My mind's in a knot... (Re: Who/what created God?)

Yes, if you are not a trained mathematician/physicist, it will fall apart. No, they don't. They completely defy common sense, and general expectations, but they certianly don't defy my reasoning, nor that of the world community of physicists and mathematicians working in this area. That doesn't mean we have all the answers - we have very few, but we gain more every day. But it is our very reasoning that has taken us into these bizarre worlds. Go into any mathematical/theroretical physics department and you will not see any scientists running around screaming "this is just so beyond our reasoning". You will see them hard at work, drinking coffee, and reasoning with each other, or with themselves. On the contrary, it is the abstract mathematics that generates the very weirdness of which you speak. Greta, it doesn't make sense to you. So what? How much of neuroscience makes sense to you? Or oganometallics? Spend twenty years of your life dedicated to making sense of the above, and then come back and complain if you still feel the same way. And how is this different from any other point in science in the past four thousand years?

Excellent advice, now let's see the application please Far, far too late for that, I'm afraid

He already had his degree in physics by this time, and had spent five years working on primarily electromagnetism in the course of his work at the patent office.

Neither We don't, nor do we want to keep both.

No and no. And quantum fluctuations are anything but 'nothing', and they do not 'come from' 'nothing'. This doesn't quite make sense, but in any case, this has nothing to do with 'nothing'.

I must say, I am rather disappointed with that exert - it starts well but then simply dies before actually explaining anything. The concept of the Universe arising from 'nothing' needs severe caveating, and this isn't done here and leaves just about all possible misconceptions intact. I'll see if I can dig out one of my past EvC monologues on this, or dig out enough enthusiasm to write a new one.

This is not even close to the level of disagreeing with other physicists - I am disagreeing with your interpretation of what you 'think' other physicists are saying. This is primarily not your fault, as you are not a physicist and are attenmpting to learn this material from either popular science, which is typically just wrong, or from papers that are strictly beyond your current comprehension. Where you are at fault is not recognising that much of this is beyond your comprehension, yet conversing here as if you are approaching some level of expertise. I haven't interrupted before because 1) I can't be arsed, and 2) I don't like to dampen enthusiasm for my subject. However, much of what you are arguing is misplaced, misunderstood, or plain wrong.However, you have given me great hope - despite the surfeit of popular physics layman books available, I can see that there is still a place for my as yet unwritten masterpiece, as it is designed to actually dismiss much of the erroneous bullshit spread by these other tomes... I just have to see if I can have it published before Ray's

Oh, I am well aware of that. It's certainly not a topic you will find discussed amongst theoretical physicists in this way. And he is at fault here, but only as much as just about everyone else who has written on this subject - hence why all the misconceptions exist. Just as every popularisation of the Big Bang shows an explosion at a point shown from some 'external' viewpoint, perpetuating yet more bullshit ideas. And anyway, Kaku has far more to answer for, given some of the absurdities in his string theory text books And yes, we have told him Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Oh, sure. As have many others - Brain Greene, Hawking of course, myself in my own small way But believe me, Michio doesn't do it out of some rare ultruistic drive to spread science. Thousands of physicists would love to be doing what he's doing - getting paid decent money to prattle on about the subject they love, and becoming semi-'famous' in the process. He's the lucky one. He's not to be applauded - he's to be envied. And thus he will (and does) attract criticism from his own quarter if he slips an inch. No, you misunderstand. In no way do I mean he is out of line with the theoretical physicist community. He's simply written some things for which we rib him, and in terms of his popular science, he can and should do better. I tend to write by stream-of-conciousness, and it is a big mistake on my part if it leads to misconceptions such as this. I don't mean to be rude here, BUT you are in no positon to have an opinion on this matter*. To call the concepts of string theory, 'multiverses', etc, unsubstantiated speculation is pure ignorance. Just because you can read about these subjects in popular science does not mean you have sufficient handle on these terms to wield them meaningfully in conversation, certainly not in conversation with a professional of the field.I can share with you concepts of 'multiverses' that are almost certainly correct, others that are theoretically suggested, some that are pure speculation, and finally those that are demonstrably false. Why would I ever say 'I don't know' when I have all this to discuss???When string theory is finally shown experimentally to be the correct view on nature, I will be amazed. When it is conclusively shown to be irrelevant to nature, I will also be amazed. Why would I ever say 'I don't know' when I have all this to discuss???*That said, nor is just about every working physicist outside those working specifically in these and related fields. Sadly, that does not stop many from pontificating on the subject, and using their credentials to bolster their claims (whether pro, anti, or ambivalent.) Your set of "we" is actually very small in size.

Exactly, and if anyone were to offer the opinion that *all* infantry should behave a certain way, you would welcome his opinion but consider him an idiot. I prefer to point out that he doesn't have anywhere near enough information to make that point, and help him stop making himself look an idiot Unless he was particularly obnoxious and then I would simply enjoy laughing at him... Expressing opinions about technicalities of the subject just makes you look stupid, so I would discourage that. I encourage questions. To voice an opinion like yours (which I appreciate you now admit was mispoken to some degree) simply reveals an ignorance of the subject and, even worse, an ignorance of ones own ignorance. That is a huge barrier to learning. You need to be aware of your own ignorance to be able to effectively cure it. Don't worry, in my early days my own ignorance of my ignorance dwarfed yours I'm being harsh because you seem genuinely interested. You should assimilate what you hear, read, and study, and then test it by asking questions. And then ask more questions based on the answers. If you come to a conclusion, don't say "ha, this must be true" (as I once did as a student in front of the most senior members of my field , ask "I've come up with this, is this correct, and if not, where have I gone wrong?" Your ability to learn is inversely proportional to your pride that prevents you asking questions. If science says A, then what are you going to do about it? If you feel that strongly about knowing why A is true, or how A could possibly true, then you become a scientist studying A. There is no other way. Spout your popular opinion by all means, but it is worthless and you look like an idiot.If half the scientists say A, and the half say B, what do you do? If you feel that strongly about knowing which of A or B is true, then you become a scientist studying A and/or B. There is no other way. Spout your popular opinion by all means, but it is worthless and you look like an idiot.Science could not give a shit about democracy, or layman's opinions Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Much better But you are certainly gaining some clues... keep at it. And simply stop making definitive statements.Now, show me a popular article by Davies and I will disagree with most of what is said. But if Paul and I meet up, we will be very much in agreement with one-another. Trying to present a picture of our understanding of reality in a popular science article is next to impossible - I find it so even here at EvC where I have much greater freedom with words. Most of my technical commenst are written and re-written and written again. It's impossible to convey what I really mean because the gulf is too large. Slight biases in our thoughts can be massively amplified by dumbing down what we're saying - so Paul comes across as some mubo-jumbo religionist, and I disagree with his article, and I would be much more dry and mathematical, and he would disagree with me. But our differences are very slight and we would agree, in person, on most things.Many of the gulfs you think are there between different physicists are of this nature. But not all...Oh, and we simply don't require realism. I would have thought you'd appreciate that by now with all your talk of things not being as they seem...

For most of it I thought you were doing very well - interestingly, your typical line of "I'm not sure that's right - isn't it more like this..." would tend to be very close to the mark, where-as your more definite statements/proclamations tended to be more bullshit inspired If I believed my own crap, I might suggest that your tentativity brings out better thought and understanding