Theoretical physics - is it all malarkey?

[Frothingslosh]

Ummm...first show me an actual theory that posits an infinite number of parallel universes? And remember, there is a gigantic difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis (which is what is meant when a layman says 'theory').

There are several multiverse theories out there, generally brought up as suggestions for how to deal with certain things that violate every set of rules we can determine (such as the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, but there being no observed cause for it), but they generally aren't said to be truly infinite, and they're all entirely hypothetical. They're basically physicists going "Maybe this could resolve this problem?". Besides, the idea that our own universe is infinite is enough for the same exact situation, including worlds where you - you personally - destroyed the universe by farting while casting a a love spell, and another where you stopped that destruction by killing the other you before passing gas. Infinity is funny like that.

Now if you remove infinity to remove all those obvious paradoxes, then you no longer have your silly little hypotheticals.

 

[Bladerunner]

Like a water puddle on the floor, the known universe( that part only that contains the galaxies and all the other wonders) is probably slowly spreading out. No, I have no proof other than it just makes sense. However, I do have a question that I have not been able to find: What is beyond the known universe? Like the puddle of water on the floor, the area around the outermost galaxies, etc, there is a border (or is there). If there is, what is beyond this border?

You all having been beating the hell out of that poor cat, I'm telling ya! If he is not already dead, then he will be shortly in another post or two!!!!!!!!!

have a good evening.

Blade

 

[Libre]

Ummm...first show me an actual theory that posits an infinite number of parallel universes? And remember, there is a gigantic difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis (which is what is meant when a layman says 'theory').

So now we'll get into a debate about whether a hypothesis is credible enough to be called a 'theory'. I've heard plenty of times - on this forum and elsewhere, that the multiverse theory/hypothesis is based on the notion of infinite parallel universes where dinosaurs roam in one and I farted and destroyed the world in another.

From Wiki:

The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the Universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes or "alternate universes".

Oh, you'll tell me that Wiki is not a good source, or dispute that the layman's theory is not a real theory. We can argue about words all day and you can call my examples "silly little hypotheticals" but what I really want is for Bladerunner to enter the discussion so I can move on and the two of you can beat each other over the head while I watch. So thanks, Blade. You can take over from here.

 

[Frothingslosh]

No, I'm saying look up the definition of hypothesis vs scientific theory. A hypothesis is a more-or-less logical guess. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

All of these multiverse 'theories' are really just hypotheses until there is some way to test for the existance of them in some way.

I have no issue with people using wikipedia for generalities, and accusing me of having one when one of my earlier posts on this thread had links to it is inane.

What I'm really getting from this is that you just don't like the idea that some ideas being bandied about in physics are odd, you've decided that there's no further point in science, and you feel like preaching about it to anyone who'll listen. It appears your mind is as closed as Bladerunner's, which really is a shame, as it really does little more than showcase your own limitations.

And there won't be any fight with Bladerunner, as that would require me to respond to his idiocy.

 

[Libre]

No, I'm saying look up the definition of hypothesis vs scientific theory. A hypothesis is a more-or-less logical guess. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

All of these multiverse 'theories' are really just hypotheses until there is some way to test for the existance of them in some way.

I have no issue with people using wikipedia for generalities, and accusing me of having one when one of my earlier posts on this thread had links to it is inane.

What I'm really getting from this is that you just don't like the idea that some ideas being bandied about in physics are odd, you've decided that there's no further point in science, and you feel like preaching about it to anyone who'll listen. It appears your mind is as closed as Bladerunner's, which really is a shame, as it really does little more than showcase your own limitations.

And there won't be any fight with Bladerunner, as that would require me to respond to his idiocy.

Really, Mr. Frothingslosh. You're rather preachy, you know that? You really think you need to explain to me, the difference in meaning between two well-known words? Your condescension (that means you look down on others) is nauseating. You're also pretty quick to dismiss other people's ideas as silly and idiotic, and point out their limitations. Not to mention your proclivity (that mean's your tendency) to put words in people's mouths and to explain what they really mean, rather than what they actually said.
Hey, I have an idea - if you find my questions and this thread to be so silly and idiotic, why don't you just buzz off?

