Printable View
My sources don't fail me... Those were just a mere FEW links I found on how they came up with the idea of the graviton.
They have since been able to confirm its existance but as would be expected there are not many credible scientific sources found on the internet.
Also, I would have thought YOU of all people would have blankly accepted their existence considering they used MATHS to prove them.
If you find me a source that says they found one I'll believe it, From what I know they havn't
9I may be wrong) and they didn't poroove they evisted mathematicly, they used what they call in the courts circumstancial evidence, Id doesn't wash there and it doesn't wash here, Until they Find one I maintain that they just happen to be a popular theory at the moment.
Sam.
Do you believe Quarks exist?
I'm not ignoring anything. When I first heard of graviton, i searched and found enough info to convince that gravitons just is a not prooven theory. Even if I would think it sounds like saying god exists from you, i would be the one to tell you that even newtons theory of gravity is a theory. Ive already visited two of the pages you mentioned, but i wasn't looking for what they had to tell, just if it was a theory or not.
Now i am aware of that the theory is that the Graviton have a quantum mass and a size, and also that it travels at speed of light so they are not everywhere in universe and that gravitation cannot be a field, so we don't have them at every single spot, if we would have subgravitonal particles, they wouldn't be affected as far as they stays out of the way. But what i found more interesting was the pico-graviton, the mechanical explanation to gravity. The interesting thing is that it travels at 27c, which is just about as much as is needed for exceeding speeding limits in universe, not possible, to that there are none. Think about the possibilities. Also Sam, here's more about scifi guiding science that I mentioned i was explaining from Discovery Channel:
Quote:
In essence, mass is simply more than one Pico Graviton. HOW pico-gravitons are related to mass is completely unknown in Autodynamics and is left to future researchers to discover.
Does the Pico-Graviton Exist?
The big question is: is there proof for pico-gravitons? There is no "proof", but there is a lot of indirect evidence. What is important at this point in the history of physics, is that Autodynamics provides the next step in explaining many "unexplained" phenomena and that the actual relationship between mass and energy will discovered with time. Perhaps some of the more "experimental" research involving gravity control or faster-than-light phenomena may already be on the right track. Further research is needed.
Autodynamics provides a paradigm - a platform - to allow such research to flourish and open doors in physics research and technology that today only exist in science fiction.
I have no opinions either way on the existance of quarks, I don't know anything about them.
The reason I doubt the existance of gravitons is that they are there only to explain why gravity is different from the other 3 forces and so many theories have been put forward to explain this that I am sceptical of all of them.
Actually I was reading a university source book on science the other day (from my uni days) and it was talking about an experiment they were doing.
They kept getting anomalous readings... every time they did this experiment they detected a particle that had absolutely NO mass!!!
They were bewildered and yet the more they studied it the more they came to realise what it was. So they gave it the title "Graviton". I can bring the book into work tomorrow and list for you all the names/books that have this in it if you want.
So as you can see it is NOT a theory, it is a name given to something THEY HAVE PHYSICALLY FOUND!
As for you not believing in quarks because don't know anything about them... how very convenient for you. THEY have been proved as have gravitons, gluons, masons, bosons and every other particle.
They actually believe that the graviton is a phase-shifted photon and that photons are the building blocks of energy in our universe.
I didn't know that, did they prove it was these that caused gravity or at least indicate it. I don't quite understand how something with no mass can move anything.
I didn't say I didn't believe in Quarks, I just don't know anything about them so I can't really say either way, It's like me asking you if you believe my brother can juggle. It's something I know nothing about.
Quantum Physics just isn't my subject so I will have to believe you that they have been found, It just seems a bit crazy that a particle with no mass can do anything.
or is it that it has no rest mass, like the photon.
As you probably know, "gravity" has been described as the bending of space around a body of mass. We also know that the "force" of gravity increases with the more mass that is in question.Quote:
I didn't know that, did they prove it was these that caused gravity or at least indicate it. I don't quite understand how something with no mass can move anything.
The question of whether something with "no mass" being able to move something is irrelevant because we are talking sub-atomic here... quantum theory. The "gravitons" transmit energy that causes the atoms to move in the same direction as the "flow" of the gravitons which funny enough happens to be towards the centre of mass where space has been bent.
How does ANYTHING move? Of course we can look at it macroscopically and say that I move my arm and the air particles around it are displaced... but if we look at a sub-atomic level what happens? Which particle moves first? And do the others follow it because of their Strong Nuclear and Weak Chemical bonds to the previous atoms?
You are talking 2 very different sciences here.
So why say Gravitons don't exist? Obviously you just don't know very much about them and yet you stand up and categorically deny their existance saying they are only "theory"... but when it comes to quarks its all "Well I don't really know much about them so I don't comment".Quote:
I didn't say I didn't believe in Quarks, I just don't know anything about them so I can't really say either way, It's like me asking you if you believe my brother can juggle. It's something I know nothing about.
Bit of a contradiction in terms here... something you seem to like to do a lot of.
Thats exactly what quantum physics is all about. It seems to me to be silly that a Quark requires more energy than it takes to power an entire city for a day to pull it apart from another Quark when both of them are so tiny...Quote:
Quantum Physics just isn't my subject so I will have to believe you that they have been found, It just seems a bit crazy that a particle with no mass can do anything.
But "size" and "mass" have absolutely NO bearing towards their power when it comes to the quantum fields.
It never mentioned "no rest" so I cannot say one way or the other...Quote:
or is it that it has no rest mass, like the photon.
But back to your contradiction. Before you kept telling me that mathematics was good to use as models and proofs etc, etc... and yet ALL of mathematics is "theoretical". Now you come across something that is "theoretical" and you dismiss it because it is a theory and "not proven" as you say...
So why do you accept SOME things that are theoretical and completely deny others?
Methinks you accept that which you WANT to accept and deny that which you don't... but heck, we are all human and do that don't we :)
Kedaman
There is still debate going around about electrons...
- Are they a cloud around the nucleus?
- Do they come closer and go farther away?
- Do they hold patterns or just swarm around?
We come up with THEORIES and PROJECTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS explaining 10 ways to sunday what we THINK an electron does... but NOBODY denies an electron actually exists.
Just because there are theories like picogravitons that try to explain something doesn't mean its a fake or bogus. Experiments kept detecting this particle, OVER and OVER again... just like they detected electrons.
So what is the difference between the person who first said "I shall call this an electron" and the person who said "I shall call this a graviton"?
