Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

String theory and Lee Smolin.


Recommended Posts

I am late to this thread but for me a scientific theory has to be able to explain what we already now in its claimed area of competence and in addition make prediction  about or be more accurate than rival theories.  Currently I am not aware String Theory can do either and so currently in my my definition is not yet a scientific theory.  If it could do as well as QFT at calculating the fine structure constant then it would be well on the way to being a candidate for replacing it. 

The classic example of a good new theory would have been General Relativity. In the limit of low gravity it reproduces Newtons laws and so explains the same observations but it also accounted for the known anomaly in the orbit of mercury and made new predictions on the bending of light. 

The concept that you can falsify a theory does not fully stand up as we know for example that the standard theory of particle physics can't be the full picture as it can't explain all the existing data.  However, it does very well in many areas and until we get a better one we use it. 

Current attempts to redefine science or more accurately the scientific method (i.e. at a minimum linking theory to observations) is in my view dangerously wrong. The scientific method has served us well and should not be given up lightly just so some can continue to be funded in the science department.

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Is math science? Sheldons whiteboard says yes :)

It's a true science in that if someone puts forth a formula it must prove to be correct. Even something as simple as one plus one was probably tested using cows or something similar. Of course its not the only science, its just the best one :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is math science? Sheldons whiteboard says yes :).

It's a true science in that if someone puts forth a formula it must prove to be correct. Even something as simple as one plus one was probably tested using cows or something similar. Of course its not the only science, its just the best one :)

A mathematical proof in no way requires an experimental confirmation.

If you put two rabbits together you may well get more than two rabbits if you wait a while.

In fact a mathematicians vew of addition is quite abstract and may not be anything like 1+1 =2

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mathematical proof in no way requires an experimental confirmation.

If you put two rabbits together you may well get more than two rabbits if you wait a while.

In fact a mathematicians vew of addition is quite abstract and may not be anything like 1+1 =2

Regards Andrew

Whether you care to believe that taking one apple and adding another is experimental proof if immaterial. the fact is it is.

As for your rabbit analogy if you change the parameters of any equation you'll get a different result :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you care to believe that taking one apple and adding another is experimental proof if immaterial. the fact is it is.

As for your rabbit analogy if you change the parameters of any equation you'll get a different result :)

I am afraid it is not. Modifying your example just a little. Would you accept that on the real line taking normal addition that if x+y=z then if x=1 and y = 2 then z=3. So far so good now if x=1 and y=-2 the z =-1 but I don't have any representation of - an apple so how could I prove it?

I don't doubt that the consideration of real object inspired the development of mathematics but these connections have long since evaporated. Consider a reflection in a mirror as an example. Add one reflection to another (a thing a mathematician might well consider addition) then if the reflection were in the same plane then the repeated reflection takes say an astro photo back into itself so in this case 1 + 1 = 0 where the 1 represents the reflection rather than the apple.

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you care to believe that taking one apple and adding another is experimental proof if immaterial. the fact is it is.

As for your rabbit analogy if you change the parameters of any equation you'll get a different result :)

I think Andrew means that the example of summing two apples is correct in the basic use of sum of natural numbers, but more generally it can give different results if the underlying reference structure is different.

Therefore it depends on what one means for the symbols 1, 2 and + .

Edit: my phone didn't update the last message. Apologise Andrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Andrew means that the example of summing two apples is correct in the basic use of sum of natural numbers, but more generally it can give different results if the underlying reference structure is different.

Therefore it depends on what one means for the symbols 1, 2 and + .

Edit: my phone didn't update the last message. Apologise Andrew.

Thanks for helping Piero - all I am trying to show that although I am happy for mathematics to be a science it is not an empirical science. I accept I am probably being too abstract in trying to demonstrate this and the rabbits example was a cheep shot.

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for helping Piero - all I am trying to show that although I am happy for mathematics to be a science it is not an empirical science. I accept I am probably being too abstract in trying to demonstrate this and the rabbits example was a cheep shot.

Regards Andrew

I completely agree with you, and the fact that certain obvious things in the real world are not so obvious in mathematics is really intriguing!

Another not necessarily true example is:

X*Y=Y*X

Which is false if x,y are matrices.

Another is Zn. If one sums 6 and 9 obtains 3, instead of 15, if n=12. (Consider 6, 9 and 3 as hours to see why.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact a mathematicians vew of addition is quite abstract and may not be anything like 1+1 =2

Regards Andrew

eg. Ask a computer scientist and he'll tell you 1+1=10 :grin:

An old joke:

There are 10 types of people in this world: those that understand binary and those that don't. (Excuse me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quite reasonable (known) critique. An argument that surfaces quite regularly.

But, to me, the *eminent*, Smolin, still sounds like a guy "chucking toilet rolls

from the touchline"... At an easy (v.broad!) target? Also none too clear where

his "Einstein on the subs bench" comes from, to score a winner in extra time. :p

If you want to see an [iMO] rather good counter (balanced) argument try:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jun/16/has-physics-gone-too-far (I did "lol" at the Spock-like rebuttal!)

But pretty much what this sometime experimentalist thinks too. Why so bad

that theorists study string theory? Many of them *already* study other things.

Theoreticians are not expensive. Just a whiteboard and a box of markers? :D

There is no rule that theory and experiment have to run at similar pace. It

has long been quasi-impossible anyway. Maybe experiment will throw up

something entirely revolutionary. Maybe theory will INFER something that

can never be proved experimentally.  But that doesn't "deny science" IMO. :cool:

If scientists do popular (modestly lucrative) things, are they worse than the

rest of us? But that raises deeper questions re. general attitudes to scientists

and (UK) science. Read what a sneering "intelligent" public write about "us"?

Something "science publicists" (with different paymasters) haven't cured.   :o

I don't feel I recognize these criticisms of Lee Smolin. I do think that he's put his finger on a kind of sea change in physics and one that needs to be acknowledged and discussed.

Surely the claim that, 'if you can't think of an alternative you should go with string theory' is absurd.  It has has always been important in science to have people suspicious of the orthodoxy and anxious to find an alternative angle. If the only hypothesis out there is 'Turtles all the way down' then I for one would rather think of another - and as an outsider to all this there is something of the turtles about string theory.  :grin:

The only string theorist I know personally is Marcel Vonk and I asked his opinion of Smolin's book. He liked it. I thought that was interesting.

On the maths thing, this is ever a curious business. We don't need to have one rabbit to have 'one.' The concept of 'one' is enough.  But if 'one' is a concept then does it disappear if all the conceivers of it go extinct? Or does it become dormant until being re-conceived by new conceivers? In which case it must have some kind of existence outside conception. Hmmmm.....

I often think about the fact that maths is so good at describing nature, and why this should be. Maybe it's just this: nature (by its very nature) is non-random and maths is the science of non-randomness.

??

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T'be honest Olly, I wish I hadn't posted my (easily deconstructed!) ideas. ;)

I was never onto a winner! Just like you on the John Lewis thread? [teasing]

But I felt the "IC Prof's" response contained some good contrary arguments.

And even if they weren't, it was a change to see populist views challenged. 

Generally: I am prepared to listen to what "the establishment" say and form

my own opinion. I am wary of the now legion of "renegade" scientists (and 

fans) who would protect me from "bad thinking" & "dangers of stuff"! too. :p

To me, scientists (and science) are just as prey to pathologies as anyone.

My problem is that (for entirely selfish reasons) I haven't learned to avoid

these discussion topics... I neither lend or (mea culpa) gain anything? lol :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.