SBS doco tonite - The Elegant Universe

[netwolf]

Alex, appologies if i appeared to indicate i knew anything about string theory. I have not really looked into it. Nor do i know much about the concept of multi dimensions. I am bringing myself up to speed on the last 20 years of development and i will get back to you for a heated debate when i am done. Could be a while .

I appreciate that perhaps the investigation has not answered some questions you feel are the burdens of proof for them to continue or might even help them. But if we all follow a single path then we all reach a single destination. Allowing people to explore sometimes in a diffrent perspective to us can be benifical. This is why i like using the example of the duality of light theory so much. Neither Newton nor Hyugen were incorrect in there initial perceptions, yet because one was more popular we suffered a great loss in time. In the end it took Neils Bohr to suggest we use both based on what we are investigating. So sometimes we need to accept the approach to a given problem from a perspective we dont fully understand but perhaps the person investigating it can see what we can not. Lets give them the time to investigate. But i agree we should also raise the questions as you have so that there investigation does not go unchecked.

Regards

[astroron (Ron)]

I get the feeling that science is clutching at straws (strings) with very little proof and very little to go on.
It seems to me that a lot of scientist like to make things fit even if the parts of the puzzle wont quite go in.
Just my opinion

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by astroron

I get the feeling that science is clutching at straws (strings) with very little proof and very little to go on.
It seems to me that a lot of scientist like to make things fit even if the parts of the puzzle wont quite go in.
Just my opinion

Ron, as you know there is no evidence to support string "theory" (an overused word - hypothesis really), but there is no other competing explanation for the fundamental forces that operate in the Universe.

[netwolf]

Argonavis, its intresting thing you have noted. It has also been something i have wondered about. In the last 50 years it seems that the advances in science have been based more on assumptions and theories based on other theories, rather than proven fact. I suppose when your dealing the physics of the universe its rather hard to prove things. Things like darkmatter anti gravity are based on derivations of what we can observer at a far away distance. Can we be certain what we see and observe is real. What other things in space have we yet not discovered that could tamper with how we percive events in the far away heavens. We are clutching at something that is perhaps beyond our reach. Have you noticed in the last 20 years ther have been more books in the bookstores about theories rather than facts. And the lay person is more at peace reading one of these books as facts rather than learning any proven science from textbooks.

Alex made some good points yet we are all enthraled by a tv show that makes sense to us but what sense does it really make when our knowledge is just theories not funadamentals. They are converting complex systems into things lay people will understand and eat up without question or skeptisim.

People are happier with simple to understnad concepts that are not convaluted with mathamatics. But then whre are the checks and balances, that equations, and profs provide. Where is the data and its validation. No one would read a book filled with maths and data, it would not sell. Peopl want things explined simply and hence make science a Faith rather than a method to find truth.

Even on these forums, people spend a lot of time trying to process there images to bring out more details using processes we do not fully understnad but know provide the visual result we desire. Our desire to produce visually pleasing vistas is more important than understanding why?

I too have become obssed with imaging more thant understanding how things work. I want goto so i can see more in one night, but what do i learn from this. Our drive is our desire to see more than learn. Appolgies if i have offended i dont mean to genaralise to all memebrs i am just reflecting on myself and what i percive.

Edit: Just look at the title Elegant? why not the ugly? the brutal? why lean towards words that our more desirable than less. I dont imaging planets being hurtled into a black hole (point) would consider the universe Elegant.
Regards

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by netwolf

Argonavis, its intresting thing you have noted. It has also been something i have wondered about. In the last 50 years it seems that the advances in science have been based more on assumptions and theories based on other theories, rather than proven fact. I suppose when your dealing the physics of the universe its rather hard to prove things. Things like darkmatter anti gravity are based on derivations of what we can observer at a far away distance. Can we be certain what we see and observe is real. What other things in space have we yet not discovered that could tamper with how we percive events in the far away heavens. We are clutching at something that is perhaps beyond our reach. Have you noticed in the last 20 years ther have been more books in the bookstores about theories rather than facts. And the lay person is more at peace reading one of these books as facts rather than learning any proven science from textbooks.

I am amazed when I walk into bookshops and see all the books. Who reads them all? Who writes them? However, I am not sure it is that bad that people go off into flights of fanatsy, it is a testament to the human imagination.

