What will they think of next.

[Sceadwian]

Some really interesting articles popping up on Google News in the last couple days, some real mind benders if they pan out.

Time may be slowing down.
The standard model is on shakey ground.
Possible experimental evidence of alternate dimensions.

All of these are of course neat and only possible as they need to be verified and methods developed to test some of them.

 

[magvi]

too sci fi for me.. now i have a headache

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVAArpFWq50

To the person in the other higher dimensional space , don't drop the watch

and keep it quiet when rebuilding time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kquTHzXCMo

 

[Sceadwian]

magvi, it's not sci fi at all, it's developing mathmatical models granted the possibilities that articles describe are a bit of a stretch what's important is that there is still a lot to learn about the true fundamentals of reality.

 

[nsaspook]

Maybe it's not Sci-Fi but I see a great similarity between "M/superstring theory" and dogma as it currently has zero testable predictions of reality with things we can't perceive but control our world with supra-natural forces from a place beyond beyond.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-glashow.html

So this is a change. It's something that began to develop in the '80s, grew in the '90s, and today attracts many of the best and brightest physicists. It's called superstring theory and it is, so far as I can see, totally divorced from experiment or observation. If not totally divorced, pretty well divorced. They will deny that, these string theorists. They will say, "We predicted the existence of gravity." Well, I knew a lot about gravity before there were any string theorists, so I don't take that as a prediction.
...
The string theorists have a theory that appears to be consistent and is very beautiful, very complex, and I don't understand it. It gives a quantum theory of gravity that appears to be consistent but doesn't make any other predictions. That is to say, there ain't no experiment that could be done nor is there any observation that could be made that would say, "You guys are wrong." The theory is safe, permanently safe. I ask you, is that a theory of physics or a philosophy?

 

[Sceadwian]

nsaspook, the testability isn't really a problem just yet, the math has to be worked out first, as that's what's really crippling physics advancement right now is that all we really know right now is that what we know right now simply doesn't work all the time, and that's no way to conduct science.

They may never work out a new universal physics model but we know that what exists doesn't work so we gotta work towards something that's better.

Once they work the math out so that it makes sense and as technology progresses so that new methods of testing are developed eventually it will get to the point where we can test whatever theories end up passing mathematical snuff with real experiments that we can perform, in the real world however there will always be an error associated with measurements, where as if the mathmatical models can be refined sufficiently physics can advance our understanding and manipulation of our perceived world using simulated computational models. Right after Quantum computers become practical, in a few thousands years if we're lucky enough to make it that long =>

The point is it's amazing to see that regardless of what we don't know there are advances all the time in better knowing what it is that we don't know so we can fill in the gaps.

 

[nsaspook]

To be scientific, a theory must be ”falsifiable”. It must make predictions
such that if they are wrong the theory is wrong. One can can evade
falsifiability (sometimes for a long time "epicycles by both Ptolemy and Copernicus") by making the model more complicated.

**broken link removed**

It seems to me we are just finding random patterns in random noise with S/M theory and using increasing complex models where anything can happen to explain it in a belief that it actually has meaning.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-supersymmetry-dead

Are there fundamental facts about the Universe we will never know, I hope not and admire those who keep looking.

 

[Sceadwian]

You think this is supposed to have meaning to a human being?

This is basic questioning of the fundamental nature of the world we perceive....

We can see something has this or that pattern. This does no make it exist.

These aren't random patterns, these are fundamental structures of reality as we've constructed them!

 

[nsaspook]

Finding meaning in random events is what makes us human. That's the beauty of M theory, there are a infinite amount of universes, a infinite amount of realities and anything is possible so there are no random events because all possible things are happening at the same time but all these imaginary universes have no observable consequences in our universe but we can calculate what might happen if they could.

Pretty Slick.

 

[MrAl]

To be scientific, a theory must be ”falsifiable”. It must make predictions
such that if they are wrong the theory is wrong. One can can evade
falsifiability (sometimes for a long time "epicycles by both Ptolemy and Copernicus") by making the model more complicated.

