Re: Bob Berman: String Theory's trendy, but baseless


"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.
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


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bob Berman: String Theorys trendy, but baseless
    ... |> String Theory's trendy, but baseless ... I think the mathematics is the correct theory ... | allow both physics and maths, ... Ditch physics, stick with maths and you only have ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Bob Berman: String Theorys trendy, but baseless
    ... But whether it is string theory or something else, I think you should allow mathematical elegance. ... 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, ... Ditch physics, stick with maths and you only have one theory to explain and no approximate models. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
    ... Some disciplines, e.g. maths, attempt to prove non-existence ... justification may be different in maths, physics, and linguistics (if ... they ever attempt to justify their claims) is another matter. ... > concerned the error in classifying mathematics as a science ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Real world and mathematics
    ... The book deals with the question whether mathematics is the "bunch of ... sciences and theoretical physics". ... of maths are not as arbitrary as Arnold's straw man - pure ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
    ... LET does provide an interpretation the modern version ... One is maths + an interpretation which no one likes ... What physics has done it to change the rules such ... had published his mathematics predicting the motion of planets without ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast