Noah's flood real
KJV

United States

#3806 May 11, 2013
Nothing about Duff’s piece struck me as “playful”, but that the editors see it as some sort of joke would explain why they thought it worth publishing.

Update: Over at The Browser, Steven Gubser recommends that people should read The Elegant Universe and four string theory textbooks. Asked about the “no predictions problem”, Gubser does his best to mislead, claiming the situation is just like that with QED that Feynman got the Nobel Prize for. As for SUSY, if the LHC finds it, that’s evidence for string theory, if not, no problem. There’s the old favorite “the LHC might produce microscopic black holes”. About whether string theory makes testable predictions about the heavy ion physics the LHC is studying

String theory might predict that such and such number is one, and the experiment might say well it’s about two, but it could instead be one. That’s the kind of accuracy with which things can typically be done.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
← News from CERNDecay: The LHC Zombie Film →
31 Responses to Forty Years of String Theory
Bob Jones says:
December 5, 2012 at 10:40 pm
“String theory is presented purely as a theory of quantum gravity that has led to new insights in mathematics and had various other applications through the dualities it has uncovered.”

Most people would say that string theory is an idea about quantum gravity. During the past fifteen years, most string theorists have been using the theory as a tool to study very general conceptual issues in quantum gravity and to understand the relationships between different quantum field theories. You can complain all you want about the lack of testable predictions in particle physics, but these objections seem pretty irrelevant since most string theorists aren’t trying to do phenomenology and since string theory has achieved so much success in other areas…
OMF says:
December 6, 2012 at 10:10 am
I think Theoretical Physicists need to take a time out for a few months studying spinning tops.
Friend says:
December 6, 2012 at 10:45 am
I don’t know how String Theory could have ever been considered as fundamental. It seems to me that a fundamental theory will have to explain why the universe is quantum mechanical to begin with. And ST is only an added layer on top of QM; it does not even attempt to explain where QM came from. It seem that alone should have raised suspicion against its claim of being a fundamental theory of everything.
KJV

United States

#3807 May 11, 2013
Girlfriend says:
December 6, 2012 at 2:47 pm
It soberly is true, what you say, Friend.
Peter Woit says:
December 6, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Sorry, but those who want to discuss why they’re unhappy with quantum theory need to find another place to do this, it’s off topic here, unless it’s specifically about ‘t Hooft and his attempts to bring string theory into it.
Bernhard says:
December 6, 2012 at 4:42 pm
One thing I don´t get it is why there was no contribution from Witten? Perhaps he refused?
String theory is already in pieces and while there is no need to beat a dead horse, the fact that the bunch of crap Duff wrote actually got published as a representative contribution to celebrating 40 years of string theory is good evidence of the moribund state of the theory.
A.J. says:
December 6, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Maybe Witten was busy writing the roughly 400 pages of detailed technical notes on superstring perturbation theory that he just put on the arxiv?
Bernhard says:
December 6, 2012 at 5:58 pm
A.J.,

Since is Witten we are talking about, I´m sure he could have done both.
no one of consequence says:
December 7, 2012 at 1:30 am
Epicycles were an example of “mathematical fertility”. Yet they were wrong.

For a supposed whole branch of theoretical physics to consume a generation of minds / carreers, shouldn’t there be something of substance to even hint at relevance in the measurable physical universe?
KJV

United States

#3808 May 11, 2013
Back in the late 70′s in the Berkeley Physics department, I was a dubious observer who inelegantly suggested that studies of this kind belonged elsewhere in the philosophical realm, until such hints presented themselves. Since that time I’ve seen nothing to change that inate skepticism.

And while I can understand the collective embarassment not wanting to cede ground, perhaps BSM and other grand schemes … should just be pursued when we have a long confirmed discrepancy, as in the past? Rather than assumed as to be present?
fuzzy says:
December 7, 2012 at 4:40 am
dear no one of consequence, i feel that neutrino masses and dark matter are recent achievements that do not belong the standard model. i am not fully sure of what to think about the issue of strong CP, but it is also a stimulating point where we can proceed experimentally. several other appealing issues in cosmology (inflation, present day accelerated expansion, speculations on the origin of the matter etc) have been also clarified since 70′s. i would say, very few of them have received the slightest contribution from the stringy ideologists — an exception is goodman-witten’s contribution on direct dark matter search.
fuzzy says:
December 7, 2012 at 4:41 am
ps perhaps this is the reason why witten is not in the book?
Chris Oakley says:
December 7, 2012 at 7:10 am
These denunciations of epicycles fail to take account of the fact that an ellipse is a circle with a single epicycle
Bob Jones says:
December 7, 2012 at 11:31 am
no one of consequence,

Has it ever occurred to you that there might be some good reasons for doing string theory? Do you really think the subject has survived for forty years with no results? Do you really think string theorists are that dumb?
Peter Woit says:
December 7, 2012 at 11:40 am
All,
One can argue about what if any role “dumb” plays in the string theory story, but this discussion is fairly deep in the “dumb” category. I realize that this is by now a very tired subject, but still… There’s a lot of material in this volume, if you read some of it and have an interesting comment, please contribute it, otherwise, please spare the rest of us…
KJV

United States

#3809 May 11, 2013
Armin Nikkhah shirazi says:
December 7, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Peter,

It seems to me that String Theory does make at least one definite prediction:
Like any other mainstream theory of quantum gravity (that I have heard of), it predicts that the gravity field of an object in a quantum superposition is also in a superposition.

While I don’t see the significance of this pointed out very often, to me that constitutes a profound claim about the world which has as yet not been directly tested. I think the importance of this may be minimized by three factors: First, it is probably at the level of present technology impossible to perform a direct unequivocal experiment to test it; second, there are good indirect reasons (e.g. conservation of momentum coupled to the fact that objects in a quantum superposition are affected by gravity fields in exactly the right way) to expect that if such an experiment could be performed, the prediction will be confirmed and third, there is no mainstream rival hypothesis which makes a different prediction (and any framework which does so would automatically be considered non-mainstream).

But, given that this claim enjoys such a central position at the core of any quantum theory of gravity, should we not refuse to settle for anything less than a direct test before we dismiss any doubts about its correctness? Rather than testing predictions which rule out regions of the parameter space in which the models based on a framework are still viable, yet leaving virtually infinitely many possibilities open at higher energy scales, would it not be far more definitive to identify a falsifiable prediction which does not permit any such adjustment? Surely, if this central claim were found to be false, it could not be compensated for by modifying string theory because that is part of the very essence of quantum gravity. Changing *that* aspect of string theory is to kill it.
KJV

United States

#3810 May 11, 2013
That means a falsified result would lead to nothing short of a scientific revolution, and it helps to keep in mind that these usually happen when something that was universally regarded as “obvious” turned out to be a false assumption about nature.

Ideally, recognizing this claim as a prediction should have spurred the development of new experimental techniques by which one might eventually be able to test it. Alas, who is going through all the trouble of tackling a practically impossible experiment for the outcome of which no one expects a surprise?

Sometimes I think that it sure was a good thing that the Michelson Interferometer was not impossibly difficult to construct, otherwise the aether might have stayed with us much longer than it did. In fact, it does not seem preposterous to me to imagine that parameter adjustments analogous to what one sees today might even have allowed an aether theory to survive (probably in a very complicated form) up to today as the dominant space-time paradigm.

But, we were lucky that it is in fact relatively easy to build a Michelson Interferometer. We do not appear to be so lucky when it comes to building a device that could measure the existence of gravity fields in a superposition.

I’d be interested to know whether you consider the superposition of gravity fields a prediction of string theory and if not, why.

Thanks,

Armin
Peter Woit says:
December 7, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Armin,

This really has nothing much to do with string theory but is generically about quantum theory, so I don’t want to encourage discussion of this here. Generic questions about quantum gravity are a huge topic, one I’m not very expert in.

The way you’re trying to relate this to string theory is kind of like the way I’ve seen some prominent string theorists argue with people who say string theory is not falsifiable, by saying that if people observe violations of the axioms of QM in tabletop experiments, that would falsify the current understanding of string theory. First of all, my guess is that if a tabletop QM violation was found, there would quickly be papers out there explaining it with some exotic version of string theory. Secondly, this is all a bit like saying “my theory is falsifiable, because if God emerges from a collision at the LHC with a sign saying my theory is wrong, that would show it was wrong”. The falsifiability criterion is intended to refer to distinctive aspects of a theory that differentiates it from others, not generic properties common to all known theories.
KJV

United States

#3811 May 11, 2013
Bob says:
December 8, 2012 at 8:37 am
Yes if QM was violated then string theory would be dead. If local lorentz invariance was violated, then it would be dead too.