**broken link removed**

It seems to me we are just finding random patterns in random noise with S/M theory and using increasing complex models where anything can happen to explain it in a belief that it actually has meaning.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-supersymmetry-dead

Are there fundamental facts about the Universe we will never know, I hope not and admire those who keep looking.

Hi,

Interesting. I came up with a method of curve fitting a long time ago that would allow one to fit to just about any curve with one basic technique. It can be said to work, but the number of variables increases too fast for what it can reproduce. In other words, it looks good on paper but it might be problematic once we go to apply it.

With some theories though, the main point is that if you can predict something new with it then it may have merit. If it shows something that was never seen before until the theory predicted it, then it is hard to ignore. String theory has proven to show new things now. If they are being fudged just to make it look good though that doesnt count. Time will tell however.

 

[Mr RB]

Finding meaning in random events is what makes us human. That's the beauty of M theory, there are a infinite amount of universes, a infinite amount of realities and anything is possible so there are no random events because all possible things are happening at the same time but all these imaginary universes have no observable consequences in our universe but we can calculate what might happen if they could.
...

Careful there, you're treading very close to a belief in sorcery. And if you head far enough in that direction you can never quite find a way back to the same reality as others. Science is what it is because it reinforces a concrete and shared reality, that's the entire point of science.

...
With some theories though, the main point is that if you can predict something new with it then it may have merit.
...

And again that's in the realm of science. Science predicts or attempts to predict the future. Sorcery makes the future happen. There's a fundamental difference in the mechanism.

I'll shut up now before people think Loosewire has gained control of my account.

 

[MrAl]

Careful there, you're treading very close to a belief in sorcery. And if you head far enough in that direction you can never quite find a way back to the same reality as others. Science is what it is because it reinforces a concrete and shared reality, that's the entire point of science.



And again that's in the realm of science. Science predicts or attempts to predict the future. Sorcery makes the future happen. There's a fundamental difference in the mechanism.

I'll shut up now before people think Loosewire has gained control of my account.

Hi MrRB,

Just curious why you brought that up, sorcery vs science.
So i guess in writing the word "This" i used sorcery because i made the word appear so i made the future happen

I thought about something similar. where we all want to be able to predict the future. But knowing i was going to type that i guess i predicted the future. So we all have the ability to predict the future to some extent.
Researchers think we can actually predict the future of events not initiated by our own selves, within some small time frame like 10's of milliseconds.
But here's another thing to think about...
If we can predict the future, then we would know "what they will think of next". If we knew that, then they would not have to think of anything because we could tell them, but then they would not have to think of it, but then we would be incorrect because we thought they would think of it when really we told them, so it's a paradox, so how could we ever predict the future.
Similarly, if we predict the future and we predict a given new physics formula will be discovered tomorrow, then since we've predicted it today then it could not be discovered tomorrow because now we already know it. Unless by predicting part of the future we somehow destroy that part of it. But if that is true then we would be able to predict the entire future because we would be able to predict that we were going to do that and thus we could destroy even that.


BTW you arent by any chance related to H.S. Black, who invented some feedback mechanisms, are you?

 

[Mr RB]

...
Just curious why you brought that up, sorcery vs science.

Actually my reference to "sorcery" was in response to NSAspooks comments; " there are a infinite amount of universes, a infinite amount of realities and anything is possible so there are no random events" etc.

...
So i guess in writing the word "This" i used sorcery because i made the word appear so i made the future happen

I thought about something similar. where we all want to be able to predict the future. But knowing i was going to type that i guess i predicted the future. So we all have the ability to predict the future to some extent.

Valid enough. If we were to define sorcery as the ability to exert a very minor force now and cause a major chain of events, ie the ability to control the future then we must all be sorcerers in some minor capacity in the same way we all have the ability to hypothesise, test and prove so we are all scientists to some degree as well.

...
Researchers think we can actually predict the future of events not initiated by our own selves, within some small time frame like 10's of milliseconds.
...

