If you believe what most scientists believe, then you believe that life in the universe is not limited to our own planet.
More to the point, if you believe in super string theory then you believe in pure energy, but if you dont believe in SST then maybe you dont believe in pure energy.

It's wrong to totally dismiss this though because although it is not proven, it is still not science fiction.
Science fiction is something totally made up without necessarily any grounds to show that it is real. That's not what science does. The Higgs boson is a good example of how this process works. If the shoe fits, wear it

So far string theory is still the Science Fiction of complex mathematics because all the experiments expected to see it have found nada.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-string-theory-is-still-not-even-wrong/

Horgan: You've recently denounced “fake physics.” What is it? Are journalists mostly to blame for it?

Woit: By "fake physics" I mean pseudo-scientific claims about physics that share some of the characteristics of "fake news", in particular misleading, overhyped stories about fundamental physics promoting empty or unsuccessful theoretical ideas, with a clickbait headline. Those most to blame for this are the physicists involved, who should know better and be aware that the way they are promoting their work is going to mislead people. Journalists need to be skeptical about what they're being told by scientists, but often they're more or less accurately reporting impressive sounding claims being made by physicists with impeccable credentials, and not in a good position to evaluate these.

Horgan: Do you still think string theory is “not even wrong”?

Woit: Yes. My book on the subject was written in 2003-4 and I think that its point of view about string theory has been vindicated by what has happened since then. Experimental results from the Large Hadron Collider show no evidence of the extra dimensions or supersymmetry that string theorists had argued for as "predictions" of string theory. The internal problems of the theory are even more serious after another decade of research. These include the complexity, ugliness and lack of explanatory power of models designed to connect string theory with known phenomena, as well as the continuing failure to come up with a consistent formulation of the theory.

 

"The internal problems of the theory are even more serious after another decade of research. These include the complexity, ugliness and lack of explanatory power of models designed to connect string theory with known phenomena, as well as the continuing failure to come up with a consistent formulation of the theory."

Funny how beauty is sometimes argued for in favor of scientific theories ... again, philosophy...

 

Hi,

You still seem to be implying that in order for us to say that something can be "pure energy" that we need to show this in an experiment. But from what i have read although we cant prove it right now, it is not science fiction either. It's in that realm of believable just like life in other parts of the universe even though we cant prove it we have a certain amount of circumstantial evidence then it becomes a belief.

So if you believe in super string theory or not, that's the main question.

No, I don't believe in super string theory as a way to predict the particles and forces of nature in a unique way just like I wouldn't believe in Maxwell's equations without validation. My simple understanding of string theory is that it's very useful as a tool to explore possibilities but it's unlikely to ever make exact predictions of what we will find in nature.

 

"The internal problems of the theory are even more serious after another decade of research. These include the complexity, ugliness and lack of explanatory power of models designed to connect string theory with known phenomena, as well as the continuing failure to come up with a consistent formulation of the theory."

Funny how beauty is sometimes argued for in favor of scientific theories ... again, philosophy...

The Standard model is a little ugly at the detail level too but it works like a supermodel.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/01/sometimes-i-believe-in-string-theory.html

But science isn’t about belief, it’s about facts, so here are the facts: This trust in beauty as a guide, it’s not working. There’s no evidence for grand unification. There’s no evidence for supersymmetry, no evidence for axions, no evidence for moduli, for WIMPs, or for dozens of other particles that were invented to prettify theories which work just fine without them. After decades of search, there’s no evidence for any of these.

It’s not working. I know it hurts. But now please wake up.

 

So far, I believe in the scientific method. It's not perfect, but it has never let me down. Also, we have to remember that our theories and the entities that we call "particles" and such, are but our representations (that is, models) of reality that best fit the facts... So the models we've constructed in our minds are not the external reality in itself, but are rather tools (that can later be discarded or updated for better ones) to help us deal with what our senses and intellect are telling us...

Inevitably, we're now treading into the realm of philosophy.

Hi,

Yes, and only those who can handle that subject will be able to appreciate that kind of discussion, unfortunately.

I like the way you quoted "particles", because they are particles only as much as how they compare to what they are being thought of to interact with. However, that kind of thinking did take us a long way.

 

No, I don't believe in super string theory as a way to predict the particles and forces of nature in a unique way just like I wouldn't believe in Maxwell's equations without validation. My simple understanding of string theory is that it's very useful as a tool to explore possibilities but it's unlikely to ever make exact predictions of what we will find in nature.

Hi,

Ok then, if you think back to before the great Higgs test, did you believe in the Higgs field? From what you say, you did not, but you must have had some idea that it COULD be true just because of the way it fit in.

So there are two kinds of people, those who believe in SST and those who dont

 

Hi,

Yes, and only those who can handle that subject will be able to appreciate that kind of discussion, unfortunately.

