liarliarpof

Perhaps we should learn to walk before we run. Does 'M-Theory' qualify as a theory at all? Should we simply toss out The Scientific Method? Even Newton, through his correspondences, repeatedly and stubbornly argued that any explanation that was not 'demonstrable' reside in the realms of philosophy or theology. Without it, physics becomes fertile ground for speculation. Stand back for a moment and observe - it has already begun.

I agree with Sisyphus, but would restate HIS restatement of the question as, "Given natural law, HOW does stuff emerge from the void?" The 'why' word is Rod Serling's 'signpost up ahead' that you are about to enter The Twilight Zone!

As a Scientist, Einstein was a die-hard Objectivist. This was the basis for his stubborn refusal to accept the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of QM. But at the end of the day, like the rest of us, he went home to pursue other interests. I believe it safe to speculate his love of the violin was quite subjective and not perceived by him as an object with vibrating strings, nodes, anti-nodes, etc. We must take care not to view Einstein, as well as others, as momoliths.

For a good look at Einstein's own words, I recommend "Out of My Later Years" - a collection of short essays which span a wide range of topics.

I think Atom & Organism pretty much nailed it. It's as if there should be an 'a priori' question - Does anyone understand Richard Feynam? His genius was of a rare sort. His sense of words such as 'knowing', 'understanding', and one his classic phrases, "The pleasure of figuring things out", were not always applied in the conventional manner. For example, he wrote of a student who approached him after class with a question on some subject that Feynman believed he knew as well as he did the back of his hand. After several attempts, the student walked away still confused. Feynman reflected upon this and concluded that his failure indicated that he, himself, did not 'understand' it as well as he had thought. Again, as A & O indicated, I also believe that Feynman's use of 'understanding' was of a deep and profound nature indeed!

P.S. First, I wholeheartedly agree with Airbrush's response. Second, if I'm reading toastywombel correctly, that appears to be the EPR Paradox reworded, and that issue has pretty much been considered settled. Keep in mind, however, it deals only with communication, or transfer of information, not the transportation of matter.

Oh Brother! If that isn't an innocently loaded question if I've ever seen one! But I shall follow the forum's rules. I'm a pedestrian in such matters, but I think the Chemists have provided very good responses. If you look closely, though, they address the 'How' component, as good scientists rightly should. By phrasing the question with 'Why' puts us all on a slippery slope indeed! That single word permits(if not requires) the introduction of philosophical and theological perspectives as well. But by no means, don't let me be mistaken- there are no 'wrong' questions. It is simply yet another reminder of both the power and limitation Laguage imposes upon us.

I believe that the only solid evidence for the existence for any types of such membranes is in our very faces every day: Human Beings. The provide ample proof of the existence of 'p-branes'! By the way, didn't anybody 'get it' when that moniker first appeared?

We shall never 'see', literally. As the rate of acceleration of the cosmos continues to increase, we too are moving away from some region near this hypothesized perimeter. At some point, the rate of seperation will be so large that light signals from either end will never reach the other. Not unless you believe a 'faster than light' signalling system is possible. If you do, let me know- I've got this wonderful bridge in NYC I can let you have for a song!

My wife contracted MRSA 3 yrs. during a shoulder repl. op. So I read some. Best I can recommend is to research JAMA or NEJM for the latest. One interesting thing, though. While waiting in an outpatient lab, I noticed a recent issue of some 'Material Science' trade journal amongst the year old 'People Magazines'. I flipped through it and found an article relating an 'accidental' find by a researcher who found that, when placed on a copper surface, the bugs quickly perish! His prediction was that one day we shall see copper rather than stainless steel everywhere from the OR to the TV remote in the patient rooms.