3 ms·

Let me put on my reductionist hat: what use would be such a theory, if it perfectly matches observed reality but offers absolutely nothing new? String theory h

by hga 12y ago

Let me put on my reductionist hat: what use would be such a theory, if it perfectly matches observed reality but offers absolutely nothing new? String theory has often been called mental mstrbtn (evidently using the real world hellbans such comments); should anyone get paid for pleasuring their minds in this way???

manicdee 12y ago
"Intellectual onanism" is a more sophisticated way ofsaying the same thing without triggering the bad word police.
- hga 12y ago
  Without, though, the wonderful alliteration. Thanks, the modern word isn't part of my working vocabulary.
  - CGamesPlay 12y ago
    Apparently not a modern word; biblical: http://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm http://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm
    - hga 12y ago
      That's the etymology, but from what I looked up it wasn't used as such until the 16th Century.
ssivark 12y ago
In all the cases that have been historically tested, it agrees with observations, as the article claims. It doesn't mean that's all there is. At least in the particular example of string theory, it is way more than that. 1. Firstly, it is more a framework, rather than a specific model. Eg: You cannot test statistical mechanics (framework) as such, you test the kinetic theory of gases (model). String theory is still quite nascent: there's been tremendous progress, but the goals are also very ambitious. It might take a few more decades for scientific research to culminate in a concrete model that provides ripe pickings for practical applications. 2. There are definite some limits where string theory has added new insights on things we simply had no clue about (One such poster child is the concept of "dualities" between field theories, and new ways to understand very practical aspects of quantum field theory.) I do not wish to go into too many details, for fear of digressing. Consider this apocryphal story about Faraday: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/faraday.asp http://www.snopes.com/quotes/faraday.asp Sometimes it takes a lot of imagination and a significant period of time before progress in basic science can be applied to human existence. But in the long run, it will invariably alter the situation drastically, in a way we can barely imagine. 1. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/material-question http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/material-questi... 2. Amara's law: "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run." Given the possible payoff in the long run, imho, the investment being made today is a trivial amount. Eg: "It's been only half jokingly said that today a third of the GDP is attributable to quantum mechanics." http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/Augustine2.html http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/Augustine2.html
yummyfajitas 12y ago
Conceptual simplicity. Newtonian celestial mechanics does not make any new predictions that Copernican mechanics does not (at least before space travel is viable), but it sure is much nicer to work with.
- phaemon 12y ago
  Yes it does. Even assuming you meant "Keplarian mechanics" (circular orbits give horrible predictions for planetary movement), Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation provided much more accurate predictions of the Moon's movements. Not the movements of Mercury though. We had to wait for Einstein for that.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Sorry I'm completely forgetting the name of the theory I'm thinking of. It involves planets moving on circles on harmonic spheres (as opposed to sjmply following great circles) and accounts fairly well for celestial motion. Its now mostly forgotten due to being a complete tangent on the way to Newtonian mechanics, but it was pretty clever.
    - ahh 12y ago
      Epicycles.

by hga 12y ago

manicdee 12y ago

"Intellectual onanism" is a more sophisticated way ofsaying the same thing without triggering the bad word police.

hga 12y ago
Without, though, the wonderful alliteration. Thanks, the modern word isn't part of my working vocabulary.
- CGamesPlay 12y ago
  Apparently not a modern word; biblical: http://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm http://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm
  - hga 12y ago
    That's the etymology, but from what I looked up it wasn't used as such until the 16th Century.

ssivark 12y ago

In all the cases that have been historically tested, it agrees with observations, as the article claims. It doesn't mean that's all there is. At least in the particular example of string theory, it is way more than that. 1. Firstly, it is more a framework, rather than a specific model. Eg: You cannot test statistical mechanics (framework) as such, you test the kinetic theory of gases (model). String theory is still quite nascent: there's been tremendous progress, but the goals are also very ambitious. It might take a few more decades for scientific research to culminate in a concrete model that provides ripe pickings for practical applications. 2. There are definite some limits where string theory has added new insights on things we simply had no clue about (One such poster child is the concept of "dualities" between field theories, and new ways to understand very practical aspects of quantum field theory.) I do not wish to go into too many details, for fear of digressing. Consider this apocryphal story about Faraday: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/faraday.asp http://www.snopes.com/quotes/faraday.asp Sometimes it takes a lot of imagination and a significant period of time before progress in basic science can be applied to human existence. But in the long run, it will invariably alter the situation drastically, in a way we can barely imagine. 1. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/material-question http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/material-questi... 2. Amara's law: "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run." Given the possible payoff in the long run, imho, the investment being made today is a trivial amount. Eg: "It's been only half jokingly said that today a third of the GDP is attributable to quantum mechanics." http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/Augustine2.html http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/Augustine2.html

yummyfajitas 12y ago

Conceptual simplicity. Newtonian celestial mechanics does not make any new predictions that Copernican mechanics does not (at least before space travel is viable), but it sure is much nicer to work with.

phaemon 12y ago
Yes it does. Even assuming you meant "Keplarian mechanics" (circular orbits give horrible predictions for planetary movement), Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation provided much more accurate predictions of the Moon's movements. Not the movements of Mercury though. We had to wait for Einstein for that.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Sorry I'm completely forgetting the name of the theory I'm thinking of. It involves planets moving on circles on harmonic spheres (as opposed to sjmply following great circles) and accounts fairly well for celestial motion. Its now mostly forgotten due to being a complete tangent on the way to Newtonian mechanics, but it was pretty clever.
  - ahh 12y ago
    Epicycles.