- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I don't trust string theory and neither should you
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:26 pm
Now, let me preface my further comments by admitting that the mathematics involved are well beyond my education, and perhaps even outside my aptitude, and that the relevant human principals are by empirical observation entirely worthy of the type of respect we so unduly grant to, say, obviously stupid brain surgeons.
But when asked to consider the workings of this and other possible universes, should we not insist on total empiricism over the multiple dimensions they propose? Now, I'm not suggesting that we must sensorily experience every natural phenomenon in order to concede its existence; for example, it's easy to accept the actuality of electromagnetic waves above and below the visual light spectrum because we know from experience that our senses are physically limited.
But are those eleven string theory dimensions the same sort of proposition as waves and particles we can't see or we've yet to detect? I don't think so. The problem is that, despite claims to the contrary by those physicists and mathematicians, we CAN'T EVEN COMPREHEND THEM.
The spatial dimensions (i.e. height, width, depth, time) are easy enough to grasp and experience, and position with the universe might also be considered and comprehended as a fifth. But it seems to me that anything beyond those are merely abstract mathematical constructions, invented for the sake of a descriptive formula. They no more exist, by my understanding and skepticism, than two. Yes, the NUMBER two exists, and two of many things definitely exist, but two, itself, does not. It is mere abstract description.
But when asked to consider the workings of this and other possible universes, should we not insist on total empiricism over the multiple dimensions they propose? Now, I'm not suggesting that we must sensorily experience every natural phenomenon in order to concede its existence; for example, it's easy to accept the actuality of electromagnetic waves above and below the visual light spectrum because we know from experience that our senses are physically limited.
But are those eleven string theory dimensions the same sort of proposition as waves and particles we can't see or we've yet to detect? I don't think so. The problem is that, despite claims to the contrary by those physicists and mathematicians, we CAN'T EVEN COMPREHEND THEM.
The spatial dimensions (i.e. height, width, depth, time) are easy enough to grasp and experience, and position with the universe might also be considered and comprehended as a fifth. But it seems to me that anything beyond those are merely abstract mathematical constructions, invented for the sake of a descriptive formula. They no more exist, by my understanding and skepticism, than two. Yes, the NUMBER two exists, and two of many things definitely exist, but two, itself, does not. It is mere abstract description.
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:29 pm to Rex
We get it. You think you're smart.
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:29 pm to Rex
i could only comprehend like 11 words in that post.
This post was edited on 12/16/15 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:30 pm to MorbidTheClown
I pressed the enter key prematurely.
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:32 pm to Rex
Who cares whether you trust it or not?
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:33 pm to Grim
But how will you hold your furry costumes together?
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:37 pm to Kafka
Can someone give me a summary?
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:38 pm to Rex
The only string theory you could comprehend is the one you pulled out of Maggie's butt after she ate a ball of yarn.
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:38 pm to OweO
quote:I prefer summary nights to wintery days
Can someone give me a summary?
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:38 pm to Rex
quote:
time
You think time is an easy dimension to grasp?
Do this as an exercise...
Define time without using words relating to time. Write a definition that isn't circular.
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:39 pm to OweO
Rex is hinting that he believes there is a God.
***I know it was you Rex that downvoted me***
***I know it was you Rex that downvoted me***
This post was edited on 12/16/15 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:41 pm to Pectus
time - an existence of events that can be measured
This post was edited on 12/16/15 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:41 pm to Rex
Oh you want to type a post in MS Word and thesaurus it and edit it over the course of weeks to make yourself sound intelligent?
How about you just show us the math behind this, genius?
How about you just show us the math behind this, genius?
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:41 pm to Rex
When you look at it and think real hard then wala, you have it
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:45 pm to Rebel
Now, I'm certain there's value in their work. The mathematical model, once finalized, will have certain predictive value that might prove pragmatic. But so do Newton's formulas concerning gravitational attraction, even when no modern physicist accepts his underlying bases.
The eleven dimensions might be critical to a mathematical model that works, but that doesn't mean they describe a reality.
The eleven dimensions might be critical to a mathematical model that works, but that doesn't mean they describe a reality.
This post was edited on 12/16/15 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:46 pm to Pectus
quote:
Define time without using words relating to time. Write a definition that isn't circular.
A measure of the passage of present moments often measured in relation to the sun's changing position relative to the earth.
Posted on 12/16/15 at 3:47 pm to DirtyMikeandtheBoys
Which particular words I used do you think required a thesaurus?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News