Posted on 10/27/2022 1:59:46 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A new conjecture in physics challenges the leading “theory of everything.”
On June 25, Timm Wrase awoke in Vienna and groggily scrolled through an online repository of newly posted physics papers. One title startled him into full consciousness.
The paper, by the prominent string theorist Cumrun Vafa of Harvard and his collaborators, conjectured a simple formula dictating which kinds of universes are allowed to exist and which are forbidden, according to string theory. The leading candidate for a “theory of everything” weaving the force of gravity together with quantum physics, string theory defines all matter and forces as vibrations of tiny strands of energy. The theory permits some 10500 different solutions: a vast, varied “landscape” of possible universes.* String theorists like Wrase and Vafa have strived for years to place our particular universe somewhere in this landscape of possibilities.
But now, Vafa and his colleagues were conjecturing that in the string landscape, universes like ours—or what ours is thought to be like—don’t exist. If the conjecture is correct, Wrase and other string theorists immediately realized, the cosmos must either be profoundly different than previously supposed or string theory must be wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...
An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97
When the books are arranged nicely and neatly on the shelves, it is their job to drag them off the shelves and out onto the floor.
Are you saying books serve some other purpose?;-)
Amen
String theory as currently understood by scientists is completely stupid. Scientists are making it much too complicated.
Or at least that's what my cats say.;-)
(They are watching me type this. Send help! Or kitty treats)
so, is string theory one of those deals where they keep having to add epicycles to make the theory match observation?
the cosmos must either be profoundly different than previously supposed or string theory must be wrong
or both.
sort of like climate change and the climate change models, both being wrong.
This is giving me a headache. If the universe is impossible,
we must be impossible as well. This is enough to drive one
to drink; subsequently, no one wants or cares to know.
“the odds of everything accidently happening just right could be 1 of 10^200.”
Yup—this is the issue of “telos”.
While many here think that “intelligent design” means God, there are many many other possible alternatives that would still qualify as “telos”.
One of the (many) flaws of science is that (for the most part) it refuses to deal with any of those possible alternatives.
String theory ping.
Anyone talking about string theory is wasting his and your time.
It is as valid and useful as your average science fiction story. It can be entertaining as long as you don't bet your life on it.
The origin of the universe by an "alternative" other than intelligent design/designer means it's accidental which implies it came into existence purely through chaos. When all of science is supposedly based upon observation and repeatable experiments, chaos theory is laughable. Yet even chaos fails to explain FIRST CAUSE or where the building blocks came from.
Many evolutionists (the honest ones) admit they hold to that theory because the only alternative is a Creator and they refuse to accept it.
The origin of the universe by an "alternative" other than intelligent design/designer means it's accidental which implies it came into existence purely through chaos. When all of science is supposedly based upon observation and repeatable experiments, chaos theory is laughable. Yet even chaos fails to explain FIRST CAUSE or where the building blocks came from.
Many evolutionists (the honest ones) admit they hold to that theory because the only alternative is a Creator and they refuse to accept it.
The origin of the universe by an "alternative" other than intelligent design/designer means it's accidental which implies it came into existence purely through chaos. When all of science is supposedly based upon observation and repeatable experiments, chaos theory is laughable. Yet even chaos fails to explain FIRST CAUSE or where the building blocks came from.
Many evolutionists (the honest ones) admit they hold to that theory because the only alternative is a Creator and they refuse to accept it.
sorry for the triple post...don’t know why that’s happening - CHAOS
I find the universe to be rather clumpy.
Yes. almost exactly
Would you believe KAOS?
Excuse me, my shoe is ringing.
This sentence from the article pretty much encapsulates the silliness of modern 'physics'.
Since 1998, telescope observations have indicated that the cosmos is expanding ever so slightly faster all the time, implying that the vacuum of empty space must be infused with a dose of gravitationally repulsive “dark energy.”
Absurd. They forgot to also include the word "invisible" in the description."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.