Laetoli footprints (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 12, 2010, 21:39 (5148 days ago) @ David Turell


> > You seem to have forgotten that the "many worlds" interpretation is rooted in current quantum mechanics--and has nothing at all to do with String Theory. 
> 
> 
> Supporters means an election of unproven opinions. Yes I had forgotten about many worlds. I'm convinced there is just one of me, and I consider many worlds really worthless, probably more than strings.-You were challenging me based on the fact that "String Theory" needs to be proven. While it is true that indeed, ST is as open a question as it gets (and I've called it an intellectual black hole on more than one occasion) it simply manages to sit at the edge of theoretical physics. (More results like the one I mentioned before and it won't be derided as much as it is by experimental physicists.) -Unaddressed by you is the Copenhagen interpretation--which again has its "supporters." Shall we deride it as surely as you do the "Many Worlds" interpretation? (For the uninitiated, the Copenhagen Interpretation is also called "The Standard Model.") At the point we're at now, we're squarely at the limits of all science and we can't toss out any of these models until we reach the point we can test some of them. (LHC is the first step towards verifying/nullifying ST and/or Many Worlds.) -I will reiterate that Brian Greene has a NOVA documentary (Elegant Universe) where all of these issues are discussed with other physicists and my claim about theoretical physicists is directly from that documentary. (9/10 of new theoretical physics PHD's pursue String Theory instead of the Standard Model as a research paradigm.) Some physicists claim that this trend may be leading physics down the wrong path for the next 100+ years. (Myself, I find it alarming as a layman.) But I was just trying to point out that Many Worlds isn't a String Theory issue.-As for cosmologists that argue that our universe isn't necessarily the only one that could support life, there was a SciAm article... 2 months back? Where the authors discussed a universe completely missing a fundamental force, and it was still able to produce all the necessary energy and chemistry necessary for life like ours. This means that the criterion for our universe isn't the only one that allows life to exist. -You're convinced many worlds is automatically false, but I find that interesting as it is also the only interpretation that intrinsically allows most of the paranormal phenomenon that we've discussed. The consistent-histories model closes most of those doors.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"