Metalwing wrote:



When I first read Redonk's post, I interpreted that as something along the lines of "working model that as been established by evidence and accepted by a clear majority of the physics community". There is a semantic issue here which Redonk has begun to address in the last post - but I do not see the story changing, I see 'the meaning behind language use' being refined.



By 'current' you simply mean 'recent', right? I would not want the audience to be misled by their own connotations - its a common bias to associate 'the most recent' with 'the most useful/accurate'.

---------------

Redonk wrote:



I think he jumped to some conclusions about your real meaning, which may be aggravated by your criticism of things he likes. He is generally a good guy. There is a broad spectrum of levels of understanding in science, and many sub-domains where our understandings are greater or less.



Even within the community of professional physicist - even amongst the worlds greatest scientists, emotional attachment clouds people's judgement. It might be a good thing - not for the objectivity of the individual, but for the end result of the individuals work and net contribution - as it can heighten motivation levels.

Ill show my maturity and concede a point.


I agree, with one caveat.

Its a mathematical theory.

As mathematical theories are a collection of ideas that are self consistent and further our knowledge of the vast realm of mathematics regardless of if they represent nature in any way.

A scientific theory is established truth about nature to the highest degree of accuracy that can be achieved by modern theoretical AND experimental results given our technological ability to test them.

This is indeed an argument based on definition and not all of my colleagues completely agree with me.

In fact on the physics forums I found a pretty good conversation on this very topic.

If you remove the emotional attachment, you can get this kind of intelligent conversation going about the differences of opinion in regards to what constitutes a scientific theory, the nature of the common usage of the word theory vs the scientific usage ect.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=325063

For me, quantum mechanics is modern physics, becuase we can use it. It is applicable. Its testable, its the basis for many new technologies ect.

When M-theory achieves that . . . I will wholeheartedly call it modern physics.

http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/live/hyperspace

Brian Greene himself here states that he doubts that string theory will be verified in his lifetime . . .

First of all, I am a good guy and I am not wedded to M theory. I have followed the change in physics over the years as I have worked on one project after another. However, I am also aware of the number of top physicists who think it is the best theoretical model of how the universe works going. It is just a theory but it is accepted well enough in the community to get Nobel Prizes in physics.

To say that it is not a theory is an incredible insult to Edward Witten who is generally accepted as the greatest modern physicist.

To say that no experiments are being run to test it is certainly evidence of the lack of knowledge of Lisa Randall's work at the LHC.

Lisa Randall is professor of theoretical physics and studies particle physics and cosmology at Harvard University. Her research concerns elementary particles and fundamental forces and has involved the development and study of a wide variety of models, the most recent involving extra dimensions of space. She has made advances in understanding and testing the Standard Model of particle physics, supersymmetry, models of extra dimensions, resolutions to the hierarchy problem concerning the weakness of gravity and experimental tests of these ideas, cosmology of extra dimensions, baryogenesis, cosmological inflation, and dark matter. Professor Randall earned her PhD from Harvard University and held professorships at MIT and Princeton University before returning to Harvard in 2001.


She has her own modifications of M-theory and she has switched from the standard model because it just doesn't work. I don't think anyone would say the standard model isn't a theory.

What annoyed me the most was the fact that pure venom was being poured out in this thread about the lack of scientific accuracy in a cute little movie that tried to combine M theory with metaphysics. Then, the poster who seems to have the most problem with movies being scientifically inaccurate made inaccurate statements about the physics in the movie by attempting to paint M theory as some "nothing" unprovable crap instead of the most advanced theoretical physics of our time.

Will is be proven out? Who knows. They are working on it at the LHC. The top physicists in the world subscribe to it.

My last report to NASA "Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation on Laminated Structural Composites" put me in the room (again) with many people who seems to think M-theory was state of the art (it had nothing to do with my report). The folks over at Rice University seems to agree, as do Princeton and Harvard. I don't know who the physicists you work with are but as a senior consultant to NASA, I know that crowd pretty well.

In 1995 the world of physics was shaken by Ed Witten as he solved the mathematical inconsistencies between the five conflicting string theories. M-theory has been "in" ever since. If Lisa Randall successfully creates an experiment that causes matter and energy to disappear from this universe M-theory may not be proven but it will be much farther down that road. The reason for her to have been voted "One of the top physicists in the world" will be confirmed.