 

[Bladerunner]

Whoa?/// I only ask a question and laughed at the two of you killing that cat?lol

No, Mr Forthingslosh, my mind is not closed on most things. However, I do tend to agree with Libre in that most of the hypothesis out there are really there to support an agenda of some sort and does not really do anything for the day to day lives of the masses. In some cases (SOME CASES) , they are scams (i.e global warming)

I still worry about that poor kitty. lol


Blade

 

[Steve R.]

Speaking of which, a nice paradox in business is the Abilene-paradox - you may find that one immensely more recognisable and familiar.

Anecdotal evidence plus associated research have clearly established that as decision making groups and committees increase in size the quality of the decisions decline. Nevertheless, given that undeniable evidence, organizations seem to continue to bizarrely promote large decision making bodies and/or committees.:banghead::banghead:

 

[Frothingslosh]

Seeing as your argument (which generally means 'opinion supported by facts', although I've seen no facts from you yet) from post one has been 'cutting-edge physics theories sound weird to me, so it's pointless to continue researching physics' - ie

My glib answer - "Don't worry about it, theoretical physics is all nonsense."

but to me, the topic is so far removed from anything relatable to our existence and experience, it is truly an argument about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, or how high pigs could fly, if they had wings. But physics, it is not.

Could it be that anything after General Relativity (which has really been proven to the satisfaction of most scientists, and in fact is in use in electronics, GPS satellites, and can actually be demonstrated) but anything after that is just a big circle jerk by the lab coated, bespectacled, academic nerds?
I'm tempted to think so.

(Also, please note (that means pay special attention to) that my first statement in this post is an example of putting words in your mouth (you know, the thing you use to speak), as opposed to me saying what the gist (means basic idea) of your arguments appear to be to me.)

So tell me again how I'm putting words into your mouth when I said

What I'm really getting from this is that you just don't like the idea that some ideas being bandied about in physics are odd, you've decided that there's no further point in science, and you feel like preaching about it to anyone who'll listen.

Seriously, what you've said over and over in this thread can be reduced to "I don't understand theoretical physics, therefore it's stupid and a waste of time."

(Again, note the difference between that - which was putting words in your mouth, although in general (that means 'most often') that implies (means suggests) that I would be twisting (changing in order to show in a negative light) what you're saying, and as the quotes above show, I'm not - and me saying "What I'm getting from you is X".

Edit: Okay, I'll grant that I should have said 'physics', not 'science', as that may well be construed as ("understood as" or "taken to mean") twisting, as you've not referred yet to what other cutting edge scientific theories outside the realm of physics you feel to be pointless. My general point, however stands - that you have, in effect, said repeatedly that because cutting edge theories in physics sound weird to you because you don't know the first thing about physics, that you therefore feel they are pointless and a waste of time.

So yes, at that point your ideas can be dismissed out-of-hand, because you're arguing from ignorance. It's just as if I were to join a discussion on automotive performance and start arguing that red cars are always better because they're obviously faster. I'd be rightfully dismissed as an idiot.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Also, and I wanted to do this in a separate post so it didn't get lost in the wall of text above:

I do want to apologize for the 'silly little hypotheticals' comment yesterday. I was having a rough day at work (we thought we had lost 5 years of data we are obligated to keep for 10 years, although it was eventually found), I was frustrated to all hell, and I took it out on you, which I shouldn't have. My apologies for that.

 

[spikepl]

A fun thread.

Lack of knowledge does not preclude taking part in an argument - actually, the less knowledge the more verve!

Well - there is of course research into this subject - The Denning-Kruger effect (watch out, the link is from *.....drumroll...* Wikipedia!

 

[Libre]

Okay Froth, apology accepted.
I admit I'm no Einstein - but I'm a mechanical engineer and a programmer, have taken college level physics and chemistry, and not a complete ignoramus.
Let me say that I don't really think physics is nonsense - I just threw it out there to start s discussion - knowing that I'd probably be attacked - in a friendly way, of course.
I've been pretty careful to say I have a deep respect for cutting edge research.
I just wonder sometimes what the odds are that theoretical physics has progressed to the point that its lost relevance. And I sited an article written by someone who is known in the field and had some authority there - who wonders the same thing - at the risk of being dissed by his peers - and you
haven't commented about that at all.
Let's also realize that it's not easy to say everything you want, typing with one finger on a phone, in an internet thread - so some things come out wrong and other things that should have been said were omitted.