Battle of the Mega-verses

[sjf911]

Here is an interesting series of letters between Leonard Susskind and Lee Smolin, each arguing their version of the multiple universe hypothesis. Remarkably civil despite the ego's involved. What is it going to be, Strings versus Loops? Have a go.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin_susskind04/smolin_susskind.html

[gassy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y

[Jim Richards]

Thanks Steve. I'll read it tonight.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by sjf911

What is it going to be, Strings versus Loops? Have a go.

I'll be happy when both of these hairbrained ideas are finally trashed...

[Jim Richards]

Mike must have his own idea to share with us.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

I'll be happy when both of these hairbrained ideas are finally trashed...

I think a lot of the posters on this board would say the same about evolution. LOL.

[Pazuzu]

I think that the whole gamut of "string theories" are not much more than mental masturbation for some high end mathematicians who feel that paradigm breaking should become the norm.

They have zero physical support, they are based on very weak, esoteric math, and they are becoming, almost daily, more and more complex. This all flies in the face of any other "great theory".

They're putting all this time and talk into making a hideously complex solution for particle physics, when the Standard Model is 95% there already...and most of what is not verified yet is in the ultra-high energy regime, which we should break into in the next 20 years at most.

Why create tie-dyed science when the nuts and bolts of the Standard Model work just fine, AND accurately predict things?


Now, if the String people would just admit that they're playing with math, and creating thought experiments, and not trying to solve the Universe...then I'd be OK with that...but don't go calling String the next Theory of Everything...



but...again...that's just my opinion

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I think a lot of the posters on this board would say the same about evolution. LOL.

Yes, but only the uniformed or delusional. String theory and quantum loop theory have really no concrete empirically tested data to support them. They are interesting "thought experiments" and may be more important in their role in getting people to think "outside the box". ToE, on the other hand, is here to stay in some form or other as long as there are humans not blighted by dark ages of ignorant anti-intellectualism.

[m21sniper]

Oh, i think a lot of people would state that string type theory is for the delusional.

Wait, Pazazu just did, pretty much.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Why create tie-dyed science when the nuts and bolts of the Standard Model work just fine, AND accurately predict things?

What did Feynman say about quantum mechanics? Something like, "It's so puzzling that I'm not sure there's even a puzzle there" or something like that.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by IROC

What did Feynman say about quantum mechanics? Something like, "It's so puzzling that I'm not sure there's even a puzzle there" or something like that.

Hell, at least Quantum makes sense, and the math is reasonably down to earth. It's unfortunate that it's wrong

I can do QM and General Relativity, and I am 100% incapable of understanding even the most basic parts of String, because there are no basic parts...no standard building blocks from which it was built, no mathematical truism that is used a glue. It's so completely fabricated from the first step, that you need to be "enlightened" by someone directly to even being learning it.

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Hell, at least Quantum makes sense, and the math is reasonably down to earth. It's unfortunate that it's wrong

Has someone falsified the non-locality argument?

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by sjf911

Has someone falsified the non-locality argument?

Nope, it's more basic than that. QM is a purely linear theory, and the world had non-linear things. You cannot make a non-linear universe from a linear theory.

Mathematically, it fails at step 1. If you ignore that, it's a very interesting thing...it qualifies as a theory, and a strong one at that. It's elegant, makes sense, purports to explain everything...it's great!

Except for that little linear/nonlinear issue

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Nope, it's more basic than that. QM is a purely linear theory, and the world had non-linear things. You cannot make a non-linear universe from a linear theory.

Mathematically, it fails at step 1. If you ignore that, it's a very interesting thing...it qualifies as a theory, and a strong one at that. It's elegant, makes sense, purports to explain everything...it's great!

Except for that little linear/nonlinear issue

IIRC, there have been a number of attempts to include non-linear operations in QM but I see your point. Kind of like GR and black holes.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by sjf911

IIRC, there have been a number of attempts to include non-linear operations in QM but I see your point. Kind of like GR and black holes.

*IF* someone can insert non-linearity into it, then it would change the scope of the theory immensely...so much so, that I would consider it a completely new theory rather than an evolution of QM.

I personally am not sure if that will ever happen, but I do like the theory itself. Once you get past the Scary Monster aspect of it, it's quite simple to work with.

GR...not so much It's more elegant, and the concepts are relatively easy, but that differential geometry is a pain in the rear.

[VaSteve]

I'm not sure there exists a thread I wish I clocked on *less* than this one! My head hurts.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by VaSteve

I'm not sure there exists a thread I wish I clocked on *less* than this one! My head hurts.

You think it's bad reading it, you should be me! I have to Google ever other word I use, since I'm pulling this all outta my butt!

[Jim Richards]

Then why do you continue to keep posting on this thread?

[m21sniper]

M is for magic baby.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Then why do you continue to keep posting on this thread?

Oh, I keep forgetting the green text rule