It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate – or is it?

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Brainstorming, stepping out of the rote box, and theorizing among thinking people is never a silly endeavour and it is wrong to assume that non-physicists have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
That's wrong. The contrary is true, it's usually a silly and in fact completely ridiculous endeavor because people who don't even know where the box is have no idea when they are stepping outside of it.

On the other hand, non-physicists have many worthwhile things to contribute in fields other than physics, like music, art, and other disciplines, however an increased understanding of physics isn't one of the contributions they are likely to make.




posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Brainstorming, stepping out of the rote box, and theorizing among thinking people is never a silly endeavour and it is wrong to assume that non-physicists have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
That's wrong. The contrary is true, it's usually a silly and in fact completely ridiculous endeavor because people who don't even know where the box is have no idea when they are stepping outside of it.

On the other hand, non-physicists have many worthwhile things to contribute in fields other than physics, like music, art, and other disciplines, however an increased understanding of physics isn't one of the contributions they are likely to make.







From the OP's original post:



This particular article is less about bad science, and more about following fads. I remember when the physics world lost their collective minds over string theory. Of course, now string theory really only lives on as a series of mathematical formula that are used to give insight into questions that standard cosmological mathematics don't seem to really be up to the task for.



Silly endeavours can take many forms. This too is controversial.



Implicit in such a maneuver is a philosophical question: How are we to determine whether a theory is true if it cannot be validated experimentally? Should we abandon it just because, at a given level of technological capacity, empirical support might be impossible? If not, how long should we wait for such experimental machinery before moving on: ten years? Fifty years? Centuries?


www.nytimes.com...

edit on 23-10-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

One of the more interesting things about String Theory is that its receiving another life by helping with the math. Concepts expressed in standard mathematics that are unsolvable, or at least unsolvable currently, may end up finding solution using the multidimensional mathematics of string theory.

That is kind of where my comments were being aimed more towards. I find it strange and amusing (not in a cynical way) that string theory is mostly ridiculed, yet the math still seems to be quite useful. Sometimes I wonder how much ego interferres with truth and progress. I mean, we are all human. Even empiricists.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   


Why would an explanation be necessary?
a reply to: Vector99

Because I say so !



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: frenchfries
So basically :

pssttt... If you can't explain it use 'Darkmatter'.

Dark matter has nothing to do with the expanding universe, it's dark energy. I think it's fairly obvious the universe is expanding but this research shows it's still important not to accept everything in the standard model as gospel truth because nothing in science is 100% certain.


Energy and matter are the same thing since they occupy a space on opposite sides of the equation. E=Mc^2



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I would think the ego equation may be in the continuous model changing to suit the theory. But, really, is the adoption of multidimensional mathematics resulting in any type of real evidence?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

"Real evidence" is mostly creating formulas that accurately predict. In this way, yes. Utilizing mathematics derived from string theory seems to be allowing for predictability and an ability to replicate. That said, there is still the issue of there being no quality control in the peer review process, it seems, as there is no shortage of formulaic errors in papers.

The Strange Second Life Of String THeory

The mathematics that have come out of string theory have been put to use in fields such as cosmology and condensed matter physics—the study of materials and their properties. It’s so ubiquitous that “even if you shut down all the string-theory groups, people in condensed matter, people in cosmology, people in quantum gravity will do it,” Dijkgraaf said.

....snip....

These quantum field theories were developed in the 1950s to unify special relativity and quantum mechanics. They worked well enough for long enough that it didn’t much matter that they broke down at very small scales and high energies. But today, when physicists revisit “the part you thought you understood 60 years ago,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a physicist at the IAS, you find “stunning structures” that came as a complete surprise. “Every aspect of the idea that we understood quantum field theory turns out to be wrong. It’s a vastly bigger beast.”

Researchers have developed a huge number of quantum field theories in the past decade or so, each used to study different physical systems. Beem suspects there are quantum field theories that can’t be described even in terms of quantum fields. “We have opinions that sound as crazy as that, in large part, because of string theory.”

This virtual explosion of new kinds of quantum field theories is eerily reminiscent of physics in the 1930s, when the unexpected appearance of a new kind of particle—the muon—led a frustrated I.I. Rabi to ask: “Who ordered that?” The flood of new particles was so overwhelming by the 1950s that it led Enrico Fermi to grumble: “If I could remember the names of all these particles, I would have been a botanist.”

Physicists began to see their way through the thicket of new particles only when they found the more fundamental building blocks making them up, like quarks and gluons. Now many physicists are attempting to do the same with quantum field theory. In their attempts to make sense of the zoo, many learn all they can about certain exotic species.



edit on 10/23/2016 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join