I saw this documentary and it was very interesting, but very repetitive sometimes.

Plus, I had do read some text about it to fully understands it, but it totaly worth it! :thumbsup

String theory is just that... A Theory.

It cannot be 100% proven other than with the mathmatics, because the more we focus on the smaller elements that exist, the more we change them. So, without some sort of a spacial / time trapping device and a voyager of equal size to a so-called "string", it will maintain it's status as merely a "theory".

It would truly be interesting to live in the days of "String Fact", however I believe those days are a long way down the road, if at all possible.

Proof is not necessary if the mathmatics work. However, then it is merely "logic", which as we all know "logic" can be fallible.

If you're interested in Quantum Physics, here's an interesting read:
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/

It deals a little with the theory behind changing quantum level objects.
"According to the uncertainty principle, the more accurately an object is scanned, the more it is disturbed by the scanning process, until one reaches a point where the object's original state has been completely disrupted"

That article was written about a group of scientists working on a project by IBM on "Quantum Teleportation". (A very interesting read)

Anyhow, "String Theory" is very nice as a concept, and if it is indeed "factual", I believe it will open an entirely new type of science and new technologies for we as humans to explore.

In the Quantum Universe, EVERYTHING is possible as there are no boundaries but those of creation.

Now I HAVE seen everything!

QUOTE:
"Proof is not necessary if the mathmatics work."

It's okay. Don't be scared. Just pretend it's church with your algebra teacher as the celebrant -- :thumbsup

i may not be a physics guru, but i do enjoy the subject and try to read up on it every chance i get.

i believe the string theory is just that, a theory. i find it rather amusing that whenever string theory scientists can't explain something, they simply add another "membrane" or another "dimension". the string theory, in my opinion, is an over complicated fairy tale.

it's a typical problem where new scientists and graduate students are forced to work on because if they attempt to develop their own theory, they will be ridiculed and even if it is right, it will not be accepted for years.

one thing i'm sure about. whenever the majority of scientists believe something this new to be true, it's usually not true, and in fact complete nonsense.

just my 2 cents.

Is it Scientific Rigor that's become exhausted?

Or, has Science really come upon a LINE it cannot cross?

I think it's marvelously IRONIC that the most asked question in the Physics Realm is "Oh. Shit...maybe GOD DID have something to do with all this shit?"

Since I am still in too much pain to walk over to the couch and get back to reading the Phaedrus, I might as well step in and be the voice of reason here.

First some comments on (parts of) people's posts in this thread, since I believe that may aid in guiding us towards a better understanding of the subject matter.

Let me start of by saying that all human knowledge either consists of "theories", some stronger than others, or of formal, closed and invented systems.

Now, as for theories, it is logically impossible to prove them - any of them actually. The two main reasons for this are the problem of induction (it is impossible to logically derive general rules/laws/facts from single facts/instances) and the impossibility of verification as proof (if your theory holds that "if A, then B", and B is the case, that does not prove A).
What this means is that no theory can ever really be proven. Theories come to be regarded as "laws" because they withstand the harshest tests over extended periods of time and are not refuted, but even then, they never cease to be theories.

As for logic, that is a good example of a closed, invented and formal system. Ironically, this makes it utterly infallible. It's like a game: if you follow the rules, all positions you achieve are valid. If for example, following Aristotelian syllogistics, you have the premiss "All apples are fruits" and the premiss "X is an apple", then it necessarily follows that "X is a fruit".

The problem is not that logic is fallible, it's that applying logic to the real world presents us with problems. Deriving true premisses from the real world and accounting for all possible premisses is, in most cases, impossible.


Your view on science seems to be mostly Popperian, i.e. there is a scientific method which, if we follow it, will lead us necessarily to a "growth of knowledge". However, since the works of Kuhn and Lakatos (and later thinkers like Latour), this has become somewhat of an untenable position.
Scientists, by and large, do not actually follow a strict "scientific method". Rather, they mostly work within existing paradigms, and sometimes are forced to choose between competing paradigms. The choice between competing paradigms, however, is often not made by rational deliberation on the merits of each paradigm, since paradigms tend to be incommensurable (that is, untranslatable). They can not be rationally compared, since they conflict not only in their theories and predictions, but in their very language and methods. Although this view is a radical one, it undoubtedly contains at least one important truth: science is a human practice, and because of that is entrenched in its own culture. The roads taken by science are not determined by some inevitable truth, but are (at least partly) determined by contingent social interactions.

I'm afraid that you are far off in this post, but it quite adequately indicates the problems with your initial postulation.

First, let's examine your idea of "traditional science". It's important to note that this view of science is quite recent (it only became popular after Popper and the logical positivists), something that pulls the adequacy of the term "traditional science" into doubt, but what is perhaps even more important, and at least as interesting, is that this form of science even today hardly exists, if at all, and has certainly not existed in the past. Scientists, by and large, have always been creative thinkers, speculating continuously if only for heuristic purposes and raising and examining many possible frameworks over and over again in the hope that any of those will prove adequate, or at least will aid in finding other frameworks more adequate than the current ones. String theory, seen in this light, is not at all as different from "normal science" as some make it out to be.

