Elbaz, Stephen Hawkings disabilities work against him rather than for him. Through political correctness out the window for a moment. Have you ever heard the man as he has to speak? Personally, I get bored with the waiting for the next word and sentence to make a complete whole. He has an assistant to help with the translations among other things. This does not take away from his brilliance but rather adds to it that he has been able to make such impressions inspite of his limitations. That he has been able to make such contributions to his field in spite of the handicaps speaks for itself. Do not think for a minute that his colleagues o easy on him for his theories because of his limitations. His theories must still stand to the rigors of scientific method.
Fucking hell... Firstly, I'm only a year older than you, Elbaz. Secondly, I agree with wet 1, that Hawking has achieved something magnificent in establishing himself as a remarkable scientist/mathematician despite his obvious handicapping disabilities. Thirdly, we seem to have digressed; my original topic of discussion was the superstring theory... "Following a leading light inevitably leads to success". Ankit
Let me just point out a few things. Firstly I dont know if you think i was trying to be sarcastic or not but I know way in hell think or myself as even smart. I just like these topics. Secondly I'll admit that he has had restrictions and overcame many, but still though I honestly think superstring is just another idea that will be replaced, after quite a while though. I dont want to insult hawking because his views are as legitamite as mine or yours until we actually have some sort hardcore proof. I'll agree his ideas have made impressions and made people see things in a new light thats great. Still I disagree with the idea. Its brilliant ofcoarse and I never said it was stupid, (actually I might have). people have to disagree on issues like this, If there is no opposition or criticizm then how our we suppose to reexamine the ideas in angles that cant be seen from that direction. To make even A more legitamite Idea. I'll just leave it at this - I STILL believe its wrong and I STILL dont see him as man of the century or anything. I do highly respect him and his ideas - that I dont believe on the most part as I've pointed out many many times. I have absolutely nothing against any of you, Maybe HOWARDSTERN's stupid polls but thats it. We could talk about this issue forever because we each have our own beliefs that seem tottally unswayed. I will never switch to superstring.
What makes this stuff so hard is that there is nothing to grab hold of with your hands and examine. It's all highly theoritical. The ideas are so far out there that to averge Joe Blow it is just gobbledee gook. It usually takes a wierd mind to even come up with this stuff. Being as you can't lay hands upon the theory you wind up doing thought experiments to try and prove or disprove the idea. Somewhere along the line you finally get down to if that is so then such and such particle ought to behave this or that way. Only when you reach this stage you find out that the particle accelerators are not yet capable of doing what you need done. So then it is left to someone down the line to prove or disprove it when the equipment can produce the results. For a little light reading on this go to this link... http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~jpierre/strings/extradim.htm
Hello y'all Firstly, Elbaz...no need to justify what u said; everybody is entitled to their opinions...if u think it is stupid....u may have a valid support. There's every chance tht this thoery is claptrap...after alll...as wet1 said, it is based upon thought experiments...and, somewhere along the line, most minds make a mistake. Secondly, I believe the superstring theory needs to be revamped...if we used a material constant and linked it to the whole theory...then maybe...?