On the latter point, there are alternative theories out there, such as LQG, that predict violations of lorentz invariance, and these claims have been falsified. So string theory certain makes predictions that distinguish it from other theories. Other theories commonly predict a breakdown of lorentz invariance, and some violate quantum mechanics or the equivalence principle badly, and have been ruled out. So certainly the evidence is pointing towards string theory at this stage, but who knows what future experiments will reveal?

Also, Peter what do your favorite theories of QG predict, other than what I have mentioned so far?
Peter Woit says:
December 8, 2012 at 8:54 am
Bob,

I don’t have a “favorite” theory of quantum gravity. The LQG vs string theory hype-filled arguments like the ones you are making about “my theory sucks less than your theory” just don’t interest me at all.
Bob says:
December 8, 2012 at 9:56 am
Peter, okay. But just a question: do you know of any predictions coming from any of the QG theories?(I am mainly curious about theories other than string theory here).
Peter Woit says:
December 8, 2012 at 10:23 am
Bob,

I don’t know of any “prediction” from a quantum gravity theory that isn’t an abuse of the term.
fuzzy says:
December 8, 2012 at 10:49 am
hi bob, a good example of prediction in the field you mention has been done by one contributor to this book: http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1110.0521 . it was shown that neutrinos can be superluminal, and the doubts raised by the other investigators were irrelevant.

please, try to imagine the impact of this paper on experimentalists and on a wider public, in the moment when the experimental claim was made. then, judge by yourself the scientific value of such a “prediction”.
Yatima says:
December 8, 2012 at 11:28 am
Off-topic but …

The epitaph of an anomaly which was pretty much improbable to begin with:

http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_surv...

And another interesting anomaly vaporizes into its error bars:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/astrophysi...
Peter Woit says:
December 8, 2012 at 12:21 pm
fuzzy,

That’s not the only volume contributor who weighed in on superluminal neutrinos. According to Mike Duff, string theory could explain them (although he did say he didn’t believe the result or that string theory was the explanation, just that it could be…)
fuzzy says:
December 8, 2012 at 1:30 pm
the “prediction” i quoted is published: i mean, several colleagues have pondered and decided to leave their findings to posterity, independent editors agreed this was useful, some referee implied in judging, a lot of readers, and all that. but i agree that mod phys lett is less authoritative than prl, thus your duff probably wins the context http://arXiv.org/abs/arXiv:1005.4915 (even if, counting citations, my smolin should do, and the stringy prediction published on prl concerns something else)
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi says:
December 8, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Peter,

Thank you for your response. I won’t prolong the discussion on this but let me just note that ultimately, when the consistent response to contradictory empirical data is that only a subset of of all possible models based on a framework has been falsified where the entire set may well be infinite, then it seems to me one has to consider falsification at a more generic level, so in that sense I do see this question as quite relevant to string theory.

And, in my view, your last sentence, that this is an aspect of “all known” theories is an overgeneralization. It is just a feature of all current mainstream approaches to understanding the relation between quantum theory and general relativity.
KJV

United States

#3812 May 11, 2013
Bob,

It appears to me that you are implying that failure to observe gravity fields in a superposition is on the same footing as a violation of quantum mechanics or local Lorentz Invariance.

We have overwhelming evidence that the latter two are correct descriptions of nature, but we have never observed a gravity field directly in a superposition. We have indirect arguments suggesting that this may be the case, but the superposition of gravity fields is emphatically not on the same footing as standard quantum mechanics or local Lorentz Invariance.

I don’t know if you did this on purpose, but in the second paragraph you exactly illustrated the string theorist argument Peter mentioned in his reply to my comment. If his argument, that there are exotic versions of string theory which could explain any violations of QM at all, is true, then it seems to me a rather definitive refutation that this constitutes a falsifiability criterion.
Bob says:
December 9, 2012 at 10:18 am
Armin, my understanding of string theory is that it exactly respects QM. Peter is the only person I’m aware of who appears to be advocating alternative string models that somehow violate QM. It is a weird proposal by Peter, but I can’t comment further on his model.
Dim Reg says:
December 9, 2012 at 11:27 am
Bob,

LQG does not break local lorentz invariance. It was beleived that since it predicted a minimum length eigenvalue, that length must have been invariant (just like how c is the maximum velocity, so it has to be invariant). But that is wrong because the probabilities are transformed, not eigenvalues, like how you can’t just boost away the vacuum energy. I also beleive that one can spontaneously break lorentz invariance in string theory, so those experimental results have told us very little about these two theories of quantum gravity.
KJV

United States

#3813 May 11, 2013
Peter,

I seriously doubt it is possible to find an exotic form of string theory that isn’t quantum mechanical. Formulating a theory in terms of non-zero commutators and hilbert spaces builds uncertainties and superpositions into the theory, and this is done when constructing string theory. I don’t see how any clever trick could remove either of these things, though perhaps I’m just not clever enough.

Bob says:
December 9, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Dim Reg, I don’t know of any serious proposal to break the local lorentz invariance in string theory. This is especially dangerous as it is needed for the theory to carry the general coordinate invariance in the usual way, and it surely carries this. You refer to spontaneous breaking, but that, by definition is a property of low energy or long distance physics, so can’t be relevant for the local, i.e., short distance, physics.

With regards to LQG, it was repeatedly claimed by Smolin that it would alter the photon dispersion relations, and this claim was falsified. Maybe there are other proposals to avoid this, I’m not sure, but certainly the evidence is disfavoring LQG at this stage.
Peter Woit says:
December 9, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Bob and Dim Reg,

I don’t even know what it would mean for an experiment to “violate QM”.‘t Hooft claims to have a possible non-QM foundation for the superstring, and it’s well-known that the experts all say that we don’t know what string theory “is”: the issue of its foundations is still up in the air.

If tomorrow there’s a solid report of an “experimental violation of QM”, which do you think is more plausible:
1. string theorists wholesale tell the media the theory has been falsified and stop work on it.
2. dozens of papers start appearing on the arXiv purporting to explain the experimental anomaly in terms of string theory models or “string-inspired” physics.

Responding to someone asking if string theory makes predictions by saying “no, not now, but I think for reasons X it is the best thing to work on to try to get to a better theory, one that would make predictions” is honest. Saying “string theory does make predictions” and pulling out something like the QM business just isn’t.
lun says:
December 9, 2012 at 4:47 pm
People who talk about “violations of QM in gravitational systems” need to understand two issues: Firstly, gravity is only detectable in macroscopic systems, where in any case QM is in any case”violated” through processes such as decoherence (perfectly consistent with quantum mechanics, producing classical-looking results).
Secondly, no quantum theory of gravity (and that includes string theory) is sure what either the Hilbert space or the observables of quantum gravity are.
Therefore, it is wrong to think of “violations of quantum mechanics” as if this was a well-defined experimental signature.
KJV

United States

#3814 May 11, 2013
Dim Reg says:
December 10, 2012 at 8:36 am

Bob,

It looks like I stand corrected on string theory. I’m certainly not an expert in that field and your arguments make sense to me. My point with LQG was that it was never a correct reading of the theory to say that it broke lorentz invariance. Lee Smolin was just making LQG hype, trying to say that his theory was better because it made currently testable predictions. Regardless, I don’t intend to champion LQG (I don’t actually think they are right), and this certainly wouldn’t be the place to do that.

Bob,

It appears to me that you are implying that failure to observe gravity fields in a superposition is on the same footing as a violation of quantum mechanics or local Lorentz Invariance.

We have overwhelming evidence that the latter two are correct descriptions of nature, but we have never observed a gravity field directly in a superposition. We have indirect arguments suggesting that this may be the case, but the superposition of gravity fields is emphatically not on the same footing as standard quantum mechanics or local Lorentz Invariance.

I don’t know if you did this on purpose, but in the second paragraph you exactly illustrated the string theorist argument Peter mentioned in his reply to my comment. If his argument, that there are exotic versions of string theory which could explain any violations of QM at all, is true, then it seems to me a rather definitive refutation that this constitutes a falsifiability criterion.
Bob says:
December 9, 2012 at 10:18 am
Armin, my understanding of string theory is that it exactly respects QM. Peter is the only person I’m aware of who appears to be advocating alternative string models that somehow violate QM. It is a weird proposal by Peter, but I can’t comment further on his model.
Dim Reg says:
December 9, 2012 at 11:27 am
Bob,

LQG does not break local lorentz invariance. It was beleived that since it predicted a minimum length eigenvalue, that length must have been invariant (just like how c is the maximum velocity, so it has to be invariant). But that is wrong because the probabilities are transformed, not eigenvalues, like how you can’t just boost away the vacuum energy. I also beleive that one can spontaneously break lorentz invariance in string theory, so those experimental results have told us very little about these two theories of quantum gravity.
KJV

United States

#3815 May 11, 2013
Peter,

I seriously doubt it is possible to find an exotic form of string theory that isn’t quantum mechanical. Formulating a theory in terms of non-zero commutators and hilbert spaces builds uncertainties and superpositions into the theory, and this is done when constructing string theory. I don’t see how any clever trick could remove either of these things, though perhaps I’m just not clever enough.

