merlin wood

Perhaps it's just that a successful theory of everything is such that a modern physicist is very unlikely to discover it. Hence it seems like all physicists who think that there could be such a theory also think that this would be an account that unifies gravity theory with quantum mechanics or theory. Whereas the behaviour of matter and energy that gravity theory explains is of a quite different kind to the behaviour that quantum mechanics describes. So,for example, gravity theory is able to explain the orbital motion of bodies by decribing how they can resist gravity in virtue of their momentum. Whereas this is not so in the case of electron orbitals that resist the charge force around the atomic nucleus. Also, there are no large scale observable equivalents to the quantum behaviour called wave, spin and entanglement. And then, what's more, unlike gravity theory, there's no account in quantum theory that explains these unique kinds of behaviour of quantum objects by describing enough details of a cause from its effects upon objects in motion.

But then that's the whole problem, given the standard model of quantum and particle physics, you just can't prove string theory wrong in any case. So, as string theorists themselves admit, whatever the results of the forthcoming Large Hadron Collider experiments, these wouldn't be sufficient to prove the theory right or wrong. Then if you read an argument for string theory, like in Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, you find it relies quite heavily on a certain interpretation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and how this can be thought to apply to what occurs at the Planck length, and which itself cannot be proven. So it seems to me that you get just back to the fundamental problem of how you interpret quantum mechanics and where there is no account that you can prove right or wrong since you're dealing with description of object behaviour that cannot be directly observed or detected by any means. I say the only way of disproving string theory is by developing a quite different kind of general theory that is based on the evidence of quantum physics but is supported by much more observable evidence than is string theory or the existing standard model of quantum theory for that matter. Although that really is a quite a different matter...

Here's a couple of other questions you could ask, MolotovCocktail: Why should anyone believe that superstring theory is anything more than a piece of elaborate mathematical trickery dressed up as science? Or in other words: Why should this theory be regarded as anything more than modern numerology?

...and so you can insist that the quantum theory of the standard model does not explain how matter as atoms and molecules can exist or persist given the known action of the forces. But rather, such an explanation requires enough detals to be suffiently justified and described of a cause of quantum wave, spin and entanglement behaviour from its effects upon objects in motion. While the evidence of quantum physics indicates that to produce this quantum behaviour a cause would need to act non-locally and thus could not be described as surrounding objects in 3D space.

Who knows? One day physicists will give up the attempt to develop an experimentally testable string theory and realise that, without the needto develop any theory of quantum gravity, there is evidence in quantum physics for the existence of a cause acting from large scale higher or extra dimensions of space

Just your opinion whereas one could maintain that all you need for a strong enough argument is a verbal account with reference to photographic images, dating measurements and anatomical diagrams of such evidence as the evolution from the hyracotherium to the modern horse and how this could have occurred as the result of enviromental conditions. "In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit needs evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis I'd say it's enough for my hypothesis to make one testable prediction and up to others to find more. As it is, the hypothesis finds, with the aid of clearly explained diagrams, a direct relationship between the quantum evidence and the mind and consciousness and a plausible alternative to dark natter and energy and cosmic inflation. none of which have been supported by any experimentation. Go on then, describe the property of attraction by mathematics. This is merely your opinion again. My hypothesis is both based upon a mathematically expressed quantum interpretation and also strongly supports this account, and thus equations that describe the physical universe are essential to my hypothetical argument. Again merely your opinion, I don't see why I personally need to give any more than a visualised account of quantum behaviour that is consistent with Bohmian mechanics Prove this please Again your opinion against mine. The wave and entanglement diagrama are, in effect, visual representations of existing equations. One crucisl point in my argument is just that the standard quantum mechanics does not provide an account of quantum behaviour as partices and waves that can be visualised and is thus crucially limited in this repect, whereas Bohm's and my account do so. I think it could help if I added the diagrams that have been produced from Bohmian mechanics though, eg: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/BohmFig2.gif and http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/BohmFig3.gif See reviews on books by the physicists Lee Smolin (Trouble with Physics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin and Peter Woit (Not Even Wrong) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article672464.ece and here is a quote by the physics Nobel laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft (from his book In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks): Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a “theory", rather a “model" or not even that: just a hunch. After all, a theory should come together with instructions on how to deal with it to identify the things one wishes to describe, in our case the elementary particles, and one should, at least in principle, be able to formulate the rules for calculating the properties of these particles, and how to make new predictions for them. Imagine that I give you a chair, while explaining that the legs are still missing, and that the seat, back and armrest will perhaps be delivered soon; whatever I did give you, can I still call it a chair? Superstring theory being a prime example of where you can give a convincing mathematical argument in physics and call it a theory of everything but need not describe anything in the world at all. Although from reading Smolin's book myself it seems that the idea of particles as vibrating strings works but not compacted extra dimensions of space since this leads to equations with myriads of solution. But then Smolin points out that that string theory satisfactorily finds solutions to only one of five crucial problems in theoretical physics that it could be expected to resolve.

