fredrik

I don't deny anyone to do what they think is right, because that's exactly what I do myself. I wish you the best of luck. I made what I think is an interesting comparasion: Energy scaling vs Complexity scaling. /Fredrik About my poke on strings, it reflects my sincere current opinion but is in part a joke - that is what the the smiley is for I respect the opinions of everyone who disagree with me. I don't rule out that strings may be something one day even for me, but then I will demand an answer to "why strings". In my own thinking it can appear string like objects too, but they are emergent as superpositions of two distinguishable states. Then higher dimensional objects keeps emerging, since this "string" can develop in new dimensions, but the transformations are probably in principle reversible. Structures that aren't supported int the environment collapse back into the original dimensions. This is why I did have some since interest in your M-theory, and was curious on the research method there. /Fredrik Ben and vincent, do you completely rule out the possibility that strings are not fundamental? Ie. are there string theorists that categorically and fundamentally reject the possibility that the question "why strings" may have an answer, in the sense that in a way strings are not quite fundamental after all? and that to call the final theory string-theory might in fact be a misnomer? /Fredrik

I vote for #3. Since 1 and 2 rests on fundaments that has no clean prior relation, and since IMO neither GR nor QM is entirely satisfactory on philsosophical grounds, I see as the best move to take a step back from both positions, viewing them both as effective theories only and try to find new first principles which contains them both. /Fredrik

I guess the question is difficult to nail but I personally think that each answer to the question will cause the original question to be revised and refined. My goal is more to understand how theories evolve, in response to external as well as internal interactions. The TOE I am looking for will be more like a generic framework for the scientific method. Once this is understood I think physics is not the only application. I think a good framework should be able to operate at any level of complexity - it should have the property to scale properly over complexity ranges. And the reason why I think so, is that it is necessary for an observer independent framwork. I think different hypotethical observers observer reality from different complexity scales. Ben likes to think of energy scales, and similarly I like to think in terms of generic complexity scales, which I think is ultimately related. IMO, I think a "TOE" will be more than just traditional physics, it will probable tangent more to intelligent learning models which may have wider applications, and thus be of more use to mankind in modelling complex systems that is an increasing challange in many fields. I think the TOE should unify "physics" with a generic scientific method and intelligent information processing. I personally can't imagine ever settling with strings as the ultimate answer. If that is the answer, I would be quite suspect that the question was wrong /Fredrik

When I assume something, it doesn't mean I think it's true, I think of it like I am placing a bet. The only thing I can do is argue why I think this bet has the higest odd of favouring my goals. This way, even when I loose the bet, I can defend it. There is not always such thing as to say in retrospect that "I was wrong", because the whole problem is that we need take decisions based on incomplete information all the time. Life is a game And I place my bets where to the limit of my knowledge where there is minimum risk and maximum potential gain. Sometimes you have the choice between different "sub-games", and some games are inherently more speculative than others, then choosing not to play those games seems reasoanable. /Fredrik

I don't know the context of the question in this thread but my association to this question is related to "minimum distinguishable difference" (meaning the minimum _non-trivial_ difference) I asked in http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25086. My best idea so far is the boolean state, and if you believe that energy and information are related I think the minimum (non-trivial) energy is related to the "minimum distinguishable difference", relative to any given observer. A complex observer can resolve differences than simple observer fail to resolve. /Fredrik

The normal meaning of "enzyme" is that it's a catalyzes the reaction, meaning it affects the rate of reaction by findning a quicker route, but the equilibrium between of products and reactants are unchanged. So enzyme do not make unfavourable thermodynamically overall reactions favourable. Things that do that exists in living cells, but that's not called enzymes, it's more active entities, that exploit another thermodynamic gradient to help another reaction, for it example ion gradients ca be exploited by membrane pumps, to make a cross membrane transport that would otherwise not be favourable. But once you add the ion gradient in the picture, the overall reaction is of course still favourable. /Fredrik

