Should be an interesting read when the book is out
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...g-bang-creator
I find this sort of thing hugely exciting, but I know I'm never going to read that book. Every time I've ever read more than a sentence of anything to do with any "string theory" theory it fries my brain in seconds.
If the M-theory is the unified theory they've all been looking for, though, why not call it the GUT they used to refer to?
Oh me too Dr S!Originally Posted by DrS
Every time I've ever read more than a sentence of anything to do with any "string theory" theory it fries my brain in seconds.
It's fascinating and exiting stuff though!
Cough. What's rather slipped by unnoticed with all this is that there's absolutely no scientific evidence for M-theory, the anthropic principle or the multiverse. These hypotheses have as much supporting evidence as heaven and hell and sweet baby Jesus. Compare and contrast with general relativity, which predicted the double-Newtonian deflection of light, and was vindicated within three years. M-theory is essentially string theory, which has been going for forty years without a shred of evidential support.
I thought you guys were skeptical? Hawking has "done a Dawkins" to engineer controversy and double his book sales, and meanwhile perpetuate The Trouble with Physics and attempt to impose a consensus on a gullible public leaving competitor theories out in the cold. This isn't science v religion, it's a diversionary battle between two interest groups trying to tell you what to think. One is religious, the other is quasi-religious, because both camps are totally lacking in evidential support. And meanwhile what with budget cuts and more on the way, real physics is going to hell in a handcart.
And what's with that spontaneous creation? We can all have a laugh at God did it, but spontaneous creation is just another non-answer. It reminds me of the old recipe for the spontaneous generation of mice. A piece of soiled cloth plus wheat and 21 days, and voila! Hawking would have us believe that creating a whole universe is rather similar, but with fewer ingredients? Oh come on.
I thought you guys were skeptical?
I rather thought I’d read his book first , then try to come to a reasoned opinion afterwards.
Not being blessed with any form of precognition I generally try to find out what it is I’m talking about before opening my mouth.
It may be interesting.
It may be useful.
It may not.
Sorry, your 'point' was....?
Not being a physics genius like you, I really have no opinion on string theory. However, assuming that the entire science community has not lost the ability to reason (a modest assumption I believe), then what you assert is so, cannot be. Theories generate testable hypotheses and lead to predictions - therein lies the difference between theories and religion. You may argue that supporters of one of a number of competing theories is trying to increase support for their research - that would be a reasonable claim. But to drag in a comparison with religion, suggests that all competing theories are equally obviously flawed and that all major scientific bodies are colluding to hoodwink all investors. Is this possible?
Watchman, I know what I'm talking about.
The entire science community hasn't lost the ability to reason. But what I assert can be so.
Thanks. People are people, this sort of thing does happen.
No it doesn't suggest that, and it isn't how it is. Like I said, compare and contrast with general relativity, which predicted the double-Newtonian deflection of light and was vindicated within three years. M-theory aka string theory has been going for forty years without a shred of evidential support. Try listing some evidence, or some testable predictions. When you can't, and can't find anybody who can, you'll appreciate my point. It's the same for the anthropic principle and the multiverse. These speculations are insulated from the scientific method and touted to a gullible public just like sweet baby Jesus in days of yore. The trick is to find an easy target and use it to promote yourself. Sells books, strengthens grant applications, et cetera. And of course all the suckers are taken in by the propaganda, swallowing the line that it's all too complicated for mere mortals to understand. They call it The Emperor's New Clothes.
I'm no physicist either, but there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for string theory being correct. From the wiki entry:
But wait! hot off the press - Scientists say they can now test string theory.Although string theory comes from physics, some say that string theory's current untestable status means that it should be classified as more of a mathematical framework for building models as opposed to a physical theory.[31] Some go further, and say that string theory as a theory of everything is a failure.[32][33] This led to a public debate in 2007,[34][35] with one commentator expressing this opinion:"For more than a generation, physicists have been chasing a will-o’-the-wisp called string theory. The beginning of this chase marked the end of what had been three-quarters of a century of progress. Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far—just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing." -- Jim Holt.
From Wiki!
"M-Theory is not yet complete, but the underlying structure of the mathematics has been established and is in agreement with not only all the string theories, but with all of our scientific observations of the universe. Furthermore, it has passed many tests of internal mathematical consistency that many other attempts to combine quantum mechanics and gravity had failed. Unfortunately, until we can find some way to observe higher dimensions (impossible with our current level of technology) M-Theory has a very difficult time making predictions which can be tested in a laboratory."
Now as a lay person reading this, it says that M theory works, in so far as it is mathematically compatible with both quantum mechanics and general relativity. That seems no mean feat.
But that to test the new predictions that arise to date, one has to have access to dimensions not currently accessible.
So the question that seems to arise, is whether the ability to resolve the tensions between the quantum and the cosmos is sufficient or whether this results in unfalsifiability? As a skeptic unfalsifiability is a huge problem, but then so are equally two mutually incompatible theories of matter and energy.
So the question arises, if M theory is only accepted as a provisional theory (hypothesis) wherein lies the problem?
It would have been nice to read this post prior to listening to SGU podcast, as this was 1 of the science or fiction items.
I got it right anyway (my tally so far is no better than chance, my intellect is no more than a placebo)
Am I completely misguided on the Hawking subject?
Paraphrasing the venerable Molesworth, any fule kno that I am no physicist. However, from what I have read Hawking does not rank very highly in that discipline. I seem to remember him even publicly stating that his work had been barking up the wrong tree/s for many years.
Sadly have not got a grip of M-Theory, but always felt that string theory sounded a bit unlikely. Can anyone give us a very simpletons guide to M-Theory please
Anyway, on the plus side it is good that he has once again stirred up the debate, but is Hawkings popular appeal more based on his marketability as opposed to his qualities as a scientist?
But to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, it has to be testable.
Speaking as a layman who has struggled for years (without much success) to follow the debates around the competing cosmological concepts, I have come to two broad conclusions:
Ideas such as string theory and the multiverse are not proper theories, in that they are not only not testable but there is no hard evidence for them. However, they are consistent with current mathematical understanding, which is far more than can be said for "heaven and hell and sweet baby Jesus".
The ultimate question about the creation of the universe comes down to an endless succession of "yes, but where did that come from?" responses. No-one has the answer - neither religion nor science - and I am inclined to think that no-one ever will.
Science has the potential to explain the entire material universe from the instant of its creation, but IMO not how and why that creation happened. Religion can't explain it either, of course: the multitudinous different creation myths adopted by various religions are just fairy stories to try to provide some comfortingly understandable explanation for the fundamentally unexplainable.
SGU (podcast 268) discussed this recently as a 'science or fiction' feature.
The discovery that string theory seems to make predictions about quantum entanglement is completely unexpected, but because quantum entanglement can be measured in the lab, it does mean that at last researchers can test predictions based on string theory
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks