- #1
- 7,643
- 1,598
Last edited by a moderator:
turbo-1 said:Thank you!
marcus said:yes thanks, what an excellent interview!
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2006-2007/mp3/qq-2006-09-23e.mp3
Canadian Broadcasting Co.
23 September edition of Quirks and QuarksBTW Peter Woit called attention to this article at the New Yorker website
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/061002crat_atlarge [Broken]
The article, by Jim Holt, is called "Unstrung", and reviews Smolin's and Woit's books. It will be published in the 2 October issue
of the magazine.
...
The secret to James Watson and Francis Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA… was as much their realization-almost unique at the time-that the problem was now solvable, as it was their technical competence in fitting together all the pieces that lay scattered about, unconnected, in various workshops
marcus said:Neither Smolin nor Woit calls for the forcible suppression of string theory. They simply ask for a little more diversity.
marcus said:...Smolin furnishes the more definite answer. The current problem with physics, he thinks, is basically a problem of style. The initiators of the dual revolution a century ago—Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg—were deep thinkers, or “seers.” They confronted questions about space, time, and matter in a philosophical way. The new theories they created were essentially correct. But, Smolin writes, “the development of these theories required a lot of hard technical work, and so for several generations physics was ‘normal science’ and was dominated by master craftspeople.” Today, the challenge of unifying those theories will require another revolution, one that mere virtuoso calculators are ill-equipped to carry out.
selfAdjoint said:Straycat, that was a good post,
selfAdjoint said:but on general principles I think questions that have been around a long time without a definite answer (like the nature of the "wave function") will have a bearing on the coming depth breakthrough,
selfAdjoint said:but that answers that have been around for a long time without prevailing, like Bohmian mechanics, won't.
selfAdjoint said:I think a place we need to look is "What do you mean by non-local, and what does the Old One mean by it?
Talk of the Nation, August 18, 2006 · Is string theory the answer to the last big questions in physics, or a dead end? While some physicists believe that string theory could lead to a unifying theory, detractors say it's sloppy and founded on unwarranted assumptions.
Lee Smolin, author of The Trouble with Physics; faculty member, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
Brian Greene, author of The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos; professor of mathematics and physics, Columbia University
I liked it.Physicists Debate the Merits of String Theory
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5670911 [Broken]
Do you want to help with my question?John Baez
The moral is: for a question like this, you need to know not just the answer but also the assumptions and reasoning that went into the answer. Otherwise you can't make sense of why different people give different answers.
Weekend Edition Saturday, September 30, 2006 · NPR's Scott Simon talks with "Math Guy" Keith Devlin about two new books that call into question the entire idea of string theory. The theory states that tiny vibrating strings make up everything, but some scientists say there is no way to prove or disprove it.
lunarmansion said:This was interesting to read for a student at the beginning level. The so-called "seers" of physics-it would seem that they were educated in a broad way-and saw physics in relation to a large picture. The great contemplative, philosophical attitude is missing from the "virtuoso calculators"? But even great ones like Feynman also had a similar attitude no? And saw Physics as problem solving?
marcus said:I personally think Feynman was so smart that if he was in THIS PRESENT situation he would be acting differently. He might e.g. see that a fundamentally new (background independent) concept of space and time is needed and NOT be saying "shut up and calculate" to achieve incremental progress. The same person who said shut up and calculate in 1966 might, in 2006, be asking deep questions about quantum mechanics foundations and inventing new models of spacetime and matter----pretty much the same goals as Smolin.
The main topic discussed in the Smolin CBC Radio Interview is the concept of black holes and their role in the evolution of the universe.
Lee Smolin is a theoretical physicist and a faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. He is being interviewed to share his expertise and insights on the topic of black holes.
There is a longstanding debate in the scientific community about the nature of black holes and whether they truly exist or are just a mathematical construct. Smolin discusses this controversy and presents his own theory about the role of black holes in the universe.
Some key takeaways from the interview include Smolin's perspective on the importance of black holes in the evolution of the universe, his theory about the birth and death of universes, and his explanation of how black holes can potentially lead to the creation of new universes.
Smolin's theory proposes that black holes are not just objects with infinite density and singularities, but rather they play a crucial role in the process of creating new universes. This differs from the traditional understanding of black holes as objects that simply consume matter and energy.