Sam
Well just to let you know they believe that a graviton is a "form" of quark. They also believe that Quarks exist in another state or phase and that only when they combine into a formation of 3 do they come into OUR existance. That explains why particles appear in a vaccum, and it also explains why pulling apart Quarks causes them to disappear (not release energy but ACTUALLY disappear).. they have phased back into wherever they were before.Quote:
As I said, I know nothing about quarks, it never bothered me why they were there or wheather or not they were there, I know that there are 3 of them inside every proton/neutron and that they have a property called colour which makes them attract in 3s, I don't know why we decided they were there and I don't know how we decided they were there.
So you know next to nothing about something we all KNOW exists for real... but you know more about something you doubt even exists?!!?? That makes sense ;)Quote:
The Graviton I know a little about
It was not invented... it was actually NAMED as a result of it continually being detected in experiments. Have a read on the actual documentation regarding the KK experiments and you will find that this anomalous particle kept showing up and stuffing up their experiments. They thought it was bogus because it had no mass... and thats when they realised what they had foundQuote:
It was invented to explain some effects about gravity, explaining things about gravity is where most bogus theories come from
It has NO mass, if it had mass then it in itself would create a gravitational field which it does not. If it had mass then it would stand to reason that it passing through another object on its way to causing a gravitational field to a second object would effect it MORE.. which it does not. The fact it has no mass is directly correlatory to the fact that it affects ALL matter to the same degree based PURELY on distance to the centre of mass.Quote:
It involves particles that have masses smaller than what was believed to be the smallest unit of mass, It travals at 27 times the speed of light and nobody's ever found one (pico gravitons)
This is simple Field Theory which funny enough is what most scientists believe to be truth at the moment... not just idle gossip or "trendy theory" but actual belief... just like we believe the earth is round.
And because you are completely unwilling to even explore the possiblity you will continue to think it is crazy... That is EXACTLY the mentality that the catholic church had when dealing with Galilleo... they nearly burnt him at the stake for heracy because he blasphemed that our God created planet was NOT the centre of the known universe.Quote:
To me this sounds like a crazy theory invented to explain something,
That kind of attitude was also the reason why Jules Verne died in a mental institute because he had "crazy theories" about boats that could sail underwater and aircraft that used a propellar on the top for lift.
What is crazy is that you would dismiss something simply because it doesn't follow what you think is crazy and NOT crazy... I might think some things are crazy but at least I give them due course until I see they are completely unfounded and based in illogical assumptions and flawed theories rather than seeing if they mathematically add up
So does this mean you believe it or disbelieve it? Do things that just "pop" out mean they are good or that they are convenient to explain everything?Quote:
the right theories all just pop out of maths, the 2 biggies this century, Quantum mechanics and Releitivity just popped out of the maths and were shown to hold by experiment. Einstein was one of the poineers of QM completley by accident, he hated the Idea of quantum mechanics but it just kept coming out and he couldn't stop it.
I am sure it just "popped" out that we are round when Columbus actually went around the entire world and came back
Well FANCY THAT!!! And the reason they stopped believing in Ether was because someone DISPROVED it. Now where on earth would anyone get an idea that something is believed until the point at which it is disproved and a NEW theory comes along that withstands the riggors of scientific scrutiny.Quote:
Remember just over 100 years ago everyone believed in something callled the Ether to explain some inconsistencies between Newtons laws of motion and new results about the speed of light. I don't believe gravitons are any more than a 21st century Ether.
Then strangely enough THAT stands as "belief" until someone shows that it is also wrong and have a NEW theory that now can withstand anything thrown at it.
My Oh My... Thank you for showing that scientific method by disproof has been the commonly accepted form of paradigm shifting for at least the last 100 years... so nice that you agree with me Sam :)
that was taken from one of the websites in your listQuote:
In the 1990s, Carezani set out to find the properties of this particle he dubbed the "pico-graviton". Using calculations for perihelion advance, he came up with the following numbers: the pico graviton has the mass of around 1x10 81 kilograms, and travels at around 27 times the speed of light. Another person in the SAA has claimed to find approximately the same values for the properties of the pico-graviton through completely different methods but the calculations have not be confirmed.
are you saying it's the graviton (acording to you a particle that was found and named) or the pico graviton (as yet unfound) that causes gravity?
I agree totaly that the graviton was found, but just because it's called a graviton doesn't mean that it causes gravity, from your sources it's the pico graviton that is doing the work.
with a particle the size of a pico graviton I don't doubt that the uncertainty principal can be twisted in order to allow these things not to cause a gravitational field.
I am not dismissing the Idea that these things exist, however all the phisics I've seen has absolutley "beutiful" maths behind it, this is why I'm sceptical of the Idea. (I'm sure you at leat know what mathematical beuty is, even if you don't appreciate it
)
Newtons laws of motion
F=Ma = GMm / R^2
one equation that explained the motion of just about everything that can be observed (you have to adapt it a bit and add the EM Field equation etc, but still one equation)
Special Relitivity
The Lorentz transformation, a simple set of equations which made the "ether" completly inconcequential, and explained the huge discrepancies between Newtons laws and the constant speed of light.
Quantum Mechanics
The proof of the Uncertainty principal is in my opinion the most beutiful piece of maths I've ever seen (the one with probability waves, not the crappy particle bouncing explanation)
General Relitivity
I havn't read it but I've heard it is even more beutiful than the uncertainty principal.
Do you see the pattern, they were all arrived at by looking at the current laws, spotting something, thinking it through and then arriving at the theory, all the theories are very simple in concept. General Relitivity was "Proved" based on the assumptions of Special Relitivity and the equivilence principal (I mean proved mathematicly which we have discussed isn't enough to be taken as true)
This is why I'm sceptical of the idea of the pico graviton, to me it seems that slight inconsistencies were spotted in general relitivity, (one of which is the Idea of planets speeding up in their orbits, which could easily be attributed to them hitting space rocks and droping slightly in their orpits, or something else) and then someone said "I'm going to come up with a theory that explains this" and off they went and invented the pico graviton. which in my opinion is where you should get sceptical. Do you see the parrallel I'm drawing petween the Pico Graviton and the Ether. :)
Well i've already given up the debate on the gravitons existance, I was just pointing out that if the picogravitons did the work, what possibly could gravitons cause, if they don't even have a mass. I don't care if we have electrons or gravitons actually existing or not, but why telling gravitons have the purpose of picogravitons when they don't? A particle may be detected but a purpose may be false. I'm not sure Gen-x But have you read all those webpages you posted?
I've learned one thing, it's not everywhere in universe, so to the old argument, most of the universe consists of vacuum. Gravitons, picogravitons or not, they have to move, and to move they need space, which is vacuum.
