5 Theories That Will Make Your Head Explode

Off Topic
61

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

And isn’t it interesting how black holes and other phenomenon that contradict the current laws of physics don’t changes the “laws” and they are still seen by many as universal and applicable to everything and everywhere despite the contradictions. [/quote]

It’s interesting, but probably not in the pejorative sense you seem to imply.

The “laws” - I much prefer the term “model” - aren’t changed because no one has yet found how to change them so that they still continue to work for 95% of the stuff and also get rid of problems when encountering singularities.

String Theory does a good job of the singularities; it doesn’t break down in black holes; gravity appears on it’s own from the base principles; it does aways with all the “fined tuned” constants, etc. The only problem is that we’re not sure if it actually can describe our universe or if it’s just an elegantly cool mathematical model. It does also require 10 spatial dimensions plus one for time, which really bugs some people, since we only experience 3 spatial dimensions. Either ST will produce its “Einstein” who’ll make some major breakthrough; or it will fall to the wayside when some other theory unifies gravity with the other three major known forces.

It’s also unrealistic to ask of science to provide all the correct answers now. There is still much we don’t know or understand. It’s not as if scientist had compiled their final Big Book of Knowledge and called it done. So we have to be content, for now, with incomplete theories that although imperfect, go a long way toward explaining how reality works. As soon as better scientific theories are available, the old ones will be either updated or replaced.

62

[quote]pookie wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
Yeah, that is what I am saying.
Every other time we had a set list of the laws of physics, something made us rethink it. Anyways, there as just observations that we have seen in our little area of the universe. Now, what’s to say that somewhere else, these aren’t laws, but just general guidelines. We discovered black holes, but our physics can’t really explain them (String Theory also right here). Anyways, I haven’t seen any proof that our laws apply 100% of the time.

Well that’s what I meant when I said that we must distinguish our models (like Newton’s Law of Gravity, Einstein’s Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, etc) from the actual physical laws (what really happens in the universe). We don’t know what those laws are, but through observation and experiments, we have managed to build theories that explain pretty accurately 95%+ of known phenomena.

The fact that our models break down with in various extreme scenarios indicates, I believe, that we still have much to learn about the universe. I do not believe, though, that the actual physical laws that govern the universe are randomly suspended at various times and/or conditions. In other words, our “laws” are incomplete; the universe’s laws, presumably, aren’t.

[/quote]

Yeah, that’s what I am basically saying, only not as smart.

63

[quote]pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

And isn’t it interesting how black holes and other phenomenon that contradict the current laws of physics don’t changes the “laws” and they are still seen by many as universal and applicable to everything and everywhere despite the contradictions.

It’s interesting, but probably not in the pejorative sense you seem to imply.

The “laws” - I much prefer the term “model” - aren’t changed because no one has yet found how to change them so that they still continue to work for 95% of the stuff and also get rid of problems when encountering singularities.

String Theory does a good job of the singularities; it doesn’t break down in black holes; gravity appears on it’s own from the base principles; it does aways with all the “fined tuned” constants, etc. The only problem is that we’re not sure if it actually can describe our universe or if it’s just an elegantly cool mathematical model. It does also require 10 spatial dimensions plus one for time, which really bugs some people, since we only experience 3 spatial dimensions. Either ST will produce its “Einstein” who’ll make some major breakthrough; or it will fall to the wayside when some other theory unifies gravity with the other three major known forces.

It’s also unrealistic to ask of science to provide all the correct answers now. There is still much we don’t know or understand. It’s not as if scientist had compiled their final Big Book of Knowledge and called it done. So we have to be content, for now, with incomplete theories that although imperfect, go a long way toward explaining how reality works. As soon as better scientific theories are available, the old ones will be either updated or replaced.

[/quote]

I agree, but would say that many areas of science are not as open minded about their theories as you are.

64

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

And isn’t it interesting how black holes and other phenomenon that contradict the current laws of physics don’t changes the “laws” and they are still seen by many as universal and applicable to everything and everywhere despite the contradictions.

It’s interesting, but probably not in the pejorative sense you seem to imply.

The “laws” - I much prefer the term “model” - aren’t changed because no one has yet found how to change them so that they still continue to work for 95% of the stuff and also get rid of problems when encountering singularities.

String Theory does a good job of the singularities; it doesn’t break down in black holes; gravity appears on it’s own from the base principles; it does aways with all the “fined tuned” constants, etc.

The only problem is that we’re not sure if it actually can describe our universe or if it’s just an elegantly cool mathematical model. It does also require 10 spatial dimensions plus one for time, which really bugs some people, since we only experience 3 spatial dimensions.

Either ST will produce its “Einstein” who’ll make some major breakthrough; or it will fall to the wayside when some other theory unifies gravity with the other three major known forces.

It’s also unrealistic to ask of science to provide all the correct answers now. There is still much we don’t know or understand. It’s not as if scientist had compiled their final Big Book of Knowledge and called it done.

So we have to be content, for now, with incomplete theories that although imperfect, go a long way toward explaining how reality works. As soon as better scientific theories are available, the old ones will be either updated or replaced.

I agree, but would say that many areas of science are not as open minded about their theories as you are.

[/quote]

Especially the whole “Since life on earth has these qualities, life everywhere else has to have these qualities” thinking. I really don’t get it.

65

For number 5, it can boggle your mind even further if you think, what if our universe with everything listed in it, was really just a subatomic particle in one of the infinite other universes.