Why is String Theory Considered to be a Scientific Theory?

[Fra]

if you can't think, just measure - unfortunately, that's sometimes expensive

If one doesn't know, for whatever reason (which one usually does not; at least not with infinite confidence) one have to based ones actions upon an educated guess anyway. Sometimes it's expensive to be wrong. But also, sometimes guessing is the only way, as resisting to guess can be sometimes more "expensive", if one is constantly challanged. It's also what happens when you have a certain time to make a decision, usually the quality of decisions are worse, but a "better decisions" that is late, may be lethal.

to act based on an educated guess and then observing feedback = to measure

In that sense all measurements have a "cost", it's like placing a bet, but the rational player bets only when and where the estimated gain is higher than the cost of the bet.

Acting upon incomplete information and educated guesses, beeing wrong is OK, it's possible even the way nature work. So each rational action is a tradeoff, between cost and estimated gain.

/Fredrik

 

[arivero]

... a good non-genius (ie. not Ramanujan) amateur can achieve in http://books.google.com/books?id=shuJFCWWql4C&dq=king+of+infinite+space&source=gbs_navlinks_s. Douglas Hofstadter ...

Hmm, D.H. was physics PhD with a good training on mathematics in 1992, when he wrote to Coxeter. It could be said to be a case similar to the OP, inflector, in the sense that he is addressing another field out of his current experience, but it is a very different case. Not to say that to be the son of a Nobel Prize on experimental physics is not the average experience.

 

[atyy]

Hmm, D.H. was physics PhD with a good training on mathematics in 1992, when he wrote to Coxeter. It could be said to be a case similar to the OP, inflector, in the sense that he is addressing another field out of his current experience, but it is a very different case. Not to say that to be the son of a Nobel Prize on experimental physics is not the average experience.

Also, he probably didn't misspell "Feynman".

 

[inflector]

Yeah, that was pretty bad huh. Must have been a Freudian slip. I didn't catch that despite proofing it three times. I must have been hoping that somehow Einstein was coauthor. Especially funny since I melded two of my favorites.

 

[inflector]

Hmm, D.H. was physics PhD with a good training on mathematics in 1992, when he wrote to Coxeter. It could be said to be a case similar to the OP, inflector, in the sense that he is addressing another field out of his current experience, but it is a very different case. Not to say that to be the son of a Nobel Prize on experimental physics is not the average experience.

One very significant example of an amateur physicist is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Lee_Loomis" .

Interestingly, he only had an undergraduate degree in math and science at Yale, and a law degree at Harvard. He started his career after a very brief stint as a lawyer by making a fortune on Wall Street as a trader/financier. He got bored as his true passion was experimental physics. So he retired from finance and started his own laboratory. Most of the famous scientists of the 20s and 30s came to his Tuxedo Park lab.

He came up with the idea for LORAN, did a lot to help his good friend Ernest Lawrence get funding to build his larger cyclotrons, ran the government lab which developed practical radar for airborne use, i.e small antennas and transmitters, among many other things.

 

[arivero]

OT, and now that you mention finance: I read, here and there, that Gauss did some money as trader, but I am not sure if it is myth of if there are actually some recording of the transactions he managed, and/or his strategy.

 

[Fra]

Hey inflector, FWIW, when you guys discuss trading it strikes me that if you have developed a good intuition about how the market behaves, perhaps it can be used to your advantage as an odd experience.

Now of course I would have to agree that wether you go for string theory or anything else, there is probably no way around trying to acquire the basic prerequisites, so one understands the basic history of physics and what the we currently know, and what the current problems are.

But if I may throw in a speculative, but still IMHO interesting possibility that may be more interesting to you than others, is an idea I have, and that is also related to several information theoretic inference approaches to physics.

Namely the idea that the actions of a physical systems interacting with each environment follows something analogous to the rational expectations theory in macroeconomics. You have been a trader, and you konw how you act in a given situation, then you can ask, what would you have done if you where a proton? :)

The conceptual idea is that the physical action of a physical system, when properly abstracted in terms of information theory, and how the system processes input and releases output, can be understood as "rational", and that his behaviour has been selected for since it's the best way for any player to "stay in business" and not be outcompeted. It's not a certain path to victory, but it's the most rational way to place the best.

The point is, that while this is speculative, it's something I personally think is very interesting and it's a highly underdeveloped direction of physics. So I see plenty of room for anyone that maybe has some skills/experience from decision theory, learning models to make a cross-field applications here with physics.

