Is 'String' the next big thing?: Theories about cosmic evolution dangle by a thread

Creation Magazine ^ | Gary Bates

[goodusername]

Hmm, I may give you that one. :-) Although I could split hairs and point out that at the time he made that statement he was no longer an advocate of string theory and instead was championing a competitor to string theory (loop quantum gravity).

And when Smolin released that book it was roundly attacked by the advocates of string theory for its claims of string theory being unfalsifiable.
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/all-strung-out

So, of course, the generalization in the article is still blatantly false, but touche on sort of answering my challenge. :-)

[GodGunsGuts]

But wait, there's more!

“But is string theory true? Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia University, has challenged the entire string-theory discipline by proclaiming that its topic is not a genuine theory at all and that many of its exponents do not understand the complex mathematics it employs. String theory, he avers, has become a form of science fiction. Hence his book’s title, Not Even Wrong: an epithet created by Wolfgang Pauli, an irascible early 20th-century German physicist. Pauli had three escalating levels of insult for colleagues he deemed to be talking nonsense: “Wrong!”, “Completely wrong!” and finally “Not even wrong!”. By which he meant that a proposal was so completely outside the scientific ballpark as not to merit the least consideration.”

And it would seem that Peter Voit is not alone:

“Woit’s book, highly readable, accessible and powerfully persuasive, is designed to give a short history of recent particle and theoretical physics. Ultimately he seeks not only to rattle but to dismantle the cage of the string theorists. What gives the book its searingly provocative edge, moreover, is the fact that Woit isn’t even a tenured professor, but a mere mathematics instructor specialising in computer systems. Yet he has formidable allies such as David Gross (the Nobel Llaureate theoretical physicist), Roger Penrose (the world-class mathematician) and Lee Smolin (the leading cosmologist), plus an accumulating constituency of other big-name supporters. Woit has taken on a group of the smartest minds in the world and told them that their intellectually imperial pretensions are naked. He has boldly published what many have thought but never dared to express so cogently, or at such length.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article672464.ece

Sure, he's not a string advocate, but it definitely seems there is a backlash brewing in the scientific community against the non-testable monster that string theory has apparently become.

[GreenOgre]

Then here is an assignment for you.

Prove your beliefs to be something other than superstition. Without proof there is nothing but belief.

The churches teachings at any time in history, since it is based on superstition, has no bearing on this discussion.

Superstition depends on belief, science depends on facts. String theory may go the way of the caveman because it can't be proven. Relativity hasn't gone away because more and more of it is being proven every day.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Prove your beliefs to be something other than superstition. Without proof there is nothing but belief.

I’m not sure what you mean by prove. Both Creation and goo-to-you evolution deal with the unobservable, unrepeatable past. If you invalidate one based on these obvious facts, you invalidate the other. The question is, which one makes better sense of the remaining/surviving data. And by that criteria, Creation/ID wins hands down.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[CottShop]

[[So you made an assertion but you cannot provide examples to support that assertion?]]

So, you’re too lazy to do your own homework eh?

That is very telling- Seek and ye shall find- play silly games, and you play alone

[El Gato]

I’ve never heard that the residual microwave background radiation was due to “red shifting”. I thought it was supposed to result from expansion of the universe from its original very hot (energetic) state just after the Big Bang—somewhat analogous to the way the temperature of a gas drops when it is allowed to expand.

Possibly another way of saying almost the same thing. Even after that initial expansion, to point where the "light" actually gamma rays mostly, could penetrate the "fireball"(which is a poor and misleading term for it) at around 380,000 years after the singularity, the effective temperature was still very very high, around 3,000 K, emitting gamma rays. Now, those gamma ray photons are spread out over a larger and larger area, so the intensity per unit area goes down, but if the source were not moving, or alternately the detector, they would still be gamma ray photons, just fewer passing through a given area. So the only way they can be lower frequency, is through the Doppler effect of moving source and detector.

[El Gato]

And it’s an entirely separate matter from the lag in time it takes signals to get from satellites to receivers, which must also be taken into account

The lag time is central to the operation of GPS. Time is distance. The distance puts you on a sphere centered at the satellite's location. Make 3 such measurements and you can get a single intersection of the 3 spheres, which tells you where you are. However, in order to measure those distances, you must measure that time very accurately, and that takes a 4th satellite. More is better, because none of the measurements is perfect, and because of something called "Geometric dilution of precision", which deals with "Good" and "bad" geometries of the satellites used to obtain the solution. In general, it tends to affect the measurement of altitude, but it can also affect position on the map.

[ColdWater]

Everything exists at the exact same time as everything else.

My father is dead. He does not exist now. I do exist now.

[csense]

bkmk

[goodusername]

Right, thus the “which must also be taken into account” comment. But such time lag is a separate matter from the relativistic effects (i.e. everything you mention would still be true even if we weren’t taking relativistic effects into account.).
I wasn’t sure if your post was made simply to add to what I said or if you thought you were disagreeing with me. :-)

[varmintman]

The infinity of universes idea is driven by a recognition of what probability does to theory of evolution with just the one universe we observe to work with. It’s about lifestyles, and not about science.

[goodusername]

Well, sure, 20 min on google and I can easily add 100 more to that. It’s a common charge by its critics, but the claim is contested by its advocates, and I was specifically commenting on “its advocates would also claim that it is not falsifiable”. The author probably wasn’t being purposely misleading - like the rest of the article, it was probably just another unresearched claim.

I’m not really arguing for or against string theory, as I don’t know enough about it. If anything, I’m probably rooting against it - I’m hoping for a simpler “theory of everything” lol. I’d prefer a theory that wouldn’t require me to get a phd in mathematics to learn. :-)

I’ve been reluctant to really delve into string theory both because of its complexity, and because it could turn out to be a fad. But it has now been around for quite a while, and if anything it’s probably more popular now than ever.

[Ira_Louvin]

You made the assertion I only asked you to back it up

In an honest debate the person making the assertion is the one who is responsible to supply the evidence to support their assertion.

If not you can only assume that their assertion is false.

[CottShop]

[[If not you can only assume that their assertion is false.]]

Please do assume it- whatever- the info is myriad online- I don’t say things unless they are true and people can check into htem for themselves- something you’re apparently not goign to do so- have a nice day

[BlueStateBlues]

Thanks. I knew some of this, but to get the concept and in order to make an inner picture of what this means the more language the better. Your language is very good. T’anks again.

[El Gato]

While the effect of the satellites velocity around the Earth makes them run slower by 7 microseconds per day, their position outside of Earth's gravity well makes them run 45 microseconds per day faster, for a net gain of 38 microseconds per day.

Thanks, didn't know those details. That means that for those satellites, general relativity is more important than special. Although isn't it the ground stations that are running 45 microseconds/day slower than the satellite ones would be if they could somehow not be moving relatiave to us, since we are the ones in the stronger gravity field?

[claude48187]

NO theory explains the presence of God - can’t be done. The other thing that can never be explained is the presense of matter required for the BBT - where did it come from??

[claude48187]

My question is why does everyone assumne that a black hole leads to another point in time or space. What if the Black Hole was itself the other point in time. People seem to assume that its a funnel that opens at the other end. What if it didn’t. What if all this matter being sucked in is being sucked into the black hole that expands to an finite point until it reaches critical mass and just explodes. Perhaps a matter anti matter explosion within a collapsing black hole is what cause the big bang. But it still doesn’t anwser the question - where did the matter the black hole consumed come from if nothing else existed!!