String Theory Explained Simply.

[bartman (Bart)]

Ummm Craig,
Maybe I didn't explain myself correctly... but whenever I look at the sky whether it be by eye, scope or ccd/dslr, I always think WTF !WOW!.
I want to know !!!!
Therefore I appreciate contributions from people on this forum, like yourself and Suzy, Ken etc to explain how what when why where ......
Bartman

[bartman (Bart)]

Suzy, not sure if you have been told b4 but I found Travoltas house...???
http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/...restons-house/
Bartman

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by bartman

Suzy, not sure if you have been told b4 but I found Travoltas house...???
http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/...restons-house/
Bartman

He looks out his window at his 707 or his Learjet.
I look out my window and see my old dead Falcon and my Magna

Suzy, thanks for the String theory info
Certainly some weird stuff out there.
Silvie came to Camp and did a talk about Dark Matter. That was an eye-opener!
Weird stuff!

[Jen]

Originally Posted by ballaratdragons

Yeah, I find some of it interesting.
But what urks me is how the general public 'expect' me to know all the answers to the Universe

"I am an Amateur Astronomer. It's a hobby folks! I like to look through a telescope and take pictures"

I get asked all sorts of Cosmological questions, UFO questions, Astrophysics, Astrobiology, even questions about what is in NASA's Rocket Fuel

Amazing isn't it, that as soon as we say we do 'Astronomy' we get labelled as Space and Astro Science experts

HELLLP!

lol Ken i know what ya mean i feel very smart standing behind my telescope hehe or reading an astro book

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jen

lol Ken i know what ya mean i feel very smart standing behind my telescope hehe or reading an astro book

You don't need the telescope, Jen !

Throw that sucker away !!



I noticed from another thread that some guy was hack-sawing it in half anyway !



Cheers & Regards.

[BLiTZWiNG (Trent)]

I prefer the Big Bang Theory.

[GK (Gary)]

What happens when string is bent

[noswonky (Peter)]

Originally Posted by bartman

He says that atoms are made of quorks

It's 'quark'.

'Quork' is just the American accent.

[OzRob (Rob)]

String theory (or I guess more correctly now M-theory) makes me head hurt!!!

[bartman (Bart)]

Cheers Peter,
thanks for the correction,, I think I listened to what he said and then just made a guess at how to spell it........never had to type that word out!
Bartman

[CraigS]

Has anyone noticed the 'comments' underneath the actual video window in Suzy's original post ?

I read thru the first few and I'm blown away by the degree of opinionated scepticism and fearsome defence put up by 'the believers'.

Amazing how new concepts are handled by human beings.

It seems those guys all reverted to almost religious behaviours (ie: belief driven attacks and belief driven defence).

What is the purpose of this behaviour ?

It doesn't make any difference to the theory …

Cheers

[Suzy]

Just read those comments Craig.

It's very easy for people that don't know anything in this area to put it down. I'm sure Einstein got his fare share also. If we didn't persue the desire to understand, we wouldn't know any better. String Theory todate holds the biggest key to undertanding the universe. Einstein's general relativity theory only takes us so far. String theory hopes to bring together the four forces: gravity, electromagnetism, and the two nuclear forces (the weak and the strong). Einstein gave up trying to come up with a single unification theory. To quote his own words: "The unified field theory has been put into retirement. It is so difficult to employ mathematically that I have not been able to verify it somehow, in spite of all my efforts. This state of affairs will no doubt last many more years."

The research on this has been going on for 30 years. I doubt very much if so many scientists would dedicate so much involvement in it if it wasn't worth pursuing. We should all have an open mind when it comes to new theories, otherwise we would still believe the Earth is the centre of the universe.

To quote Einstein: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds".

[Max Vondel (Peter)]

Experimental proof is needed!

I'm sorry to say that String theory has absolutely NO experimental evidence. YES it's nice mathematics, it make's sense BUT without any experiments providing EVIDENCE it's all psuedo science!

[CraigS]

I should clarify my last post. (It was a little ambiguous, upon a second read of it).

The point I wanted to make was that both sides of the 'discussion' are so adamant they're both right.

Even the real guys dealing with the ins and outs of it every day, admit that its only a theory. Beats me how any amateur can say anything strongly one way or the other (sorry Max Vondel - a separate post is coming up).

Suzy;
Yep. Totally agree with your observation of it all.

Unified theories are about the hardest to understand which interestingly, sets the stage for the battle. Ie, in your own words:

Originally Posted by suzy

It's very easy for people that don't know anything in this area to put it down.

Its kind of funny, really. In the professional scientist's loop, they create this great new concept which almost none of them understand, which then starts arguments, which then sets off further empirical research once they come to some kind of consensus, which then may (or may not) result in unexpected 'anomalies', (which are only anomalies because they don't fit the expectations or the theory), or 'breakthroughs', which can modify the original theories, or their assumptions. Either way, the whole thing steps forward in some way, shape or form.

If you're not in the professional loop, I don't feel that you're really able to honestly comment on the veracity, or otherwise, of it all. Amateurs may form opinions .. but ultimately, I reckon if you don't eat and breathe this kind of stuff everyday, opinions don't really hold much value, other than for starting arguments, (if you like that kind of thing).

All I think we can really honestly do, is to keep reading and updating ourselves, and learn in the process … and perhaps, try to explain our current understanding of it all, to help others in their learning. This doesn't necessarily come from trying to look like a guru in the topic and self-aggrandizement, although admittedly, some people do attempt this.