Why create a gravitational field if there is not such thing as gravitiational field? I think you're inconsequent. If picogravitons is the reason to illusion "gravitational field", then how could you possibly think about a picograviton with a gravitational field? I've also checked out the mass of picogravitons: 1x10 81 kilograms. That is not NO mass.Quote:
It has NO mass, if it had mass then it in itself would create a gravitational field which it does not. If it had mass then it would stand to reason that it passing through another object on its way to causing a gravitational field to a second object would effect it MORE.. which it does not. The fact it has no mass is directly correlatory to the fact that it affects ALL matter to the same degree based PURELY on distance to the centre of mass.
I still don't care if picogravitons exists or not, but i think it's a crazy theory, and we should be as sceptical to it as to ghosts and souls.
We still don't have a specified center of universe in 3d-space. If God created humans to be his most advanced creations, Earth surely is the center of universe. Whatever you say about we're not in a middle of a galaxy, doesn't matter, actually we have a massive black hole in our galaxys center, so it's like stupid to place us to live there if life ever could survive in such environment.Quote:
And because you are completely unwilling to even explore the possiblity you will continue to think it is crazy... That is EXACTLY the mentality that the catholic church had when dealing with Galilleo... they nearly burnt him at the stake for heracy because he blasphemed that our God created planet was NOT the centre of the known universe.
First, how can you ever DISPROOVE something if you don't have enough facts? If you believe in something, you can create tons of theories based on it and never understand the actual truth. If science fails to explain univese, even in distant future, like it does now, we've made a big mistake in taking what we see for to be true from the first beginnning. In every single theory, every single concept, we have a EQUAL proportion of possibility to be an illusion, if we don't have ANY FACTS AT ALL. By "disprooving" and "prooving" we only would tell ourself to think this makes more sence than that, but we can't take nothing for granted. For beliefs, i can tell you that everything you think you know, you're actually believing in.Quote:
Well FANCY THAT!!! And the reason they stopped believing in Ether was because someone DISPROVED it. Now where on earth would anyone get an idea that something is believed until the point at which it is disproved and a NEW theory comes along that withstands the riggors of scientific scrutiny.
Then strangely enough THAT stands as "belief" until someone shows that it is also wrong and have a NEW theory that now can withstand anything thrown at it.
Woah, this is well deep. Gen-X, how do you sleep at night knowing you're the most sarcartic person in the world.
How is he sarcastic? He is only expressing his side of the arguement.
He rips peoples arguments apart using his sharp teeth of sarcasm. There's more to being sarcastic than just saying the opposite to what you mean.
Anyway, get back to the physics.
CandleStick
I sleep like a baby thank you very much ;)
It was extremely sarcastic wasn't it... but you get that when someone spends their whole time saying how wrong you are only to then say exactly what they disagreed with in the beginning... Unfortunately being a human being means things like that trigger my sarcasm.
Others
No I didn't read the sites I listed... I listed them because at the time you were saying "They don't exist" and "Only a few people believe that crazy idea". So the fact I found sites relating to them so quickly showed that it wasn't such a crazy idea. I wasn't about to filter those sites to ONLY show you ones that agreed completely with what I believe myself... that would be stupid.
I'm not here to support just MY claims... I am here to get ALL the evidence both good and bad and adjust accordingly.
You see this is what it comes down to... what I have been trying to say all along they everyone seems to ignore.
Kedaman is right... how can we ever know ALL the facts? How can we ever know something we did is the TRUTH?
We boil water and measure the temperature at 100 degrees when it boils. We repeat the process 1000 times and the result is ALWAYS the same.
So we make a RULE : "Water boils at 100 degrees"
Then some bright spark decides to boil water at the top of a mountain... and it boils at 70 degrees!!?!?!?!
We didn't realise that altitude has an effect, we didn't realise that at higher altitudes the potential energy is different and that particle movement increases thus decreasing the amount of temperature required to excite molecules.
So now we revise the RULE : "At 1 atmosphere Water boils at 100 degrees"
And we come up with some wonderful mathematical formula that can compensate for Temperature and Altitude.
But none of that actually PROVES anything about how water boils... ALL of it is based on the current facts that we know and when a new fact comes along we adjust our thinking to include this new fact.
That is why I keep trying to tell everyone... YOU CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING!!!!
All you can do is find a theory that seems to work and then try and tear it to pieces. If you try everything you can possibly think of to DISPROVE it and you fail... then you hold onto that theory as "What we currently consider to be most valid" until some NEW fact comes along that allows you to disprove it and move on.
Why is that concept so damn strange to everyone out there!?!? It is the ONLY way that scientists actually work, perhaps Uni students out there should go and talk with physics students and ask them because they will tell this to you like it was common knowledge.
Science is about finding answers... and those answers are only accepted when it is IMPOSSIBLE to say they are wrong... not when you can come up with some pretty mathematical formula to explain it, not when you can draw diagrams or perform experiments.... but when there is NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON that can say/show/do something that DISPROVES what you are saying.
If you guys cannot understand this simplistic principle then I am amazed ANY of you are actually programmers!!!
Because I hope you don't test the robustness of your applications by writing mathematical formulas to show they are doing what they are supposed to...
I hope you are testing them by trying to knock them around, tear them apart and FORCING them to fail... because only when they fail do you know where you have gone wrong.
Am I making any sense or am I talking to a brick wall here?
Gen-X
Can we leave the Descartes out of it. I thought we settled this. Of course you can't prove anything about the real world, but we can make some assumptions and prove that other things are true if our assumptions are true, if one of our assumptions turns out to be false, then what we've proved is not neccaceraly true, but it's pretty useless to sit there thumb up bum and say that you're not going to learn anything about the world around you because it can't be proved to be there and anything you learn can't be proved to be true.
as it happens I do use maths to test my programs, I come up with a few simplified cases of what the program is trying to do, work out the results mathematicly and if the program produces all the right results I assume it to be bug free. If it makes one mistake I go on a bug hunt.
sometimes I don't bother, I just check that the formulae I come up with to see If it simplifies to various special cases, If it does then I assume that that part of the program works.
It makes bug hunting far far quicker and more reliable because with a couple of equations I can have the same confidence that it works as I would after an infinite number of tests.
You can't prove anything, but you can believe things, and I don't believe in pico gravitons because of my own rule that if the theory makes assumptions that can't be observed (ie there's a load of pico gravitns floating around) and it is derived because it happens to fill a particular discrepency then it is unlikley to be true. A theory I believe has to be based apon a logical extension of observed assumptions, pico gravitons do not satiasfy this.
