Re: Is my friend full of BS?


richard.blankman@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Regardless, then he started saying how string theory was bogus, has
been around for 30 years,

"Bogus" is an ill-defined term, and unnecessarily loaded with
pre-judgements. String theory is a mathematically self-consistent
theory. The main problem is that the scientific method *requires* that
a theory be testable, at least in principle. So far string theory has
not made any assertions regarding possible observations that would
distinguish it from other theories (such as the Standard Model). Until
a theory can be tested against observations, it is not really
acceptable.

So far it does not disagree with anything we *already* know, but it
predicts nothing new. Because it posits superstrings, which are not
required in the equally accurate standard model, it violates the
principle of parsimony (aka Ockham's Razor), discouraging its
acceptance.

and has since been debunked by the scientific
community.

It has not been 'debunked.' It simply does not disagree with anything
we *already* know.

His reasoning was "the 'strings' can never be shown to exist
since they're sub-sub-atomic, so the theory can't be true."

There is a world of difference between "we don't know how to do that
yet" and "we will never be able to do that." His 'reasoning' requires
an extrapolation to infinity.

I argued
the current notion of gravity was shown to exist despite it being
completely unobservable.

In the strictest sense, the only things that are observable are
electromagnetic fields - light, the pressure of matter on our
olfactory, auditory, gustatory, and dermal neurons - the properties of
physical matter that directly stimulate our senses. Beyond that
*everything* requires inference from its interactions with those things
we *can* observe directly.

I thought Einstein noticed light bend in a
gravitational field,

No. He *predicted* that, and others made the actual confirming
observations - distortion of the apparent positions of stars whos light
paths passed *very* close to the sun (measurable only during a total
solar eclipse).

but he said I was way off and said how Einstein
actually showed how gravity worked through some convoluted story
involving binary stars that made zero sense to me.

Actually, he used a hypothetical elevator.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is my friend full of BS?
    ... Now I see the superstrings and gravity analogy was not successful. ... The same cannot be said for string theory. ... physical matter that directly stimulate our senses. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: EM-propulsion? No Propellant?
    ... Unification will require a theory of Quantum Gravity ... String theory of M theory has a variety of formulations. ... except gravity) is that particles of matter do not directly ... Quantum electrodynamics is about particle exchange. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Book Review: Stringing physics along
    ... The Rise of String Theory, ... Science, and What Comes Next ... gravity with matter and antimatter are accounted for. ... be able to construct a useful theory of quantum gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • String theory as quantum gravity
    ... When physicists first tried to quantize gravity, ... String theory roughly solves the problems from the higher ... semiclassical theory of gravity has, in fact, a smallest length scale. ... elegant solution to the quantization of gravity? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: How active is research on other quantum gravity theories than loops or strings
    ... both string theory and loop quantum ... > gravity have not made much progress recently. ... in string theory or even in condensed matter physics. ... These ideas are mostly favored by physicists with a condensed matter ...
    (sci.physics.research)
Loading