String theory sophistry (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, January 22, 2014, 14:51 (3958 days ago)
Andrei Linde promotes string theory as the only way out of a dilemma, how to explain a fine-tuned univrse that supports life: -"In the context of the inflationary theory, this means that our world may consist of incredibly large number of exponentially large "universes" with 10500 different types of matter inside them. A pessimist would argue that since we do not see other parts of the universe, we cannot prove that this picture is correct. An optimist, on the other hand, may counter that we can never disprove this picture either, because its main assumption is that other "universes" are far away from us. And since we know that the best of the theories developed so far allow about 10500 different universes, anybody who argues that the universe must have same properties everywhere would have to prove that only one of these 10500 universes is possible. And then there is something else. There are many strange coincidences in our world. The mass of the electron is 2000 times smaller than the mass of the proton. Why? The only known reason is that if it would change few times, life as we know it would be impossible. The masses of the proton and neutron almost coincide. Why? If one of their masses would change just a little, life as we know it would be impossible. The energy of empty space in our part of the universe is not zero, but a tiny number, more than a hundred orders of magnitude below the naive theoretical expectations. Why? The only known explanation is that we would be unable to live in the world with a much larger energy of vacuum. The relation between our properties and the properties of the world is called the anthropic principle. But if the universe were given to us in one copy, this relation would not help. We would need to speculate about the divine cause making the universe custom built for humans. Meanwhile, in the multiverse consisting of many different parts with different properties, the correlation between our properties and the properties of the part of the world where we can live makes perfect sense."- http://www.edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement-Infinity can cover many theoretical problems, allowing for anything
String theory sophistry
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, January 23, 2014, 04:33 (3958 days ago) @ David Turell
"One should invent a better cosmological theory, one should invent a better theory of fundamental interactions, and one should propose an alternative explanation for the miraculous coincidences which we just discussed."- Fortunately, for those with faith, miraculous coincidences need no invented theories. That is not to say we don't still seek to understand, only that we can approach the problem from a different direction. To me, it is ok to say that 'God did it' and then try to figure out HOW or WHY he might have done so.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
String theory sophistry
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Sunday, February 16, 2014, 17:56 (3933 days ago) @ David Turell
A diatribe against multiverses and string theory: -http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/01/28/is-speculation-in-multiverses-as-immoral-as-speculation-in-subprime-mortgages/-It's not only wrong but immoral!
--
GPJ
String theory sophistry
by David Turell , Sunday, February 16, 2014, 18:11 (3933 days ago) @ George Jelliss
George: A diatribe against multiverses and string theory: > > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/01/28/is-speculation-in-multiverse... > It's not only wrong but immoral!-I've presented this material before. books by Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong, 2006 and The Trouble with Physics,2006 by Lee Smolin are especially disparaging. Sring theory is a dead end for thousands of scientific careers because it cannot be proved or even tested. Ruth Kastner, who debated here, indicates we have the wrong approach to combining General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Thre is no combination yet, and I feel there will never be, becasue our layer of reality and the quantum layer are separate as she pointed out.
String theory sophistry
by David Turell , Monday, October 13, 2014, 15:32 (3694 days ago) @ David Turell
Aother competent review of Smolin's book and its implication to Climate Science. True science is not comsensus:-http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/12/the-trouble-with-physics-another-branch-of-science-captured-by-groupthink/-"“The Trouble with Physics” is a controversial book by one of the giants of Quantum Physics, Lee Smolin. In an eerie parallel to the failings of climate science, Smolin argues that a fundamental error at the heart of String Theory, and rampant groupthink, has diverted uncounted scientific man hours of effort down a blind alley. Physicists are wasting lifetimes of effort constructing ever more elaborate mathematical models, models which can never hope to be reconciled with real world observations. - "The fundamental error, according to Smolin, is that String Theory is background dependent. String Theory assumes a Universe in which time and space is constant - a Universe in which Einstein never discovered General Relativity."-"The truth is, scientists are human, they have the same triumphs and weaknesses as the rest of us. The image of science and scientists as objective seekers of truth was only ever an ideal. Science, it is true, has mechanisms for self correction which are unique in human endeavour - but those mechanisms rarely work smoothly. "For example, scientists were aware of the paradoxes which produced the need for Einstein's Relativity since at least the 1860s, when Maxwell formulated his famous equations - equations which implied the speed of light is constant, no matter what the location and velocity of the observer. Scientists ignored this issue, or tried to disprove this implication, by testing whether the speed of light varied if you were moving towards or away from the source. It took Einstein, working in the early 1900s, to resolve the paradox, and finally lay the issue to rest. "Climate Science will eventually become a science again. The wider world of academia is becoming increasingly aware of the embarrassing failures and poor practices. Sooner or later students will tire of producing the same defective results, year after year, and someone, somewhere will make the leap - will find a way to produce a model which works, an Einstein moment which transforms our understanding of global climate."