I think we as human beings are doomed to explore, advance and discover, so we can't stand still and do nothing. But if science fails at some point in time, and we can't find out what bugs, then we have always a way out, at least one that can explain, and we won't always have to go that deep but we can find the failure at a very basic nature. For instance we have the Matrix.
Sam
I am going to break this down to the lowest possible form that I can in the hope you will actually understand this...
Ok. Lets just deal with that statement.Quote:
Of course you can't prove anything about the real world, but we can make some assumptions and prove that other things are true if our assumptions are true, if one of our assumptions turns out to be false, then what we've proved is not neccacerilly true
What you are saying is that providing all of your "assumptions" turn out to be correct, then you can actually prove that something is TRUE in science?
Now I have some questions from that...
1. How do you prove your assumptions are true in the first place?
2. How many times has science ever gotten it ALL correct?
I dont know who you are referring to there but what I would say is that what you CAN do as a result of this is to listen to any and every theory and try and poke holes in it... If you find that you are unable to come up with anything solid and concrete the dismisses it then you accept it under the knowledge that "It is currently the closest to TRUTH as we know".Quote:
but it's pretty useless to sit there thumb up bum and say that you're not going to learn anything about the world around you because it can't be proved to be there and anything you learn can't be proved to be true.
Thats very much different to what you quoted above.
Ouch!! Ewww!! Yuck!!Quote:
It makes bug hunting far far quicker and more reliable because with a couple of equations I can have the same confidence that it works as I would after an infinite number of tests.
If that is how you test programs then I am cringing. Obviously you haven't heard of "Unit Testing" and "Function Testing" and DEFINATELY "Acceptance Testing".
Simply verifying formulae and "assuming" that because it works a few times means it works for an infinate number of tests is not enough... Its ok for simple formula or for returning of single strings etc but for an entire application there are usually many interactions of unrelated (or seemingly unrelated) objects. You have to thoroughly test every possible outcome and eventuality in order to be sure it will work correctly...
Any Software Development book will tell you about this... its the first thing we learned in University under Software Engineering.
Oh your kidding me right? And what do you classify as "observation"? I can't see air particles... I use some device that tells me they are air particles but I dont specificially see them myself... So are they there?Quote:
because of my own rule that if the theory makes assumptions that can't be observed (ie there's a load of pico gravitns floating around) and it is derived because it happens to fill a particular discrepency then it is unlikley to be true
I can't see quarks, and yet they know they are there all the time...
String Theory and its application have shown a consistant and CONSTANT presence of a particle that has no mass. Half of science is about "filling descrepencies" and then trying to bash the hell out of them... if they fall over then its dismissed and something better is found... if it manages to withstand the riggors of being bombarded then it remains true.
What the hell do you think the electron is?!?!
Someone was doing an experiment on an Atom and they kept finding this particle pop up that had a negative charge. "Mmmm...", says Mr Scientist. "I wonder what that is... Lets see what I can get to FIT here. Is it another proton? Nope, its negative... Is it a Neutron... Nope, its too small... Perhaps I should call this thing an ELECTRON, and I shall say that it has a charge of -1 because there seems to be one of them for every Proton in the atom and its overall charge is 0".
He then went away and hammered on that, trying to make it false. He did tests, tried to disprove what it was but each time the answers came back the same... So he published it... and OTHER people hammered away on it... Eventually nobody could come up with anything to dispute the fact that this was a atom that had a charge of -1 and in neutral particle, matching the same number of +1 protons.
THAT is science...
Kedaman
And what is that way out that we can explain?Quote:
But if science fails at some point in time, and we can't find out what bugs, then we have always a way out, at least one that can explain
Actually i would prefer faster but functional methods instead of slower but accepting methods. That's what's make API better than Vb methods. About making an application while i'm "Unit Testing" would take ages and I would get tired of doing it. Instead i would make a stright example of what i'm doing first and then expand slowly to get it more functional and correct. I think Sam is doing the right thing.Quote:
If that is how you test programs then I am cringing. Obviously you haven't heard of "Unit Testing" and "Function Testing" and DEFINATELY "Acceptance Testing".
That sounds like fact, but when you say "true" put into "" because something is only true if it stands against all possible arguments of laws in universe, not only human thoughts. But then also, i don't see we can thrust universe either as fact, only to be true to human beings.Quote:
String Theory and its application have shown a consistant and CONSTANT presence of a particle that has no mass. Half of science is about "filling descrepencies" and then trying to bash the hell out of them... if they fall over then its dismissed and something better is found... if it manages to withstand the riggors of being bombarded then it remains true.
Now i know scientists and mathematicians don't like Descartes, because their theories are dismissed like that, but we should have that in mind and not dismiss it because it's the most basic theory of universe, still being true because noone has disprooved it. It's like removing Newtons theory of gravity and calculate simple classical mathproblems with Einsteins relativity theory.
Also i didn't know anything about Descartes before Sam told me, so i was just standing here as his littlebrother without knowing it.
Universe does not exist. Well i'm disappointed that Descartes already have said things, and i'm just repeating his theory but at least i have him to quote. No, Sam, i will stop posting theories of Descartes, as i know i would just disappoint people, and that's not what i want.Quote:
And what is that way out that we can explain?
oh god, I have to explain this to you again
let's start with Newton and his theory of Gravity. He started with these assumptionsQuote:
1. How do you prove your assumptions are true in the first place?
2. How many times has science ever gotten it ALL correct?
A Time is Absolute
B F=Ma (This can be "Prooved" to hold from some other observations)
C The observed positions of the Planets that were available to him were accurate
D Ignoring Air resistance 2 bodies of differing masses will accelarate
under gravity at the same rate
From this he "proved" mathematicly
E F = (GMm) / (r^2)
now as it happens A,B,C,D and E have been proved not to hold in all situations, but in situations where we can approximate to A,B,C and D (We approximate to C bysaying that it does not matter if our results are slightly innacurate) then we can Approximate to E.
Statement E was true enough to get us to the moon, It doesn't matter that it's not absolutley true.
Now If Statements A,B and D can be proved from other simplifying assumptions which we can easily test in a situation to see if they are good enough approximations then we can go straight to statement E. and I'm quite happy to call that true.
What do I mean by this? Shut up about not being able to proove anything is what I mean, You know what I mean by prooved, I know that you can't prove anything to be true in the real world, and ok, any observations we can make might just be a big coincedence, but if we assume that the patterns we see hold until something breaks that pattern then we can make predictions based on extentions of these patterns. I'm fed up of saying this.Quote:
but it's pretty useless to sit there thumb up bum and say that you're not going to learn anything about the world around you because it can't be proved to be there and anything you learn can't be proved to be true.
