4
   

Is string theory still considered to be at the "cutting edge" of science?

 
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2015 03:54 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Your problem stems from your obsession with Einstein and his "thought experiments" which eventually led him to world acclaim and the Nobel Prize.


Al didn't win any nobel prize for theories involving "thought experiments," but, that aside, the use of "thought experiments," per se, has nothing whatsoever to do with the criticisms I have addressed to special relativity.

Are you ready to tell us about "operational functionality" re "multi-verses" as such are applied in quantum mechanics and string theory now?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2015 04:02 am
@fresco,
Quote:
As I said. You are doing well in the cutting and pasting class.


Translation: Unlike you, I quote specific passages, complete with "clickable" references to the source, if I'm going to refer to what an authority says. You just spout some home-made gibberish, and then drop a name to "support" it. At best you may "refer" someone to an entire book, without even giving a title.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2015 04:19 am
@layman,
Thank you for confirming the "wherewithal" point.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2015 04:26 am
@fresco,
What about "operational functionality?"
Quote:

Are you ready to tell us about "operational functionality" re "multi-verses" as such are applied in quantum mechanics and string theory now?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2015 04:30 am
@layman,
Quote:
Theories are not about "truth" in any absolute sense. Accepted theories are stages of operational functionality in what we call "scientific progress".


My niece is quite a good optician. Let me know if she can help.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2015 04:33 am
@fresco,
Quote:
My niece is quite a good optician.

Then you should go see her.

Done been posted:

Quote:
MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. It is currently considered a mainstream interpretation...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2015 04:42 am
@layman,
Hey you could be right ! I don't see the phrase "accepted theories ". You presumably can !
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2015 04:44 am
@fresco,
OK, Fresco, enough now.

I'm bored by your bogus bullshit.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2015 04:50 am
@layman,
Gotcha !
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2015 10:34 pm
Quote:
Roger Penrose could easily be excused for having a big ego. A theorist whose name will be forever linked with such giants as Hawking and Einstein, Penrose has made fundamental contributions to physics, mathematics, and geometry....

Penrose question[s] the central tenets of modern physics, including string theory and quantum mechanics. Physicists will never come to grips with the grand theories of the universe, Penrose holds, until they see past the blinding distractions of today’s half-baked theories to the deepest layer of the reality in which we live.

Penrose: "[QM] doesn’t make any sense...look at three of the biggest figures in quantum mechanics, Schrödinger, Einstein, and Paul Dirac. They were all quantum skeptics in a sense....People think of [Dirac] as this hard-liner, but he was very cautious in what he said. He said: "Quantum mechanics is a provisional theory. Why should I look for an answer in quantum mechanics?” He didn’t believe that it was true....

People don’t want to change the Schrödinger equation, leading them to what’s called the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics....[S0] you’re led to a completely crazy point of view. You’re led into this “many worlds” stuff, which has no relationship to what we actually perceive.

You want a physical theory that describes the world that we see around us. That’s what physics has always been: Explain what the world that we see does, and why or how it does it. Many worlds quantum mechanics doesn’t do that. Either you accept it and try to make sense of it, which is what a lot of people do, or, like me, you say no—that’s beyond the limits of what quantum mechanics can tell us. Which is, surprisingly, a very uncommon position to take. My own view is that quantum mechanics is not exactly right, and I think there’s a lot of evidence for that."

[Interviewer]: In general, the ideas in theoretical physics seem increasingly fantastical. Take string theory. All that talk about 11 dimensions or our universe’s existing on a giant membrane seems surreal.

Penrose: You’re absolutely right...string theory has no experimental support.
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics

Just who does support string theory, I wonder? I get the feeling more and more scientists are backing away from it.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2015 02:59 am
@layman,
Yippee ! Lets play contradictory cutting and pasting !

Quote:
A few theoretical physicists (notably Roger Penrose)* have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics can. The idea that quantum theory has something to do with the workings of the mind go back to Eugene Wigner, who assumed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness. Physicist Freeman Dyson argued that "mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron."However, most contemporary physicists and philosophers consider the arguments for an important role of quantum phenomena to be unconvincing. Physicist Victor Stenger characterized quantum consciousness as a "myth" having "no scientific basis" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns and dragons." Wikpedia
.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg

(Show that clip to Fil. He'll love you for it!)
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2015 08:03 am
@fresco,
Quote:
classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics can.


