> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 9:48 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Elegant science (was Re: Scientific methodology) > > > There is a serious difference between string theory and evolution. String > theory is mathematically elegent but since there is no experimental data > to support it many in the physics community do not consider it science at > least not yet.
Well, the problem string theory was developed to solve was the resolution of gravity with QM. We have the Standard Theory for weak forces, which is solid, we have QCD, which does fairly decently, but we have no quantum theory of gravity. If one theory could be shown to explain both gravity and QM, >Some of the notions of string theory may be testible with >the next >generation of super coliders since energies associated with the >weak gauge boson will be produced. That will help by adding further constraints to the problem. If we are lucky, some additional required attributes for any theory will be developed...narrowing the range of possibilities. >In the physics community there is far from universal acceptance of >string theory. It's not at a point yet where it works...and there are different guesses as to which theories will prove out in the end. The last time I looked, variations of fuzzy space had made some progress. I don't know if Rich knows more about that than I do. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
