M theory....kop out

[Bungielad]

If I was to say that a car was blue but, a lot of my friends said the car was not blue but...... 1.smear blue..2. Dazzle blue....3 kinda glue...4..heaven blue and 5 hell blue.......would, to save a lot of problems, all of the peoples recognition of thier car colour come to an agreement to just say.... "the car is blue"!!

M =0. As far as I'm concerned if you scientists can't put one theory together then putting 5 together to be as one because you can't work out one is a kop out......non of you know!!! Theory physics is amazing but unfortunately its all theory.......

Bungielad.

[Qualia]

non of you know!!! Theory physics is amazing but unfortunately its all theory.......

I'm not sure I fully understand the thrust of your OP, Bungielad but I don't think this is so unfortunate. When humans believe they have absolute knowledge, there's the tendancy for them to behave in extremely arrogant ways. On the other hand, the fundamental strength of science is that it helps formalise humility. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and in a very real way, a formal definition of the scientific endeavour could be its inherent fallibility.

Para-phrasing Russell, In a given scenario, if two scientists happen to disagree, they can do little until further evidence can help them decide the issue, because, as scientists, they know that neither is infallible. But when two politicians, theologians, economists, etc happen to disagree, since they have no criteria to which they can appeal, they can do little but think the other is a fool and resort to some open or covert appeal to force or authority.

In a very real sense, then, along with 'I love you', the three most beautiful words ever spoken by mankind is the humbling, I don't know. It's the kind of attitude which helps keep human folk free from dogma, inquisitions, gulags and gas chambers.

[Macavity]

Was just thinking about "Man in Pub" (finger jabbing) questions - Public Expectation

of scientists. "Synchronicity" or what? But you're not getting away that easily, OP.

I claim everyone here is (in some way) a "scientist"... Our "failures" are collective? 

[Bungielad]

Didn't mean it to sound harsh folks, no finger jabbing at all..lol

mearly saying that it seems to me that 5 difference of opinions about string theory have been put together to make one theory because each theory differs from the other,

To make it easier is to make a different theory... M theory so that they agree to disagree on the differences, which in my opinion is a kop out.

Totally understand that coming up with a theory in the first place gets to getting answers but, if answers or agreements differ I don't think it's correct to say all of the differences of opinions are correct and we'll give the differences a specific name.

This is my understanding of M theory.

Bungielad.

[AlexB67]

I am not sure I understand the point, but I don't think there is anything unusual that you mention in relation to M theory, it is just a general fact in science as theories get developed, people will have different ideas, theories develop some more in different directions by different people , some ideas get scrapped and so it goes on.

The more ideas and the more at the cutting edge it gets, the more likely there will be some conflict and disagreement until theories get solidified. There are many fields in science where model A explain some things, but not others things, and a different model B will be consistent with others ideas, that's science.  Trying to unify ideas into a larger or more general unified theory may well come from such separate theories.  I don't get why you call it a kop out, it is part of a standard scientific process. 

What string theory has been criticised for in the past is that it is not easily verifiable by experiment, in that sense it is a very theoretical concept and framework, not only that, only relatively few understand it in depth.

[ronin]

Yep, no-one knows until there is a theory and then people prove or disprove the theory. Basically a theory is an idea, nothing more. What is the difference between a theory and:- I've had an idea, what if it works like this?"

Happens in just about everything:

Can the car do 123mph and 40mpg. The theory says it can the proving track says if the theory is correct or not.

Einsteins theory of general relativity was the same. Your sat-nav is the proof that he was right.

Combining theories is not a problem, so long as one does not specifically exclude another, look into the history of quantum mechanics. How many scientists have a theory that is combined into QM.

[Macavity]

With things like e.g. string theory, there is the concept of "duality"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_duality To me, the essence is in:

The thinking was that out of these five candidate theories, only one was the actual theory of everything, and that theory was the theory whose low energy limit, with ten dimensions spacetime compactified down to four, matched the physics observed in our world today. It is now known that the five superstring theories are not fundamental, but are instead different limits of a more fundamental theory, dubbed M-theory. These theories are related by transformations called dualities. If two theories are related by a duality transformation, each observable of the first theory can be mapped in some way to the second theory to yield equivalent predictions. The two theories are then said to be dual to one another under that transformation. Put differently, the two theories are two mathematically different descriptions of the same phenomena.

In my understanding different (though related) theories can make the same predictions for physical quantities? We assume we are living in a HUGE, expanding universe (where we measure distances in LIGHT years using massless photons) but we could equally be living in a MINUTE, contracting one (If our measuring "string" [sic] were different!) - Happily, we are able to FIT [sic] into either universe. We would never know... at least at this stage? 

Perhaps at total cross-purposes with the thread. lol. But generally, I am fairly happy stuff theoretical physicists tell me is "reasonably correct". If not, I'd feel obliged to suggest an alternative. And that may take me some (infinite) time?

[jetstream]

Didn't mean it to sound harsh folks, no finger jabbing at all..lol

mearly saying that it seems to me that 5 difference of opinions about string theory have been put together to make one theory because each theory differs from the other,

To make it easier is to make a different theory... M theory so that they agree to disagree on the differences, which in my opinion is a kop out.

Totally understand that coming up with a theory in the first place gets to getting answers but, if answers or agreements differ I don't think it's correct to say all of the differences of opinions are correct and we'll give the differences a specific name.

This is my understanding of M theory.

Bungielad.

Bungie,do you believe the Membrane theory to have merit? or Brane cosmology?

[Bungielad]

Yes I do believe it to have merit and if it's just five different ways of saying the same thing then I stand corrected.

Personally, I think it would be a great and fascinating thing to have multiverses and to know how all the different universes work with maybe different sets of laws (theories)

It would be great to know that natural selection is because of our surroundings and not from a higher source, or to find out that the whole structure is infact a creation of a higher source, which would lead to a whole other bunch of questions.

Bungielad.