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.