Question question here: what makes them think it has to be 'strings' that everything is made up of? Do they have any logic involved or actual experiments to say "ya it must be strings"
wet1[/B I read most of the link, I had to stop b4 my head exploded. In english anyone?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hi all, Elbaz, I am quite sure that one guy was drinking a beer in the local pub somewhere in the 70's when he got the idea that quarks might not be the end of the story but that something else had to be the origin of all particles. The main idea behind string theory is to try to unify all known flavours of particles back to one "object": a string, that we perceive as one of the many flavours of particles knownst to us when that string vibrates in some way. The problem with string theory is that it's a theory. There are, until now - so far as i know - no experimental indications that prove it, or even hint at it. We will probably have to wait until 2005 or 2006 before we get a first hint in favour of/contradicting string theory. That's when a new particle accelerator, the LHC (Large Hadron Collider), at CERN goes online. That particle accelerator should be capable of producing new kinds of particles that are predicted by a sidebranch of stringtheory. So if we find these particles, then it becomes very lickely that that sidebranch of string theory (the so called supersymmetry) is true, somewhat hinting at string theory as a whole. Bye! Crisp
Well ya no duh, particles are made up of energy and different energys but vibrating strings?? I respect your beliefs but I will never accept the string one. I dont know how to explain it, but it seems that whenever I think something might have a crack in it or not be right, it ends up not being right. Strange when a respectable theory is made nobody seems to question it. All following like hearded sheep. Take the ether for example. Perfectly believable but few questioned it. It came from respectable physicists so it must be true right? Conventional people nowadays believe anything they hear and never question its credibility. Sometimes I despise the part of me that stays away from the conventional and questions everything. But deep down I know I'm lucky. Anyway. I cant wait till they perform tests on it. MARK MY WORDS when they do, I will come back boasting.
String Theory I almost completely agree with you, Elbaz. It seems that scientists are clutching whatever seems to fit the bill. String theory tries to combine the causes for all 4 major elements, while considering this dilemma in approx. 10 dimensions, which would require several geniuses to finish. Also, there is an elusive 'cosmological constant' that, if obtained, would solve many, many problems, and finish or take further Einstein's calculations. Considering previous exploits, we may never discover the 'Theory Of Everything' (i.e. superstrings). This is because, as I mentioned before, we need quite a few vastly intelligent chaps (let's say, IQ: 250+). But fear not, there may be help...geniuses are turning out over the world, and, in America, there is an 8 year old boy called Justin Chapman who has written 2 books and created a website; has an IQ of 298+; and is supposedly one of the greatest minds ever to have graced this Earth, possibly even superior to our Albert. We need people like this boy here to complete this theory, find the constant etc. And, the problem is, thse geniuses are not discovered in school (again, just like our Albert). Oh dear...are we doomed? Or willour geniuses come out top? You decide. Ankit
Ehr? Hi all, Elbaz, Well to me it seems that you've been talking to the wrong people then (or watched the wrong documentary). Most people I know actually do not believe string theory and, like me, await for experimental observation before proclaiming it as the greatest invention of the late 20th century. This is not a scientific, but a sociological problem. The media tends to zoom into the most extravagant theories and spend hours talking about how great string theory is. Unfortunately, most of the time the opponents of string theory are not heard. Ankit, This is exactly what research is about. How do you think Newton ever got to his three laws ? It wasn't because he was a genius(*) or because he suddenly received a call from the supreme being on the hotline. After testing, verifying, re-adjusting, remodelling and retesting his laws of motion, he finally got to a point where his description fitted reality incredibly precisily for that time. (*) I'm assuming that Newton actually was the one who formulated his three laws as there recently was some doubt about that. I disagree, at the moment the theory is far from complete, so it is indeed difficult to comprehend because not all the pieces fit nicely together yet. Rest assured that in the 1600's, people also thought that differential calculus was impossible to comprehend, and yet today we teach it to 16-17 year old adolescents. As time evolves, theories are often refined and adjusted to be formulated more simply. Another example would be Einstein's theory of general relativity. At the time of publication, the media mentioned that only three persons on earth could possibly understand it. And yet today thousands of science students take courses in general relativity. These aren't all 290+ IQ people, but just ordinary people like you and me. Bye! Crisp
I'm gonna keep it short... Surely comprehension and formulation are two separate actions, and, surely, the former much easier that the latter?. Debate?
Hi Ankit, I don't think there's much to debate about Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I think two general remarks always apply: 1. The amount of difficulty is inverse proportional to the amount of documentation available. 2. The better the documentation, the easier it is to comprehend. Bye! Crisp
Ah, but... In order to solve modern physics' mysteries (and, let's face it, there are many), we need (to quote...some physicist) 21st century mathematics, which hasn't been invented yet. Therefore, my comment on geniuses. Thankyouverymuch.