Then I could just add that, of course, there are many mathematical equations in the Bohmian quantum mechanics that my quantum hypothesis is fully consistent with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation

I was talking about the findings of paleontology, and which do not need to be described mathematically to back up the theory of evolution. And I didn't mention population genetics above at all. The hypothesis on my blog does indeed make one prediction, concerning the detection of solar neutrinos and which is testable at least in principle and no doubt it could make others if developed into a full blown theory. But then physics is by no means justabout describing the natural world by mathematical equations. There are no papers in physics that only contain equations and the verbal argument is just as essential as the maths. Also, there are essential properties in physics that can't, just as such, be described mathematically, the attraction of a force, for example. And above I said: "I suggest that there can be developed such a universal theory of natural cause and effect that, like the theory of biological evolution, is in the first instance and for the most partof necessity non-mathematical...And as long as it has not been developed mathematically except in the existing quantum interpretation it may not be regarded as a full blown theory, but nor could it justly be called speculative. But rather I'd say such an account could be called a general scientific hypothesis." So I'm not saying that a full general theory of natural organisation could not contain measurement, calculation and mathematical formulae. And I suggest if you carefully read the hypthesis on my blog you'll find that it is not vague at all, and I think the diagrams I have used - which are essential to my argument - while rather crude, are quite clear illustrations of the extradimentinal properties of a universal non-locally acting cause. Actually I meant to say it doesn't make testable predictions.

Why believe there could be a successful unified account of general relativty and the quantum theory of the standard model if, even given the quantum theory, nobody understands quantum mechanics? The assumption seems to be that if you could develop a theory of quantum gravity you could then explain what is at present inexplicable in quantum theory. But is there any real justication for this assumption? Why shouldn't it be the case that the behaviour that is uniquely described of quantum objects, called wave, spin and entanglement, actually has nothing to do with any of the forces, with quantum field theory only giving the illusion that this could be so? Why shouldn't the quantum behaviour have its own independently acting cause, like that called the quantum potential in Bohmian mechanics, and it is for this reason that no successful theory of quantum gravity has been or can be developed?

My point is that it's not essential to all explanatory accounts of the natural evidence that they need to be expressed mathematically for them to deserve the status of scientific theories, or that all accounts that are non-mathematical deserve to be called speculations, which is what JustSuit was arguing. So the nature of evolutionary theory is such the it can't even make precise or reliable predictions, and this also true of plate techtonics theory in predicting earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. And it's not their predictive power that makes either of these theories acceptable. Also, evolution was generally recognised as a scientific theory for over century before any statistics were introduced, and largely because of mounting geological and paleontological evidence that backed it up, Whereas measurement and calculation are criteria that physicists often impose by their opinions upon scientific explanations in general, and when applied to physics itself can lead to inadequately justified acceptance of mathematically complex accounts such as string theory, which is not supported by any direct evidence and makes no predictions at all. Also, there are many instances of notions in physics that can be mathematically expressed but by no means need describe anything in the world at all, such as magnetic monopoles, wormholes in space and, in string theory, compacted small-scale extra dimensions of space. And according to Lee Smolin in The Trouble with Physics, because the mathematics in string theory leads to myriads of different sub-theories, there are several eminent physicists who have come to accept the highly unscientific idea of the many worlds anthropic principle, while others, like David Deutsch, embrace the multiverse just in virtue Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics. Whereas I'd say that what is and has been essential to any truly scientific theory is just that it is clearly and unambiguously describable account of natural cause and effect that accounts for a range of directly observable or detectable and consistently confirmable findings, and makes unique and conceivable predictions that are consistent with its cause and effect principles. Now I suggest that there can be developed such a universal theory of natural cause and effect that, like the theory of biological evolution, is in the first instance and fot the most part is of necessity non-mathematical, but like most existing theories can be expresed using diagrams and is founded in a particular causal interpretation of quantum mechanics. And as long as it has not been developed mathematically except in the existing quantum interpretation it may not be regarded as a full blown theory, but nor could it justly be called speculative. But rather I'd say such an account could be called a general scientific hypothesis.

Darwin's The Origin of the Species contained no maths at all. Does that makes his account of evolution speculation?

Tell me, please. exactly how could any mathematical equations describe how a cause just acts so that matter remains organised out of its subatomoic parts? So, on the one hand, you have causes that can be called forces that act within matter that attract or repel its subatomic components. And these can be measured and mathematically describes in terms of their strength of effect. Whereas no details can be descibed fo these forces to explain how matter can be and remain organised as atoms and molecules out of the components that these forces surround, and so no mathematical equations can be used to explain the cause of quantum entanglement. And yet you can conclude that something needs to cause particles to remain entangled in their composite behavioural relationshios such spin-up in relationship to spim down or vertical to horizontal polarisation. I'm saying that physics has missed out on a most significant cause and effect explanation in large part because the methodology of physics assumes that any theory requires measurement and calculation to be valid. While it is also true that to sufficiently develop a general theory of natural organisation evidence needs to be considered of the mind and consciousness that also cannot be described in terms of mathematical formulae, and that physicists are also unlikely to contemplate. And, in general, you can reasonably insist that the present physics has nothing whatsoever to say about accounting for how the organisation of matter into atoms, molecules and living organisms is possible given that this science only recognises the existence of causes that act so as to push or pull objects.

