal. Uri Geler used to be paid a lot of money by oil companies to fly over countries and douse for oil
 
  • #10
35
0
just saying they are BS without any explanation or noticeable intelligence is not very helpful
why is there no reason to measure EMF of gravity upon them? Lets just say they are BS then & dismiss them & not measure anything, thank god the rest of sciencific discovery isnt based upon those methodologies
 
  • #11
1,134
7
I guss its up to you to show us some facts to prove your point. Most of us are willing to listen, you have just given us nothing to listen to.
 
  • #12
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
There is no difference between blind acceptance and blind dismissal. They are two sides of the same coin.
 
  • #13
2
0
Back to topic

We are straying from the topic.
The question as posted by jim_990:
Lay-lines although not visible... // ...has anyone ever measured any electrical, magnetic, or gravitational signals on these lines, or are they a complete scientific mystery.
This had one valid answer, by hypatia:
Wikipedia According to data obtained by investigators of ley line theories, some ley lines points possess higher magnetic energy than the average geomagnetic intensity. This has been investigated and published about in sources such...
In the mean time, SGT proves to be a master of the insignificant, by posting:
Ley-lines are not a scientific mystery. They are New Age BS, so there is nothing to be measured // Churches were not built along ley-lines. They were built haphazardly along the centuries and in the 20th century some woo-woo noticed that lines could be drawn connecting some of the places.
No measurements were made on gravity and EMF because there is no reason to do so.
A nice opinion without any backing, thank you SGT.
Whereafter matthyaouw posed an interesting, yet off topic question with:
I'm unconvinced. Geomagnetic intensity varies with the underlying geology, which could be the cause.
Where does this lead us? Ley-lines are an esoteric heritage, which usually implies that even if there once was scientific backing to it, it has probably been lost in the hubble of mumo-jumbo that the new-age movement likes so much. This does not mean there is no such scientific backing. It merely means that if the phenomenon exists, we need to do some research to find out more.
If anyone here is truly interested, read the sources provided by Hypatia and put them through thorough scientific scrutiny. Falsify what is not true, and leave the rest to public scrutiny.
After this, those that wish to stick to superstision (either by believing or disbelieving), can do so in a more secure framework. Yet those that wish to know more, will have a better base to do it from.
Lastly, in response to matthyaow. Yes, it is quite possible the underlying geology is the cause of any such measurements. Yet please refrain from using "A phenomenon has a mundane cause" as an explanation for "I am unconvinced". It is not only invalid, it is misguiding. If you wish to be unconvinced, be unconvinced because all the scientific data have not convinced you. This keeps the conversation more pleasant and more managable.
The original poster made his inquiry from the assumption ley-lines exist and had a noticable influence in one way or the other. Either disprove the assumption that they exist, disprove the notion that they have a noticable influence, or accept his assumptions and think along in how to gather more information on the subject.
 
  • #14
wolram
Gold Member
4,260
554
Some reading on the subject.

http://www.ghostvillage.com/legends/2003/legends33_12132003.shtml

The term and concept of "leys" was first put forth in June of 1921 by Alfred Watkins (1855-1935), a well-known Herefordshire businessman, photographer, and amateur archeologist. While examining some maps, Watkins noticed that some ancient sites -- stone circles, standing stones, and prehistoric mounds -- fell into an alignment. Watkins originally thought these alignments were old traders' routes and he named them "leys," an old Anglo-Saxon word for meadows or cleared strips of land. In 1925, Watkins published a book on the subject entitled, The Old Straight Track.

http://www.geocities.com/leylinequest/leylines_new_straight_track.htm

The third, and last, Leyline Publications offering to the public was Glasgow's Secret Geometry (ISBN 0-9506219-1-9); first published in 1984, and the only one of the three books still in print. Without the UFOs and New Age sensationalism nobody noticed it except the dowsing societies. Many of their members had read books on energy lines and wondered if PSAs were the same thing, so a summer outing was arranged to introduce them to the subject. We met at the Eglinton Arms in Eaglesham, 'tuned up' at the Moot Hill on the village green, then set off along the Humbie Road alignment.
 
