./////////////////STRING THEORY IS WRONG PROBABLY
////////////////String theory: Is it science's ultimate dead end? For decades, physicists have been sure they could explain the universe in a handful of complex equations: now many are starting to fear they have been led down a cul-de-sac Robin McKie, science EditorSunday October 8, 2006The Observer
The most ambitious idea ever outlined by scientists has suffered a remarkable setback. It has been dismissed as a theoretical cul-de-sac that has wasted the academic lives of hundreds of the world's cleverest men and women.
This startling accusation has been made by frustrated physicists, including several Nobel prize winners, who say that string theory - which seeks to outline the entire structure of the universe in a few brief equations - is an intellectual dead end.
Article continues
Two new books published in America question its very basis. Far from providing mankind with the answers to the mystery of the cosmos, the theory is bogus, they claim.
As one scientist put it: 'The uncritical promotion of string theory is now damaging science.'
However, string theory proponents - who also include several Nobel prize winners - have denounced the criticisms and robustly defended their field. It has already led to many major breakthroughs in mathematics and physics, they say.
Suddenly string theory is tying scientists in knots - although the idea's origins are innocuous enough, and can be traced to physicists' attempts to get out of an intellectual impasse.
Last century, they created quantum mechanics to explain how tiny things - atoms and electrons - behave, while Einstein produced his theory of general relativity to account for the behaviour of huge objects such as galaxies.
Both theories work well - but they are incompatible. Quantum physics cannot explain massive things and relativity cannot account for little ones. By comparison, biologists have Darwin's theory of natural selection to explain living things, big and small, from whales to bacteria. Physicists have no unified code - a prospect that upset Einstein so much that he spent his last 20 years hunting, fruitlessly, for a unified theory of everything.
Then, in the Eighties, a group of scientists created string theory. Matter is not made up of small dot-like entities such as neutrons or quarks, they claimed, but of incredibly small threads of energy that vibrate. A string that vibrates one way becomes an electron. Another, vibrating differently, becomes a neutron. And another becomes one of the carriers of the force of gravity.
'You can think of the universe as a symphony or a song - for both are made up of notes produced by strings vibrating in particular ways,' said Professor Michael Green of Cambridge University.
It sounds intriguing. Unfortunately, to make their equations work, scientists had to add another six dimensions to the universe: four were not enough, though we cannot see these extra dimensions because they are so tightly crumpled up that they are invisible, it was argued. To the general public, of course, all this is faintly baffling.
Nevertheless, string theory proved encouragingly effective - at a theoretical level - to explain both the very small and the incredibly large, and so it began to dominate the study of fundamental physics at universities through the world. According to protagonists, it would soon be possible to describe the cosmos in a few simple equations that could fit on a T-shirt.
But as the years have passed, scientists failed to produced a single practical observation to support the theory. One problem, they said, was that the energy needed to break open matter and study the strings inside it is so colossal that it would require machines big enough to cover the planet.
On top of these problems, recent calculations have produced a surprising prediction from string theory: that there may be an almost infinite number of different universes, some of which would be like our own, and others that would be very different.
And it is at this point that the rot set in. An unprovable theory that talks of unseeable parallel universes and 10-dimensional space has proved too much for some physicists. 'Quasi-theology' and 'post-modern' have been among the most polite terms used; 'bogus' and 'nonsense' among the less forgiving.
'Far from a wonderful technological hope for a greater tomorrow, string theory is the tragic consequence of an obsolete belief system,' said Stanford University's Robert Laughlin, winner of the 1998 Nobel prize for physics.
For a theory that purports to explain the entire structure of the universe, such a high-level attack is very serious. Nor is Laughlin alone: for example, Peter Woit, of Columbia University, and Lee Smolin, of the Perimeter Institute, Canada, have just published books attacking string theory.
'Too many people have been overselling very speculative ideas,' said Woit - author of Not Even Wrong - last week. 'String theory has produced nothing.'
