Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372669

Re: Particles and Theory

Show all headers | View raw

Am 25.09.2015 17:56, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 9/25/15 9/25/15 - 12:34 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 11.09.2015 20:50, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>>> Physicist use an unevaluated assumption.
>>> Wherever did you get that notion? It is blatantly wrong. We physicists
>>> evaluate all of our theories via experiments.
>>
>> There are several people, who claim, that 'mathematics is the language of
>> physics' or 'shut up and calculate..'.
>
> But WHAT do they calculate? -- they use theories which have been tested
> against experiments and been found accurate. So that's no "unevaluated
> assumption".


If these theories match the mechanisms acting in the real world exactly, 
the model and the real world's behaviour should match.

But the problem occurs, that a model and what this model tries to 
emulate, that are different things, since models are abstract 
descriptions about far more complex things.

A model about a naturally occurring phenomenon will gain somehow similar 
results. But to create such a model is a difficult task.

The other question is, if the assumed mechanisms are actually present in 
that phenomenon.

Certainty things in nature happen after entirely different principles 
than physicists use in models, to predict the outcome of experiments.


We could, nevertheless, try to understand natural behaviour, but most 
likely at the expense, that we cannot utilise such methods in somehow 
useful models.

But more important is: such mechanisms are not known. We only assume the 
validity of certain assumptions about the fundamental principles, that 
are acting in the foundations of nature.

Even if these principles are understood (what they are not), this would 
not necessarily help to predict something, since we simply cannot use 
such long timespans and so many participants, as are present in natural 
'experiments'.

> CLEARLY you don't understand the provenance of 'shut up
> and calculate', or what it actually means. It is intended
> to mean "don't worry about theoretical uncertainties in
> the abstract foundations of the theory, because the theory
> has been solidly tested; go ahead and use it because we
> have already verified that it gives accurate results".
>

You again claim, that the 'tested theory' is actually validated 
knowledge about real behaviour of observed phenomena.

The problem is, such knowledge does not exist and models are only 
models, not the 'real thing'.

>> In my eyes 'string theory' is intentional blunder, to keep physics
>> student in a
>> mild state of trance (and entertain the general public a little bit
>> with voodoo
>> magic).
>
> You CLEARLY don't have a clue. Your FANTASY here is just plain wrong.

There is also the possibility of 'intentional cheating'.

I mean, it could be, that physicist intentionally lie to the public, 
since they try to hide something.

If this would be the case, they would need some sort of 'elaborated 
blunder', to keep people away from what shall be hidden.

There are generally four kinds of powers, which belong to the 'usual 
suspects':

- churches of some sort
- governments and politicians
- banks and large corporations
- military and other security agencies

So, physicists should be independent of either of these groups, unless 
you want to think, their finding is wanted by such powers.

But blunder of some kind had always been generated in these realms. 
Actually scientific blunder was not created by - say - politicians, but 
they have hired scientific personal for this kind of work.

And if that is stupid and confusing enough, this blunder is force-fed to 
the next generation of 'scientists'.

The really weird things are honoured. And if it's really far out, it 
gets published in paperbacks and will become a bestseller.


> String theory is a legitimate and serious effort to examine and consider
> what might underlie GR and the standard model. It's just that to date it
> has not produced any testable predictions (a lack that string theorists
> are working to correct).

First problem would be, why the assumption is held, that strings of some 
kind occur in nature.

(I would say, it does not even remotely sound like a promising idea.)

But maybe I'm wrong and on very small we are composed of tiny strings.

This is actually a testable prediction: there are tiny strings.

So string theorist should show evidence for at least one of these strings.


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-24 05:00 +0100
  Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-24 05:31 -0800
    Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-24 12:33 -0600
    Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-24 20:01 +0100

csiph-web