I like the way you quoted "particles", because they are particles only as much as how they compare to what they are being thought of to interact with. However, that kind of thinking did take us a long way.

Thanks ... the way I understand the photon, for instance, is but a "pinch" or "the smallest possible manifestation" (formally: a quanta) of the electromagnetic field ... and this electromagnetic field is already there ... that is, the photon is but a disturbance of said field that moves at a top speed of c. ... that means that the universe is completely permeated in the EMF at every possible locality ... it's like living submerged in a sea whose water we cannot see, but we can see the bubbles it produces when stimulated, given the right conditions.

Of course, that is the way I understand it. Perhaps I'm not entirely right and someone would like to step in and clarify things further for me.

 

it's like living submerged in a sea whose water we cannot see, but we can see the bubbles it produces when stimulated, given the right conditions.

Or perhaps a better analogy would be droplets instead of bubbles.

 

Hi,

Ok then, if you think back to before the great Higgs test, did you believe in the Higgs field? From what you say, you did not, but you must have had some idea that it COULD be true just because of the way it fit in.

So there are two kinds of people, those who believe in SST and those who dont

There is a reason why belief is not scientific. People want to believe in all sorts of things.

Higgs is standard model (one of the most tested and verified theories in science) so yes, I expected they would find it due to the history of correct predictions from SM but so did the people who designed and spent the money to build the LHC to confirm its existence. The SST guys are still looking and designing new theories because they have a big fat zero on their scoreboard for actual evidence of what many experts think is untestable. Maybe one day direct experiments will find something solid to extend SM into new physics, that would be great.

 

So far, I believe in the scientific method. It's not perfect, but it has never let me down. Also, we have to remember that our theories and the entities that we call "particles" and such, are but our representations (that is, models) of reality that best fit the facts... So the models we've constructed in our minds are not the external reality in itself, but are rather tools (that can later be discarded or updated for better ones) to help us deal with what our senses and intellect are telling us...

Inevitably, we're now treading into the realm of philosophy.

Call it the law of imprecision:

1. Mathematical models of physical systems are limited, specific, and inherently incomplete. Measurements are imprecise.
   
2. Interactions between measured entity/entities with respect to the total energy fluctuations within the entire physical system in question would invariably yield an overwhelmingly complex set of equations capable of describing the complete physical system with absolute accuracy.
3. Thus both measurement and mathematical approximations have associated error terms, which must be quantified. Results should be stated in terms of known precision.

As to the philosophical aspect:

Interpretation, conceptualization, and visualization of physical phenomena should be avoided. Different mathematical approaches often lead to the same result...each is ultimately just a tool of abstraction.​

 

Interpretation, conceptualization, and visualization of physical phenomena should be avoided.

I don't think I agree with that last statement. Those processes are a necessary tool for the human mind to have a better grasp of reality. And that also applies to mathematical models.

I'd refrase it to:
"Interpretation, conceptualization, and visualization of physical phenomena should not be embraced in a permanent, dogmatic way. But are to be discarded and replaced by new and updated versions when a better understanding is reached."

 

There is a reason why belief is not scientific. People want to believe in all sorts of things.

Higgs is standard model (one of the most tested and verified theories in science) so yes, I expected they would find it due to the history of correct predictions from SM but so did the people who designed and spent the money to build the LHC to confirm its existence. The SST guys are still looking and designing new theories because they have a big fat zero on their scoreboard for actual evidence of what many experts think is untestable. Maybe one day direct experiments will find something solid to extend SM into new physics, that would be great.

Hello again,

I think it is wrong to quote science fiction in order to help debunk a theory that is considered worthwhile by the scientific community. I dont care what the theory is or what the science fiction story is. Science fiction is not worth anything because there's no bounds to what can be said to be true, while in the scientific world there is. Some very very intelligent people are working on string theory and it takes years to develop. People working on science fiction may be intelligent but they can complete a story line almost overnight and they are no match for the people working on string theory.
I can quote science fiction that says anything i want to show is true, even things that have already been proven. There's a big difference and if you cant see that then i dont see the point in discussing this further with you. Science fiction is not fact and so can not be used for a real argument.

Dialog between two...
"Hey did you see the last episode of Star Wars?"
"Yeah, so i guess string theory is no longer believable because not everything in Star Wars is believable."
"Yeah, so i guess Witten and Susskind et al can hang up their string hats".
"Yeah, too bad, it was fun while it lasted though".

 

Thanks ... the way I understand the photon, for instance, is but a "pinch" or "the smallest possible manifestation" (formally: a quanta) of the electromagnetic field ... and this electromagnetic field is already there ... that is, the photon is but a disturbance of said field that moves at a top speed of c. ... that means that the universe is completely permeated in the EMF at every possible locality ... it's like living submerged in a sea whose water we cannot see, but we can see the bubbles it produces when stimulated, given the right conditions.