Second, your idea of religion. Looking at it historically, it is misleading at best, and plainly wrong at worst. Religion, throughout the ages, has been shaped at least as much by political and cultural issues as it has by the desire to provide answers to the unknown. Catholicism, for example, at one point had three separate popes, each contesting the legitimacy of the others, and each backed by different political groups. Dogma was often entirely shaped by political considerations, rather than spiritual ones. Or look at Luther, who adapted his ideas to suit the needs of those nobles supporting him. And I won't even go into Anglicanism. Clearly, the basis for organized religion is not a search for knowledge or truth, whether or not beyond the bounds of science. The basis for organized religion is tradition, coupled with a desire to answer all questions (especially moral ones!) within that framework of tradition.

Faith is something different from religion altogether. Although it can be based on, derived from or indeed exist within religion, it is by no means the same. Rather, faith is speculation without the critical mindset that comes with science. Indeed, that critical mindset may well be the very essence of science. Scientists, ideally, apply perform a critical search for knowledge

What I perhaps find most baffling is the perceived distinction between metaphysics and science you wish to close, and the distinction between metaphysics and religion you fail to make. Metaphysics and science are, in origin, siblings. They both originate in the search for knowledge, and metaphysics can - and probably should - be seen as one of the sciences not dealing with empirically observable facts. Metaphysics has also been extensively (and at times mainly) applied to religion, of course, mainly because the existence of a God was taken to be an absolute reality, and metaphysics is obviously one of the few branches of science capable of dealing with non-empirical reality. Metaphysics without religion is entirely possible, so even if string theory would fall within the realm of metaphysics, that is by no means a reason to believe it falls within the realm of religion.

However, even to see string theory as metaphysics is somewhat curious. It is a theory still very much in its early phases, which obviously creates problems in testing it or parts of it, but it is a theory of the physical (in the broadest sense of the word) nonetheless. When string theory starts producing such results as "murder is bad", then it may be time to call it religion. Right now, however, it is merely a very promising, ill-understood theory in its larval stage.

Talk about a MENSA thread!:winkwink: Coasttocoastam.....Good Times!

Now I know at least three other people that can comprehend what 2HousePlague is talking about. It is interesting that number 3. in the definition of
metaphysics sounds ironically similar to the definition of being an Agnostic...just a metaphysical observation!

3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

Ye of little faith in the universe shall be coddled by organized religion.

Umm, coming from someone who has a PhD in a hard science....... it is clear to me that you either don't understand the tenets of science or fail to fully grasp the fundementals of the theory.

Science isn't about "feeling", if you want "feeling and intuition" stick with religion where proof is not required. The only reason String theory even exists is because of taking a scienitific approach to the question.

Unified Field Theory still has a long way to go, but I also see it as the foremost explanation as to the origin of the universe... HOWEVER, this doesn't mean we should jump ahead without the proper evidence just because it feels right......if we do that, we may well be totally wrong, and it will lead us down a path of calcification of belief, rather than a constant revision of reality based on ever increasing evidence.

Remember, science is everchanging based on new and improved evidence, NOT on feeling that something is correct and then setting it aside as so and not continually challenging it.

-Lance

Although I mostly agree with you, I think you won't disagree with me that feelings and intuitions play a large part in the early stages of research.

From my limited research in this area (I find it very interesting) I agree with your main points. We just have too much "static" in our everday lives to "feel" much of this.

Have you ever read Gary Zukov's "Seat of the Soul"? Very good book but it can be pretty deep at times. :)

of course not..... no one is purely objective..... but on the whole science tries not to be teleological. Speaking from experience in designing research questions, I've had hunches and intuitions, but looking back, those arose from my past research and or reading in the fields that I had done. Science building on previous science.

Religion on the other hand can be wholly created from scratch, and is usually teleological in nature from the start. It also tends to use itself as it's own evidence...i.e. "How was the earth created? ..... God, created it. How do we know that?....The Bible says so." Bad example but you get the idea :)

Although I, again, mostly agree with you, I would actually say that science is teleological, but the reality it describes isn't (and science, by and large, acknowledges that). The scientific process, after all, is designed aimed at specific goals, with a specific purpose in mind. But that's a minor point :winkwink:

conceded....but the scientific process isn't teleological in the sense that it sets out to prove one outcome and disregards evidence that doesn't support that idea......I mean it may set out to answer a question, of course, but if it's good research, it will equally accept proving OR disproving it's question :)

Ideally, you would be right. However, when looking at case studies in science and technology studies, it often appears to be otherwise. Scientists have a hunch that something works a certain way, do some general research into their theory, then go to work on finding proof for their theory (rather than putting the theory to the riskiest tests).

Scientists, unfortunately, often do not follow the scientific process as well as they should. It's especially bad in the social sciences, where researchers tend to be appallingly biased.

yes, that happens all too often I'm afraid....scientists are people too....but "as a method of understanding the universe and our place in it" science is wholly different than religion, that's all I'm saying :)

And I completely agree with you there. In fact, in my view, religion isn't even a method of understanding the universe. Understanding implies critical thought, which religion lacks.

String and M-theory disprove and God or creator IMO.

Why? Because they show us that the world WE see and know is only an Illusion to the actual reality on how the (this) universe works, including time itself.
We seek a creator because we think of time as moving in way and having a 'begining'. These theories would suggest that time moving in only one direction is just inaccurate as we see it. Also it may suggest that this universe is only 1 of an infinite number of universes, and that there is actually 11 dimentions, 7 of which we don't experience in out macroscopic lives.

The world as we see it in everyday life is an illusion and we have created answers for it (god) in the past because we did not understand it. Now science is showing us how the universe may really work.

P.S.

When these new theories are actually proven, you simply cannot imply that they are "religion". They are fact.