Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What are M-Theory and String theory etc. and are they valid scientific theories?
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 6123 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 1 of 48 (393673)
04-06-2007 10:38 AM


This is a response to Message 38 by Cavediver in the thread Hawking's Information Paradox solution and Message 40 by Cavediver in the same thread.
So, what in fact are the M-theory, String theory and the like? And are they valid science? Do they have any predictable outcomes we should expect? Is there any way of falsifying them at the moment?
This thread is for the purpose of educating me and others about what String theory and the likes are about, the evidence for them and if they are considered as science at the moment.
If you pull up with some fancy math don't expect me to understand them in any way though

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by cavediver, posted 04-07-2007 9:35 AM Neutralmind has replied
 Message 5 by Rob, posted 04-08-2007 11:03 AM Neutralmind has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 48 (393801)
04-07-2007 8:22 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 3 of 48 (393804)
04-07-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-06-2007 10:38 AM


I guess I asked for this, but you could have timed this better... I'm off on holiday in 2 days Oh well, if it's a whole thread, we may as well take our time and do it right
Some background:
We like things simple, and it appears that the Universe does too. How anyone at the end of the 19C thought we could be coming to an end of physics, I just don't know. What kind of decent universe is going to be made up of around fifty to one hundred basic buliding blocks (atoms) plus some mysterious ultra-light electron thing?
Splitting the atom into protons, neutons and electrons was the simplification we were looking for - rather than over one hundred different atoms, we have just three particles. Unfortunately, two of these particles (neutron and proton) look so similar that they are obviously slight variations of the same thing - a hint of some deeper structure. Now we understand that the neutron and proton are actually each a package of three quarks - which is ok, becasue there are only two flavours of quark: up and down. So we still just have three particles: up, down and electron. Nice
BUT - we now discover that there are actually six flavours of quark in total, two extra pairs which are just like heavier copies of the up and down. Even worse, there are also two heavier versions of the electron: the muon and tauon - and associated with each electron type there is a neutrino! So we are now up to twelve different particles, many of which are extremely similar and so point to a deeper structure.
It's worse than this as we also have all of the force particles: the photon, W+/-, Z0, and eight types of gluon! Finally, we have gravitation (and the graviton) to somehow squeeze into all of this.
This is the current state of known physics - a complete mess!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-06-2007 10:38 AM Neutralmind has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Neutralmind, posted 04-08-2007 11:02 AM cavediver has replied

  
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 6123 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 4 of 48 (393903)
04-08-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by cavediver
04-07-2007 9:35 AM


cavediver
I guess I asked for this, but you could have timed this better... I'm off on holiday in 2 days Oh well, if it's a whole thread, we may as well take our time and do it right
I guess most of us are on holiday now. Don't ruin your holiday time for answering here though

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by cavediver, posted 04-07-2007 9:35 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 04-08-2007 12:49 PM Neutralmind has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 5 of 48 (393904)
04-08-2007 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-06-2007 10:38 AM


Not valid theories...
It's not complicated really...
In order to rescue the 'chance hypothesis' and escape the moral implications of an orderly creator, 'scientists' (prophets) and their 'followers' (sheep), have offered a metaphysical theology of their own.
The only difference is that the word 'Theos' (meaning God) which comes from the Greek, is called 'theory' in science, instead of 'theology' in traditional and openly metaphysical religious tradition.
So either way you have religion, but only one school admits to that reality.
They are not verifiable theories, so what is their purpose in the 'scientific sense' other than what I have proposed?
Happy Easter!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-06-2007 10:38 AM Neutralmind has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 04-08-2007 12:28 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 8 by fallacycop, posted 04-08-2007 1:04 PM Rob has replied
 Message 12 by kuresu, posted 04-08-2007 3:24 PM Rob has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 6 of 48 (393917)
04-08-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rob
04-08-2007 11:03 AM


Re: Not valid theories...
Rob writes:
They are not verifiable theories, so what is their purpose in the 'scientific sense' other than what I have proposed?
Ok, for now I'll take your word for it.
Perhaps you could enlighten us what these theories are and how they fit in with current observations? Perhaps you could also tell us how they can be falsified?
Your post comes out very strong, so I must assume that you are an expert on these theories.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rob, posted 04-08-2007 11:03 AM Rob has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 7 of 48 (393921)
04-08-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Neutralmind
04-08-2007 11:02 AM