Of course, that is the way I understand it. Perhaps I'm not entirely right and someone would like to step in and clarify things further for me.

Hi,

I dont think that's too bad really. I see it as being immersed in a sea of something physical that puts limits on the way we can get EM to travel though it. It's like a 3d transmission line and amazingly, that's how we get two electrical space constants.

 

Hello again,

I think it is wrong to quote science fiction in order to help debunk a theory that is considered worthwhile by the scientific community. I dont care what the theory is or what the science fiction story is. Science fiction is not worth anything because there's no bounds to what can be said to be true, while in the scientific world there is. Some very very intelligent people are working on string theory and it takes years to develop. People working on science fiction may be intelligent but they can complete a story line almost overnight and they are no match for the people working on string theory.
I can quote science fiction that says anything i want to show is true, even things that have already been proven. There's a big difference and if you cant see that then i dont see the point in discussing this further with you. Science fiction is not fact and so can not be used for a real argument.

Dialog between two...
"Hey did you see the last episode of Star Wars?"
"Yeah, so i guess string theory is no longer believable because not everything in Star Wars is believable."
"Yeah, so i guess Witten and Susskind et al can hang up their string hats".
"Yeah, too bad, it was fun while it lasted though".

Mellow out dude, the point was not to debunk the theory. I was pointing out the obvious point that belief is not scientific. Science is a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality. There is genuine disagreement on string theory by some very very intelligent people too. Does the String Theory have a sufficient body of evidence to stand on equal terms with other tested scientific theories like the SM? Today the answer is No.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/01/string_theory_has_failed_as_a_scientific_theory.html

 

I believe energy is a collective term for force. So all energy is fundamentally acceleration, because that's what force is. The energy part of a particle is it's constant acceleration. This comes from the electric self repulsive field property. The electric acceleration is countered and contained by the magnetic self contracting field property. This property also requires an acceleration.

These two accelerations work against each other in a perpendicular structure. It's a battle. If one of the accelerations tries to change...the other will counter it. This is inertia.

Two forces, two energies. These are two very distinct accelerations.

The way to understand nature is thru structure.....not math.

Structure provides function, not math. ALL physical properties come from a structure.

Light does have a accelerating property, even tho is has constant velocity. This property is density and it accelerates perpendicular to the light's propagation.

Frequency controls this acceleration and is why light energy increases with frequency.

 

Oh, my ... where should I start? ...

 

The way to understand nature is thru structure.....not math.

Structure provides function, not math. ALL physical properties come from a structure.

In the case of string theory many agree with the point that math is not the determinant of reality. We tailor mathematics to describe reality. It's a shorthand description of our observations.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/462d/7b6b1ee8243b6aa8897be3cf306239fb43c6.pdf

Mathematics appears to be successful because we cherry-pick the problems for which we have found a way to apply mathematics. There have likely been millions of failed mathematical models, but nobody pays attention to them. ("A genius," Abbott writes, "is merely one who has a great idea, but has the common sense to keep quiet about his other thousand insane thoughts.")
...
Even counting has its limits. When counting bananas, for example, at some point the number of bananas will be so large that the gravitational pull of all the bananas draws them into a black hole. At some point, we can no longer rely on numbers to count.

 

Mellow out dude, the point was not to debunk the theory. I was pointing out the obvious point that belief is not scientific. Science is a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality. There is genuine disagreement on string theory by some very very intelligent people too. Does the String Theory have a sufficient body of evidence to stand on equal terms with other tested scientific theories like the SM? Today the answer is No.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/01/string_theory_has_failed_as_a_scientific_theory.html

.
"How do i reach these kids?" --Cartman S12E05

You always find people on the other side of the fence. Nice to see you dropped the sci fi though.

You should not insert comments about someone else's personality though like that, "Mellow out dude" junk. That's junk talk. Your assuming that the 'dude' was not mellow to begin with, and that is just plain wrong. That comes as a result of your OWN PERSONAL interpretation of the post only, and what's more is my post never came off to the contrary and even includes a smile.
Notice how you might feel like a kid now because of the Cartman quote above

 

.
"How do i reach these kids?" --Cartman S12E05

You always find people on the other side of the fence. Nice to see you dropped the sci fi though.

You should not insert comments about someone else's personality though like that, "Mellow out dude" junk. That's junk talk. Your assuming that the 'dude' was not mellow to begin with, and that is just plain wrong. That comes as a result of your OWN PERSONAL interpretation of the post only, and what's more is my post never came off to the contrary and even includes a smile.
Notice how you might feel like a kid now because of the Cartman quote above

Sorry, if it hurt your feelings but life's too short to care too much on a throwaway posting.

 

Sorry, if it hurt your feelings but life's too short to care too much on a throwaway posting.

Geeze, mellow out dude.