Recently many interesting cross-discipline stuff emerges. Another extremely interesting area is molcular biology and population dynamics crossing with computer science. It's been found that problems that was impossible to solve be reductionist ideas like "simulating the chemistry from molecular level" due to the overwhealming complexity, rounding errors, computation time etc are now possible to solve with clever algorithms that mimic the feedback mechanism of the overall organisms, suchs as optimizing growth rates etc.

So may try to see the laws of physics, and the interaction rules between physical systems from the point of view of a trader? :) It could be interesting.

/Fredrik

 

[sachinism]

If you are serious to become a good physicist, I think you should read this:

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html

it does not work anymore :(

 

[marcus]

it does not work anymore :(

I'm not sure whether you are serious or joking. The link to the 't Hooft advice essay works. But the essay has been reformatted. Last time I looked at it, maybe 5 years ago, it was black and white---or anyway not in color. Now it is in many colors: purple, green, pink, brown, and laid out in blocks of text, with blocks of useful resource links.

Basically the features of HTML have been used to present the information in a more mind-catching way, so as to make a stronger impression on the young reader.

So the link ( http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html ) works just fine. Maybe I am just dense and not getting your joke, or your meaning. What "does not work anymore"?

 

[MTd2]

Maybe it is not a joke and his provider blocked the site for some unrelated random reason. BTW, I really would like you Marcus, to open a thread on the paper I sent you by PM.

 

[marcus]

Maybe it is not a joke and his provider blocked the site for some unrelated random reason. BTW, I really would like you Marcus, to open a thread on the paper I sent you by PM.

I did open a thread several days ago, as you requested. The paper was about the octonions, a math topic.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=438585

Crowell noticed the thread the same day I posted it, and kindly replied with some additional information.

 

[MTd2]

Really? Where?

 

[inflector]

Really? Where?

Try the link in post #131.

 

[MTd2]

Oh, yes. I answered too soon! :) Marcus edited. :)

 

[arivero]

a cross-field applications here with physics.

...

So may try to see the laws of physics, and the interaction rules between physical systems from the point of view of a trader? :) It could be interesting.

The big thing about econophysics is that in economy we are pretty sure that there are no quantum effects, any probability is just classical probability, albeit it can be very complicated.

 

[sachinism]

@marcus :

yep it works properly

sadly my campus proxy settings won't allow me to access it , but yes i got it confirmed from my friends that itw orks and got a pdf of it by mail

i wasnt joking there :|

thanx anywyas

 

[Fra]

The big thing about econophysics is that in economy we are pretty sure that there are no quantum effects, any probability is just classical probability, albeit it can be very complicated.

That's obviously right in the sense that it's more than reasonable to consider the players in the economy to be "classical systems", but the analogy and mechanis I have in mind is in fact much more subtle and clever than that.

In the sense I mean, there ARE most probably effects "analogous" to quantum effects also in economy. I already declared that it is speculative but "Quantum effects" as per my VISION (don't ask me for proof; I don't have it yet) can be understood in a more general sense, namely that the action of a system does not obey a normal classical probability distribution: which would mean that the action is as if it chooses one simple possibilities at random. But that's not how a rational player would act, the rational action accounts for ALL possibilities at once. But the key to the "quantum logic" as opposed to the classical logic, is that each rational player, has FINITE memory, and FINITE processing power; this means that in order to survive non-commutative structures are preferred. IE. a player that implements non-commutative sub-sets in his memory structure, rather than just a big classical microstructure can be more FIT. And this is the key to the "quantum logic".

So the notion of "rational action" can be generalized to non-commutative structures (ie. the observers knowledge is composed of non-commutative sub-structures that are defined and ordered in the flwo of information processing) and this is the orginal of quantum logic.

I'm not suggesting that current economic models solve the problem, I'm just noting that there are similar problems in macoreconomy, such as defining fundamental values etc. Not to unlike defining fundamental degrees of freedom.

But maybe intuition acquired from that field, may provide new light to some physics problems. They I personally "understand" quantum mehcnaics, is exactly in terms of these things. And the key is to understand that quantum logic is related to non-commutative information structures; and to understand WHY non-commutative structures are in fact more FIT than just one classical microstructure.

Sorry for the long response, we shouldnt' discuss that in this thread but I just want to insiste that I meant something much deeper with the analogy. Economic theory, as well as social theory are just fields where there exists similar problems, and experience from other fields may be a nice source of inspiration and may help ask good questions.

/Fredrik