Bob says:
December 9, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Dim Reg, I don’t know of any serious proposal to break the local lorentz invariance in string theory. This is especially dangerous as it is needed for the theory to carry the general coordinate invariance in the usual way, and it surely carries this. You refer to spontaneous breaking, but that, by definition is a property of low energy or long distance physics, so can’t be relevant for the local, i.e., short distance, physics.

With regards to LQG, it was repeatedly claimed by Smolin that it would alter the photon dispersion relations, and this claim was falsified. Maybe there are other proposals to avoid this, I’m not sure, but certainly the evidence is disfavoring LQG at this stage.

Peter Woit says:
December 9, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Bob and Dim Reg,

I don’t even know what it would mean for an experiment to “violate QM”.‘t Hooft claims to have a possible non-QM foundation for the superstring, and it’s well-known that the experts all say that we don’t know what string theory “is”: the issue of its foundations is still up in the air.

If tomorrow there’s a solid report of an “experimental violation of QM”, which do you think is more plausible:
1. string theorists wholesale tell the media the theory has been falsified and stop work on it.
2. dozens of papers start appearing on the arXiv purporting to explain the experimental anomaly in terms of string theory models or “string-inspired” physics.

Responding to someone asking if string theory makes predictions by saying “no, not now, but I think for reasons X it is the best thing to work on to try to get to a better theory, one that would make predictions” is honest. Saying “string theory does make predictions” and pulling out something like the QM business just isn’t.
lun says:
December 9, 2012 at 4:47 pm
People who talk about “violations of QM in gravitational systems” need to understand two issues: Firstly, gravity is only detectable in macroscopic systems, where in any case QM is in any case”violated” through processes such as decoherence (perfectly consistent with quantum mechanics, producing classical-looking results).
Secondly, no quantum theory of gravity (and that includes string theory) is sure what either the Hilbert space or the observables of quantum gravity are.
Therefore, it is wrong to think of “violations of quantum mechanics” as if this was a well-defined experimental signature.
Dim Reg says:
December 10, 2012 at 8:36 am
Bob,

It looks like I stand corrected on string theory. I’m certainly not an expert in that field and your arguments make sense to me. My point with LQG was that it was never a correct reading of the theory to say that it broke lorentz invariance. Lee Smolin was just making LQG hype, trying to say that his theory was better because it made currently testable predictions. Regardless, I don’t intend to champion LQG (I don’t actually think they are right), and this certainly wouldn’t be the place to do that.
KJV

United States

#3816 May 11, 2013
A fossilized human skull was found in coal that was sold in Germany (mid-1800s). A jawbone of a child was found in coal in Tuscany (1958). Two giant human molars were found in Montana (1926). A human leg was found by a West Virginia coal miner. It had changed into coal.�pp. 34-35.

A woman, in Illinois, reportedly found a gold chain in a chunk of coal which broke open (1891). A small steel cube was found in a block of coal in Austria (1885). An iron pot was found in coal in Oklahoma (1912). A woman found a child's spoon in coal (1937).�p. 35.

In 1944 Newton Anderson claimed to have found this bell inside a lump of coal that was mined near his house in West Virginia. When Newton dropped the lump it broke, revealing a bell encased inside.

What is a brass bell with an iron clapper doing in coal that is supposed to be hundreds of

millions of years old? According to Norm Scharbough's book Ammunition (which includes a compilation of many such "coal anecdotes") the bell was extensively analyzed at the University of Oklahoma and it was found to contain an unusual mixture of metals, different from any modern usage. Photo and text from Genesis Park.

Man-made objects in rock.

An iron nail was found in a Cretaceous block from the Mesozoic era (mid-1800s). A gold thread was found in stone in England (1844). An iron nail was found in quartz in California (1851). A silver vessel was found in solid rock in Massachusetts (1851).