Hahaha. Besides being irrelevant, Fresco, you're just plain WRONG. Penrose doesn't, and didn't in that video you cited, say quantum mechanics is capable of explaining the "holistic aspects of consciousness."

In the article I just cited, he said QM is wrong. How can a "wrong" theory be relied upon to explain anything? Hmmmm?

You apparently can't hear so good. Maybe your eyes are better than your ears. In the article I just posted Penrose says: "In my view the conscious brain does not act according to classical physics. It doesn’t even act according to conventional quantum mechanics. Then he adds that nothing we know explains it: "It acts according to a theory we don’t yet have."

That help? I doubt it. I don't think the problem you have is in either your eyes or ears. It's in your brain.

What did you do? See the word "quantum" in the video title and think that meant quantum mechanics, that it? Heh.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2015 08:51 am
@layman,
Laughing
You really do have a comprehension problem don't you !
Your "authoritative" source Penrose, (a pro Einstein guy BTW) whom you quoted as doubting both string theory and quantum mechanics, proposed a theory of consciousness based in part on quantum mechanics which was subsequently denigrated by other scientists.
Now if you don't understand that point, I suggest you go back and continue your schooling. Remember, any fool can trawl the internet for ostensible support for their obsessions. We've seen them all here from nazis to creationists. You don't seem to have the ability to understand the paradigmatic dynamics underpinning theoretical proposals, and you certainly don't have the experimental experience to have anything useful to bring to bear on the matter.
BTW, I quite like what Penrose has tried with "consciousness" and QM irrespective of his dismissal of string theory. But then, unlike you, I have some knowledge of the relevant literature.

layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2015 01:35 pm
@fresco,
You're really ridiculous, Fresco.

As always, you will repeat the most obvious errors until doomsday.

And, as always, you think that insulting those who point out your mistakes while proclaiming your own brilliance will somehow make you "look" right.

It doesn't, chump. It just proves you to be the damn fool that you are.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2015 02:24 pm
@fresco,
Let's be clear about what you've done here.

1. You make a post and CLAIM you are quoting it from some (presumably authoritative) source. Of course, you don't disclose your source.

2. Then you ALTER that quote (which was from wiki, I see), to make it say that Penrose takes a position which he denies.

3. Then you "defend" your intellectual dishonesty by attacking those who expose it.

Hahahahaha.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2015 02:40 pm
@layman,
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-36723-3_6#page

Brilliant ? Hardly, but compared to a fool, it does not take much to appear intelligent.

Heh ! I see Olivier thinks you look lonely on your SR thread. I shall monitor developments with bemusement.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2015 02:43 pm
@fresco,
The actual sentence, from wiki: "A few theoretical physicists have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics can."

Your bogus "quotation:" "A few theoretical physicists (notably Roger Penrose) [your bold, not mine] have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics can.

======

As always, you "drop a name" (now you have a new link) which DISPROVES your own claims. Of course, it's just a red herring that has nothing to do with your fraud in the first place.

Just keep claiming other people can't read, sucker. It's SO convincing. Do you even know what "quantum" means? Obviously not.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2015 02:48 pm
@layman,
Oh dear ! Still wriggling on the hook ? Laughing
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2015 03:32 am
Hmmm, more trouble for string theory, it seems:

Quote:
There are plenty of reasons not to like string theory. Philosophical and logical arguments against the theory have long been apparent. Strong scientific evidence is increasingly joining them. The discovery of the Higgs boson exactly where the Standard Model says it should be last summer at the LHC was a first blow. Now, more evidence is coming in...

This week [CERN]...reported a major result.... its implications are general: big trouble for physics theories that involve supersymmetry (SUSY), string theory and many similar theories included. If SUSY is discarded, string theory goes right out with it...

Here's where the Standard Model (SM) vs. Supersymmetry (SUSY) argument comes in...If supersymmetry is correct, then this decay should occur far more often. In fact, by establishing this number, nearly all reasonable string theory models have failed in a testable prediction.

SUSY supporters had put forth a number for this prediction. Then they changed it when experimental data ruled them out. Then they were shown wrong and changed it again. Now the third prediction has proven wrong.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/11/string-theory-in-deep-trouble.html
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2015 04:16 am
@layman,
Nice blog. Especially the articles on genitalia ! Cool
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 11:18:00