  • #15
SGT
Yerdiss said:
We are straying from the topic.
The question as posted by jim_990:
This had one valid answer, by hypatia:
In the mean time, SGT proves to be a master of the insignificant, by posting:
A nice opinion without any backing, thank you SGT.
Welcome to the forum Yerdiss! You are free to disagree with my opinions, but you must refrain from posting personal offenses.
If anyone here is truly interested, read the sources provided by Hypatia and put them through thorough scientific scrutiny. Falsify what is not true, and leave the rest to public scrutiny.
From Wikipedia
The two British dowsers, Captain Robert Boothby and Reginald Smith of the British Museum have linked the appearance of ley-lines with underground streams, and magnetic currents. Ley-spotter / Dowser Underwood conducted various investigations and claimed that crossings of 'negative' water lines and positive aquastats explain why certain sites were chosen as holy. He found so many of these 'double lines' on sacred sites that he named them 'holy lines.'
Dowsing has been shown to perform no better than chance in controlled experiments. To accept dowsers claims as evidence is unacceptable in a scientific forum.
The original poster made his inquiry from the assumption ley-lines exist and had a noticable influence in one way or the other. Either disprove the assumption that they exist, disprove the notion that they have a noticable influence, or accept his assumptions and think along in how to gather more information on the subject.
The OP made no assumptions. He posted a question.
What do you mean by disproving the existence of ley-lines? The existence of alignments between some points is evident and I accept it. If you want to baptize those alignments as ley-lines, I accept the name. It is as good as any other.
About disproving that those lines have any influence, it is equivalent of asking you to disprove that there is an invisible gnome floating above your shoulder while you read this post. It is impossible to prove an universal negative.
If someone claims that there is such influence, the burden of the proof is on the claimant. Give some evidence and I will be glad to analize it. If the evidence is convincing I will accept the claim.
 
  • #16
2
0
Ley-lines

SGT said:
Welcome to the forum Yerdiss! You are free to disagree with my opinions, but you must refrain from posting personal offenses.
Thank you for the welcome. I offer you my apology for stating things rather harshly. My point does remain, however, that it is better not to state anything, than to discredit a notion that (while perhaps improbable) is not impossible, without any arguments.
From Wikipedia
Dowsing has been shown to perform no better than chance in controlled experiments. To accept dowsers claims as evidence is unacceptable in a scientific forum.
I wonder, have you read the sources Hypatia referred to? If so, I would love to read your review of them, to back up your statements. In her reference, she noted no such thing as dowsing. A brief check through the web on these works is inconclusive in this regard. It seems that, in order to reject these, one would have to read them.
The OP made no assumptions. He posted a question.
Rhetorics. Now add some logic to explain what I meant: A and B and C seem to be the case. Can someone give me D so that D => A and B and C ? This assumes things. The proper answer is either: "D", hence true, or "not A", "Not B", or "Not C", hence false.
What do you mean by disproving the existence of ley-lines? The existence of alignments between some points is evident and I accept it. If you want to baptize those alignments as ley-lines, I accept the name. It is as good as any other.
It is making creditable that, due to the nature of the electromagnetic fields and gravity fields, ley-lines cannot exist as they are described. This statement was added in reference to your first comment:
Ley-lines are not a scientific mystery. They are New Age BS, so there is nothing to be measured.
In which I read that you do not believe ley-lines exist. Even when you accept the definition, it is still possible to show that the definition is not compatible with the model of natural science that you accept as true.
About disproving that those lines have any influence, it is equivalent of asking you to disprove that there is an invisible gnome floating above your shoulder while you read this post. It is impossible to prove an universal negative.
If someone claims that there is such influence, the burden of the proof is on the claimant. Give some evidence and I will be glad to analize it. If the evidence is convincing I will accept the claim.
I partially agree, yet with such an attitude, we will not accomplish much in this matter. The initial question leads me to believe the original poster wishes to learn more. So, either give him cause to doubt his assumption that there could be an influence people can notice, or give him a notion on why this may be. Ideally, this is something that can be scientifically backed up. Non-ideally, it leads to a choice which of the options to believe.
To illustrate, an example. In early Mesopotamia, it was generally accepted the earth was flat. When it was argued by Pythagoras, amongst others, that the earth was round, that in itself was not proof but rather a matter of debate. However, Aristotle's proof was in itself a counterproof of the flat earth, for the simple reason that round => not flat. Only by having this counterproof could the debate be ended, for else it would remain a matter of debate and belief.
In this matter of ley-lines, there are three teachings. Until one of them comes with a conclusive prove that the others are wrong, there will not be an end to the discussion.
For more information, try this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/ley_line
It should provide sufficient to ponder over whilst determining which side to choose.
 
