Meh. I’m boring enough (in the sense that I am too fantasy-challenged to be able to come up with such ideas) to insist that the universe came about through cosmic inflation, after which colliding phothons created matter+antimatter particle pairs, with ensuing matter/antimatter annihilation. Somehow matter won out, and we were left with the matter universe we observe today. However, what happened in the first 10-43 seconds of the universe’s existence, before the inflationary period, nobody knows. For all I know it could be Eric’s doing. Except, I would of course need actual objective empirical evidence for Eric’s existence.
And yet the debate over cosmic inflation continues as theorists assert it occurred both prior to and after the ‘Big Bang.’ The inflation theorist guys need to get their shit together and make up their minds. Blue Bunny Cosmology never had to deal with any chicken or egg propositions. It’s very clear. In the beginning, there were Blue Universe Creating Bunnies. They waggled their carrot sticks and created the Universe. Prove me wrong.
Uh, I think you may have had another stroke, or you are just trying to see how much horseshit you can get away with. Stop it.
Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam…ever heard of it?
From the article you referenced:
But it’s only a theory in the mathematical sense, which means it has its own set of axioms, postulates, elements, as well as the theorems and corollaries that can be derived from them. Set theory, group theory and number theory are all examples of mathematical theories, and string theory is another such example.
So…what else you got?
Edit semantics shemantics
I call it “string conjecture” because, as Cog said, it ain’t a theory. Theories are testable, falsifiable, and make predictions. String conjecture is none of these.
I don’t like that they’re not calculating anything. I don’t like that they don’t check their ideas. I don’t like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation – a fix-up to say “Well, it still might be true”. For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there’s a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that’s possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there’s no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn’t eight of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn’t produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn’t look right. – Richard Feynman
1 Like
That is because the phrase “Big Bang” has at least a 1/2 dozen meanings. If you remain consistent with using any ONE of them, this “problem” will go away on its own.
3 Likes
Well a horse is a horse of course. The validity of String Theory as a label or name or otherwise was not the original point. I merely used it as a reference point to bring up yet another unfalsifiable claim in response to Cog’s caca. I am under-qualified to debate what has become a contentious subject among those who are qualified.
Of course the atomic hypothesis was not testable when originated, but time and other science provided the opportunity for falsifiability. Clearly falsifiability is not as immediately relevant when concerned with known established paradigms in science.
General Relativity predicts movement of particles inside the event horizon of black holes, which is currently not testable by experiment, but widely accepted due to the relationship to known paradigms.
Cosmic Inflation is not directly testable, yet is taken seriously as a model by a majority of cosmologists.
I have no horse in this race, but…
Here’s one take from someone far more qualified to discuss…
Edit to go clean the barn
LOL… Ummmmm …Okay, a theory with no physical application. A mathematical theorem none the less? Is that fair? We are shifting paradigms and as such, I stand corrected. I could have been more specific.
“Hypothesis” and “theory” are defined differently in mathematics.
In math, a hypothesis is a condition on a theorem that is required to make the statement true. The Intermediate Value Theorem has several hypotheses, including that the function in question must be continuous.
In math, a theory is a collection of definitions and theorems. It’s a bit nebulous, ‘Group Theory’ for example, is the name for the body of work encompassing definitions and theorems about groups.
Usage of the word “theory” in “String Theory” seems to be in a mathematical sense and not a scientific sense. meant in the mathematical sense. There are no experiments to support String Theory (to my knowledge) as a predictive model of reality. However, there is a large amount of mathematics that developed the model.
So… Awww Fuvk it! I stand corrected. I need a banana and a monkey nap now.
1 Like
Uh, well, far be it from me to gloat, so I’ll just remind you that this all started with my introduction of “Slinky MatterTheory”.
Since no one has provided even a hint of dispute, acquiescence, at a minimum, can be assumed.(more likely begrudging concurrence). Given the fact of absence of dispute, it might be assumed to be a foregone conclusion that SMT will take its well-deserved place as a preeminent scientific idea.(hypothetically speaking)
Edit mental twiddling
Oh Fuck, M-theory. Do you know how many videos I have watched on M-Theory. I am no closer to understanding it now than I was 20 or 30 videos ago. Mmmm. Banana tastes good.
Hahaha…I am beginning to think I have some psychological disorder by which information formulated to enlighten, has the opposite effect on me…
Edit: dislexia anyone?
Here, melt your brain on this String Theory topic, the only use for String Theory I know of I’m aware of (its way over my paygrade).
1 Like
Bananas have strings on the inside of the peel. If you take them out and dry them, you can smoke them.
1 Like
There is also an associated “theory” that states that if you smoke them in one location, someone else will get high simultaneously in a separate location…
Edit : two “heads” are better than one
But if you smoke enough you level up to a new quantum.
Is there a point where you are neither at the original or the new state? Are both states simultaneously accessible? Is it possible to remain in a transitional state? Does your observation affect the state or the transitional aspects? Is ripeness a relevant factor? Would you make me a banana split?
Edit: sprinkles please
Here is a lecture in 10 parts on string theory by Leonard Susskind. Each lecture is around 1 1/2 hours to 1 hour 45 mins. It is introduction to string theory for non-physicists. Some knowledge about mathematics and physics is definitely an advantage, though. And yes, I watched the whole series, and can recommend it.
Here is the playlist:
4 Likes
Oh yeah, this is part of the Theoretical Minimum series. I loved the one he did on cosmology, he derives the FLRW metric (the math behind the Big Bang theory) with Newtonian mechanics (I would have guessed that was impossible).
1 Like
My understanding of the quantum banana is that it is simultaneously split and non-split and then hanging to the left or hanging to the right. If you put a banana in a box, there is no way to tell if it is yellow or green without opening the box. However, upon opening the box of one banana, you know all other bananas are green and definitely hanging left or right.
One outcome arising indirectly from string theory is Steinhardt & Turok’s braneworld collision model for the origin of the universe. Which does include a testable prediction, in the form of the nature of the power spectrum of primordial gravitational waves. Which is the reason scientists have been exerting diligent effort to construct working gravitational wave detectors.
1 Like