I have never purported M-theory as my theory. I merely acknowledge that the top theoretical physicists in the world subscribe to it and I respect their work. There is also a world of information available to back up my opinion. I have studied it to some degree.

I have a real good grasp of what physics is and what constitutes a theory. I also have a good grasp of what is going on at the LHC and why. I know when opinions are being stated as facts and I recognize scientific distortion for what it is. I have been in the field a very long time.

You say its obvious I know little. How?

Because I do not think its accepted that M-theory is fact? IE modern physics, ie scientific theory.

I thought I was fairly concise in explaining my stance on what is a scientific theory, and that can be summed up as a true explanation of physical reality, ie factual, ie fact . . .


So you say, " Will it be proven out, Who knows."

Well why all this ruckus if we agree and your a nice chap? Has it truly been just an argument from semantics, or definition?

If so I expect an apology for the harsh words! Perhaps then we will also agree your a nice fellow.

Because I posted the facts about the state of theoretical physics and you posted your opinion, false statements, and lack of knowledge of the subject, and presented it as if it were fact. You continue to twist your statements in order to appear knowledgeable when you are not. You even claim M-theory is a "mathematical model" with the implied meaning that it is not a model of theoretical physics.

Apparently you do not understand modeling and it's purpose in physics either. M theory is not a math model for the sake of mathematics. It is a mathematical solution to the inconsistencies the previous five string models presented and is marveled at by the physicists of the world ... except of course the ones you know.

You apparently know nothing of Ed Witten or Lisa Randall. Maybe if you read about them you would have a different perspective. Brian Greene was referring to the difficulty in the testing technology, not the validity of the theory.

Even the producers of "What the Bleep" understood M-theory was theoretical physics.

Once the 'facts' of science were used to hold down a new concept.

Yet we know more about Gallieo's concept than those that held it back.

So metalwing, is it possible that M-theory may not be the theory of everything?

I already answered that question. Is it possible that it is?

The greatest living theoretical physicists in the world seem to think so.

Ok, so we both agree that its possible that it is, and that it is possible that it isn't.

Lets hug and make up. In my first post I said I felt that the research was worthy of doing. I actually wanted to further that and say even if it turns out to not be a theory of everything, its more then worthy. The math itself is worthy.

My only point is that the language of science should be as precise as possible, and if M-theory turns out to be not a theory of everything, and not an accurate description of our reality then it will not be called a scientific theory, and its my opinion that becuase its not yet proven itself, it should also not be called a scientific theory of everything, or even modern physics.

So the fact is, its not yet proven, the fact is it may not represent nature. The opinion is that the skeptical approach is best, and that is to not call it what it has not proven to be yet.

This is the opinion of people like Laurence Krauss. I think you might want to place him in that group of great physicists of our time.

Here is a good article on the topic, with alternatives to string theory. String theory is not the only show in town and should not be considered gospel, this is science not dogma. We should not get offended by challenging views, no less opinions that call for patience and objectivity.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/08/5156.ars

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/conf2000/Randall/fs1.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrcAi90f5_0


http://www.theory.caltech.edu/conf2000/Randall/fs1.html

Quote me. I think your probably taking more out of it, then is really in it to begin with.

Trying to merge science and metaphysics is a problem. That is a different problem then calling unverified research "modern physics".

I really want you to answer this question.

If in 50 years we find that M-theory is wrong, will it be considered the, "most advanced theoretical physics of our time."?

I Totally agree that if its found out to be true then it most certainly will have been just that . . .

I think you missed the point. You made a really big "deal" of M-theory not being modern theoretical physics and an even bigger deal explaining how it is actually just mathematics and not physics. I posted the notes from Lisa Randall showing the math modeling of the actual physics involved and pure mathematics has nothing to do with it. Each term covers a specific event in physics. You were wrong.

You said no experimentation was or could be done to prove the theory. Lisa Randall is (along with others) doing specific research with the LHC to proved specific aspects of the theory which are discussed at length in the items I just posted. You stated falsely concerning the provability and current experiments at the LHC including predictive behavior. She discusses at lengths the work that can be done with the energies available and what experiments can be done with the next generation of collider.