  • #17
SGT
Yerdiss said:
Thank you for the welcome. I offer you my apology for stating things rather harshly. My point does remain, however, that it is better not to state anything, than to discredit a notion that (while perhaps improbable) is not impossible, without any arguments.
Apologies accepted. The argument I have is that there is no evidence for any anomaly along ley lines, eccept those found by dowsers.
I wonder, have you read the sources Hypatia referred to? If so, I would love to read your review of them, to back up your statements. In her reference, she noted no such thing as dowsing. A brief check through the web on these works is inconclusive in this regard. It seems that, in order to reject these, one would have to read them.
Wich sources? The only reference I found in Hypatia's post is Wikipedia. I read the reference.
Rhetorics. Now add some logic to explain what I meant: A and B and C seem to be the case. Can someone give me D so that D => A and B and C ? This assumes things. The proper answer is either: "D", hence true, or "not A", "Not B", or "Not C", hence false.
If he makes a claim it is up to him to present evidences that support it, not to me to present contrary evidence.
It is making creditable that, due to the nature of the electromagnetic fields and gravity fields, ley-lines cannot exist as they are described. This statement was added in reference to your first comment:
In which I read that you do not believe ley-lines exist. Even when you accept the definition, it is still possible to show that the definition is not compatible with the model of natural science that you accept as true.
It is true! I believe that there are alignments. I don't believe that those alignments have some significance. If ley line is the name of the alignment with wierd properties associated, then I don't believe ley lines exist until some evidence is presented to change my opinion.
I partially agree, yet with such an attitude, we will not accomplish much in this matter. The initial question leads me to believe the original poster wishes to learn more. So, either give him cause to doubt his assumption that there could be an influence people can notice, or give him a notion on why this may be. Ideally, this is something that can be scientifically backed up. Non-ideally, it leads to a choice which of the options to believe.
The initial question may give this idea, but the subsequent post showed that he wants people to provide evidence to his preconceived ideas. The way he phrased that post made me to decide not to answer him anymore.
To illustrate, an example. In early Mesopotamia, it was generally accepted the earth was flat. When it was argued by Pythagoras, amongst others, that the earth was round, that in itself was not proof but rather a matter of debate. However, Aristotle's proof was in itself a counterproof of the flat earth, for the simple reason that round => not flat. Only by having this counterproof could the debate be ended, for else it would remain a matter of debate and belief.
In this matter of ley-lines, there are three teachings. Until one of them comes with a conclusive prove that the others are wrong, there will not be an end to the discussion.
This is the wrong way to see it. Two of the approachs: the anthropological and the New Age, make claims. It is up to them to provide evidence for those claims. If those evidences are convincing the true skeptics will accept them. If not, they will present arguments against those evidences.
In the article of Wikipedia cited by Hypatia, skeptics have shown that if you have a great number of points scattered randomly, you will find several straight lines joining 4 or more of them. This does not prove that the other two approaches are wrong. It only shows that there is a more prosaic explanation for the alignments. In the absence of strong evidence supporting the other approaches, I apply Ocam's razor to the problem: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" .
For more information, try this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/ley_line
It should provide sufficient to ponder over whilst determining which side to choose.
This article is basically the same as the one in Wikipedia
 