The mold of a metal screw was found in a chunk of feldspar (1851). An intricately carved and inlaid metal bowl was found in solid rock (1852). An iron nail was found in rock in a Peruvian mine by Spanish conquistadores (1572).�pp. 35-36.

http://s8int.com/page8.html
KJV

United States

#3817 May 11, 2013
http://www.bethlehemstar.net/

For centuries, believers, scoffers and the curious have wondered at the Biblical account of the Star of Bethlehem. The Bible recounts unusual or even impossible astronomical events at Christ’s birth. For many doubters, the account of the Star is easily dismissed as myth. For many believers, it’s a mystery accepted on faith. But what happens if we combine current scriptural accounts, astronomical fact and a desire for truth? The Star of Bethlehem documents the search to understand how the Lord used the stars and planets to reveal His plans for Christ’s birth. Uncover the mystery for yourself.

From Producer Stephen McEveety, The Passion Of The Christ

http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/produc...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3818 May 11, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
No it does not...
Yes... yes it does.

Quantum mechanics shows beyond a doubt, that our universe operates on what is often called "the observer effect".

Prior to being observed, our universe operates on indeterminate states of matter/energy.

But once observed, these states collapse, changing things.

If an omniscient being DID exist?

ALL the states in the universe would COLLAPSE.

That would be the END of the universe--*poof*

The universe is not ended.

Your omniscient god does not exist--- and cannot.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3819 May 11, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope wrong again. My God is not made out of his own creation. No sir the universe is God creation and all that is in it. He's not in it. His make up and existence outside of time and the universe cannot be grasped by atheist that is why you are atheist. It's a weakness of your brain not being able to think outside the box. It's truly to bad you will be condemned for this weakness. Just remember God gave you a chance right here and right now to save your soul from hell.
Brain damage.

You demonstrate severe brain damage, due to religious affliction.

Sad.

But.

Thor?

THOR is a god you can REALLY respect!

Your pathetic jew got his azz nailed to a stick...

.... Thor has a HAMMER.

Any questions?

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3820 May 11, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
QM nice equation. Theory nope!
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.
Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
From Nova:
"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.
RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...
LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.
So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks, well done!:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3821 May 11, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, well done!:)
Thor is the god you can respect.

Your pansy dead-jew? Not so much... he was a wimp.

And he's dead (if he was ever real at all).

But I've seen the DVD of Thor. It was cool.

Where's the DVD for your dead-jew? Mel Gibson's snuff-film doesn't count, does it?

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3822 May 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Thor is the god you can respect.
Your pansy dead-jew? Not so much... he was a wimp.
And he's dead (if he was ever real at all).
But I've seen the DVD of Thor. It was cool.
Where's the DVD for your dead-jew? Mel Gibson's snuff-film doesn't count, does it?
I promise you he is alive.

Why do you choose Thor over Jesus?:)

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3823 May 12, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]http://www.bethlehemsta r.net/
For centuries, believers, scoffers and the curious have wondered at the Biblical account of the Star of Bethlehem. The Bible recounts unusual or even impossible astronomical events at Christ’s birth. For many doubters, the account of the Star is easily dismissed as myth. For many believers, it’s a mystery accepted on faith. But what happens if we combine current scriptural accounts, astronomical fact and a desire for truth? The Star of Bethlehem documents the search to understand how the Lord used the stars and planets to reveal His plans for Christ’s birth. Uncover the mystery for yourself.
From Producer Stephen McEveety, The Passion Of The Christ
http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/produc...
[/QUOTE]

The fact that you spam this forum shows us all that you are truly dishonest and have no interest in addressing the fact that you have no proof of god and are a liar.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#3824 May 12, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
I promise you he is alive.
If that were true, it would be the saddest thing ever to happen to any human beings. Something so foul and reprehrensible, makes itself the judge, jury and executioner, of all mankind, and in the process demeans one half of those humans as being of less than that of livestock status. The other half is offered reward of endless subugation to it's whims and egotistical needs. To be separated from your humanity, for the sake of serving the inhumane, and to do it willingly .......... poor, poor fools.
Lincoln

United States

#3825 May 12, 2013
Faux news has planks from the Arc.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 min Eagle 12 - 78,703
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,454
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 14 hr Science 1,410
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... Aug 12 Eagle 12 - 1,152
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web