People can imagine a bridge or building then go out and build it. They can imagine all sorts of other stuff and go out and write a book or start a religion or cult or fad or fashion and makes heaps of money. It's the way of the world, and science is a cultural endevour that is just as subject to many of the same rules. You hope that scientists are not subject to prejudice and emotion and fads and fashion and wanting to be famous but it is not so. Fortunately science has peer review and the necessity of producing evidence and falsifiability of theories as a means of eventually coming up with the truth (with a small "t").

Humans also love a good story and fantasy which makes science textbooks seem dull.

Originally Posted by netwolf

Even on these forums, people spend a lot of time trying to process there images to bring out more details using processes we do not fully understnad but know provide the visual result we desire. Our desire to produce visually pleasing vistas is more important than understanding why?

i think amateurs really enjoy the technical challenge of producing images of celestial stuff, which are also pretty. This is art as much as science, and the two intersect at this point. David Marlin produced gorgeous images that he used science to explain.

Originally Posted by netwolf

Edit: Just look at the title Elegant? why not the ugly? the brutal? why lean towards words that our more desirable than less. I dont imaging planets being hurtled into a black hole (point) would consider the universe Elegant.
Regards

A black hole sucking up planets is very elegant to a mathematician who can observe nature obeying a simple set of equations.

String theory (small "t") is a set of equations that explains the fundamnetal nature of matter, so is very elegant.

[netwolf]

Argonavis,

I dont mean we go into flights of fantasy, but the general public has becomre more and more disconnected from factual Science.

Imagination is a grand thing but without science we would have bridges and buildings collapsing arround us.

My point about the visual is that if we dont understand the methods used, perhaps the outcomes achived are not real. As they are derived to appeal visually. I must admit there is much one learns in the process of imaging but there is much we used without understandin it first.

Regards

[g__day (Matthew)]

netwolf - a small set of the things we don't understand about gravity

1. Why is it so weak compared to the other forces - does it leak into other dimensions?
2. Is it quantised into packets or can it have any value?
3. Can it be negative under any circumstances?
4. Does it have a carrier - like the graviton or Higgs bosun or is it more like a Higgs field in which other particles interact?
5. If it has a carrier is their a minimum energy level this carrier can have and if so how? How do you represent a curvature of spacetime with 10 ^ -120 joules of energy?
6. How does it interact with the other 3 forces at sub-atomic distances?
7. How does it operate and propogate in the space between gravitationally bound galactic clusters wherein relativity does not strictly have to apply?

[xelasnave]

Well I saw the last show and was impressed that some attempt was made to explain gravity. Not very happy with their explanation but at least there was an attempt.. which is (even after the explanation) the most important thing we need to know if we are to move forward in understanding everything. Still explaining gravity as being a weak force because some of it leaks into another dimention is rather sad because as far as I can see there is no proof or physical indication that such a belief may have basis in fact..but it seemed like a good idea at the time so lets go with the leaking into another dimention thing....I mean how reasonable does this sound..where is the razor when you need it...this theory would bleed to death if the razor was flashed at it... I wish my ideas on gravity would meet with as little resistance as apparently all those give to this mystical suggested explanation.
How can one "rip" space time? why worry if you do because we have a neat little string which gathers the rip up in a "tube" (which is really a string and if you like to bring it up to date a "brane" er "membrane"). As exciting as it sounds I can not see anyway (other than on paper) space time can be ripped...I mean think about it and if you still feel thats ok after some consideration thats OK with me but dont accept this stuff with wide eyes and a heart expecting all to be revealed. Ask what have I really found out to be new and does it take anything forward in real terms.... My answer is no it does not.
Still I can be easily dismissed, as I, like everyone not getting their pay check from a String theory "patron", do not have the math to add power to my words of "this is nonsence until you have some experiments in proof". Not being sckilled in math leaves me far too ignorant to have a view that this should go to the never to be completed work bin. How presumptuious that a layman seeks to bust the bubble of this make believe world. Still let them continue if they are not engaged in this what other meaningful work could one apply the brain power monopolised by this theory... is there nothing else more worthy of such engagement??? Am I unreasonable? lets see how far this theory progresses in the next 20 years ..I will perhaps then be able to say "I told you so" If not remember I am the layman it should be me who is wrong...time will tell.
alex