This may sound like I would defend/advocate string theory (which I ultimately don't) but in all fairness I have to say that at least some of this critics is a little bit simple minded and unfair. (Right should be right) This boils down to IMO a simple first level view of the scientific method where science is about generating theories, and we allow experiment to discriminate the theories that fail to predict experiments. A necessary condition for this "strategy" to work, is that all theories are falsifiable. Ie, they have to make specific predictions in specific situations, and matching it against experiment is a basic agree or doesn't agree. Either the theory agrees, in which case it keeps beein subject to test. But what happens if the theory fails? This first level analysis leaves no clue to the logic of revising the theory. These days science is more sophisticated, and some people come up with things wich is ultimately a theory of theories, wherein theories may live and evolve. How do you falsify that? IMO, the scientific view must also be upgraded to be able to cope with the situation. For example, how do you falsify an organism? Well, either it is successful and survives in it's environment, or it dies. If it dies, the adaptive strategy of hte organism was "wrong". This is my view of a more modern concept of science, that applies to the more modern theories that really aren't old style theories, they are frameworks and strategies. I have no idea if the stringers here will recognize this defense, but let it be my opinion in any case. But, this very analysis taken further is also why I don't like string theory, but I suspect this is not classified as "string questions", so I wont comment more on it in this thread. /Fredrik

Perhaps that's it seems like from your viewpoint, but to response, what I am trying to do in this thread is to see if those who advocate strings, can give me a better motivation for the approach. My current information about the string approach doesn't render me satisfied, and the primary and most important point is that it seems to lack a formal strategy. This is serious enough to cripple any remaining features _in my view_, but that I think can not be understood within the string framework as far as I see. If I try to explain it, I think you'll dismiss is at irrelevant to stringtheory. Which is exactly my problem. I do see some interesting things in the string approach, otherwise I wouldn't even spend this time. Also I know there are clever people working on it, and there is no doubt to me they see good reasons, making it more mysterious. I don't understand how they can accept to not have a better strategy. Or perhaps the strategy is the selection in the scientific community. This always applies, but I want something ontop of that. I short, I figured there ought to be a hidden strategy behind the string approach, that only you guys understand. My current understaning is that the string approach is not "complete" until the framework is unarguably "unlikely to be unsuccessful" and until there is a strategy. I see better options atm which I try to work on. But I have been intrigued by apparent similarities between different approaches, which in itself isn't surprising since we are after all trying to describe the same world /Fredrik This is why I was fishing for your M-theory, which I admit I know very little about. I was hoping that you would tell me that the answer to my doubts was supposedly answered by the M-theory - which you are still looking for as I understand. Then I would actually have MORE understanding for you, if the M-theory actually contains a strategy and a more fundamental framwork where the string concept is emergent. I still suspect this IS the true answer though. Even though it was not clear cut obvious from this thread. Still, before you get that final "theory/framework/strategy" I see you are on thin ice from my point of view. But I accept beeing called ignorant for thinking so - it is in fact no contradiction. I take responsibility for my mistakes. I've thought this one through.. /Fredrik

I think I'll choose to not comment further on last comments about "sociology" because I now see that it's not leading anywhere constructive and clearly has no impact on string theory relative to your apparent view. But at least I have acquired an understanding of our apparent disagreement and at least in part I think I understand your objections (but that doesn't mean I agree). I think that if I were to attempt to argue further, it would be either in disagreement with, or outside of your string framework. Let's agree that the future will be the effective arbitrator what theories, frameworks or strategies that will become successful. /Fredrik

Thanks Ben. You answered my questions It will be interesting to see how things evolve during the next say 20 years. /Fredrik

