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.

 

Science does it again: Big Bang going out the window?

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




This is also relevant to the topic of this thread because the OP source mentions string theory, and Feynman's explanation of moogles highlights the issue with string theory.
Correct me, please, if I'm wrong. But does "string theory" (now known as M theory?) actually meet the requirements of being designated a theory. I've sometimes heard it referred to as a mathematical construct. The math fits but the predictions are sort of hard to verify in any conceivable fashion?

It doesn't seem to be testable so can it be called a theory?
edit on 8/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


All that would mean is that the concept of theory and its supreme relevance for discovering and determine truth may be faulty or lacking. If string theory is a deduced symbolic representation of reality, and it is true, but right now and potentially never (for arguments sake) testable directly, what then? If we are ignorant to truth, does that mean that truth doesnt exist?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


What?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


If truth exists, but it is so complex and dynamic and foreign in nature it can only be described symbolically using math and language, and now and potentially for a long time, or forever, it may be impossible to experiment on this most fundamental level of reality, does that mean that fundamental reality does not exist, and does that mean it is impossible or unlikely, that something like string theory can comprehend and describe it?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I guess what im saying is, claiming that string theory is not a theory, does nothing to discredit its potential validity and accuracy at describing reality. Is what scientests predict is the contents of the center of the earth a theory on their part? Even though we can experimentally test, or falsify their claim?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

Let me see if I got that. Do you mean that if truth exists, but so complex and dynamic and foreign in nature it can only be described symbolically using math and language, it is, and for a long time now and potentially, or forever, to experiment on this most fundamental level of reality it may be impossible, does that mean that fundamental reality exists not, and does that mean, impossible or unlikely, is it, comprehend and describe it, that something like string theory can?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Correct me, please, if I'm wrong. But does "string theory" (now known as M theory?) actually meet the requirements of being designated a theory. I've sometimes heard it referred to as a mathematical construct. The math fits but the predictions are sort of hard to verify in any conceivable fashion?
I also call atomic orbitals by that name because everybody else does, even though I know electrons don't really orbit the nucleus. So you're not mistaken. It doesn't meet the scientific definition of a theory but since everyone uses that misnomer it's become part of the language. Even the wiki calls it string theory and calls it a theoretical construct when it's really a mathematical construct.

I noticed you asked the same question of the string theorist who posts here on ATS, who claimed there could be experimental confirmation of string theory in as little as 5 years, so if 5 years from now his prediction comes true and if the experimental results are unique enough, then it might actually meet the scientific definition of a theory, in addition to being called string theory.


Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


What?
I think what he's saying is that just because you can't prove it's true, doesn't mean it's not true.

Basically this is why Feynman sarcastically said "moogles" are a good explanation, even though nobody has proven they explain everything.

From my perspective you can substitute "moogles" for "string theory" and I see about the same experimental evidence for either explanation.

When the string theorist and/or his colleagues come back in 5 years with the experimental evidence he predicted, I will amend my opinion as appropriate based on such evidence.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


your so funny not that you have a problem reading what I wrote, when it makes logical sense if you had patience and concentration and intelligences.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


There are ideas, educated guesses, on the contents of the inside of our planet. This information was deduced using all other available knowledge. String theory, is an educated guess on the contents of the foundation of reality, deduced using all other available knowledge. Did the creators of string theory just start writing random numbers on a page and make doodles? 4 0 439398 , hey im working on a model of the universe, 5030 36909360 93. I doubt that is the history of string theory.

Just as the probable contents of the inside of the earth can be deduced using mathamatical understanding of physical variables and the ways of nature, it seems string theory is an attempt to further our understanding. To either find another point of view, another layer of reality that exists but had yet to be discovered or realized necessary and real, or to find a more objective and complete comprehension of the current incomplete and crude understanding of the fundamental nature of reality.
edit on 6-8-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   

as i have said time and time again. science and religion will unite

Yeah. Unite as science, the comedian; religion, the punch line.




posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

10 to the power of 520 is such a large number it's beyond my comprehension, yet that is the number of vacua considered to correspond to a universe roughly similar to ours, so I think that's a bigger problem than just random numbers. There may be a solution to the problem, but until it's solved, it's a problem with an incomprehensibly large magnitude.

