ReTox wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Why is everyone stuck in the mid 90's?
?
Not sure what you mean unless it is about Whitten in 95. If that is the case then it goes directly to the 7 dimensions and Brian Green's "Elegant Universe" as mentioned above.
Besides, I can't seem to recall anything ground breaking in the last few years when it comes to strings. I read about Burt Ovrut's brane collisions in 2002 and that really peaked my interest. Since then though, nothing. Got anything good?
Nothing of real interest has come out of string theory in the last decade, that's why not very people give it very much credit in the scientific community. It makes a lot of unverifiable assumptions and then doesn't answer very many questions, struggling to meet the most basic requirements for being a reasonable theory.
oug wrote:
4 basic elements? lol ok you seem to know little about Greek history. Take
Democritus for instance. But anyway, the Greeks are off-subject.
Hardly. In fact I read a
nice little book that went in depth into Democritus as the founding father of the idea of the atom. The fact of the matter however is that his ideas were much more philosophical than scientific, a route that you are contending science has no room for. He founded his idea of the atomos on the basic idea that if you keep cutting and cutting, you will eventually get to an indivisible particle. That is not our modern day atom, but what is today known as the elusive Higgs boson or God Particle.
Those were not necessarily the popular beliefs of the people either. I would draw a parallel to those today who believe in cold fusion. It isn't accepted by the scientific community at large, it is founded on pseudoscience, and it could turn out to be correct against all scientific odds in the future.
If you think the Greeks are off-topic then you truly don't understand what I'm saying. We currently believe in theories that are wrong, but we believe them anyways. Having what proof we have today doesn't make them right, it only gives us more faith in the theory before it is disproved.
Imagine you go back in time and talk to Newton. You tell him that matter and energy are interrelated with a very specific formula. What do you think he would say? You would sound an awful lot like people talking about God today. There are no scientific instruments that would allow you to test the theory, all he can do is take it on your word. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense and what little concrete evidence of it existing doesn't count for much. No one would believe it. Does that make the theory any less right? The universe has abided by the same rules since the beginning of time, and it will most likely continue for long after the expiration of the human race. As we pass through our short time in it we don't alter anything about those rules because we have scientific evidence for a theory, we just temporarily believe it is true until something better comes along.
Something better
always comes along when it comes to nature. The only constants in our intellectual world are the ones that humans control, things like our counting system, mathematics, etc. because they are only our interpretations of the world around us. Six will always be six because we stick that definition to the natural world. When we try to define the natural world itself however, it is presumptuous to assume we have it right this time. Every civilization throughout time has taken their crack at it, and we see obvious flaws in every one. What makes us different? Why all of a sudden are our theories correct and not beliefs? I refuse to say a theory is correct in lieu of a better theory because I know it is wrong. We just don't know why yet.
oug wrote:
The fact of the matter is (imo) that in science there is no room for unfounded beliefs. The entire concept of believing is unscientific to begin with, since the latter works on the basis of
obsevation and experimentation in an effort to provide proof. It's all written very well in the last link really:
You really hammered my point home for me with that last paragraph. I was pretty suprised in fact at what it said, seeing as I wrote my former response before reading this.
wiki wrote:
Despite the existence of well-tested theories, science cannot claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject or of the field of study due to epistemological problems that are unavoidable and preclude the discovery or establishment of absolute truth. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them.
We cannot establish absolute truth using the scientific method, therefore what we choose to accept we believe or temporarily assume correct. It is founded on little more than faith in that scientific method.
I believe in quantum theory. There is actually a very good chance that it is at least some part wrong, and that it will be proved so in order to be unified with GR in my lifetime. That does not keep me from using it in practical applications, or preclude scientific development of theories to replace it. It only means that I have enough reason to bother to learn about it. Belief does not mean unfounded, Christians have proof Jesus was real and the Bible and such you know.