And if so, what does it mean to you from an existential perspective?
And if so, what does it mean to you from an existential perspective?
No, because what possible experiment could disprove it? If there is no possible experiment that could disprove a theory, it's not science. It might be fun to think about or write a Star Trek episode about, but it's not science. Falsifiability is a cornerstone of science. Einstein's theories had plenty of opportunities to be proven wrong, but all the experiments anyone can come up with have failed to disprove them. Those dudes who traveled all over the world to photograph distant stars during a solar eclipse were performing an experiment that would have utterly destroyed general relativity had the stars turned out to not be shifted. But they were in fact shifted and the theory lived another day. Another problem with the many worlds theory is that there would be just to many worlds as every single subatomic event would beget more and more worlds until it just gets ridiculous. What is the theory really explaining anyway?
Henry Porter II wrote:
Einstein's theories had plenty of opportunities to be proven wrong, but all the experiments anyone can come up with have failed to disprove them.
That's right! Everything Einstein said about gravity is correct, just the vast majority of the universe is made of some unknown, undetectable stuff so it won't be wrong. We'll call that stuff "dark matter."
Physics is math - the interpretation of that math is philosophy. Many-worlds, least-action, complex-probability all look the same mathematically.
The interesting stuff is happening at the GUT level.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Henry Porter II wrote:Einstein's theories had plenty of opportunities to be proven wrong, but all the experiments anyone can come up with have failed to disprove them.
That's right! Everything Einstein said about gravity is correct, just the vast majority of the universe is made of some unknown, undetectable stuff so it won't be wrong. We'll call that stuff "dark matter."
Oh my god. Are you seriously implying that Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong? With absolutely no evidence to back it up? I thought you were idiotic when you implied that Ryun doped with nothing to back up your suspicions, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Einstein's theories are SCIENCE; without it, no nukes, no space travel, no useful calculations about space. You can't have opinions about proven science. That's like staying your opinion on whether gravity exists--oh wait, you just did that. Oh my god.
186,410 miles a second/10 for your trolling.
Someone who can't believe this wrote:
Oh my god. Are you seriously implying that Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong? With absolutely no evidence to back it up? I thought you were idiotic when you implied that Ryun doped with nothing to back up your suspicions, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Einstein's theories are SCIENCE; without it, no nukes, no space travel, no useful calculations about space. You can't have opinions about proven science. That's like staying your opinion on whether gravity exists--oh wait, you just did that. Oh my god.
186,410 miles a second/10 for your trolling.
Is THIS the first time you've seen the stuff he posts?
Someone who can't believe this wrote:
Oh my god. Oh my god.
Well, that's very emotional of you "two," but typically you have no actual argument, just a lot of flabbergast.
Just how is modern physics good science when it first tries to paper over contrary evidence with wild speculation before reexamining its models? No model of gravity successfully predicts the rotation of galaxies, which is a big failure of any theory since galaxies are a big chunk of the universe. Far easier to conjure up conveniently hard-to-detect forms of matter and energy for 95 percent of the universe to be. They'd rather go with 95% hypothetical than "maybe we were wrong." Even after several decades they still can't color in that blank 95% of the picture.
That's one of the big problems in modern science. Without proper training in humanities, most scientists are as philosophically incompetent as religious people. Not to mention as devoted to dogma. Deny it all you want, someone else, but not you "two," for devotion to dogma is the entire substance of your whiny little rants.
What cosmology needs is treatment by competent metaphysicians who can decide just what space, matter, time and energy really are beneath all the equations. Forget the abstractions - what's really there? Until then, they might as well be earth, wind, fire, and water.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Just how is modern physics good science when it first tries to paper over contrary evidence with wild speculation before reexamining its models? No model of gravity successfully predicts the rotation of galaxies, which is a big failure of any theory since galaxies are a big chunk of the universe. Far easier to conjure up conveniently hard-to-detect forms of matter and energy for 95 percent of the universe to be. They'd rather go with 95% hypothetical than "maybe we were wrong." Even after several decades they still can't color in that blank 95% of the picture.
That's one of the big problems in modern science. Without proper training in humanities, most scientists are as philosophically incompetent as religious people. Not to mention as devoted to dogma. Deny it all you want, someone else, but not you "two," for devotion to dogma is the entire substance of your whiny little rants.
What cosmology needs is treatment by competent metaphysicians who can decide just what space, matter, time and energy really are beneath all the equations. Forget the abstractions - what's really there? Until then, they might as well be earth, wind, fire, and water.
Well you should be the one. The one who FIXES science.
What do you do for a living? Surely you should drop that this very instant and shock the world by doing what no other scientist is capable of doing. Making this your career will give you everything you could ever want, be it money, fame, or the simple pursuit of knowledge.
Seriously, you NEED to do this, and when you become famous, winning Noble prizes and shit, be sure to mention letsrun.com.
Guess you never heard of the quantum suicide experiment.In at least one universe, there is a documentary film about my winning 20 Olympic Golds in all events from the 100 to the marathon. It features especially my sub 3 minute mile and sub 2 hour marathon, and of course, it's documentary so it happened, in at least one universe.
Henry Porter II wrote:
No, because what possible experiment could disprove it?
Actual Physicist wrote:
Physics is math - the interpretation of that math is philosophy. Many-worlds, least-action, complex-probability all look the same mathematically.
The interesting stuff is happening at the GUT level.
Too bad most academic physicists completely fail at this. The style of physics education in most top tier American universities very much under-emphasizes the intuitive. It's an equation memorization competition in most manifestations. Even the people at CERN fail to comprehend the unification of physics and metaphysics which we have arrived at. The ancient principle of non-distinction between self and non-self is the age-old contemplation of the Heisenberg uncertainty.. the act of observation or contemplation of the object in the language of the existential self is the essential action which invariably alters the nature of the system. Doesn't help that half the majors on any given campus are essentially the religion of self-worship: gender studies, etc. All but the most steadfast are sucked into this abyss-like climate of intellectual degeneracy which plagues American universities.
are you serious?
A theory that doesn't explain everything isn't wrong, it is just incomplete. Newton's theory of gravity was testable, and explained all the tests possible at the time. Even today it is fine for many, if not most, cases. But Einstein's theory took things a step further, and explains even more phenomena. The fact that it doesn't account for every observation doesn't make it wrong, just incomplete. This is well known and understood in the science world, if not on internet forums.
My understanding is that quantum entanglement has been proven, and that is something Einstein thought impossible. Crude quantum computers have been built (one is at Yale), that rely on entanglement. No one can really explain why entanglement happens. Many Worlds is one explanation, although the physicists who hold to this explanation are very much in the minority.