At the end of the day, I feel that holding on to any of it as the truth or fiction, etc .. occurs to me, as being quite pointless.

I'm no expert, so comments are welcome.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Max Vondel

Experimental proof is needed!

Its a theory .. no proof needed at this stage.

I'm sorry to say that String theory has absolutely NO experimental evidence. YES it's nice mathematics, it make's sense BUT without any experiments providing EVIDENCE it's all psuedo science!

Ok .. so lets put that comment to the test. Our IIS Science Forum's own updated list of pseudoscience distinctions (ie: ways of detecting whether statements are coming from a pseudoscientific basis):

(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
(3) Recitation of conspiracy theories against science. (Eg: the peer review process being a "boys club");
(4) No evidence of ever having gone through 'Peer Review' and announcements made in mainstream media, before journal publication.
(5) Fudged tests or data: No signs of data, which may be used to disprove the theory.

I see no evidence of (3) or (5) yet, but I get a sense of items (1) to (2) being fairly well alive in your comments.

Cheers
EDIT: PS: String theory is falsifiable. The effects of strings may lead to predictions which are likely to be experimentally testable. This is not pseudoscience. Using the absence of experimental evidence to label the theory as pseudoscience IS pseudoscience.

[CraigS]

Just remembered .. this came up in the news on Sept 1st ..

Scientists Say They Can Now Test String Theory

.. the biggest criticism of String Theory is that it isn’t testable. But now, a research team led by scientists from the Imperial College London unexpectedly discovered that that string theory also seems to predict the behavior of entangled quantum particles. As this prediction can be tested in the laboratory, the researchers say they can now test string theory.

I look forward to updates of this snippet.

Cheers

[Jen]

Originally Posted by CraigS

You don't need the telescope, Jen !

Throw that sucker away !!



I noticed from another thread that some guy was hack-sawing it in half anyway !



Cheers & Regards.

lol Craig

[bartman (Bart)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

If you're not in the professional loop, I don't feel that you're really able to honestly comment on the veracity, or otherwise, of it all. Amateurs may form opinions .. but ultimately, I reckon if you don't eat and breathe this kind of stuff everyday, opinions don't really hold much value, other than for starting arguments, (if you like that kind of thing).
Cheers

Craig, I'm not sure if I understand/like this part of your post......
I'd like to think that any comment I make on 'stuff' is NOT to make an argument! If I give a thought or opinion, I expect my peers or more educated people to concur, dispel, explain or debate ( not argue) my thoughts/opinions.
I'm an amateur amateur, but I'm sure that there are people out there ( without the PHD etc behind their names) that have helped and contributed to the science world with their thoughts and opinions.

Sometimes it takes a person to walk into a room with fresh eyes. If you eat and breath this stuff, you can get consumed by it and not see the galaxy through the stars
I hope that ( someday) a comment I make might spur somebody's thoughts to help solve an idea no matter how trivial.

Bartman

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bartman

Craig, I'm not sure if I understand/like this part of your post......
I'd like to think that any comment I make on 'stuff' is NOT to make an argument! If I give a thought or opinion, I expect my peers or more educated people to concur, dispel, explain or debate ( not argue) my thoughts/opinions.
I'm an amateur amateur, but I'm sure that there are people out there ( without the PHD etc behind their names) that have helped and contributed to the science world with their thoughts and opinions.

Sometimes it takes a person to walk into a room with fresh eyes. If you eat and breath this stuff, you can get consumed by it and not see the galaxy through the stars
I hope that ( someday) a comment I make might spur somebody's thoughts to help solve an idea no matter how trivial.

Bartman

Hi Bart;

That's Ok & cool.

I guess some views (or opinions) are directed at being constructive, or not constructive. Seems to me that where opinions attempt to pass judgement on something still under debate and not yet understood, is where I feel they hold little value, other than to cause a defensive reaction … that's human nature isn't it?

A discussion set up from this basis usually devolves into something which isn't really about the topic at all … it sort of ends up being about the individuals.

I also use the term 'opinion' in a very specific way when I use it. I should be careful using it as I sometimes forget to explain my definition of it. (Its not an everyday normal definition .. topic for another thread someday, I guess).

Cheers & thanks for your 'prod' (or opinion), - much appreciated as it was directed at being constructive.

[GeoffMc (Geoff)]

I’d like to endorse Craig’s (#34) and Suzy’s (#1 and #17) comments. Craig’s comments are an honest summary of what non-experts do in science: we’re fans and supporters as well as sceptics. Suzy’s sheer wonder of the science (and other scientific activities described in other threads) is refreshing and inspiring. She is a model student!

From a philosophical perspective, we need to be a little careful. For instance, saying theories don’t need evidence is wrong: theories are based on evidence and are descriptions that attempt to explain the available evidence. The test of a theory is in its predictions, and this is where string theory has problems: its predictions are not testable, at least at the moment. That does not make it invalid, by the way.

It really doesn’t matter who the individual making a contribution to science is (professional, amateur, etc), but rather what science does with their contribution. Science is a process that is self-correcting. It is not individual scientists who make progress, but rather the process of science that weeds out the incorrect ideas, no matter where they come from. Whatever remains is as close to the truth as we can get…at the moment.

Geoff Mc