Quote (S3rial_Joe @ Dec 3 2014 01:16pm)

Sweet I believe I. Parallel unis myself so depends on what's your flava

Quote (dude_927 @ Dec 2 2014 03:10am)

Being terrible at math as i am, i am unable to determine why string vs classical is even an argument. as far as i can tell the main argument for string/multiverse theory is a "dodge" of the religious "fine tuning" argument basically stating:
"The universe is ran by a strict set of laws and would fall apart if these laws were changed, therefore there may be others that are not so finely tuned or tuned in a different way",
and the classical argument as i understand it is thus :
"'The weight of a quark landed where it did because of the physical properties of a universe creating singularity, and will land at the same weight, with the same amount of matter/anti-matter, no matter how many times you "reroll the universe", we just have to deal with it"

do i even understand the arument? (obviously i know a little more about classical physics, but as im sure is also obvious, not that much more lol)
What is your take on this argument? (nn "whoa dude, i feel at one with everything therefore everything is one", real science/math only please)
and finally, if debates sound like they are spoken in latin, how should i go about understanding how this is even testable?

Quote (beotos @ Dec 4 2014 11:38am)

Wikipedia is your BFF

Quote (dude_927 @ Dec 4 2014 05:00pm)

i feel as if i made a fundamental error somewhere to invoke this comment, am i correct? oviously i have browed the wikis and listened to the kraus vs kaku debates, would you perhaps direct me particular page i may have overlooked? (astrobiology is more my thing is why i started this thread, physics are not something i am more than casually aware of)

Quote (dude_927 @ Dec 4 2014 04:00pm)

i feel as if i made a fundamental error somewhere to invoke this comment, am i correct? oviously i have browed the wikis and listened to the kraus vs kaku debates, would you perhaps direct me particular page i may have overlooked? (astrobiology is more my thing is why i started this thread, physics are not something i am more than casually aware of)

Quote (Voyaging @ Dec 4 2014 08:36pm)

To clarify my previous post, there is no classical vs. string debate. Classical is false. String may or may not be. It's a false dichotomy you're making it's not one or the other.

Quote (Voyaging @ Dec 4 2014 07:36pm)

To clarify my previous post, there is no classical vs. string debate. Classical is false. String may or may not be. It's a false dichotomy you're making it's not one or the other.

Quote (dude_927 @ Dec 4 2014 08:32pm)

by saying "false" you are misleading, classical physics work just fine (now correct me if i'm wrong on this part) it is only when 0's are added to the physical equations (an object that weighs nothing or weighs infinity for example) that the classical model "breaks down" and while these theoretical objects with these "rule breaking" properties are allowed in the classical model they do not imply the system is broken, merely that is is not equipped to deal with such situations. (and could probably be reworked in the future)

now while you are right that it is perfectly acceptable for string theory to be true alongside the classical model (in fact thats kind of the point),  the debate is merely "is string theory true?" in it's purest form, and is labeled as "combat oriented" as possible, much in the way "creation vs evolution" (something i'm much more familiar with) is also a false dichotomy but is an accepted debate topic for "hype" reasons

Quote (Thor123422 @ Dec 5 2014 09:05am)

We know classical mechanics are not exact solutions so they are false.  They don't break when you introduce zeros, they break when masses approach zero, sizes approach zero, speeds approach the speed of light, electrons are thought of as point charges, etc.  There's a lot of situations in which classical mechanics don't work which is how we know they aren't how the universe actually works, although for a large amount if situations they are appropriate approximations.

Quote (dude_927 @ Dec 5 2014 08:53am)

what is the exact solution for pi? is pi false? there are a few "lifeboats" for classical physics, if i understand correctly it's possible time could actually be the "broken" aspect and simply needs to be factored into Einsteins equation (again lay), but that may be the same type of "grasp at straws" the creation of string theory seems to be, but i failed physics twice, who am i to insult the irreverant dr michu kaku with such comments