  • #18
matthyaouw
Gold Member
1,153
4
Yerdiss said:
Lastly, in response to matthyaow. Yes, it is quite possible the underlying geology is the cause of any such measurements. Yet please refrain from using "A phenomenon has a mundane cause" as an explanation for "I am unconvinced". It is not only invalid, it is misguiding. If you wish to be unconvinced, be unconvinced because all the scientific data have not convinced you. This keeps the conversation more pleasant and more managable.
I don't undersand your objection here. The reason I am unconvinced is because I have seen no data at all regarding magnetism and ley lines. I can't pass judgement one way or the other on data I havn't seen. Do you find this unreasonable?
 
  • #19
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
51
I guess the big question is simply, "What is a ley line?" and then follow that up with, "Why would you want to measure 'electrical, magnetic or gravitational signals' along these lines?"

If they are nothing more than an observation that people built churches along lines, why not look to the far simpler explanation first, that churches were often at the town center, and thus the lines formed connecting them are probably the roads from town center to town center. Is there any reason to expect the alignment was intentional, or that dowsing or some other measurement of such signals was used to determine the placement of those structures? Otherwise, there needs to be some argument presented as to why we would be interested in measurements along those lines rather than along any other line, like interstate highways.

Finding some increase in signals at some points along the line doesn't mean anything unless you've gone out and measured at the same intervals along some other non-notable line and don't also find variables, or if you can stray off the line in the same area and not note the same changes since geology does vary.
 
  • #20
295
0
in response to the idea of geological influences

is it not so that there must have been a force present and living, which accounts for the present structure of geologic formations?.... considering that metals are magnetic and thereby affected by magnetic fields. there are forces that attract magnetic substances of opposite polarity... is it not so that much of the geologic formation is the result of some "ley-line-ish" force?... or perhaps the ley line is some subordinate manifestation of the electro-magnetic force or that of something more subtle still? without the essential subtle (as in not gross or particulate) force(s) there would be no shape to material "reality"... (lower-case 'r'). matter is inert, without the affectation by some animating force, isn't that so? we can have knowledge of the body by virtue of the mind being more subtle, in the same way that the electron microscope gives us the smallest picture of matter (because it is the most "materially subtle" material that can be used to creat contrast, thereby giving us a picture of that which is just slightly larger than it.) to crassly, and defensively (which is emotionally-charged) call alternative explanations "new-age BS" is not only harmful, but exceedingly ignorant!! there seems to be a huge dependance on that which is visible or made visible, in exclusion of all the other possible sense interpretations. "seeing" is not done merely with eyeballs. there is comtemplation which must be inherent in scientific inquiry, if there is to be any possibility of "seeing" that which is outside of the present "box" of scientific knowledge. "imagination is better than knowledge" is (i believe) what the great scientific mind proclaimed about one century ago. there is more happening now than you can even imagine, let alone know!! so please do not become so self-absorbed as to become self-defensive in the face of ideas that might not agree with those that are in your mind. as a scientist, you will fair much better by heeding this advice. thank you.
 
  • #21
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
5
sameandnot said:
is it not so that there must have been a force present and living, which accounts for the present structure of geologic formations?
Present but not "living". Plate tectonics, mostly plus the hydrological cycle. Brute forces all.