I've seen some reports on that research, with people predicting "bad" photos some mS before they appear. I'm not totally convinced.

...
But here's another thing to think about...
If we can predict the future, then we would know "what they will think of next". If we knew that, then they would not have to think of anything because we could tell them, but then they would not have to think of it, but then we would be incorrect because we thought they would think of it when really we told them, so it's a paradox, so how could we ever predict the future.
...

You can look for a paradox but I'm not sure it's there. If I observe a freight train moving at 50MPH right up to where I stand I can predict pretty well it will continue at 50MPH in the future, past where I'm standing. Just science. Science is in the business of predictions. "Cold reading" ie fortune tellers are using science, not magic.

...
Similarly, if we predict the future and we predict a given new physics formula will be discovered tomorrow, then since we've predicted it today then it could not be discovered tomorrow because now we already know it. Unless by predicting part of the future we somehow destroy that part of it. But if that is true then we would be able to predict the entire future because we would be able to predict that we were going to do that and thus we could destroy even that.

You seem to be trying pretty hard to tie yourself in knots. Is it your point that science can not ever see or predict the future? You sound more literal, as if the concept of paradox would make it impossible to observe the actual future?

I was not thinking about that so much as in the earlier context of "infinite amount of universes" ie from this instant in time can branch in infinite different directions of possible futures, and the understanding and possible control of that.

Where scientists can observe reaility up to this point, then predict with some accuracy what will happen in the immediate future, I see "sorcery" as a counterpoint to that, a skill set that can observe reality up to this point and exert some influence in the present to cause some level of accuracy shaping the development of the future. In the context of NSAspook's "infinite futures" the sorcerer would have some competence in controlling which of those infinite possible futures they would be a part of.

...
BTW you arent by any chance related to H.S. Black, who invented some feedback mechanisms, are you?

I would very much doubt any relation.

 

[MrAl]

Hi,


It's all about trying to make sure that relatively new members can not figure out what this topic is all about

(Just kidding of course)

It's about the wonders of new science. There are so many new things being discovered it starts to look like almost anything is possible and that we may never know the truth about all of that because we are made of the same stuff that the rest of the universe is made of. It's like asking a house to tell you what a brick is. Luckily it is information we are after and not something really physical.

 

[Sceadwian]

It is knowing about this fuzziness in knowledge that is what is most important.

I'm not a big fan of Richard Feynman, but I've seen some video and read a few lectures he did and I can say that he says it quiet well, although I paraphrase, "The most important answer that science can EVER produce is "I don't know""

The simple knowledge that understanding is limited and can never be absolute is a truly powerful thing. The scientific method will take us deeper and deeper in every field, but it will never fully defined.

 

[MrAl]

Hi again,


What else is interesting is that what we see more and more is a tendency to 'prove' something that really isnt true, then a couple years later a statement that it really wasnt true after all. I find this quite annoying and it makes me wonder if our ability to prove something somehow gets mixed in with the noise of the complexity and the resolving ability of the experiment as the data gets harder and harder to interpret. Thus i suspect the LHC could eventually both prove and disprove the existence of the Higgs, separated by some amount of time, not necessarily in that order.

 

[Bob Scott]

When Stephen Hawking starts babbling about parallel universes, I lose all respect for him.
Just because the human mind can concieve impossible circumstances, it does not make them true.

And "is time speeding up or slowing down?" Relative to WHAT? A constant time is our frame of reference. It should be constant BY DEFINITION. Some "geniuses" really aren't because this just goes over the top of their heads.

 

[Sceadwian]

Why do you lose respect for someone that questions established theory Bob? Scientist's don't even know what 95% of the known Universe is made out of, 95%!! That simple fact alone should blow your mind and parallel universes and extra dimensions are more than plausible, it'll just take a few thousand year of good science to get a good handle on it all, and if we ever do it will open up new avenues to manipulation of our immediate world, much as science has been doing for the last several hundred years at a breakneck pace.