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?

Hi zack... I do not know what you are talking about, BUT, being the argumentative type that I am, I have to ask a few simple basic questions.

1. "String" vs "Classical" / How do you come to this "premise" of how they act or re-act?
2. How does one try to understand how either works based on theories developed by people that assumed these are actually a reality?

End Note: I can keep on asking basic questions that can either identify the answers for you, or, you react with other human science and explanations to make
you feel somewhat knowledgeable [even though you stated you are not].

I am being somewhat decieving in my post... you choose which way to react... and on that last statement... "react"... you may understand the answer to a number of questions either posted by yourself or another based on the education enforced upon said individuals...

hi rex, haha i know <3,
1. umm, they are mathematical theories describing conflicting universes, in one (string) their is the potential for a single photon to weave its way in and out of time and space in such a way that the entire universe that you know is a byproduct of a single photon going back and forth through time gaining and losing mass weaving the giant tapestry known as the universe from a single photonic string (not the greatest explanation, but i like the picture it draws), and the other (classical) is a bubbling broth of particles popping in and out of existence from seemingly nothing , in the classical universe 0 is the highest number you can reach, and "nothing" has more power than a thousand suns, time has meaning only if you move fast enough and weigh enough, both are incredibly interesting.

2. Thats what i'm attempting to address with the post, the sad answer is "math", math far more complicated than you or i could hope to tackle in the near future

end note: basic questions will help alot, you'd be amazed how often a small child asks a scientist a silly question only to lead to a major breakthrough, as far as feeling knowledgeable, nothing will make you feel dumber than trying to grasp a scientific concept, feeling dumb is the highest aspiration one can achieve in science, it means some learning is about to happen

as far as the react comment, i hope you are not expecting an emotional response, this is the science channel, emotions go in the politcs and religion section

e: i would like to point out that the classical vs string theory debate is different than the multiverse vs universe debate, in the original op i conflated string theory with multiverse theory by accident (even though they can intertwine they are not required to)

This post was edited by dude_927 on Dec 2 2014 07:34am

i don't get it, someone explain pls

well since i broke this...thread? no? ok well since its already about string vs classical now instead of multiverse vs universe

fact: digital particles inside the empty space in the proton seem to pop in and out of existence

interpretation 1: those particles are being created from nothing (classical)

interpretation 2: those particles are just bouncing around in time to look as if they are popping in and out of existence (string)

interpretation 3: It's a'll made up guesses and random theories anyway (rex)

(^that is just my limited understanding, i could very easily be misrepresenting positions, except rex, he's anti science and he eats babies, fact)

This post was edited by dude_927 on Dec 2 2014 03:55pm

Classical physics is incorrect, but is a useful tool for things that behave mostly classically. Quantum mechanics continues the explanation where classical mechanics left off. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics imply a multiverse and others don't. One does not need to accept a multiverse to accept quantum mechanics, though many/most physicists think a multiverse is the best explanation for quantum behavior.

The problem is that quantum mechanics has not been reconciled with relativity, which is also correct. So we basically have two correct theories of the world that are in discord with each other.

String theory is an attempt to reconcile these two theories (quantum theory and relativity). It is highly speculative.

SO BASICALLY, one can accept a multiverse theory on scientific grounds without accepting string theory, and string theory is not at all a widely accepted theory of the world, though it is promising.

I may have gotten subtle facts wrong, so hopefully a physicist or physics students can come along to correct me. I'm just a layman.

yay, back on to the intended topic lol. you are correct as far as i know (but if i had to guess i would say you have a few years on me in the education dept. so that validation is rather irrelevant lol)

This post was edited by dude_927 on Dec 3 2014 09:45am

Simple there's no proof multiple universe exist or don't the end

Theres no "proof" there is any universe, never mind multiple, I can't even prove you exist, welcome to science

This post was edited by dude_927 on Dec 3 2014 12:15pm

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