Well I wish they'd hurry up: I could do with some action, har har.
But in the case of string theory and multi-dimension universes, is it not the case that many scientists are extremely sceptical about such constructs, because they go way beyond what can be inferred from observed phenomena?
No idea. Is it? Could you please point out who is sceptical, and why. FWIW, Einstein was extremely sceptical about Heisenberg's work on quantum physics, famously declaring that "God does not play dice". He (Einstein) later described this as "the biggest mistake of my life".
There seemed to be much difference of opinion in the Channel 4 programme on string theory a while back. Sort of like those 'Horizon' programmes where a scientist outlines some doomdsay scenario, then five minutes from the end another scientist pour cold water all over the first scientist's conclusions. IMO if multi-dimensions can't be tested via experiment then they remain paper-based mathematical constructs rather than scientific theories.
Thanks for that opinion: on this forum we are grateful for all the help we can get with this tricky subject. If I were you, I would alert the scientific community immediately, just to put them back on the right track...
It wasnt actually Einstein who made the dice quote, it was a writer (cant remember his name) who wrote this quote to simplify what he was saying, which it does very well. I dont think Albert couldnt come to grips with his belief in God and the contradictions with science. TBH I cant get to grip with Quantum Physics, to me there seems to be alot of contradictions. Maybe this is the limit of our brains? Somethings may never be explained.
You and most of the rest of us! The problem is that we live in the middle of everything, as it were. Sizes and speeds are medium. We are comfy there, and we know the local rules; they are, to a large extent, intuitive. It's only when we got involved with the very big and the very small that everything goes bananas. There, things are not even slightly intuitive. Newton's classic three laws of motion seemed to describe everything to do with velocities. It took Einstein (with the assistance of Lorentz's transformation equations) to show that Newton's laws were only a local approximation, and that, as c (the speed of light) was approached, very odd things started to happen. Other things, such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (that the act of observation changes the thing, and that therefore you can't really observe it at all), are also counterintuitive. Back to J.B.S. Haldane...
The problem with string theory is that the mathematics is really hard, so that programmes like the C4 one can only point in the general direction of the theory without being able to explain it in any depth for non-mathematicians (like me). This is the best popular science book on the subject that I know of: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...2404/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_11_2/026-7985130-5592404 It certainly isn't "pure speculation", although undeniably it's on the bleeding edge. It's a lot less controversial than it was even a few years ago however. -- Ian
I do enjoy the explanation of what was there before the Big Bang. Nothing. Not even any empty space. The Universe created its own space as it expanded. Yes, but what about just BEFORE the Big Bang, I hear you ask, what was there... Well, time and space didn't exist, so there was no "before". Blimey.
I thought the "Biggest mistake/blunder of my life" quote was to do with the "Cosmological constant" which he used in his equations?