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.
Starts out "We believe, though we cannot yet prove, that our universe has 11 dimensions."
originally posted by: Kashai
Its his day job.
See the book on this subject written by mathematical physicist Peter Woit:
The phrase "not even wrong" describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e., tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.
...
The phrase is often used to describe pseudoscience or bad science and is considered derogatory.
So now you know how some other scientists feel about the "beliefs" of Michio Kaku, and they are not included in his "we".
When does physics depart the realm of testable hypothesis and come to resemble theology? Peter Woit argues that string theory isn't just going in the wrong direction, it's not even science. Not Even Wrong shows that what many physicists call superstring “theory” is not a theory at all. It makes no predictions, not even wrong ones, and this very lack of falsifiability is what has allowed the subject to survive and flourish. Peter Woit explains why the mathematical conditions for progress in physics are entirely absent from superstring theory today, offering the other side of the story.
Out of those five predictions made in her paper (and that of her team) entitled "Cosmological Avatars of the Landscape I: Bracketing the SUSY Breaking Scale" (read it here:arxiv.org...)
4 have been verified. Here they are as follows:
1. One of her predictions said that no evidence of supersymmetry (one of the hallmarks of string theory,which postulates the existence of a corresponding "super-particle" for all elementary particles that havean integer-valued spin) would be found at the Large Hadron Collider. No evidence was acquired that gavesupersymmetry leeway. (we did find the Higgs boson!)
2. She was also one of the first scientists that believed dark flow (an eerie observation that shows distantclusters being "pulled at" from some great force that is outside the vicinity of our local universe) was nottied to the great attractor, but something different...something pulling at our universe from anotheruniverse would suffice. In essence, perhaps another universe tugging at our own?
3. Instead of finding that the temperature variations in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation arerandom, a preferential pattern should be obvious. Upon inspection, we saw that instead of beingcompletely at random, these "lumps," which are slightly warmer or slightly cooler than the surrounding
Way to take a quote out of context and change its meaning. Adding the next two words changes the context significantly, as does adding the rest of the paragraph.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Arbitrageur
"First, nothing is ever 100% proven".
It is 100% proven that we are having this conversation or do you wish to defer otherwise?
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
Actually its very common to relate the brain holistically.
I feel that the casual nature of these commentaries bespeaks to my earlier point.
The brains of humans and animals arguably are among the most complex systems in nature. Understanding their operation crucially depends on the ability to analyze the cooperative dynamics of spatially distributed multi-component systems: Even the most elementary sensory stimulus engages large ensembles of interacting nerve cells distributed throughout the brain. The processing power of biological neuronal circuits exactly results from their collective dynamics. In addition, complex nervous systems utilize processes of dynamical self-organization to generate and maintain their processing architecture. The amount of information in a mammalian genome is by far insufficient to specify the wiring of biological neuronal networks in microscopic detail. Functionally useful processing architectures are thus dynamically generated by self-organization on the level of neuronal circuits. Ultimately, even an individual nerve cell is a complex dynamical system. Virtually all single neuron computations critically depend on the dynamical interaction of a multitude of subcellular components such as ion channels and other interacting biological nano-structures. It is due to this ubiquity of collective behaviors that neuroscience provides a rich source of attractive research questions for the theoretical physics of complex systems.
Your first quote had the right words, but it was trimmed to remove the following words to take it out of context, so it didn't convey the meaning of my original statement due to the trimming.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Actually you said "nothing is 100% certain" and I gave an example of what is 100% certain.