Not that this debate is that terribly important to get lenghty about, but some additional comments... I'm personally not happy to see anything dressed as "fact" or, fact is a deceptive wording to me. I'm not arguing against decades of experiment, that *effectively* "proves" things. I more think it reveals a fundamental particular attitude on howoto view science as facts and that there is a always simple test to see if something is science and not. OTOH I don't see science as disconnected from the rest of life. An alternative view is that problems start when people think that certain sources are always to never be questioned, that "science" are about truth and if a "scientist" says someting, you better believe it. Then when some crackpot comes saying he has alternative science, people aren't critical and analytical - which is at least what science is about after all, rather than authorative distributing facts that has popped out of the sciencemachine where anyone who doesn't understand or believe it are either crackpots or mentally handicaped. In my world, even the mentally handicapped get an equal chance I still see your points which are good. Perhaps I am emphasizing this too much but all over the place this crackpot talk is received alot of space. I have never been harassed by a crackpot, and as far as I'm concerned, the crackpot notion could in fact be relative. I'm not mention any names but I've seen different people calling each other crackpots. /Fredrik

Ok, that sort of makes sense. But in addition, for various reasons I like to think a good idea is to force them to learn the students critical thinking rather them protect them from reality. What are we protecting them from? Their own stupidity or the fact that reality is complex and hard to interpret? But then, how can they learn? I am ultimately on my own, and I have to make my own choices what to believe and what to pursue. I clearly learn from others, and have faith in others, but that is ultimately also my choice and my responsibility. /Fredrik

So it's about protecting students and those who can not distinguish a crackpot from a non-crackpot on their own? Hmm /Fredrik

Another apparent trend is the popularity to identify the crackpots. By exclaiming someone else as crackpot, it supposedly makes yourself look better. The interesting things is that as it seems even those who one would suppose ought be able to make themselves look good by their ideas only, also find this attractive enough to be worth the time Even if I would have opinions on someone else, I would not feel better by making them down. Nor do I think it would make me better. Normal criticts and discussions are healthy, but sometimes you see supposed educated people calling other people stupid or other things, for at least to me - no good reason. There are certainly pretty "clear cases" of "crackpotting", but what is the point in bringing those obvious cases to attenation, where I suppose only people get annoying and take offense? Let them pot on, if that makes them happy /Fredrik

Ben, since my perspective is more from the point of view of scientific strategies, i've got another question, if you think it's just philosophy just ignore it. If I'm allowed to simplify the overview here, let's consider that we deal with the following objects A) theories - a theory is a basically a specific prediction (not a classes or landscapes of prediction). So in a sense a theory is an educated guess. B) framework - a framework is something that put constraints on the possible forms of the theories in the general case. So in a sense a framework implies constraints on the set of possible educated guesses, whose purpose is to sort of make sure we don't waste shots on possibilities are that are definitely wrong. c) strategies - with a strategy I mean like a theory on howto make the guess selections from a given framwork. Ie it's some kind of principle that speculates that there are optimum bets. Now in the overall case, if the stream of theories we produce are unsuccessful, it probably means that either our strategy is poor, or that the framework is too restrictive. Since if I understand you right, there is no strategy in string theory. It's only a framework. Then the only opinion I could have is wether is wether it's too restrictive or not. Ie, if the framework bans options that are in fact possible, then the framework is wrong or bad. *If* the framework is good OTOH, the missing key is the strategy. Of course without intelligent strategy, the defauly strategy IS the "random selection". Which is perfectly fine if the options are not too many. But if the framework IS wrong, it means we need a strategy to select a new framework Which seems to suggest to me that the strategy is more fundamental of the tree objects mentioned? And string theory doesn't have a strategy? The reason why i personally find string theory to be speculative is that I don't quite understand how you can do all this stuff without a formal strategy. It seems like high risk gambling here, and we have no risk analysis. That's how I see it. Question. What is your view on this? IS this philosophy or irrelevant, or does it bother you too? If so, howdo you handle it in your position as string theorist/student without bursting out in frustration? doesn't it bug you? If you can answer this, perhaps I can at least try to understand your business. /Fredrik

