Forum:Brian Greene, string theory, ETs...?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What do you think about the supersting theory/m-theory and Brian greene? Do you think that it can provide answers for the search of a unifying theory? Imo i think it can lead to pseudoscientific hypotheses very easily. Look here: (" Brian Greene talks about, among other things, that there is a higher probability that we live in a universe that was created by an advanced race rather than a universe which was created without any help")

Sounds like simulated reality to me. What do you think about this hypotheses too? Is it crank? To me, the antropic principle, only leads us to believe that we are pretty lucky but still that life is fine-tuned for the universe, not the opposite.

Last question. Do you think that we're ever gonna get to a model of physics that can do what evolution does for biology (aka. prove that the universe/multiverse is eternal and uncreated)?

Gianga23 (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because people misuse it, that doesn't mean superstring and m-theories are prone to pseudoscience. They are scientific theories, largely unproven at this point, but that has no bearing on what stupid people choose to warp them into. Also, no physical theory exists that can do what you're looking for. For one thing, the farthest back in time that we can go is the time in which the current cosmic neutrino background radiation originated. Even then, we can't observe these neutrinos because their cross-sectional area is so small that it would take planet-sized chunks of lead just to stop one. Anything before that is a mystery.
Of course, even if we had lighter, lower energy particles to study, and we could see back right to the moment of the Big Bang, so what? One can't prove that the universe isn't eternal and isn't created. That should be obvious for the creation part (God did it can always be an excuse). For the "eternal" part, depending on the shape of space-time in the universe, it's perfectly plausible that the universe will end in a "Big Crush", so to speak, wherein the universe reaches some maximum size, and then expansion reverses, crushing the universe into a singularity. If this theory is reality, who knows how many such cycles there could be? Nobody purports to know whether or not the universe is "eternal", and I doubt it's a question we can ever answer conclusively. - Grant (Talk) 14:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but to me there's either the creation ( whatever kind it is ) hypotheses or the eternal universe hypotheses. The most natural one is the second to accept. Or do you really can believe that we live in a simulated reality? Gianga23 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Your statement is basically equivalent to "we can either have apples, or oranges, but it's most likely oranges. Or do you really believe that the sky is green?" ... I have no idea what you're saying. - Grant (Talk) 15:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...i'm just saying what I think. Life on earth doesn't seem fine-tuned at all to me (natural selection is what makes it change) and I think it's psychologically paranoic to think that the universe is a product of someone or that it is a "virtual reality"... It lacks of pragmatic evidence and it sounds like a mythological way of viewing things. If one must postulate something eternal, why shouldn't we postulate, put simply, that the universe is eternal? It's all we know. The example you've made doesn't describe what I mean. "I mean if we have always known oranges, and apples are just a product of our speculation, we should more likely choose oranges. And nonetheless, the idea of the universe as a big computer, or a god at the beginning, or something supernatural not only seems to me empirically improbable, but most of all it sounds to my gut simply plain fantasy (or bullshit). It's the idea in itself full of contradictions, because the question it arises is- Why?." So it is more reasonable, at least for me, to think that that the universe simply is the product of careless natural laws. Gianga23 (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My response was strictly about superstring theory, m-theory, and the concept of an "eternal" universe. There is nothing inherent in superstring theory or m-theory that implies a creator, or some kind of guiding intelligence/simulation. Perhaps this Brian Greene guy goes on about it or something, but you stated that you think superstring theory "can lead to pseudoscientific hypotheses very easily". This is what I'm disputing. Also, I'm pointing out that there is no evidence that the universe is eternal, and there is also no evidence that it is finite in age. I'm not sure why you're setting up a false dichotomy where it's either eternal or created. - Grant (Talk) 15:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well ok, I think we're talking about nothing anyway. Ahah :)

Gianga23 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

from what I have read string theory leads into quantum gravity and the maths of that leads to a bounce if you try to run time backwards to a big bang. They have said that does not exclude a big bang but tends to show a cyclic universe is possible. Apparently some factors wipe out the state of entropy at the bounce so you start fresh. There is also some talk that the 3d world we perceive is not the 'real' world but a projection of what is happening on the boundry of the universe. This apparently came from considering the information content of black holes. I have heard the simulation argument and did red an article that seemed to say some 'code' had been discovered but I didn't follow it at all. Hamster (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Quantum gravity isn't really a thing. However, some string theories and cosmological models do allow for there to be a "Big Bounce" such that the conditions you mention still hold. - Grant (Talk) 17:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Any link for that article? I don't think i'm following what you mean about black holes. Gianga23 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

try youtube and search holographic universe. I think THIS was where I started. He seems to be a real physicist. Sadly I dont have the maths to try working it myself so I am going somewhat by expert opinion.Hamster (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
esentially they are saying that when something falls into a black hole the information about the object is somehow retained at the event horizon. Hamster (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Susskind is indeed a real physicist. I also recommend checking out this WP article for more information on the subject. - Grant (Talk) 19:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)