String Theory

String theory contains an infinite number of distinct meta-stable vacua, and perhaps 10^520 of these or more correspond to a universe roughly similar to ours — with four dimensions, a high planck scale, gauge groups, and chiral fermions. Each of these corresponds to a different possible universe, with a different collection of particles and forces. What principle, if any, can be used to select among these vacua is an open issue.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
ive got alot to catch up on with some of the presentations in this thread. have never ever even heard about moogles before. will check out those videos and comment when i get a chance. glad we can share our knowledge and perspectives and discuss this, my double-toned post civilly.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


first of all, with only my ignorance, I am still aware there are 20's of different versions of string theory. I dont know what your point there is, there is a large number you cant imagine so it cant be true? The concept of planks length is something used in standard model physics maybe, or is at least an accepted concept for measurement, how many plancks lengths do you think the universe contains? I also dont know why the multiverse is so necessary but I guess it has to do with...where did all these strings come from. Which other physics used to have that problem with their particles and waves, but it seems they made it easier on themselves and said that instead of all those particles really existing, there is really just a much much smaller number of fundamental fields that exist, I have never come across or sought out information on how these fields were formed, or how they are held together, but im sure thats an interesting theory.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


first of all, with only my ignorance, I am still aware there are 20's of different versions of string theory. I dont know what your point there is
The point is, to put it another way, you're missing 519 zeroes in that number.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Chronon
 


In a process called Vacuum Instability, the Higgs Boson particle may become unstable and the result would be the creation of new space or what we would call a universe.
That's fascinating. While they have insufficient data for the calcs at this point, I wonder if the prediction would be able include the conditions which may exist in the subsequent universe. Would the physics of that universe be the same as the predecessor?


Originally posted by HairlessApe
If you find any interesting speculation revolving around this question, I would like to know.


Is Our Universe a Series of Nested Bubbles?



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well at first glance it seems like their concept of vaccu may be similar to the idea of planck length? Vaccu being the quantized discrete value of vacuum or space? So a number that big is really not surprising, considering even none string theorist astrophysics admit the universe may be hundreds of times bigger then the observable universe. Then consider how many atoms are in your finger nail. Then consider the ratio in area/size between an atom and a planck length. Then (if planck length, the concept there of, is similar to the idea of vaccu) Imagine how many planck lengths are in 1 atom. Then how many are in your finger nail? then how many are in earth? then how many are in the space between earth and the sun? Then how many are in the space between our sun and the nearest star? Then how many planck lengths are in between our galaxy and the nearest galaxy? And then space is expanding so everywhere that number is always increasing? Ya see?



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well at first glance it seems like their concept of vaccu may be similar to the idea of planck length?
No, it's not. One is a length, the other is not.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Talking about Planck Length... didn't the coherence of Big Bang theory relied on the existence of the Planck's Length to avoid infinite energy problem?

Nice to meet you again BTW.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Ok so vaccu is a universal arena, their term for a universal landscape within a multi verse of differing vaccu? Yes well that then is interesting aspect, im guessing it would have to do with all the different physical variables that exist, and then them using simulations and computations to discover how many combinations of values for those fundamental aspects could result in a potentially significantly different universe, and I guess they came up with that number. So kinda maybe them saying, those dont necessarily definitely exist, but according to physics they are able to exist. I dont know much about string theory, so I dont really know the point of bringing up that number, Is that your biggest qualm with it, because I (as worthless as you may perceive them ) feel I have brought up more then 1 problem with non string theory physics in discussions.

Just from looking at wiki of string theory, it seems instead of a top down view of the universe like standard model/field theory, it is a bottom up idea, (even though I feel the idea of membrane is related to string theory, which to my mind brings the idea of large top down fields again) with the most fundamental substance, stuffness, energy of the universe is near planck length size vibrating 'strings/space fabric/energy' which interact to create particles.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 

Hi swanne. The earliest parts of the big bang theory are speculative. While the popular media likes to say the LHC created "big bang conditions", it didn't really have sufficient energy to do so except later periods of the big bang.

Very Early Universe

All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period. Proposed scenarios differ radically.
Therefore I'm not certain we've solved the discrepancies with competing speculative ideas about the very early universe. Even the hypothetical inflaton particle and field has never been experimentally confirmed.

reply to post by ImaFungi
 

Of course there are unsolved problems in physics at the frontiers of our knowledge, but inside those frontiers are many models and experimental confirmations that the models make accurate predictions. It is the latter which is lacking from string theory (or as Phage might prefer to call it, string hypothesis?).
edit on 8-8-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join