As an answer to my my posts about Edward Witten and Lisa Randall you provide two posts with a new theory and a skeptic of string theory. The new theory isn't new. It is a small slice of the theory discussed by Ed Witten in my third link. The article was written by a science writer who got the details wrong. He is a part time physicist in laser optics and a full time science writer. I checked out some of his other articles about completely different topics such as ocean currents and he got some of them wrong too. Gonzo journalism is not the best source of information.

Your skeptic won an award for writing, but that is a long way from a Nobel Prize.

One of most important concepts in science is "weight". Ed Witten hung on in the field of string theory long after most had thought the theory was dead and the Standard Model" was the only game in town. In 1995 he went from being a virtual unknown to a superstar in physics as he presented his solution to an overwhelmed audience of the greatest physicists in the world. Since that time his theory has been worked on and expanded by many and its "weight" has increased tremendously. The "weight" of the people you mentioned is insignificant in the world of physics by comparison. Many in the field think Ed Witten is the modern Albert Einstein.

What this discussion is about is the fact that you claim great distress at inaccurate science information being presented to the public as you present inaccurate science information that you claim to understand. The makers of the movie stated first "What the "bleep" do they know"

Can the spin.

You didn't quote me (If you did you would find it hard to back up your points) . . . and you keep refusing to answer my questions.

You keep regurgitating information about Ed, and Lisa as if any of that was news to me.

I quoted you on each and every point I disagreed with, be honest and do the same for me. Quite trying to impress us with your history lessons on what you think has been achieved by these physicists, stop using adjectives like great to describe them, and answer my questions directly using quotes.

You keep stating I have made incorrect statements but will not quote me and cite a direct source that shows how my statement is invalid.

So far I have tried real hard to put up with your lame attempts to insult me, but lets be serious you have put up about a dozen posts and said nothing much at all to validate that this is a description of nature backed up by experimentation.

I have presented leading string theorists who have been honest and said they do not think it will be verified as a valid description of nature via experimentation within their life times. I have listed other "great" physicists that disagree and have shown articles. I think this in itself is enough to demonstrate that this issue is anything but settled, that labeling it as obviously "modern physics" or any of the very strong claims you have made to be premature. After all my only claim is that this is not something we have settled . . . thats it, a very weak claim easily backed up. One I have done already.

I have not seen a single thing you have posted come out and say M-theory is without a doubt the theory of everything, that current experiments at the LHC will without a doubt give us falsifiability. You will have to demonstrate that to prove me wrong in my opinion. The doubt is HUGE in the physics community. Yes M-theory is popular, yes its exciting, yes its elegant. Does any of that make it true?

Essentially what you have done is, use the argument from authority, ad hom attack, and poisoning the well tactics, AND lazy reference to my statements.

I seriously do not know why you have chosen to attack me, my statements as I reread them are anything but controversial. I have tried post after post to extend the olive branch and you continue to take my comments as if they where dripping with bile. Please get a reality check and reread my posts without the chip on your shoulder.

Messagetrade understands where I am coming from, did you even read his post?

Lisa Randall:

Transcript starting at 1 Minute and 20 seconds.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7XtqH6ETZc

Listen to the language Lisa couches her comments in? Its the language of uncertainty, like any good scientist she will remain skeptical until really good evidence comes along.

The OR is interesting word usage and quit cogent for the people in the know, metalwing you claim to be so knowledgeable, how is it that we might find super-symmetry and that still not in and of itself be proof of extra dimensions?

If you can answer intellectually that question I will be impressed, it will also serve to further the conversation which most of the posts so far have failed to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIz5zrZsiuw&feature=related Another good video by Lisa. I agree she is brilliant, and we should all be so intelligent, to be such good critical thinkers.

She speaks with a good level of self doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JISrm-qUQ1g&feature=related


The next series of questions that have to be asked, are:
What experiments are needed to detect these particles?
What energies do we expect to find them and why?
Is the LHC enough, will Tev be enough?
What does the anthropic principle have to do with any of it?
Why is the anthropic principle controversial, and why do most scientists think its a messy basis for a theoretical framework?

Plenty of hard questions must be answered first.
http://zitwebcast1.desy.de/wowza/plhc2010/Gross.htm
Minute 34, David Gross says it all. Its common among physicists to agree with this word usage that I tend to share. Its not blasphemy, among groups at the LHC conference you can actually say this . . .

Im a big fan of Strings. A skeptic first. No spin needed.

After all what is evolution? Is it just a theory or is it a scientific theory which is somehow more then, "just a theory."