In this sense I believe in that structures (strings included IF they are needed in the first place) are what many call emergenet properties. I do not consider space to be truly fundamental, I think it's a dynamical thing that is emergent from stabilised relations, which in principle applies also to the dimensionality. /Fredrik

Yes it apparentl is, and that's what I don't like I'm trying to do something about We can not get rid of all ad hoc, we can not get rid of gambling. But my view of science is that it's supposedly the perfect gambling strategy. Yes, not unique. Which is why I think we need a betting strategy? Random betting works, but it is hopelessly inefficient, and apparently not the one advocated by nature. That sure is true. Or as I would like to put it, what I consider to be the most "useful" questions in the context of my mission. I define useful to be whatever I "benefit" from. Or in the general case, what a system benefits from in the evolutionary perspective, which I view as a game of self organisation, dissipation vs stability, and so on. The complication that there seems to be no clear objective reference here, is really part and key of howto generate dynamics and complexity from almost nothing.

I started reading it last night but fell asleep in the early parts So far I think it wasn't quite what I expected but I think I need to read it when I'm awake /Fredrik

I'll see if I understand view of your own endeavours. Clearly QFT isn't a theory, it's a framework which has builtin to it a number of assumptions, that constraints the possible theories. So are you suggesting that you view string theory sort as a "framework" somewhere at the same level? Except more specific and better? in the senese that string theory just tells us what class theories we should bother trying? Is that close? (roughly speaking) To make a fair comparation I am not sure how much resources that has actually been invested in other approaches. The fact that we pose a question is an investment, a risk. This should IMO be balanced against the potential gain. One of the most confirming points of a question is that is has a good, useful answer. To ask a question, there is no discrimination of answers in sight seems like unmotivated. Ok, consistent with the string framework itself that is. IMO a relation should be inferred from the corrections. The deviations should I think induce a prior in the new spaces. If not, this spaces is not needed, as it's not supported by the interactions. My twisted comments originate from my own views of course. Which is no more valid than yours, but the comparation is interesting. Yes it doesn't address MY questions, I wrote that on purpose What I mean is just that don't we all answer our own questions? I'm not trying to answer somebody elses question. BUT, the fact that many of us do ask questions that are very very similar is apparently not a conincidence I definitely agree with you that dimensionality should not need to be put in by hand. But neither should IMO things that STRING THEORY put in by hand. The idea that all things are made up with a vibrating string in a background space is comptletely ad hoc to me. Note that I do not say this is wrong, I say that it is not sound to put it in by hand. If strings are the game, then a more fundamental theory should tell us so! So MAYBE if you guys can rework the entire stuff to get a more sensible master theory that explains things from more fundamental things, then... "string theory" does have hope even for me... but currently I see nothing in it for me. The really interesting questions are not even asked in the string approach as I can see. I want a scientific strategy, not a framework, which is in essense a simple strategy combined with as it seems a random selection principle. To be honest, the closest thing I get to a string in my own reasoning is the following. You start with a boolean observable (two state). Then if the information capacity of the environment increases beyond the two states, the two state inflates to a multiple state, and ultimately this turns in the continuum limit (which is an idealisation anyway, that doesn't ewally happen) into a string, where the position on the string represents the intermediate values of the boolean 0 and 1. Further this "string" can grow in more dimensions into planes and spheres. I am working on this and I dno't know yetwhat I will find. perhaps things will turn out to suggest a certain dimensionality, but in the general case only real data can say so. To predict dimensionality on my deks, I need to put in some physical assumptions. Anyway my starting poitns are notthing near string theory, and in this comment my string is really physically locate in the environments state and correlation, the observer "mirrors" the environment. /Fredrik Ben, set aside my previous comments I have another question. In line with my comments, what I admit that I am a bit curious about is exactly what the more fundamental theory (that I guess many string theorists look for) will actually look like, and I don't mean in detail but I mean more in principle. Will it still be a framework? Or will it be a specific theory? or more like a strategy? I am curious if you could briefly look into your crystal ball and give you personal view (as a string advocate) of what sort of thing you expect to end up with in the end so to speak? And what kind of answers could possibly remain unanswered still? /Fredrik

> all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically This sounds interesting, I'll try to read it later. Without reading the paper my instant association is to information storage. I believe in the idea that all abstractions made does have a real counterpart in the sense of something encoding it, informationwise. This is how I imagine relative structures and the emergence of mass and energy. The interactions between two systems are constrained by the way they can encode and update information about each other. If you associate information capacity to mass/energy it explains why ALL information is subject to intertial phenomena (no real object escapes gravity). I think this is a nice guiding principle, as it constrains, at least to order of complexity, which of of the possible mathematical constructs that a human brain can easily come up with that could possible make physical sense. At least the information capacity limits the complexity. As I think complexity = mass/energy. I think the complexity of an interaction a system can participate in, is limited by the systems own encoding capacity, which I think in turn is relative to the environment. If think this has implications on discussions of for example the measurement problem. For A to make an observation, the obvious constraint is that A can encode the amount of information needed in the first place. This rules out ridicilous observables implying collecting informations from spread out all over the universe for example, requiring too much informtion capacity, not to mention processing power (infinite time). /Fredrik

I never drink vodka, but when I've had a few beers... sometimes a certain period after that I tend to pick up this green apple/hang over flavour in my mouth, which I identify as acetaldehyde (oxidized ethanol). This compound has an extremely low treshold and it can both oxidize in the liver, but also by mouth bacteria, which I suspect is at play at times. I've had the theory that drinking beer for some hours, encourages the mouth bacteria to beef up the enzymes systems necessary to respire ethanol. So that after that, even though I've rinsed my mouth in water, all other beers I drink (that I know are good) I often judge them as flawed to to the acetaldehyde aroma. It's also one of the distinct aromas I smell in the breath of anyone that has been drinking too much alcohol, sometimes even the day after. IMO, one of the key notes in hang-over smell. It does not smell ethanol though, it smells oxidized ethanol. If I remember correctly without checking the tables the odour treshold of acetaldehyde in air is ppb range, even thouhg it varies from person to person. I used to brew beer so I have come across this nasty compound many times. /Fredrik

From a strategy point of view, that sounds to me like a substantial problem after all? Doesn't it even suggest a fundamental strategy problem? How could it not? It doesn't sound right to me to induce a parameterspace but induce no selection strategy? What is the qualifying or supporting evidence/indices for this parameterspace in the first place, when there are no selection principle? Shouldn't they sort of go hand in hand? Ie. shouldnt the original reason why you introduced this parameterspace in the first place, come with a measure of discrimination. If not, I would personally question the soundness of this induction in the first place. That doesn't however mean it's wrong, I just sense it's very speculative from a scientific perspective, and yet doesn't address my fundamental questions. That's all motivation I personally need to look for something better. /Fredrik

Ben, perhaps you've seen this old notes from John Baez FUN section http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/nth_quantization.html It's obviously some fun toying, but this does tangent to some of my thinking and toying aside it's not as silly as it might seem at first. But to make that into something sensible, I think one has to combine it with some other constructions - this is in order to avoid getting lost in an infinite landscape This is in part what I'm trying to understand for myself. This touches some of the string/brane thinking, however I am not into string theory. It seems several alternative approaches are sniffing each others backs and it's possibly not a conincidence either. /Fredrik

I choose "other" because it felt like the most fair choice, but I guess physics is otherwise closest. My formal university education is physics, mathematics and some computer science. My main interest is to simply increase my understanding about reality, specifically the natural sciences and it's philosophy. My perspective is to a large extent an abstract information perspective, and my current thinking circles around understanding complex systems, self organisation and the apparent laws of physics from a probabilistic learning and evolutionary perspective, pretty much seeking for the proper mathematical formalism for it. Making my main interest a mix between physics, philosophy and maybe machine learning and optimal inference methods. /Fredrik

This gets both speculative and philosophical... so forgive me. But I figure the original topic was a bit speculative by definition. Ben, at the level of "superficial" or effective theories I have no problems with this - in QM as we know it, time evolution must be unitary for consistency, this is OK. There is no case for having second opinions on a proven effective theory - if it works it works. My opinions are not at the level of effective theories. It would be begging to play a fool to suggest that QM is anything but highly successful. QM is certainly one of the prides of modern science. But the real life problem, and also a philosophical problem, and as per my personal guess a likely key to a more fundamental framework for our models in the more generic case, is howto properly define a *probability* (unlike relative frequencies which is not the same thing) from real experiments. So "good" interpretation may be interpreted in two ways, simple or realistic. The standard interpretation is simple but IMO not realistic. This touches the philosophical interpretation of probability theory as in frequentist vs bayesian. We don't measure probabilities, we measure indirectly relative frequencies, and then various information is merged to an expectation of a probability at best. The assumption is that if the same experiment that is repeated sufficiently many times, will have the relative frequency converge to something, and we assume this to be the objective probability. It's not hard to see that this contains a number of assumptions that is sometimes acceptable, but that is vague in the general case. For example pulling balls out of a urn. It's easy to see how an unambigous probability can be inferred from experiment to an arbitrary accuracy. But this is a simple special case. In the general case this appeal to intutition is not near satisfactory to me at least. I prefer to speak for myself, and I am not pleased with the standard procedure. Without supplying any list or anything, there are others that share this critics. Anyway, I agree with you that resolving this is not done over a coffebreak. I don't want to imply that I have the answers, at least not yet, but I want to highlight some points that I think is relevant. However there is a logic in rejecting this unless there are some faint ideas howto really resolve this by abandoning the standard probability interpretation. I have ideas, and these motivates me. In my view this is not at the level of effective theories, it's on the level of "modelling the models". I think your standpoint is the most common one. Given no other options, any one option is defendable. I am aware I'm in minority but that's why I wrote (not everyone). My idea is that one can still to statistics, but there is a required tweak to it, and consistency at leads me to an evolutionary formalism. Bayesian probabilities is a component. I think of the "second quantization" as a simple type of application of these ideas. But I think it can be generalized. I think you misunderstood me, probably becaues I was unclear, see above. I am not talking about hidden variables, I am no "bohmist" at all. My "suggestions" is not at all a hidden variable thinking. QM typically says that we can not generally with arbitrary precision determine the outcome of a particular experiment, but we can with arbitrary precision determine the probability of a certain outcome. I am suggesting that not even the probabilities can be known precisely. Standard QM uses the concept that they can, and in many cases they of course can be known with almost arbitrary precision for all practical purposes. My suggestion, however generates a second problem, namely that everything suddenly seems to get very uncertain and we get more unknowns than we need... and we seem to loose grip of things. But I see some possible resolutions to this, and that can only be understood in a evolutionary context. I have not found what I am looking for yet, but intuitively I associate close to unitary behaviour to dynamics near information equilibrium systems. Near equilibrium here refers to information exchange. Far from equilibrium our expectations are sometimes poorly met, and we learn alot, during this process I see non-unitary behaviour are a solution - not a "problem". This also explains why particle physics experiments beeing reproduced in controlled in labs tend to stay unitary... it's close to information equilibrium, relatively speaking. I define info. eq. to be when your expectations stay unitary. When you are FAR from eq. OTOH, even your very _reference_ is shaking... and at this point I would expect non-unitary processes relative to certain observers. I also think that the most general observer-2-observer transformation is hardly unitary, because sometimes observers simply can't encode the same information. There is an element of learning or equilibration involved, which also will (IMO) will bring time into the picture. The exact mathematical formalism for all these terms I use are yet to be found. To me this is all intuitive at this point. I'm not sure if I was able to express my point... there are multiple focal points here... but the interpretation of probabilities and unitarity is one... which was my point. /Fredrik