tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17174057.post8792255744248437943..comments2023-08-12T09:06:19.561-04:00Comments on english-tamil: God: life's purpose and unpredictability?Suresh EThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06634417697318636500noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17174057.post-33061424846351618042006-12-26T21:02:00.000-05:002006-12-26T21:02:00.000-05:00yeah, scientific philosophy sucks. From my underst...yeah, scientific philosophy sucks. From my understanding, String theory is something that any graduate student with enough creativity could have come up with and is mathematically the most elegant theory since Maxwell's work on electromagnetism.<br /><br />It is unfortunate that the string theory cannot be inherently tested since the theorists themselves claim that the strings are too tiny to be detected. How we can probably understand String theory is how we understood Maxwell's theory by imagining stuff like Electric Fields and Magnetic Fields which are not present, but which are important to understand the concept of Electromagnetism.<br /><br />String theorists are desperately trying to sell their idea with the prediction of "parallel universes" and "n dimensions", but the biggest help for string theorists would come if particle theorists agree with the idea of String theory. It would happen if String theory predicts/explains the presence of a particle that particle theory could not. Right now, particle theorists get billions of dollars as funding and String theorists have to settle with too little. The day they are accepted into mainstream, String theory which is now atleast 20 active years old will break new grounds never before seen in the world of science.<br /><br />And public opinion matters for scientists. Thats how they get funding, especially fundamental physicists because nothing worthy of commercial interest can come from their research. And they have stiff competition from catholic church too. hahaha.... Anyway, I dont believe in string theory. It appears too good to be true. One day, I shall come up with peelu theory dedicated to Nilu sir.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17174057.post-90078635803276025052006-12-26T14:47:00.000-05:002006-12-26T14:47:00.000-05:00@ peelu
As you probably know already, I'm not an e...@ peelu<br />As you probably know already, I'm not an expert in physics or mathematics. I have to trust my judgments based on verbal/metaphorical interpretations of the equations that make the string theory. My understanding is that it is inadequate, even in a mathematical sense, without the inclusion of the eleventh dimension. It did and it was then called the M-theory. And apparently most physicists and cosmologists have settled for the M-theory. I was introduced to this topic through a popular documentary in BBC. You can ,<a href="http://obscuredtv.com/parallel.php">view it here</a>.The visual metaphors really helped me grasp, though very roughly, the idea of 11th dimension. (It works well in IE.)<br /><br />As for your question (whether it should be rejected because it cannot be tested?): I think it is, as of now, inconsequential (like string theory or M-theory itself) to the general public. Because, the scientists who are into it don't worry themselves with the ontological nature of what they do. They don't concern themselves with satisfying the likes of Nilu (or me). They'll continue working on these theories from their level of conception of the cosmos. And there might come a day (if humanity survives that long) where science can "prove" it to ‘simple minds’ in their own terms. The immediate parallel I can think of is the images of the Hubble. Even though the possibility of several solar systems and galaxies was a concrete idea used in academic physics since early 18th century, it took another two hundred years before it became a part of the public discourse. And it took a Hubble to convince even more. What's worse? Still there are billions who think the Earth is 10,000 odd years old. Irrelevant as it may sound, these points indicate the levels and at which ignorance works. <br /><br />Philosophy of science is the now the least of a scientist's concerns. Science does not have to listen to what Kuhn or Popper or Tilly has to say. Science now has tremendously vast literature that it can now assume the arrogance to dismiss those scholars. It's the difference between I rejecting the possibility of beating a computer in chess and Vishy refusing to do so.<br /><br />@ Zero – hmm :p<br /><br />Memory can change the shape of a room; it can change the color of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're just an interpretation, they're not a record, and they're irrelevant if you have the facts. <br /><br />-- Leonard Shelby, <i>Memento</i>Suresh EThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06634417697318636500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17174057.post-51895259542977815222006-12-26T05:53:00.000-05:002006-12-26T05:53:00.000-05:00So what about String Theory?? Do you think its rej...So what about String Theory?? Do you think its rejection based on the fact that it cannot be tested experimentally is right? Nilu scoffs at the idea. Not that he is an expert in that field. He just scoffs at it like he scoffs like everything else without probably understanding anything completely.<br /><br />Nilu'vin Shishyan, peelu.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17174057.post-31310326551371452362006-12-25T21:49:00.000-05:002006-12-25T21:49:00.000-05:00adhu seri!adhu seri!Suresh EThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06634417697318636500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17174057.post-9781552733217940712006-12-25T02:01:00.000-05:002006-12-25T02:01:00.000-05:00hahaha, ennamo solra. Oru ezhavum puriyala. Nilu s...hahaha, ennamo solra. Oru ezhavum puriyala. Nilu sir kitta kaekkanum. <br /><br />- ippadikku Nilu'vin sishyan, peelu.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com