Re: Bob Berman: String Theory's trendy, but baseless
- From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:46:09 GMT
"Richard Miller" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:del6k9$597$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "meltedown" <groups2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:qZmPe.145266$uo4.64570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > String Theory's trendy, but baseless
| > From The Woodstock Times, Thursday, August 18
| >
http://ulsterpublishing.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=350699
| >
| > Night Sky
| >
| > Hanging by a thread
| > String Theory's trendy, but baseless
| >
| > by Bob Berman
| > Science has long tried to come up with a Grand Unified Theory. It's
a
| > wonderful concept: a way to tie together all the universe's forces.
| > Einstein struggled unsuccessfully with this most of his life, and he
| > wasn't alone. But, listening to the PBS NOVA special or reading some
|
| etc.
|
| Not a great fan myself. BUT I am a great fan of mathematical elegance.
Me too.
This is not all that elegant, though.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)).
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Androcles.
| Hamiltonian theory of dynamical systems is probably a very good start.
It is
| argued purely on mathematical/transformation grounds. And it is
brilliant.
| The real trouble is the hype. It doesn't help that seemingly
respectable
| scientists espouse that a TOE is only a few years away. But whether it
is
| string theory or something else, I think you should allow mathematical
| elegance. Personally, I think the mathematics is the correct theory
and the
| manifestation of the mathematics is what we call physical reality. If
you
| allow both physics and maths, you have two theories. Why should the
physical
| world follow maths? Ditch physics, stick with maths and you only have
one
| theory to explain and no approximate models. Are not probabilistic
forces
| the same as physical forces? If it is a constraint in maths, it is a
| physical constraint that we feel or measure.
|
| Denk mal daruber!
|
| Richard Miller
|
|
.
- References:
- Bob Berman: String Theory's trendy, but baseless
- From: meltedown
- Re: Bob Berman: String Theory's trendy, but baseless
- From: Richard Miller
- Bob Berman: String Theory's trendy, but baseless
- Prev by Date: Re: The Jupiter Boosted Sun Escape
- Next by Date: Re: Entropy question
- Previous by thread: Re: Bob Berman: String Theory's trendy, but baseless
- Next by thread: Re: Bob Berman: String Theory's trendy, but baseless
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading