Dagmar wrote:
It really explains a great deal about subatomic particle behaviours.

Ah yep. I believe that in M theory (the most popular and accepted version of string theory) there are 10 physical dimensions. I'm no physicist, theoretical or otherwise, but I try to at least keep up.

It's not a new concept and I worry that theoretical physicists turn to the multiple dimensions theory perhaps too quickly, but I think at this point it's impossible to rule it out.

MaxieZ wrote:

Dagmar wrote:
It really explains a great deal about subatomic particle behaviours.

Ah yep. I believe that in M theory (the most popular and accepted version of string theory) there are 10 physical dimensions. I'm no physicist, theoretical or otherwise, but I try to at least keep up.

It's not a new concept and I worry that theoretical physicists turn to the multiple dimensions theory perhaps too quickly, but I think at this point it's impossible to rule it out.

I find it interesting that people will spew forth about string theory (even using the word theory to describe it), and then write 10 page diatribes about how intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools. Not criticizing anyone in this thread, but I'd just like to point out that a lot of the same arguments used to debunk a real intelligent design interpretation (not the neo-con poltically motivated labotomy of science versions) could just as easily be applied to string "theory" as well, since it's pure speculation and even the pioneers of the movement admit that there's no way to test for it with current knowledge.

I myself think that they're on to something and that more effort should be applied to trying to make some of the breakthroughs to test for it and working hard to make the math work out. But it's just a hunch. Just like when you look at the human eye or a tree and realize that it's much too elegant and sophisticated to have happened all on its own.

flynn23 wrote:

MaxieZ wrote:

Dagmar wrote:
It really explains a great deal about subatomic particle behaviours.

Ah yep. I believe that in M theory (the most popular and accepted version of string theory) there are 10 physical dimensions. I'm no physicist, theoretical or otherwise, but I try to at least keep up.

It's not a new concept and I worry that theoretical physicists turn to the multiple dimensions theory perhaps too quickly, but I think at this point it's impossible to rule it out.

I find it interesting that people will spew forth about string theory (even using the word theory to describe it), and then write 10 page diatribes about how intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools. Not criticizing anyone in this thread, but I'd just like to point out that a lot of the same arguments used to debunk a real intelligent design interpretation (not the neo-con poltically motivated labotomy of science versions) could just as easily be applied to string "theory" as well, since it's pure speculation and even the pioneers of the movement admit that there's no way to test for it with current knowledge.

I myself think that they're on to something and that more effort should be applied to trying to make some of the breakthroughs to test for it and working hard to make the math work out. But it's just a hunch. Just like when you look at the human eye or a tree and realize that it's much too elegant and sophisticated to have happened all on its own.

Actually I won't spew forth about string theory. I don't understand it well enough to comment on it. Evolution on the other hand I do understand, and can talk that with just about anyone. Advanced non-particle physics is not something I'll get involved with beyond with.

flynn23 wrote:

I find it interesting that people will spew forth about string theory (even using the word theory to describe it), and then write 10 page diatribes about how intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools.

Well the difference here is no one is advocating teaching string theory in public schools. You're absolutely correct. There are a lot of concepts and theories that are just that. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It can't be. It can never be. It doesn't mean it's not true. No one knows. Evolution is a theory that has scientific evidence behind it.

You can learn intelligent design or even creationism in college, universities or seminary...just like string theory :)

MaxieZ wrote:

flynn23 wrote:

I find it interesting that people will spew forth about string theory (even using the word theory to describe it), and then write 10 page diatribes about how intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools.

Well the difference here is no one is advocating teaching string theory in public schools. You're absolutely correct. There are a lot of concepts and theories that are just that. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It can't be. It can never be. It doesn't mean it's not true. No one knows. Evolution is a theory that has scientific evidence behind it.

You can learn intelligent design or even creationism in college, universities or seminary...just like string theory :)

Good point. Although I do remember discussing string theory in my 7th grade science class since there was a big article in Discover magazine that my teacher subscribed to. That was the first time I'd ever heard of it. Of course, trying to explain it to 7th graders was probably a supreme challenge. Hell, it's not likely that a 7th grade ghetto public school science teacher probably even understood it after reading the Discover article! Of course, don't even get me started on how public education has devolved (no pun intended) into the absolute worst lowest common demoninator crap which is ultimately failing our society.

I will take exception to the phrase "Evolution is a theory that has scientific evidence behind it." That's not true. There's very little 'evidence' to back up evolution (as a likely concept of how human beings arrived at their current state), which is typically what people refer to when they say "evolution theory". This is why everyone gets all up in arms about teaching this in schools - mostly because people (including the teachers) don't understand what the hell evolutionary theory really is.

What is proved, and what Darwin actually meant by 'evolution theory' is that species do adapt to their situations and characteristics which will be most suitable ultimately win over time. And that characteristics which are unsuitable will die out quickly. This is why fruit flies that have 2 sets of wings can't reproduce, and fruit flies that have good eyesight tend to be dominant reproducers. That doesn't prove that we 'evolved' from primates, or that any species has migrated along a continuum over millenia, which is typically how this theory is misused. There's not been one fossil or anecdotal observation which has yielded anything that substantiates that aspect of the theory.