Every major breakthrough in physics is made by following up simple observations, an observation is not nessaseraly some thing you see, it can be something you feel (ie air), something you conclude from the result of an experiment or just a new way of interpreting something you see everyday (ie Einsteins Happiest Thought When you are falling unresisted due to gravity the laws of physics are the same as if you are at rest in no gravitaitional field) Einstein did not say I recon space is curved and then work backwards from that.Quote:
because of my own rule that if the theory makes assumptions that can't be observed (ie there's a load of pico gravitns floating around) and it is derived because it happens to fill a particular discrepency then it is unlikley to be true
The Pico Graviton was invented purely as a theory, it was then worked backwards to make it work, This is why I am sceptical, I can't say they don't exist, I'd Just Like somthing more definate before I take on board theIdea of the Pico Graviton.
I'd Like to remind you at this point that although physicists found a particle and called it a graviton, that is a completley different particle to the Pico Graviton which has not been detected. Gravitons do not cause gravity, it's just a name.
I can't be arsed to explain my testing methods, but they are more thorough than you suggest, I just use maths to know what tests I have to do. (ie if I work out one of my functions is a linear transformation in 3Space then I know that I only have to test the function 3 times, it's enormously unlikley that I get the function so wrong that not only is it not a linear transformation in 3Space but it also gives the right results for my 3 tests Getting it that wrong is like trying to add 3 numbers and putting a square in it. (I'll Explain what 3Space means in Creation and AI, It's what you mean when you say the 3rd Dimension) All I do is cut down the number of tests I need to do by doing the right ones.
I can picture it now...
The scientists make the assumptions, they do a few little calculations and then they launch the rocket to the moon
BOOOOOOM!!!!!
Oops... We forgot to take into consideration Factor X... It changes our entire equation... We actually got it wrong, but because we didn't bother testing it outside of our control environment we never KNEW that the result would be that... Oh well.. what a shame.
Do you know how many people have died in Rocket ships? Explosions on take off? Testing of Fighter planes? Just because some stupid moron did a few mathematical sums and said "It happened 10 times it will happen 1000 times"?
You keep saying what you are saying, you keep agreeing with me... and then you crawl back into your safe little haven and snuggle up to your beloved mathematics to stay warm at night.
On and I understand the Pico Graviton is a theory... I don't beleive in it either... But YOU were the one to choose the Pico for your arguments... I chose the Graviton which HAS been detected and DOES exist. Of course you couldn't find anything to dispute the Graviton so you centred on the non-existant Pico... Funny enough you also tried to "DISPROVE" it... funny that :D
But all of this is a bit off topic from our original statement... which was that Darwin's theory of Evolution is in my opinion just an "observation" of what really happens.
- Mutation occurs.. .but it is NOT the mutation which causes evolution
- Survival of the fittest occurs... but it is a side-effect of evolutionary progression NOT the reason for it
THOSE were my original statements, THAT is my belief and unlike most people who refuse to support their beliefs with facts I wrote in here EXACTLY why I believe what I do about Evolution according to Darwin is WRONG.
This may be a little of subject but how many dimension are there? And what are they each?
i.e
1st dimension = length,
2nd Dimension = width,
3rd dimension = depth/height
4th dimension = time
That's quite a hard one, there's no actual number of dimensions, we can come up with models involving N dimensions, with different qualities, they don't actually have to exist, we can have energy as a Dimension if we like, or pressure, light intensity, it depends what makes more sense when seen as a dimension than when seen as a quantity, A dimension isn't a real thing, it's purely a mathematical Idea.
Oh my God! Sam... now you are taking the cake... its almost as good as your "The Sun rorates around the Earth" comment.Quote:
A dimension is a purely mathematical idea
Mathematics has provided definitions for dimensions and has provided ways of calculating things within them... but as for dimensions being purely mathematical... *WHACK* wake up!
:D
Mega...
As for how many dimensions nobody is really sure. At the moment we know of 4 of them which you have stated.
String Theory has suggested that there are either 10 or 26 and my personal opinion is that there are 10.
Why?
Because it works out like this :
Look at us. We exist in the 3rd dimension. Our universe has Length, Width and Height. But we don't move... everything is stationary. Its only when the 4th dimension comes in that we are "ACTIVATED". So we actually LIVE in the 4th dimension.Code:1D - Length
2D - Width
3D - Height
<---------------- We now have RealSpace
4D - Time (Length)
5D - Time (Width)
6D - Time (Depth)
<---------------- We now have ChronoSpace
7D - XXX (Length)
8D - XXX (Width)
9D - XXX (Depth)
<---------------- Who knows what we have now
10D - ????
Look at time... Time is a vector just like Length... but instead of being in a real space it is in relation to "time". So why wouldn't the additional dimensions then logically follow that there is a Width and a Depth of time?
Now follow the logical pattern. If the 4th Dimension ACTIVES us then the 7th Dimension ACTIVATES Time.... I have no idea what XXX is and I dont think any human being CAN understand what XXX is because it is beyond our comprehension as 4D beings. As for what the 10th Dimension is that Actives the others you've got me.
I'm not talking bullshit here, this is a very valid theory called "String Theory" and recently "Super String Theory". It has explained a lot of things that up until now have been unexplainable... And I will continue to believe it until someone shows valid reason not to.
Over to you Math-Sam
I am going to have to go with Gen-X on this one. Claiming that dimensions are purely mathematical is just plain ludicrous. Dimensions can be defined using mathematics, though i find it very hard to believe they will ever be truly quantified, but your argument implies that everything is purely mathematical. By that reasoning, i can define my table in formulae, so my table must be a purely mathematical idea.
Again, Gen-X's point that we will never truly understand higher dimensions, is a valid point. Our brains are simply not equipped to deal with the thinking involved. We are 4D beings and cannot comprehend anything more. Oh we can try and understand, but we will never truly KNOW.
Taking the example of the 2D being not being able to see a pencil approaching from 3D space. Some of you are obviously failing to grasp this idea. I will try and explain it a bit more clearly than Gen-X did. Imagine the 2D world. The following diagram shows the 2D world.
Now i will turn flip this diagram so it is like looking at the edge of a piece of papper, And add the pencil.Code:-------------
' O '
' -|- '
' / \ '
-------------
'|' represents the flat world
The person dwelling 2D space can only see what is on their 'Flat' world. Anything not contained in the '|' cannot be seen. i.e Fig.1. When the pencil passes through the flat world, Fig.2., the 2D being will see the followingCode:| |
| |
Pencil -------> | Pencil ---|---->
| |
| |
'Fig.1. Fig.2.
Where '.' is the hole made by the pencil.Code:-------------
' O '
' . -|- '
' / \ '
-------------
This is why we will never be able to SEE objects in higher dimensions, we will only ever see the effect caused by them in our 4D world.
And no i am not talking bullshit either. I have read up on String theory, though it was a couple of years ago now. There is an excellent book called Hyperspace that explains it all, and i reckon Gen-X has read it judging by his arguments.
As for the Tenth dimension, it has been postulated that it is actually Heven and Hell. Belive what you will though.
Anything clearer now?
I see, that everyone is having each other misunderstood because of the word "dimensions" which is ambiguous.Quote:
Again, Gen-X's point that we will never truly understand higher dimensions, is a valid point. Our brains are simply not equipped to deal with the thinking involved. We are 4D beings and cannot comprehend anything more. Oh we can try and understand, but we will never truly KNOW.
Let me explain dimensions here:
You're mixing up mathematical dimensions with dimensions of space. Mathematical dimensions can be how many as you want there to be. But for space:
3 dimensions. Three, not 4 10 or 26. Because space is room and room coordinates can be specified in 3 accurate dimensions. Also these dimensions can all be relatively applied on universe, for as far as we know we have not found any origo or base vectors in universe. So we can't say "this is the X vector", only mathematically.
So when you say 4d space, we have spacetime, and that's mathematical not real. And Gen-x stop trying to say math doesn't apply to real universe because of that it's almost always simplification. What you need to understand is what is relevant or not.
Nice drawings iain, but you should know you're just discussing mathematical dimensions. If we were to live in a 5d world and exist in at (0,0) in the two external dimensions, i would take this as plain stupidity in real universe. while two dimensions are connected to universe, space we have a free movement in the other three, the original vectors of those must interfere with the two others or we would create a angled vectors, creating a mathematical theory. And without known angles, how can we possibly have nonfixed values within space and fixed in the two other dimensions. Space is 3-dimensioned, believe your eyes or press the "ESC" key to exit your life.
I am sorry that i am the one that is going to pull the wool from your eyes Kedaman, but i am going to have to correct you a little.
You claim that you can give the co-ordinates of any object that exists in our space, to coin your phrase. Well i agree with you partly, the bit you have wrong is claiming to be able to define that position in 3 co-ordinates. I will explain why you can't
x = length
y = width
z = depth
t = time
Now i will give the co-ordinates of an object using your 3D space. Lets say my table exists at
x=100, y=500, z=0
Just take that as an example. The problem is that the table was not there 100 years ago, and will probably not be there in 100 years time. To exactly pinpoint the table, we need to specify the time at which it is there.
x=100, y=500, z=0, t=2000
You can specify any point in our universe using those 4 co-ordinates. We don't define a fifth co-ordinate for us, as we do not live in 5D space.Quote:
If we were to live in a 5d world and exist in at (0,0) in the two external dimensions, i would take this as plain stupidity in real universe
Now i never claimed that we live in 5D space, though i do believe there are 10 dimensions. Our universe is 4 dimensional. It is not 3D as you so claim. If the world we lived in was only 3 dimensional we would be stuck in the one place, not thinking, not moving, not aging. We need time. We live inside this universe so we are 4 dimensional beings. The other dimensions are outside our universe if you like. Layered if you want to picture it like that. Each layer containing the dimensions below it, but not the ones above it.
5D beings, if there are any, can obviously enter our universe. Think about it. A 2D being can go in just one dimension as well as the both. We can move in 1D just as we can move in 2D, 3D and 4D. So logically a 5D being will be able to move in all 5 dimensions.
The Reason I say that a Dimension is a purley mathemetical Idea is that we don't live in a specified number of dimensions, Clasical physics says 3, special relitivity 4, general relitivity 5, string theory 10 or 26, and there are thousands of other less widley accepted theories which say other numbers, seeing as I havn't read string theory or general relitivity I'm happy with 4.
The definition of N dimensional space is that you can't specify N+1 linearly independant vectors in N Dimensional Space.
in 3 dimensions this means that if you give me any four directions I can pick values X,Y and Z sutch that I can go X metres in one Direction, then Y metres in another, Z metres in the 3rd then I can get back to where I started by travaling only in the fourth Direction. (one of X,Y and Z is allowed to be -ve but none can be zero.)
I don't know how much sense that makes, I've tried to describe it using as little maths as possible but I think even GenX will agree that this is a very mathsy idea and can't be described properly without maths.
The Idea of a dimension is a mathematical Idea, you can understand what 0, 1, 2 or 3 dimensions is, if you inclusde
time you can sort of grasp 4, but this is because our universe can be approximated to a 3 Dimensional Space, and sort of approximated to 4.
String theory obviously explains a few things by approximating the universe to 10 or 26 dimensions, I'm sure it has some good reasons for doing this but that doesn't mean there are 26 Dimensions, it just means that's one way of looking at it.
Dimensions are simply tools to make maths easier, they arn't physical object any more than numbers are physical obects.
Recently I have been reading a science book (gasp of surprise from the audience :D )
It went through the foundations of atoms, the discovery of the electron, quarks, mesons, gluons, gravitons, field theory, electromagnetism and everything else.
Some very interesting things were said in there.
Apparently the scientific minds of the time totally refused to accept that light was generated from a photon and that this photon could be both a WAVE and a PARTICLE... it wasn't until the specifications of Quantum Mechanics that it showed it could act as BOTH when it needed to.
The impressive thing that I got out of all this was the actual size of everything going on... something I dont think we take into account very often. Take a photon for example... here was the quote used to describe how many there are :
"On a sunny day a thousand billion BILLION photons would strike the head of a pin in a single second"
It was discoveries like this which show how photons carry both the electromagnetic force AND the weak chemical force (A theory called the "ElectroWeak Theory") and are the basis for all the Unifying theories that are here today.
It then showed quite clearly that Gravity was carried by a particle in exactly the same way that light is carried by a photon... it isn't fiction, it is documented scientific proof (until such time as we prove otherwise).
If you were to ask a Quantum Mechanic to describe the universe he would say that it is a set of intersecting "fields" where each field there exists only a single type of particle... and that these particles are actually "knots" in the web of forces for that particlar field.
This suggests that matter is not actually solid in any way but is actually BLIPS in the fields of energy for particular fields.
In about the next week or so the book goes into a topic called the "Molecule of Life" and then into evolution... WHen I read that I will start a new topic and explain their findings.
