Moderator’s Note: A reminder, accusations of trolling should be made in e-mail (by using the “Report this post” function or manually e-mailing one or preferably several of the Mods), not in public. Either don’t respond at all, or respond if you have something useful to add.
The simpler (ie. invoving fewest entities) which explains all phenomena.
General chemistry does not explain electron phenomena: it merely describes and approximates it.
I thought of another question for you: are all theories incomplete?
Well, as far as theories that describe the physical universe the answer is yes.
That is what the pursuit of the Grand Unified Theory, GUT, is all about: developing a complete, all encompassing theory that can describe/predict all physical interactions in our universe. String Theory is currently the leader in theories that are pushing the envelope past Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to reach the GUT.
That will hardly be the end however. After that comes the expression of all the possible outcomes of that abstraction. In the same way, Relativity was developed many years ago and humans still pursue new and wonderful expressions of that abstraction in the real world. The GUT will be even larger in this respect since everything real will be a testable example of an expression of that abstraction.
So very cool.
No, not really. And for this purpose, we’ll set aside the fact that there really isn’t an Ockham’s Razor per se; rather, there is a synthesis popularly assigned to him. But the point of the Razor, wherever it came from and whoever said it first, is that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Sometimes, that means that a LESS simple model must be selected. An example I commonly use is reducing 16/64 to 1/4 by cancelling out the 6s. Although simpler than dividing both the numerator and the denominator by 16, it is the wrong approach and won’t work generally. The entity of division is a necessary one.
You’ve completely lost me here. What more is required for an explanation?
“Simpler” is how it is frequently stated. I know that means you just can’t go cutting numbers out because it’s easier than actual math, but I was referring to simplier as in does not contain a bunch of assumptions that over complicate a theory. If a theory, minus all the assumptions of a second theory, is capable of providing the same results, wouldn’t the basic theory be the Occam’s Razor of the second theory that contained all the assumptions?
Are Relativity and Quantum Mechanics also incomplete theories? If so, why try creating a theory that links Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?
Depends. Cancelling 6s produced the same result as dividing. But leave that aside, since you didn’t like that example. Suppose I offer a theory of gravity that says invisible angels move things around. That is a much simpler theory than Newton’s inverse square business, and it provides the same results. It isn’t a matter of which is simpler, but of the unnecessary entity: angels.
I have not commented on all the Occam’s Razor in this discussion because it a completely invalid argument in this situation.
Let me explain:
Humans have created those cool circles of super-duper collision devices we call super colliders. The devices work and they are currently producing matter that is completely unexplainable using any theory other than String Theory, at the moment. (This is of course ignoring that there are many String theories out there, so lets just continue to lump all of those together for arguments sake.)
There is no other theory to choose that is more simple than String Theory to try and describe these newly created particles. There may be in the future, just not one today. Occam’s Razor does not apply here unless we want to discuss specific String theories.
IMHO, the only reason why we are having this discussion is because there are a few “sour grapes” in the physics community that are either jealous, don’t understand or are just plain mean and have tried to invalidate the work of other scientists by claiming that String Theory is bunk because “strings” are smaller than their Planck scale and are therefore out of reach of possible observation.
To them I say, “fine, come up with something better or get in the back seat and let someone with an open mind drive.”
This is a very interesting question.
Yes, these are both incomplete. Incomplete in the sense that neither completely describe all known, thought to be known, real, physical interactions in our universe.
Relativity doesn’t even try to describe everything, just gravity and really fast moving things.
Quantum physics describes the small stuff fantastically well, up to a point.
Scientists have tried to incorporate Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to come up with GUT, but some stupendously cool and illogical things happen when this is attempted. For one, time seems to disappear when attempting this incorporation. There is more but thinking about it again will make my head explode. Read a couple books by Brian Greene. He explains it very well.
Then there is the new particles being created in the super colliders. Quantum physics cannot handle these either.
Plenty. Chemistry is the equivalent of answering the question “Why do things fall down?” with “They fall down this fast.”
While no string theorist, it came out while I was in grad school, and perhaps I can clarify some things.
First, there were initially three tests of General Relativity. IIRC, bending of light (which Newton predicted also, but by a different degree), the precession of Mercury, and gravitational redshift. Those, and the philosophical issues of the way Einstein merged Special Relativity and Newton’s theory of gravity won the day. Newton’s theory of gravity did make predictions that could be tested long before satellites. He was the first to realize that the force that pulled everything towards the center of the Earth could, and did, explain celestial motion. For example, he predicted that Halley’s comet had an elliptical orbit.
Atomic theory did make testable predictions, but you have to be careful. There have been many atomic theories. (Newton had an atomic theory in which he could show that pressure and volume are inversely related. Not surprisingly, his theory wasn’t entirely correct - check out Wikipedia.) Maxwell and Boltzmann used it to derive thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. But it wasn’t until Einstein showed that he could explain Brownian motion with it was atomic theory on solid ground.
String theory, as yet, has made no testable predictions. We don’t know of a way to test the extra dimensions of the scale it predicts. We only know that it is not necessarily inconsistent with nonabelian gauge theories, supersymmetry, and General Relativity. There is substantial room for criticism, and not everyone is on the string theory band wagon. (I myself tend to believe spacetime is quantized. It is, however, quite possible that this theory and string theory are equivalent.)
Fantastic link!
Now this is something I know a little about.
I wouldn’t call it “sour grapes” but reality. Now I can not say anything specific in relation to string theory, but even Einstien’s Special Relativity was challenged by others with differing theories (ref. 1911 Manuscrift of Special Relativity… Walter Ritz is one that comes to mind). Other examples are fusion, global warming… the list goes on.
While I can’t say I know many physicists, I never met someone that claimed another theory was weak without saying where our research efforts should be focused.
So,… now we’re back at the OP. 
I did not comment about other scientists challenging String Theory with other theories that replace it.
That is only good science.
My posts speak to what I was talking about.
This statement is incorrect and has been cited. See post #72.
Agreed. Fantastic!
Supersymmetry precedes string theory and does not need string theory in the sense that supersymmetry could be right and string theory wrong. Howerver, string theory does lead to supersymmetry. Supersymmetry itself is not well supported by experiment. No supersymmetric particles have been found yet, and supersymmetry, assuming it exists, is badly broken. That would be something that string theory should be able to explain.
The most compelling evidence for string theory is the ability of brane theory to explain the thermodynamics of black holes. (Quantized spacetime, equivelent to string theory or not, should be able to explain the same thing.) This is an important result, but it is just theory explaining theory. Experimentally, we are pretty confident that black holes exist in places like the center of our galaxy, but we don’t exactly play around with them in the lab.
Thank you very much for supporting my position.
Now please support your first position that “String theory, as yet, has made no testable predictions.”