Deep Underground Laboratory Reveals Results of Hunt for Quantum Gravity, String Theory - The Debrief They can now check out theories of quantum gravity! Some people were worried that theories of quantum gravity could not be tested, that they were all just intangible imagination, but it looks like it was just a matter of not being able to test these models with then-current equipment, not that it was impossible to test them. So, now, they built the equipment, and they are starting to test theories of quantum gravity to see which ones are real. The news article said that it disproved String Theory. But they didn't clarify whether that was all of String Theory or just some interpretations of String Theory are now off the table, that is to say they were wrong, while other theories of String Theories (plural) are still valid, for now. But, all in all, look out Michio Kaku! They are putting your job at risk (he's a String Theorist).
They did not disprove all theories on the subject, just some of them. It could be that none of them are right. At best only one of them is right.
Yes. This helps narrow down the possibilities, and through the process of elimination we might just figure out what's going on. But I worry about our top physicists who spent their entire lives on this or that theory which might prove to be wrong. Are they flexible enough, or in the right position, to continue their work and help us work through this?
Working on a theory that turns to b e wrong d oh ex not neanca c ontribution to sites is not b eing Made. I recently cane across the wor of Steven Wolfram, the ideas coming from his group are interesting, They are looking at a shift of.pardim their wok is complementary to current Physics and is an interesting perspective. It takes a bit to digest, but has some compelling things to say.
I agree that it is fully legitimate to fund those who are working on ideas that seem unlikely to pan out. Attempting to narrow research based on what seems likely to be true to experts in the field certainly happens, but it can't be the only measure. I'm not a fan of how Michio Kaku chooses what to say. There are plenty of serous physicists.
not a fan, eh? How about Brian Greene, Steve. Wolfram, Carroll, or Suskind? Just curios what is your specific criticism of Kaku?
I see Kaku as more of an evangelist who is prone to finding and promoting ideas more strongly than warranted. Science needs that. New ideas need to be found. And, he has serious chops. But, if I want to get a serious read on a new idea, I want someone ready to call BS and point out why rather than someone ready to wave his hands and point out how cool the idea is.
So would you level the same against.Carl Sagan? Any problem with Brian Greene or Sean Carrol? Two other evangelists that inspire future Generations?
If the Time Dilation theory of Gravity is correct (which is probably the most mainstream view of gravity by physicists) then it is probably unlikely that they are going to find any evidence for Quantum Gravity. Or if they did, it would be likely both Gravity and Time would be linked to the mediating particle. (The time dilation theory of gravity says that the slowdown of time near a massive object results in another object's trajectory through time - equivalent to its rest mass - bending towards the massive object, equivalent to an acceleration force from our frame of reference)
Hmm, the Gravition. So, what does this mean for Gtavity waves...takes some deep thought. If a Gravition is a the exchange particle like the Gluon is thought to be. I One what dimension, distance and time is it exchanged? Gtavity seems to influence things across vast distances is it to be found in the Proton? Then you want to pay attention to Roger Penrose or Lenny Suskind nthe latter of which does free online seminars, but both bring different toys to the game. Then there is Steven Wolfram and crew building a new model representing a huge paradm **** with a sort of qquantization of space...separating spa e and Time as opposed to Einstien's space- time, yet their model still shows support t to general relativity as well as the standard model and even that of the Copenhagen school of thinking. It's an intriguing way to build a model of the universe that if nothing else demonstrates how our embedded biases drive how we investigate reality. I don't buy completely into Wolfram,but he is interesting in that he is exploring a new way of thinking about what we have learned over the last 200 years. And if nothing else puts a number of ideas and concepts on the table to be tested, and potentially falsified which will in itself add to our understanding.think out of the box or at least out of the box of our biases.
I would say that the view by the general public of science is one of the most serious problem for science today. People are more ready to accept medicine from Trump than from the FDA, CDC and pharma corporations. People reject what the world of climatology has found. Instead, people accept homeopathy!! I don't believe that is helped by blending sci fi and science. To me the evangelical approach of Kaku helps make science look like a wild collection of new and ever changing ideas that don't pan out or even play together, constructed by people who couldn't possibly be communicating.
