ajb Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 There are lots of interesting emergent phenomena in condensed matter physics. Anyway, what is the link with string theory? You would like to find some emergent phenomena in say interacting string gases or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjr Posted April 20, 2015 Author Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) There are lots of interesting emergent phenomena in condensed matter physics.Anyway, what is the link with string theory? You would like to find some emergent phenomena in say interacting string gases or something? Mentioning "emergent" properties I am trying to imply that maybe there is no possible connection, at least not in the way that is pursued today, between the "small" and the "big" because the great scale structures of the Universe maybe "emergent" in the sense mentioned above this of course is speculative, but we are precisely in that section, but the speculative character of that idea is not more than the multiverse or compact non observable dimensions that are the common lingo of string theorists, in that respect many aspects of string theory are really wild speculations. Detachment from reality is the word. Addition: It is frequently mentioned that there is a gap between theory and experiment in physics, meaning that theory is always far ahead, but that is trivially true when experiments are designed almost exclusively to "validate" a given theretical framework or idea and that is the rule in experimental physics. Edited April 20, 2015 by jeremyjr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Addition: It is frequently mentioned that there is a gap between theory and experiment in physics, meaning that theory is always far ahead, but that is trivially true when experiments are designed almost exclusively to "validate" a given theretical framework or idea and that is the rule in experimental physics. Frequently mentioned perhaps, but untrue. But I agree it is trivially true when you restrict yourself to those cases where experiment is testing an existing theory. However, the characterization that experiments are designed "exclusively to "validate" a given theretical (sic) framework or idea and that is the rule in experimental physics." is bogus. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 theretical (sic) That is, presumably, a new term for a "heretical theory". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjr Posted April 20, 2015 Author Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) But from time to time "simple" observations of reality shake the worldview foundations of academia, that is happening right at this moment, that shake is even more "unacceptable" when the given simple observations are done mainly for people with no academic ties, but these consistent observations that can be duplicated by anyone place a big question mark on the ideas of the theoreticians of the moment and actually is an indication of a deep system failure. I feel sometimes elated to really be able to witness this reality almost in a daily basis and knowing that even providing the means to duplicate these observations to people with supposedly high education they will be unable to even try, that actually give me an "edge" on them because my "reality" is wider than their "reality", they are unable to perceive mine but I can easily perceive anything that they may claim. That is part of the current detachment from reality everywhere in academia, theoretical thinking not always is ahead of experiment or observations because simple atmospheric observations are currently beyond any understanding or framework provided by current scientific thinking that is one of the reasons for the enormous "resistence" to even acknowledge that. Edited April 20, 2015 by jeremyjr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 But from time to time "simple" observations of reality shake the worldview foundations of academia, that is happening right at this moment, that shake is even more "unacceptable" when the given simple observations are done mainly for people with no academic ties, but these consistent observations that can be duplicated by anyone place a big question mark on the ideas of the theoreticians of the moment and actually is an indication of a deep system failure. The boldness of that claim is matched only by its vagueness. You cite no specifics. Nor can you, I suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 I feel sometimes elated to really be able to witness this reality almost in a daily basis and knowing that even providing the means to duplicate these observations to people with supposedly high education they will be unable to even try, that actually give me an "edge" on them because my "reality" is wider than their "reality", they are unable to perceive mine but I can easily perceive anything that they may claim. You've really convinced yourself that you don't need to study things deeply in order to understand them. It's very frustrating for the rest of us, because we know you're going to waste a lot of time with this delusion, and you'll learn only that you were wrong, and that you should have just buckled down and done the hard work. Years wasted on learning just the one thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) You've really convinced yourself that you don't need to study things deeply in order to understand them. It's very frustrating for the rest of us, because we know you're going to waste a lot of time with this delusion, and you'll learn only that you were wrong, and that you should have just buckled down and done the hard work. Years wasted on learning just the one thing. Succumbing to ones creativity and intuition, and painting pretty pictures in ones mind is much easier than struggling with horrible nasty numbers.. Edited April 20, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Succumbing to ones creativity and intuition, and painting pretty pictures in ones mind is much easier than struggling with horrible nasty numbers.. So true, and how can creativity and intuition EVER be bad? I suppose you could use them inappropriately. They're tools, after all, that are extremely applicable in some situations, but not in others. How do you convince someone that using creativity and intuition to craft a unified scientific theory is like driving screws with a rope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 How do you convince someone that using creativity and intuition to craft a unified scientific theory is like driving screws with a rope? Is that related to string theory? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzkpfw Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) ... because simple atmospheric observations are currently beyond any understanding or framework provided by current scientific thinking that is one of the reasons for the enormous "resistence" to even acknowledge that. So this whole thread is really about your frustration that nobody is taking seriously your claims about what you think you are seeing in the sky? (re: your previous threads http://www.scienceforums.net/user/107113-jeremyjr/?tab=topics). Edited April 21, 2015 by pzkpfw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Is that related to string theory? Yes, Rope Theory unifies gravity with the other interactions using a lasso to reach waaaaay outside the box. Score another point for Western science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Yes, Rope Theory unifies gravity with the other interactions using a lasso to reach waaaaay outside the box. Score another point for Western science! Q: Does it work under breakdown conditions of extreme topology? A: No, a frayed knot. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Q: Does it work under breakdown conditions of extreme topology? A: No, a frayed knot. Wel, I'll be darned. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now