String Theoryand position of human in Micro universe of particle physics

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by Blue Fire

I really don't think we disagree all that much, as I continue to think about it. On a more basic level, it appears that perhaps our general philosopies about our approach to and method of evaluating the issues are a simply bit different. For example, there are plenty of people concentrating on M Theory, but there are also those that are toying with a Holgraphic view of the universe and it's phenomenon as a mere "holographic" projection of things we observe. These two camps may not be mutually exclusive but they are certainly very different takes on the nature of reality itself. I see nothing wrong with this - plenty of folks in both camps to go around in my view. And if by chance somebody sees an inspirational whole new book that hold outs great promise over our current books, then I say let them start writing it. Sometimes you don't have to finish a book at all to know that a new book would be much better!

True, but it's somewhat irrelevant to try to write the new book without a pen, so to speak. We only have limited technology, so we need to develop it so we can start testing the things we base off of theoretics. We can sit and ponder all day, but if we don't work on testing it...it defeats the purpose, I think as far as finding the truth of right or wrong.

Different people have different views of everything, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, so I will let you peak over my fence and take a look at my back yard, if you like it you can hop over, and if you don't you can stay to yours; and vise-versa.

Interesting discussion, anyways. Thanks.

[Blue Fire]

Originally Posted by Dragon Star

True, but it's somewhat irrelevant to try to write the new book without a pen, so to speak.

Goodness! These semantics can be confusing sometimes, and often misleading. But to carry it out just for the fun of it, who says ya gotta have a pen to get started with a good idea? If that equates to extant technology or experimental results being required first, I don't agree. Did Einstein have a good idea? Um, yes! Did he "write" his book based solely on test results? Or did he Think it through first?? Quite elegantly, I think, for his time. His works came from not being satisfied with current theory and working out his own solutions - in his head. It wasn't until years later when the technology finally came to be, that his theories were verified time and again, and even recently with the space program in verifying time dilation aboard the space shuttle. The point being that he did an awful lot of work, that made sense to him (but not to many others at the time), in his head which he finally commited to paper in his "book" after he had made some startling leaps of insight.

We only have limited technology, so we need to develop it so we can start testing the things we base off of theoretics.

Yes. No argument here, nor was I ever intending to contest that. It's just that I don't believe in putting the kibash on even more theoretics before somebody happens to invent/build better technology with which to get experimental evidence.

We can sit and ponder all day, but if we don't work on testing it...it defeats the purpose, I think as far as finding the truth of right or wrong.

Of course! I'm not advocating theorizing at the expense of trying to get experimental results. But I think the two can coexist. Not only that, but sometimes newly formulated "ponderings" can be unfairly dismissed simply because someone says "Well, we have no way of testing this, so it's irrelevant."

Case in point: (from Discover Magazine, July 2002. "Black Holes Spin?", pg. 34)

"There was a time, before Faraday, when generators would have seemed more exotic than black holes; black holes were actually conceived first. The Reverend John Michell of Yorkshire, England, a geologist and astronomer as well as a clergyman, predicted their existence in 1784, using Newtonian physics. . . . . Michell calculated that a star 500 times as large as the sun and just as dense would have an escape velocity of the speed of light; . . . . Because light could never reach us from such a star, it would appear totally dark."

Now, this was a good idea! BUT they didn't have any way to verify this idea. Not for a very long time! Was it an idea worthy of more thought or pondering, even in light of having no way to test it out? You betcha!

Different people have different views of everything, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, so I will let you peak over my fence and take a look at my back yard, if you like it you can hop over, and if you don't you can stay to yours; and vise-versa.

Nor do I expect unanimous agreement either. But I'm one of those folks that love to "peek" over fences and I'll continue to peek over yours iffn ya'll don't mind. With, perhaps a comment, or most likely with a question, notwithstanding this exchange. I'm also hoping that you'll feel free to consider my back yard as well. And ya don't haveta "peek", just call me ahead of time to make sure I'm fully clothed and you can take a full-size gander.

Interesting discussion, anyways. Thanks.

Indeed! Complete agreement. Er, um, I think so anyway.

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by Blue Fire

Goodness! These semantics can be confusing sometimes, and often misleading. But to carry it out just for the fun of it, who says ya gotta have a pen to get started with a good idea?

Nor did I ever say that, although I suppose it could be implied. Thing is you don't actually write the book until you know you got it at least partially right. These days are different from the days of Einstein, and I find him and a few others an exception to the rule...if you wrote a book tomorrow without a sliver of fact, evidence, or reasoning, then people will call you a woo-woo and will never take you seriously.

I'm also hoping that you'll feel free to consider my back yard as well.

As I said, vise-versa.

And ya don't haveta "peek", just call me ahead of time to make sure I'm fully clothed and you can take a full-size gander.

Umm...about that, last week I....

...

Oh nevermind.



You have some good points, good discussion.