This is where I get my hackles up when people present this as science versus faith. Saying that man evolved from primates is not science. There's no scientific proof other than the dynamic that I just cited. You could put as much scientific research and rigor against trying to prove or disproof that God exists and you'd end up with the same amount of sci... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

flynn23 wrote:

I will take exception to the phrase "Evolution is a theory that has scientific evidence behind it." That's not true. There's very little 'evidence' to back up evolution (as a likely concept of how human beings arrived at their current state), which is typically what people refer to when they say "evolution theory". This is why everyone gets all up in arms about teaching this in schools - mostly because people (including the teachers) don't understand what the hell evolutionary theory really is.

What is proved, and what Darwin actually meant by 'evolution theory' is that species do adapt to their situations and characteristics which will be most suitable ultimately win over time. And that characteristics which are unsuitable will die out quickly. This is why fruit flies that have 2 sets of wings can't reproduce, and fruit flies that have good eyesight tend to be dominant reproducers. That doesn't prove that we 'evolved' from primates, or that any species has migrated along a continuum over millenia, which is typically how this theory is misused. There's not been one fossil or anecdotal observation which has yielded anything that substantiates that aspect of the theory.

This is where I get my hackles up when people present this as science versus faith. Saying that man evolved from primates is not science. There's no scientific proof other than the dynamic that I just cited. You could put as much scientific research and rigor against trying to prove or disproof that God exists and you'd end up with the same amount of scientific proof that evolution has. It's not about science versus faith. It's about science accepting faith - that just because you cannot prove it doesn't make it incorrect or even unacceptable. Lots of people thought the world was round before it was scientifically proven. Are we gonna still prevent them from being heard?

I'm all for thinking of the possibilities here. You could (and should) say that if we've mostly proven that species can adapt, then you can conclude that this dynamic might be powerful enough to have brought life from something very basic and primitive (amino acids) into a full life form. Of course if you ran the math to determine the probability of that, you'd quickly find that it's about as close to impossible as you could possibly calculate. Kinda like taking the pieces of a watch and throwing them into a box for 10 million years and hoping that they eventually reassemble into a watch. And I'd like to think that something like a fruit fly is far far more complex than a watch. But okay, let's present it as a mental exercise.

I like the idea that string theory represents. That there is one unifying concept to represent the universe and that macro forces and micro forces are related to each other. I WANT to believe that it's leading to a full understanding. Perhaps that's wishful thinking, but it seems to make intuitive sense and I can put faith behind that... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]

flynn23 wrote:
I find it interesting that people will spew forth about string theory (even using the word theory to describe it), and then write 10 page diatribes about how intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools.

I don't think that ID should be taught in schools. I think that its OK to discuss String Theory in schools. (Whether it SHOULD be taught is a different matter which relates to the importance and suitability of the material that I don't have an opinion on. ) The reason is subtle, but critical.

Intelligent Design is not a mathematical model. Neither is the Theory of Evolution. String Theory is. Bringing String Theory into a discussion about Evolution and ID is really an Apples to Oranges comparison. Physics is a completely different pursuit then zoology, which has different constraints and methods.

Mathematical models provide a way of thinking about processes that cannot be observed. They are accepted to the degree that they explain experimental evidence, and they are useful for correctly predicting results of future experiments and phenomina related to the model. Almost all of the "knowledge" that we have about physics and chemistry consists of mathematical models designed to fit experimental results. Very few of these things are referred to as Laws, and only in the context where mathematical proofs can be presented which eliminate alternative possibilities.

Quantum phenomina are hard to understand. Ultimately it is not something that we can ever know anything about, because the phenomina are too small to directly observe. All we have are experiments, and models that fit those experiments. This is true even of 100 year old ideas like what atoms consist of. We really have no idea what atoms consist of. There is no way to know. However, we have experiments, and models.

One such model is the Bhor Model. The Bhor model has been taught in school for nearly 100 years. At the time it explained all of the experimental evidence available. It is also totally wrong, and everyone knew that from the start. The model includes this number called the Bhor Radius that Bhor literally pulled out of his ass because it balanced all the equations. There are newer experiments that invalidate the Bhor Model, and there are more mature models that explain those experiments. We're still asking questions.

There is no one the in world of physics who actually thinks we know what atoms consist of. We don't. We will never know. But we have models that work. We have vast Chemical Engineering and Materials Science industries that produce lots of real stuff that actually works that rely heavily upon mathematical models like the Bhor Model and String Theory.

Now, Quantum physics is strange. We have a lot of trouble with it primarily because the experimental results seem completely preposturous. Information moving... [ Read More (0.8k in body) ]

Just some errata.... it's the Bohr model(not Bhor), Darwin's theory has been around longer than a hundred years, and quantum theory is ALL theoretical. Those elegant mathematical proofs just make it seem more definite. Don't fall for the myth that scientists are any less predjudiced in their beliefs than the clergy ;) - in the words of R.A. Wilson: 'whatever the thinker thinks, the prover proves.'

ciao