And, indeed, it was David Bohm who, in 1952, really put the cat among the quantum theorist pigeons by showing that, despite all the Copehagenist arguments by Niels Bohr, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli. John von Neumann etc, a mathematically systematic, determinate and causal hidden variables interpretation of quantum objects in motion could be given to account for a wide range of experimental results. http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/quote.html http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/bohmech.pdf And Bohm really should have been able to chase the Copenhagenist (as well as, later on, the many worlds) pigeons away for good but for the facts that: (a) in the 25 years since the birth of Copenhagenism, a generation of physicists had been brought up on the indeterminate interpretation. (b) all the leading Copenhagenists condemned Bohmian mechanics without any reasoned criticism as 'metaphysical', and © Rather than backing his determinate account up with additional scientific arguments, Bohm himself tended to live up to the metaphysical accusation by only introducing quite vague philosophical ideas in his subsequent books relating to his quantum theory. I say it is just because the determinate interpretation was rejected by the vast majority of physicists that no adequate theory of everything has been developed. Whereas developing a determinate non-local causal hypothesis from the quantum findings holds the key to a most remarkable and significal theory of everything that could be called a general theory of natural organisation.

Or, in short, Quantum Field Theory is not an explanatory account of how, in general, matter and the energy it radiates is or can be the way that it is. And so no theory of everything that is based on QFT, such as string theory, can be an explanatory account of how the universe is the way that it is.

My basic point is that, while QFT and the standard model can make accurate predictions and explain much concernining the specific chemical, electromagnetic, nuclear and constant visual properties of many forms of matter, it cannot clearly explain how matter and the energy it radiates can exist or persist while the know forces act as they have been described. And the reason that this is so is because the standard model does not include a cause and effect explanation of quantum wave, spin and entanglement. And I've found reasons to consider that, while there is no such explanation then no successful account, like string theory, could be developed that could be called a theory of everything.

I don't see why this thread has been demoted to the speculative. A determinate interpretation could be regarded as less speculative and more sensible than the predominate Copenhagen indeterminate interpretation of quantum physics. So you could insist that anything that can't be visualised, like the superposition of quantum states in CI, does not exist. Whereas Bohmian mechanics is a detailed and mathematically systematic, determinate hidden variables interpretation that has been visualised by computer generated diagrams. http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/quote.html http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/qts/node4.html http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ One trouble is that David Bohm did not help in reinforcing the scientific status of his own account of quantum physics by being more interested in philosophising about it than justifying it scientifically.

Physics has always be about forces and their effects upon matter and energy. All forces have in common that their strength can be measured from their effects where they push or pull objects. However, in quantum mechanics effects have been described that result from what has been called quantum entanglement, and these have no measurable strength. Whether a theory that explained quantum entanglement could still be called physics is a matter of opinion.

Whether all of the observed cosmic lensing is due to gravity depends on whether you believe in dark matter. Galaxies have been found to produce lensing that is consiistent with their possessing no dark matter halo. Is there another kind of causation that produces lensing apart from gravity. I've found reasons to believe that there is, and that also explains how galaxies formed in the first place, as well as the rapid orbital motion of stars rond spiral galaxies.

Whether all of the observed cosmic lensing is due to gravity depends on whether you believe in dark matter. Galaxies have been found to produce lensing that is consiistent with their possessing no dark matter halo. Is there another kind of causation that produces lensing apart from gravity. I;ve found reasons to believe that there is and that explains how galaxies foemed in the fist place, as well as the rapid orbital motion of stars round spiral galaxies.

Accuracy is certainly not the only measure of a successful theory. So Kepler's laws could be used to accurately predict the orbital motion of celestial bodies but said nothing about the weight, trajectory and free-fall of obects that are not in orbital motion like Newton's laws. Also, by being a theory of natural cause and effect, Newton's account of gravity and its effects explained how the weight, trajectory, fall and orbital motion of objects is possible, and still applies today even though Einstein's account could describe gravity in more detail and explain an even wider range of gravitational effects. Then in sciences other than physics there are theories that causally explan natural effects but can't be used to accurately predict them in measurable terms. Such are biological evolution, and also plate techtonics in relation to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. So perhaps more important than measured accuracy are the range of application and explanatory power of a theory. Thus even given quantum field theory, Richard Feynman, one of the theory's principle developers, always insisted that 'nobody understands quantum mechanics'. And Feynman's path integrals account of quantum behaviour bypassed the cause and effect problem of explaining this behaviour. So one could conclude that QFT is only the small scale equivalent to Kepler's account of the large scale behaviour of objects, and wonder whether the lack of a cause and effect explanation of quantum wave, spin and entanglement behaviour in QFT is the reason why no successful theory has been developed that unifies quantum theory with gravity and the general theory of relativity. I personally have found quite detailed reasons to consider that the nearest to a true and successful 'theory of everything' does not arise from an attempt to unify the forces at all but can be developed from a sufficienlty detailed cause and effect hypthesis of quantum wave and entanglemrent behaviour, and then finding support for this hypothesis from a wide range of larger scale natural evidence of where a distinct cause could be considered to act in addition to the known forces. See my blog.