IAIN
That's not 3d space, Thats spacetime, I was explaining 3d space, for you that believed time is a dimension to count with space dimensions to alter it with 4d, which is basically just math, not reality.Quote:
x = length
y = width
z = depth
t = time
How consistent you are. Well simply put, don't take math for realityQuote:
though i do believe there are 10 dimensions. Our universe is 4 dimensional
And the only thing we can state is that space is 3d in reality.Quote:
Dimensions are simply tools to make maths easier, they arn't physical object any more than numbers are physical obects.
Kedaman
Sorry if I was being unclear, but if we are talking about Space then I will agree that in the usual context of the word it is 3D.Quote:
And the only thing we can state is that space is 3d in reality.
However you must be able to see my point that you can only exactly pinpoint something using space-time.
For everyday use SPACE is fine for specifying where things are, but over a millennia things move and change. We need to specify that an object was there at a specific point in time as well as space, because it may well not be there at a different point in time. Clear?
Sorry this is my fault, I was being unclear again. Just as you were talking about our visualization of space, I was talking about our visualization of the universe.Quote:
though I do believe there are 10 dimensions. Our universe is 4 dimensional
Quote:
How consistent you are. Well simply put, don't take math for reality
What I mean is that the universe we all know and love is 4 dimensional.;) Outside, our concept of the universe lay the other dimensions. I hope I have explained myself a little better this time.
What if I tell you time is not absolute? Then you have to back out because Einteins still stands strong with his Relativity theory.Quote:
However you must be able to see my point that you can only exactly pinpoint something using space-time
Yes, thanks for doing that. I agree that the four dimensions are pretty acceptable, as math is still as reliable for everyone except Gen-x.Quote:
What I mean is that the universe we all know and love is 4 dimensional. Outside, our concept of the universe lay the other dimensions. I hope I have explained myself a little better this time.
Kedaman
Maths has its place... I have never denied that... but it certainly doesn't hold the vaunted place everyone else keeps saying it does.
Lets look at the Periodic Table.
Mathematical calculations were developed that could determine the atomic weight of elements. The funny thing is that it actually matched!
As new elements were discovered their atomic weight was calculated to match exactly what the Maths said it should... and everyone was happy.
Then all of a sudden one of the elements had slightly MORE weight than what it should of... and another had slightly LESS than what it should of...
Everyone was confused... they put it down to "error" and continued to trust their vaunted mathematics.
At some point later someone discovered the "Neutron" and with this discovery the mathematics used to calculate atomic weight also changed... and now the NEW formula could explain why those 2 elements had different weights than the previous one because they had until previously only assumed Protons existed in the nucleus.
My whole point is that Maths is an AFTERTHOUGHT. It is something that comes along afterwards to collaborate something we have already discovered. It can never be a PROOF... it can only SUPPORT something that is a proof.
Read some more books on science and the discovery of the atom and its internal workings and you will see that although they used mathematics and althought they worked the MATHS was made to FIT what they thought was true... it could never prove something that was not THOUGHT of first and was not VALIDATED by experiment and NOT mathematics.
Its the history of our science, its right in front of you, its the whole reason why we are where we are today... and yet there are so many people in here that continue to dispute it... THAT I don't understand.
Gen-X, why do we break Math and physics apart from each other? And why math an chemistry?
Because we want to separate theories from math. Excuse me Gen-x, but i have to say that
is false. Math is truely the most true thing in universe, we could ever imagine, it's physics you're trying to kick out, and physics is science and science is religion and religion is bullshit, as science is bullshit image, what you're actually stating.Quote:
Maths is an AFTERTHOUGHT
Gen-x
Let me explain to you the Idea of a model.
in order to explain the universe we must make a model, that model can be mathematical or non mathematical, in either case this model always has it's limitations, it only applies uunder certain conditions, however the buty of the mathematical model is that you can extend it by the use of mathematical methods, and this extension of the model will hold as long as the original model holds, 2 mathematical models can be combined to make a better model.
You are attributing your distrust of maths to the mistakes of 18th and 19th ecntury chemists who did not have the knowledge of modelling techniques we have today.
a mathematical model is made on observations, from this we can make more predictions, these predictions can be verified by experiment, if they are shown to be true it adds strength to the model, if they are shown to be false it shows that there are flaws in the model.
now I don't know about you but I don't have a particle accelarator in my living room, If I make a prediction I can't verify it by experiment, I just have to assume that the models hold in the situations I use them in.
now if you use a model in one of your arguments, and you use it wrong, or you make an assumption that contradicts a model that holds in the situations you're describing I will correct you, and seeing as all nonclasical models are entirley mathematical and can only be approximated to using non mathematical methods I usually use the maths argument.
you are right when you say that maths can't describe everything, I would have quite a job describing a cat to you entirely in maths. but physics is one of those things that needs maths, as I said Everything in nonclassical physics is a mathematical model If you read a science book It is likley to approximate these mathematical models into forms that the reader can understand, otherwise it wouldn't sell outside of universities.
as for the graviton Idea, you could use 3 Models to describe the situation
1 A changing gravitational field has some particle like qualities, these qualities are manifested in a particle known as the graviton
2 Gravity is transmitted by a particle, a masive object emmits particles in the same way as a bright object emits photons. however rather than having a conventional momentum, which would cause objects to repel they have a -ve momenum hence causing the attraction.
3 Billions upon billions of pico gravitons fly around the universe at 27c bouncing off massive objects, when 2 objects are near each other they block the gravitons from the space inbetween them causing a difference in gravitational pressure and hence an attractive force.
1 is obviously true, however when the graviton model was first described to me it was described more like 2. as I object to the Idea of a -ve momentum as it implies a -ve mass meaning that objects would increce in mass with time. I objected this and you pointed me to a website which suggested 3, I find this model pretty damned unlikley, having thought about it you were probably suggesting 1.
hopefully that's cleared up.
Kedaman
Mathematics is a system of Rules made by man to describe universal principles which have been observed to exist.
How then can the construct be "the most true thing in the universe" when they are our own constructions to describe what we can see and count and observe?
All I am saying should be kicked out is the belief that "Maths can be used to PROVE anything"... which was my point all long. Maths can be used to come up with models and tests and even predictions... but it isn't the maths which confirms the experiments... its the experiments that confirms the maths.
It is that simple... you cannot dispute the fact that "All Mathematical equations relating to the real world are PROVED by observed experimentation".
Sam
Thank you... Your explaination of the use of maths is spot on and I agree with it completely. It is used for models and it is used for predictions.