If we say that M-theory is a scientific theory and it has yet to be proven then what does that mean for any other theoretical framework that has yet to be proven?

This is a serious question. Not spin. So when I say M-theory is not a scientific theory what I really mean is that I take that turn of word very seriously and that I must without baggage honestly answer what I mean.

If I was in Metal's position, I might feel insulted by your word choice in this thread, both in your comments on the movie and in your earliest comments on M-theory. I'm not suggesting that your statements are inappropriate, just commenting on cause-and-effect.




How do you quantify doubt? I think you are both basically right, and the disagreement is partly semantic and partly emotional. I think one of the contributing factors to this ongoing argument is the use of subjective words like 'huge'. Similarly with this whole business of whether it is 'a theory', a 'scientific theory', a 'mathematical theory', etc. Even practicing scientists take great liberty with the shades of meaning in these words during casual conversation.




I believe that your words were open to the interpretation Metal has made - once a person has so interpreted another's words, its difficult to gain a new understanding by simply rereading them.



I initially took 'not even a theory' to mean 'not up there with the equations of Maxwell, Einstein, Newton, etc', because I've heard people in academia use the phrase in this way. Based on the 'feeling' of the post, I can see how someone would take it differently.

Coherentism does not necessarily have a basis in reality.

I don't subscribe to the circular argument routine.



I provided the lecture notes from Lisa Randall to prove the absolute error and falsity of the above statement.



Einstein actually produced his main theories as thought experiments and later sought help to do the math. To claim that Einstein's theory was a "lovely mathematical project" up until May 1919 is just more spin... and completely false.



I'm getting tired of quoting the above false statement. I provided the Lisa Randall discussion on what specific experiments are being done at specific energies to nail down specific aspects of the theory at the LHC. We have empirical data on the energy equivalence of many particles and the LHC will provide more. The energy data already discovered by empirical methods, basic calculation, and observation will be added to the new data base provided by the LHC and utilized to further the proving or disproving of the theories.

Of course they can't prove everything at the LHC because the LHC has limited energy and of course we may never be able to prove everything about everything because that would take forever. But once again, using the common technique of "cherry picking", quotes were taken out of Lisa Randall's lecture out of context just as was done in the movie and all the discussion of specific experiments now designed to provide specific results at predicted energies was ignored... because that would show the level of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty involved.

And BTW, the only reason I gave the "history lesson" on what happened in 1995 is to highlight why the overwhelming majority of theorists currently alive recognize Ed Witten's work as both great and the state of the art in modern theoretical physics. His supporters reads like a Who's Who list of Nobel Laureates. And I never stated M-theory was fact, I merely stated that, in fact, M-theory was a theory, albeit the predominant one in theoretical physics. It tries to mesh with and explain what parts of the standard model actually work. For example it too seeks a graviton.

Cherry picking was the big beef about the scientific accuracy of the movie. How ironic.

So it seems we agree. A coherent theoretical framework is not necessarily an accurate representation of nature.



Very interesting example used here, what is further interesting is that string theory has gone through many such revisions.
In fact I used this example earlier when trying to make my point.


Im getting tired of trying to raise this conversation above the level of definition, so I will just ignore you.

I mean did you watch the LHC convention video of David Gross presentation? He said the exact same thing I did, and did not get boo'd off the stage, I am sorry metalwing that you think I was attacking an idea you hold dear, but get over it . . .

in 1980, i was in the end of college times with some of my friends. they were all world class wrestlers, (real wrestling, not the fake sh|t) that loved to discuss theories and issues......we would all sit in a 1972, copper with a peeling white top, vega station wagon and discuss these "issues" as the windows would steam up, as it was below zero outside(tough bastards we were, still are) and some things would come to light, some wouldn't, but it was always a great time, and i always got a headache. much of this discussion was about the cold war as well, and our speculations on what would finally transpire.... but we sure had fun. the car, then dubbed by me as the "issue mobile" brought many a laughs...... i wonder what ever happened to that thing? maybe it went down a rabbit hole....

anyway, when things like this occur, i call it driving the "issue mobile" the 1972 vega station wagon.......humor at it's very best....

Hehe, that is a great anecdote. Reminds me of my days in theatre class. I like to call my opinions strongly defended, but weakly held, I can easily be convinced by convincing arguments well made, and held well.