.... considering that metals are magnetic and thereby affected by magnetic fields. there are forces that attract magnetic substances of opposite polarity... is it not so that much of the geologic formation is the result of some "ley-line-ish" force?...
No. Concentration of metals in ores is well understood. The only contribution of magnetism is to orient ferrite crystalls in magma along the Earth's current magnetic field, which gives scientists a good way to estimate the age of rocks, by comparing the orientations with the historically known magnetic alignment with the continents. Most metals, and their salts, are non magnetic anyway.

or perhaps the ley line is some subordinate manifestation of the electro-magnetic force or that of something more subtle still? without the essential subtle (as in not gross or particulate) force(s) there would be no shape to material "reality"... (lower-case 'r'). matter is inert, without the affectation by some animating force, isn't that so?
No that is not so. Quantum field theory shows that matter - in all its ponderable behavior is just the effect of quantum interactions. This is another area which is well understood and we don't have to fantasize about mysterious subtle forces.

we can have knowledge of the body by virtue of the mind being more subtle, in the same way that the electron microscope gives us the smallest picture of matter (because it is the most "materially subtle" material that can be used to creat contrast, thereby giving us a picture of that which is just slightly larger than it.)
Well I believe that the mind is just a neurochemical phenomenon of a particularly complex kind, and therefore completely consistent and dependent on chemistry and quantum physics (but not large scale quantum physics, only as it affects the chemical bond between molecules).

to crassly, and defensively (which is emotionally-charged) call alternative explanations "new-age BS" is not only harmful, but exceedingly ignorant!!
No, just accurate. All of your spouting has brought up no clear evidence of any experiment or objective study. So that is by definition BS. And new age is a handy label, and not wrong, even though junk like this has been spouted for centuries.

there seems to be a huge dependance on that which is visible or made visible, in exclusion of all the other possible sense interpretations. "seeing" is not done merely with eyeballs. there is comtemplation which must be inherent in scientific inquiry, if there is to be any possibility of "seeing" that which is outside of the present "box" of scientific knowledge.
So you say, but where is the evidence? Just the testimony of a lot of people about what their consciousness showed them. But much psychometric experiment shows the brain can be a deceiver, and it is entirely possible that all the insights of all the mystics down all the centuries were just the brain having been self-taught to sit up and play angel.

"imagination is better than knowledge" is (i believe) what the great scientific mind proclaimed about one century ago. there is more happening now than you can even imagine, let alone know!! so please do not become so self-absorbed as to become self-defensive in the face of ideas that might not agree with those that are in your mind. as a scientist, you will fair much better by heeding this advice. thank you.
There is nothing new in anything you claim. It's just the "perennial philosophy" which never changes and never produces anything. Another great scientific mind - Feynman - said science is "imagination in a strait jacket". That was a POSITIVE description. It meant you can't just dream up any old stuff and call it science. You have to obey the law of what works, not just for you inside, but for the interacting community of people outside.
 
  • #22
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
738
Looks like posteri numerology to me.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
295
0
i wrote you a reply but it got erased so while i am at work this will have to suffice, until i may reply again in more words... i know you love words!!

prove to me what you say about any of it. prove that we have an understanding of quantum mechanics. why have string theory then? was the earth always in its present form? how about the universe? how did it evolve? what made it evolve from One? what is involved in the evolution? who are you? you can use a body and a mind, but who is the one that can use them? electro-magnetism... in the duration of all existence, being one the 4 main forces of known physicality, only affected or affects ferrite crystals? you foolish child. of what force are the 4 forces derived from? what is gravity? what are the forces of nature in sufficient clarity of explanation? why are questions still unanswered when you think we know everything? contemplate and get back to me before i get back on you. peas.
 
  • #24
SGT
sameandnot said:
i wrote you a reply but it got erased so while i am at work this will have to suffice, until i may reply again in more words... i know you love words!!
prove to me what you say about any of it. prove that we have an understanding of quantum mechanics. why have string theory then? was the earth always in its present form? how about the universe? how did it evolve? what made it evolve from One? what is involved in the evolution? who are you? you can use a body and a mind, but who is the one that can use them? electro-magnetism... in the duration of all existence, being one the 4 main forces of known physicality, only affected or affects ferrite crystals? you foolish child. of what force are the 4 forces derived from? what is gravity? what are the forces of nature in sufficient clarity of explanation? why are questions still unanswered when you think we know everything? contemplate and get back to me before i get back on you. peas.
Where did anyone in this forum say that we know everything? Science does not claim to know everything and not even to know all is to be known in any particular subject. The knowledge of the Truth is a privilege of religions, that claim to have received this knowledge from a higher being.
All science can offer is the best present understanding of observable phenomena. The questions you have asked are not answerable by science.
If you want answers to them you should address the subforums of General Philosophy or Metaphysics & Epistemology
 