But did you notice that you wrote "these predictions can be verified by experiment" and not "mathematics PROVES these experiments were correct".
That is the point I have been trying to make here... That Maths is NOT the proof but the method. It does help but you don't write "E=mC2" and say that it PROVES the theory... Instead you do experiments and those experiments PROVES the mathematics.
Does that make sense? Surely you must see that as you yourself actually wrote it.
Maybe my translation of what I am meaning has been lost but my original point was that "Maths cannot provide PROOF". I think it still stands based on what you have said here perfectly.
As for gravitons.... There are more models than the ones you stated including field theory and string theory which shows they are particles but act as waves when in a certain "quanta" (hence quantum physics). It is the weakest of the 4 forces and the hardest to pull into the GUT because the energy levels required to make it similar to the other 3 is amazingly high... actually probably the energy of the Big Bang.
If you wont accept the existance of the graviton unless mathematics shows it then read string theory.
Gen-x I have never thought that maths can provide proof of how the real world works, we agreed this some time ago.
However if you suggest something, I will combine it with an existing model and If I show that it leads to some obsurd conclusion or conflicts with another model I will object strongly to it, (ie your idea of quarks being 5D objects which only come into our space when in 3s conflicts with the uncertainty prncipal and places huge constraints on the way these things can move, on us there are very few constraints on the way we can move. It could be that the physics believed to be true is wrong, but more likley you are oversimplifying or misenterpreting the model you are using, which is where I jump in and tell you you are talking **** and you say that I'm using maths to prove things.
as for gravitons I wwas wondering what model you were saying was true, or if it's another one that I didn't mention, If it's completley ridiculous then I'll just object again, but if it's something like the first one which is gonna be true then I'm happy.
Like you say I do need a stron argument if I'm going to believe something, that's just me, and string theory is on my list of things to read, (you'll notice I have no objections to the 10D model because It's part of string theory is good enough, it's when I think you're misinterpreting a model or just talking crap I object) most theories nowadays are based entirley on mathsbecause it's the only thing we have that comes close to being able to describe the models we come up with.
Maths as a model
While maths can not prove anything in the real world. It can be used to prove or disprove a theory or model of the real world. You all seem well read, so i assume you all know that a hundred and one theories to explain gravity have been proposed. Most of these have been proved wrong by maths, because we keep getting infinite loops appearing which brings down the whole model.
I can see why Sam suggested the fact that Dimensions are a purely mathematical idea. If super-string theory is correct and their are 10 dimensions, then the simple fact of the matter is that they are not just mathematical, but they actually exist. Admittedly the only way we can describe them is through mathematics.
Though even this is limited at the minute. Super-string theory has not yet been completed, because we lack the mathematics to model it. String theory was discovered by accident, when a student physicist was looking through a book of mathematical models trying to find one to explain some idea he had. We now have the theory, but not the maths to describe it. Physicist are having to work back wards for a change. They have the theory, now they need to know how they got there! We are in fact waiting for maths to catch up.
Though some physicists are still sceptical about String Theory actually being a theory. Unless you can prove or disprove a theory experimentally they hold that it is not a theory. Of course most of that thinking went out the window when they realised that they would never be able to experimentally test the theory of creation, but some people still abide by that rule.
Theoretically we might be able to prove string theory one day. At the minute we lack the technology to test it. The estimated amount of energy that we would need to probe higher dimension has been calculated at roughly 100 million times the energy produced in our most powerful atom smashers, or the Plank energy, which i can't remember of the top of my head.
I believe theoretical math is physics and classic math is math. am I wrong?
Ie:
1+1=2 <- Can you proove or disproove it? No, it's a logical operation.
E=mc² <- Can you proove or disproove it? Yes, it's a theory and it can be prooved or disprooved.
I'm not saying you have to do it now, i'm just pointing this out as an example.
AM I WRONG?
Sam
Here are a few of your statements from previous posts.
Quote:
Page 1
mathematical proofs, we do not assume anything, we merely define an operation, which is a perfectly valid method of proof.
Page 4
I can see your side of the argument that you can't prove anything at all in the real world but using maths to prove things makes sense if you base the logic on what is currently belived to be a good model of the real world, otherwise you might as well give up on science altogether
Studies of infinity are very valid, they are used to prove some mathematical tools[b/] that we can use to establish physical laws
Maths will always hold if the assumptions don't change
So now you say "I have never thought that maths can provide proof of how the real world works". Somehow either I am not picking up on your fine definition of what constitutes a "proof" or you have contradicted yourself.
But I noticed you have now swung from talking about "mathematics" to talking about "models". They are 2 different things. Models are used to "explain" something that has already been studied and experimented and to some extent PROVED. It was not the maths that brought about this proof, but in fact the experimentation that confirmed the maths is correct.
The model I am talking about regarding the graviton is the String Theory model. Partial proof has been found because it explains results that previous models simply couldn't explain. The previous models did reach infinate loops and thus could not explain gravity. This model does NOT resort to infinate loops, contains the correct ordering, dimensions, strengths and sizes of all 4 forces but as Iain has said... the energy required to actually experiment on gravities inclusion is next to impossible.
[a]Iain
The following statement is what I disagreed with when Sam basically said it
Maths CANNOT prove or disprove a theory or model. It is the other way around. It is experimentation results that prove or disprove a MATHEMATICALLY generated model.Quote:
It can be used to prove or disprove a theory or model of the real world
Iain. I know you are a reasonable person, so I ask you this :
"Provide for me a Model that is accepted as PROVED that did not have ANY experimentational results from the real world"
If you can do that then I will accept maths as proof, if however all models are based on actual results then I would say to you that the Maths didn't prove it, it was the results that proved the maths.
You are right that there isn't enough energy to actually test the string theory... that level of energy only existed at the big bang and was probably what created it in the first place. But it does however bring up a very interesting point for me :
If it takes that much energy to get OUT of the dimension we are in then doesn't it stand to reason that while we can interact with lower dimensions with next to no energy (we walk around with bits of the 1st dimension all over us as well as the 2nd) we cannot get to higher dimensions.
That matches what I said before about the 2D being not being able to reach the 3D (thus no Z from the perspective of the 2D) but the 3D can interact with the 2D (by creating the Z=0 from the perspective of the 3D).
Kedaman
The only thing I would add to your statement is that there is a lot of theoretical maths at the moment which has nothing to do with physics... its just theoretical maths (although a lot of math theory DOES get used in physics it isn't ALL) and that the proof or disproof for the equasion lies in experimental results CONFIRMING that the equation holds true.
What never happens is people saying "We have this equation and the equation itself proves what is happening in the real world".