Our education system has degreded to the point it doesn prepare students for real life much less provide a good 'science and math education. our schools and universities are vwere the natural curiosity of children goes to die. The school system doesn't equip student with enough back ground tfor critical thinking. In even my Graduate students can barely write, much less demonstrate good reasoning skills ( much of my teaching diverts from topic to do remedial training in areas that should have been learned in elementary school or at least in high school. So if a Carl Sagan, Michio Kaku, or a Neil Tyson, does as you chacterize it, produce Evangical types of programming that might resurrect that child's curiosity in science, I am all fot it. What to criticize It?Let's see you do better. BTW, I have my issues with Trump as I probably would with almost anyone in the office of President, but in a contest between Biden company or anyone iamong the Dems, and Trump there is no contest.
OK, the following is too extreme, but it gives a flavor of my earlier point: Carl Sagan and Neil Tyson are/were promoters of what is known. They point out what is speculative as being exciting, but speculative. They present the opportunity for kids to be part of the solution - pointing to problems they can work on. This is true for other physics evangelists, such as Sean Carroll, who always presents what is known, plus other people's views on what is not known. Kaku points to Stephen Hawking as a majorly important evangelist, but again Hawking had important differences in what he would say to the public - he promoted science, not himself. Kaku touts his own model of string theory as very soon becoming the "theory of everything", while there are major differences between his views, even his general approach, and those of, most likely, the majority of theoretical physicists. He even proposes that his theory will unite the world religions - leaving me wondering what he thinks THAT would look like. He presents physics as pretty much a done deal. Is that really a picture that will motivate HS kids to spend a decade of hard core education necessary to join the party?
You are not giving avaccurv characterization. Until you can show different Kaku does not have 'his version of string theory'. String theory and the follow.on M theory is not the product of a single theorist, but a collaboration, of many includes some of those I mention led Brian Greene, and Lenny Suskind.The following lists. Some of the collaboraters https://web.mit.edu/demoscience/StringTheory/actors.html#:~:text=Gabriele%20Veneziano,a%20founder%20of%20the%20f ield. While there was a great deal od excitement in the 70's and 80's where there was a rush to w I rk on the emerging mathematical Fram e work, there may be many still suggesting the framework still has potential,nIknowof none that suggest anything more that it is a promising area to investigate, everyone I have heard of these theorists, all are ready to concede the lack of experimental support and we're disapoted that Cern didn't yield evidence of either the prerequisites of super symmetry or og other dimensions. So interesting but no experimental tests given the levels of energy we are able to bring to the question.so interesting math but that isn't deinative and every theorist knows that. In the meantime otherfrtheoretcal frame works have been introduced such as Loop Quantum Gravity the G8 geometric model, and even those of the Wolfram computational model.they all suffer from experimental evidence. Einstiene himself felt his work was I'm complete and worked to the moment of his death on the question.everything I have seen of Kaku, he has notmadeclainto special knowledge or ownership of string theory. If you know different, produce it.
Kaku talks about HIS version of string theory producing a "theory of everything" within a short period of time. String theory is a field of theoretical physics where there are many theories within that range - all not testable, of course. Plus, there are theories that are NOT in that range. For instance, Sean Carroll points out that string theories are a continuing refinement of explaining what we see somewhat in the vein of discovering atoms, then discovering quarks and then discovering the next layer down - they are NOT oriented to determining an original fundamental. So it's pretty popular right now to attempt to figure out that "one layer down", and there are various approaches to that. This is one example: Of course, there are many string theories with significant differences, they don't all have eleven-dimensional hyperspace, there are differing models of multiverse ideas yet he claims that as a unifying factor, and the idea that his views merge religions makes for a collection of fabulously aggressive and self serving claims. One interview with the above quote: https://www.theguardian.com/science...aku-aliens-god-equation-large-hadron-collider I still see this as evangelism of Kaku, more than evangelism of science.
I haven't read up too much on string theory as there seems to be too many assumptions and "ifs" and do not like the idea of multi-universes - seems like a get out clause to me. What I do favour is that 'constants' are not constants over different time frames. eg light speed universally varies with time of emission, delta c giving rise to our observation of gravity or even a static universe,,,,,,
I haven't seen any serious physicist claim that light speed varies. That would be a startling refutation of Einstein, wouldn't it? There are various issues of measurement, though. One is that our universe is expanding, thus light ends up having farther to go. The universe can expand faster than the speed of light. That is, a star far enough away can emit light that will never reach Earth. But, that's not because light is traveling slower.