  • #25
295
0
SGT, please refer to the article in mention. first, quantum theory is not well understood. second, hydrology and plate tectonics did not, hardly, sculpt the earth as present, as the earth is a manifestation of universal forces and cannot have been made by forces which exist, solely on/in it. you "belief" of the mind is unimportant and irrelavent. finally, to even think for a second that "small-scale" quantum theory is some how distinct or independent of "large-scale" quantum theory is utterly foolish and has no place in science. actually there can be no real distinction made between anything... even me and you. realize it and accept and love it. we are essentially the same. this subject-object, or knower-knowledge-known duality and triad utterly collapse under Real rational and earnest inquiry on the matter of truth. i am saying that your concepts of science and perhaps all of science is founded on the, essentially Greek (basis of western philosophy, science and perception) fundamental Ignorance that there are objects "out-there" opposed to a subject that is "in-here"... or that there is a "you" distinct and independent of "me", or "me" distinct from "you", or that "small-scale" can be distinct and independent from "large-scale". perhaps stephen hawking might be coming close to realizing this fact... here is some thing for you to read, before i leave you with your selves (if you can even stand to be with your self, without zoning into TV or mechanically thinking in terms of duality).

"Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge has begun wondering where the ultimate limits of our knowledge lie.

Many leading physicists are searching for a single theory that explains all aspects of how the universe works. Will they succeed?

H: Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory that we will eventually discover. Indeed, in the past I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon. However, we have recently realized that the two leading candidates for the ultimate theory—supergravity and string theory—are just part of a larger structure known as M-theory. Despite its name, M-theory isn’t a single theory. It is actually a network of theories, each of which works well in certain circumstances but breaks down in others. These theories have quite different properties. For instance, in some theories space has 9 dimensions while in others it has 10. Yet all these theories are on a similar footing—none can be said to be a better representation of the real world than the others. This has now made me wonder whether it is possible to formulate a single theory of the universe, at least in a finite number of statements.



Is the patchwork quality of M-theory merely a reflection of our ignorance?

H: There are other, purely theoretical, reasons to believe that an ultimate theory of everything might not be possible. For instance, there is Gödel’s theorem, which says that you cannot formulate a finite system of axioms to prove every result in mathematics. A physical theory is a mathematical model, so if there are mathematical results that cannot be proved, there are physical problems that cannot be solved. But the real relevance of Gödel’s theorem is its connection to the fact that inconsistencies can arise if you try to prove statements that refer to themselves. One of the most famous of these is the assertion “This statement is false.” If the statement is true, then according to the statement itself, the statement is false. But if the statement is false, then the statement must be true. Since we are not angels who view the universe from the outside, we—and our theories—are both part of the universe we are describing, and hence our theories are also self-referencing. And so one might expect that they, too, are either inconsistent or incomplete.



Are you disturbed by the possibility that there is no single ultimate theory?

H: Some people will be very disappointed if there is no ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I’ve changed my mind. I’m now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without it, we would stagnate."

-Discover Magazine, October 2005

poor stephen, is not aware the injustice he does to science by assuming something that he does not know... assuming that non-scientific "progress" is stagnation, he claims to know more than he does an thereby contradicts the very basis of the logical, proof-driven ideal of science. he should see what it is to not follow his habitual path, in search of real truth (if there be one) and then he might be able to worry about stagnation.
 

Related Threads for: Lay-lines:- anything measurable at them?

  • Last Post
4
Replies
93
Views
10K
Replies
416
Views
76K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
84
Views
8K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
87
Views
7K
Replies
29
Views
3K
Top