Don't ruin your holiday time for answering here though
Don't worry, I wasn't planning to I shall be playing with sharks, mantas and turtles for the week
But don't worry, it seems like Rob is an expert - probably knows more than me - and he'll keep you informed until I can get back

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Neutralmind, posted 04-08-2007 11:02 AM Neutralmind has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 8 of 48 (393924)
04-08-2007 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rob
04-08-2007 11:03 AM


Re: Not valid theories...
In order to rescue the 'chance hypothesis' and escape the moral implications of an orderly creator, 'scientists' (prophets) and their 'followers' (sheep), have offered a metaphysical theology of their own.
This thread is not about morality. It is OFF TOPIC here. but there are are threads currenly open where it would on topic. Why don`t you post there instad???
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rob, posted 04-08-2007 11:03 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Rob, posted 04-08-2007 1:22 PM fallacycop has not replied
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 04-08-2007 1:27 PM fallacycop has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 9 of 48 (393928)
04-08-2007 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by fallacycop
04-08-2007 1:04 PM


Re: Not valid theories...
Fallacycop:
This thread is not about morality.
Excellent!
Then I won't have to worry about others imposing their subjective morality onto me. I can speak freely for a change...
You realize don't you, that you have answered Tazmanian Devil's question to me above?
The problem with these theories is that they undermine the moral reality that you affirm with your moralizing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by fallacycop, posted 04-08-2007 1:04 PM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AdminNosy, posted 04-08-2007 2:06 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 04-08-2007 10:02 PM Rob has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 48 (393930)
04-08-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by fallacycop
04-08-2007 1:04 PM


quote:
Why don`t you post there instad???
Because he usually drags those off-topic, too.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by fallacycop, posted 04-08-2007 1:04 PM fallacycop has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 11 of 48 (393937)
04-08-2007 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rob
04-08-2007 1:22 PM


First and last topic warninng
Rob, if you try to drag this off topic with things that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic (and that should have been obvious to you right off) then you will quickly earn suspensions.
The science in this area is freakin' tricky and we don't need someone who is so arrogant to think he knows anything about it but, in fact, knows nothing at all to be mixing things up.
No more warnings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rob, posted 04-08-2007 1:22 PM Rob has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 12 of 48 (393941)
04-08-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rob
04-08-2007 11:03 AM


Re: Not valid theories...
The only difference is that the word 'Theos' (meaning God) which comes from the Greek, is called 'theory' in science, instead of 'theology' in traditional and openly metaphysical religious tradition.
wrong. try looking up the real etymologies of the two words instead of coming up with your own invalid ideas (just because they both have "theo" does not mean they share a root).
Here's the etymology for "theory", from the Online Etymology Dictionary (quoted from Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com:
1592, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1613. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1638. The verb theorize is recorded from 1638.
here's "theology"
1362, from O.Fr. theologie "philosophical treatment of Christian doctrine" (14c.), from L. theologia, from Gk. theologia "an account of the gods," from theologos "one discoursing on the gods," from theos "god" (see Thea) + -logos "treating of."
The two words do not have the same etymology.
Too bad you were attacking a straw man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rob, posted 04-08-2007 11:03 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by AdminNosy, posted 04-08-2007 3:52 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 14 by Rob, posted 04-08-2007 3:54 PM kuresu has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 13 of 48 (393945)
04-08-2007 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by kuresu
04-08-2007 3:24 PM


Topic Warning
Also NOT on topic for this thread Kuresu!
Do NOT continue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by kuresu, posted 04-08-2007 3:24 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 14 of 48 (393947)
04-08-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by kuresu
04-08-2007 3:24 PM


Re: Not valid theories...
Removed out of respect for our admin...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by kuresu, posted 04-08-2007 3:24 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 15 of 48 (393980)
04-08-2007 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rob
04-08-2007 1:22 PM


Re: Not valid theories...
Rob writes:
The problem with these theories is that they undermine the moral reality that you affirm with your moralizing.
Can you explain to me how M-theory or string theory undermine morality?

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rob, posted 04-08-2007 1:22 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Rob, posted 04-09-2007 6:12 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024