Whatup

[Choobus]

Santa > God wrote

For the sole purpose of discovering the Higgs? Recreating the big bang or something? I'm guess i thought they built it cause all the small colliders couldn't operate in the correct ranges to discover the Higgs (the largest american collider can't go between 140-180 GeV i think).

Either way you need to read up on String theory before you make allegations that they aren't related in the least. String theory requires supersymmetry to be accepted. Assuming that it's true, the supersymmetric Standard Model can calculate the actual mass of the Higgs. Without String Theory or it's supersymmetry, the Standard Model alone cannot calculate the mass of the Higgs. Finding the Higgs supports the supersysmmetric Standard Model (because if we find it we'll be able to measure it's mass) in which case it supports supersymmetry and in turn String Theory.

If that's not good enough for you, we'll soon know if the 5 dimension is real or not. If it turns out to be real then several others (up to the 7th, or 8th dimension) will have a high probability of existing. At that point the 6th will all but confirmed.

There are a few scientists who have a theory that is out there, and hard to believe, on why there have been so many setbacks to the LHC project. Now whether you believe them or not, doesn't matter too much because their theory (they say) can be tested so soon we'll know if their theory is right and if it is it confirms the 5th. They'll test it and pass at which point every skeptic scientist will try to prove it wrong (as science works) or they'll fail in their test and then we'll know the answer.

Either way, the idea generally supported by CERN, because their spokesman confirmed this, and he has a bit of passion for M theory. So maybe not everyone supports M theory, or 10 dimensions, but the majority of CERN and others in the US, i'm sure, support the theory. And CERN is a large and highly regarded institution, since the US has invested in sending quite a few of our scientists to work with them.

By the way, I'm calling BULLSHIT on you.

Choobus wrote

By the way, I'm calling BULLSHIT on you.

thank god. Your points are much easier to respond to than Nastassja's.

So i guess; i call bullshit on your bullshit?

it's got nothing to do with physics.

So does that apply to all the theories that people have trying to unite quantum with general physics? because none of it has been widely accepted or are yet testable?
Or does string theory just have a special place in your heart

[Choobus]

It applies to theories that make no testable predictions.

[Kate]

Lily wrote

The latest Pew research that I am aware of (July 2009) says that believers are represented in the sciences thusly:

Biology and medicine 32% ;Chemistry 41%, Geosciences 30%, Physics and astronomy 29%

It also finds in the 18-34 group that 42% are believers, 35-49 group 37% are believers, 50-64 32% believe; 65+ 28 %.

Ergo, the sooner you old fossils die off, the better!

Old fossils eh ?
Judge not others and you shall not be judged. Sorry, that sin is unforgivable in the buybull.

Choobus wrote

It applies to theories that make no testable predictions.

fair enough.

[lostsheep]

Choobus wrote

For me scientific "correctness" is a measure of how well an idea conforms to what we can actually observe, but is also related to how it informs future developments. A correct theory need not initially conform to observations, but over time it will, or it is useless and will be forgotten (the literature is littered with great sounding ideas that went nowhere). Incorrect theories can still conform to what we know, and a lot of the time they are made to do so (e.g., Ptolomy's infamous epicycles). Indeed, the best theories always imply something not observed, because that's how we discover new shit. The theory tells us about something that might exist. We go out and look for it. If we see it the theory is given some credence. If we don't see it the theory is not taken too seriously. If we see something else the theory is flushed, and we drop a new deuce in the ideas bowl. (I will stipulate though that the nuts and bolts of the "scientific method" are far more sordid than this noble sounding enterprise).

Relativity made few testable predictions when it was first put out by Einstein. It explained the mercury problem (shift of the perihelion, which had been known for a long time not to fit with Newtonian gravity. For over 100 years people were sure there was an unobserved planet closer to the sun than mercury that was perturbing its orbit (in much the same way they they are now postulating the existence of dark matter to explain the rotational speeds of galaxies and galaxy clusters, among other things) but every time it was "observed" it turned out to be wrong (whether by fraud or error is not clear)). But describing Mercury's orbit properly was not enough to lead to immediate acceptance of relativity because there were other theories that could also explain the data (maybe Vulcan, the mystery planet, was simply doing a bigfoot). The Michelson-Morely experiment did obtain a null result when looking for the ether (or, more properly, the luminiferous ether, which sounds way cooler if you ask me) but the failure to observe it didn't prove relativity, it just didn't falsify it. Relativity did, however, make many untested predictions, and as technology has allowed us to keep testing them they turn out to be right every time, except for a couple of times when they haven't. (Space probes not following the expected geodesics, the need for dark matter; two such instances, both of which may or may not be counter to Einstein).

Maybe we need a better theory of gravity (a quantum gravity theory perhaps: fuck knows what it will be, could be a goatse theory of black holes for all I know) or maybe the space probes are venting gas and dark matter is real. In either case, I would say that Newtonian gravity is correct, but incomplete. The same is also probably true for relativity. The same will likely be true for whatever follows our next theory of gravity, and all the other science we now have. Relativity was almost worthless when it was initially postulated; less than a decade later it was an indispensable foundation of modern science. String (and therefore M) -theory was similarly worthless when it was first postulated. That was 30 years ago, and not much has changed. It doesn't imply something not observed (it doesn't imply anything actually), and it may even turn out to be "correct", but it isn't physics, yet.

Very informative, and I could actually understand this (thanks)

[ProveIt]

Sternwallow wrote

We here are very sensitive to newcomers who pretend to be atheist and later turn out to be arrogant religious scum out to fool the evil unbelievers. I hope you are not one of them. Any use of religious (il)logical ploys in your discussions may trigger this suspicion and, believe me, that can turn ugly pretty fast. So, fair warning. I will take you at your word for a while and hope you are as you say. We may have long and fruitful discussions or just frightful discussions, your choice.

:::Swoon:::