This point was backed by Smolin, whose book is called The Trouble with Physics. Scientists have poured all their energies into a theoretical approach that is proving sterile, he said. 'It is as if every medical researcher in the world had decided there was only way to fight cancer and had concentrated on this line of attack, at the expense of all other avenues,' he said. 'Then that approach is found not to work and scientists discover they have wasted 20 years. That's the parallel with string theory.'
Part of the problem, say critics, is that, in the Eighties, talented young physicists were encouraged by professors to take up string theory because of its immense promise. Now they are middle-aged department heads who have committed their lives to the subject and cannot see it is bogus. It is the scientific equivalent of the emperor's new clothes.
Not surprisingly, such accusations are angrily rejected by string theorists. A theory of everything cannot be created overnight, they argue. It is like complaining about the sound made by an unfinished violin. 'String theory is on the right path,' said David Gross, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and another Nobel prize winner. 'But this path is quite long. Further breakthroughs are required.'
Nor is it correct to argue that the theory is wrong because it makes no provable or disprovable predictions, said Sanjaye Ramgoolam, of Queen Mary, University of London. 'There are a number of ways that we could prove - or disprove - string theory. For example, Europe's new Large Hadron Collider [being built at Cern in Geneva] may well be powerful enough to provide evidence that suggests we are on the right road.'
And as for the notion that string theorists have their heads stuck in the sand and refuse to see the truth, this is firmly rejected by Green: 'All scientists are excited by new ideas. That is why we are scientists. But when it comes to a unified theory, there have been no new ideas. There is no alternative to string theory. It is the only show in town - and the universe.'
A dinner party guide to string theory
· Matter is made up of infinitesimally small strings of vibrating energy.
· Different vibrations produce different particles, like the quark and the electron.
· We live in a 10-dimensional universe.
· Proponents say it is the only hope we have of producing a unified theory of everything, the holy grail that eluded Einstein.
The most ambitious idea ever outlined by scientists has suffered a remarkable setback. It has been dismissed as a theoretical cul-de-sac that has wasted the academic lives of hundreds of the world's cleverest men and women.
This startling accusation has been made by frustrated physicists, including several Nobel prize winners, who say that string theory - which seeks to outline the entire structure of the universe in a few brief equations - is an intellectual dead end.
Article continues
Two new books published in America question its very basis. Far from providing mankind with the answers to the mystery of the cosmos, the theory is bogus, they claim.
As one scientist put it: 'The uncritical promotion of string theory is now damaging science.'
However, string theory proponents - who also include several Nobel prize winners - have denounced the criticisms and robustly defended their field. It has already led to many major breakthroughs in mathematics and physics, they say.
Suddenly string theory is tying scientists in knots - although the idea's origins are innocuous enough, and can be traced to physicists' attempts to get out of an intellectual impasse.
Last century, they created quantum mechanics to explain how tiny things - atoms and electrons - behave, while Einstein produced his theory of general relativity to account for the behaviour of huge objects such as galaxies.
Both theories work well - but they are incompatible. Quantum physics cannot explain massive things and relativity cannot account for little ones. By comparison, biologists have Darwin's theory of natural selection to explain living things, big and small, from whales to bacteria. Physicists have no unified code - a prospect that upset Einstein so much that he spent his last 20 years hunting, fruitlessly, for a unified theory of everything.
Then, in the Eighties, a group of scientists created string theory. Matter is not made up of small dot-like entities such as neutrons or quarks, they claimed, but of incredibly small threads of energy that vibrate. A string that vibrates one way becomes an electron. Another, vibrating differently, becomes a neutron. And another becomes one of the carriers of the force of gravity.
'You can think of the universe as a symphony or a song - for both are made up of notes produced by strings vibrating in particular ways,' said Professor Michael Green of Cambridge University.
It sounds intriguing. Unfortunately, to make their equations work, scientists had to add another six dimensions to the universe: four were not enough, though we cannot see these extra dimensions because they are so tightly crumpled up that they are invisible, it was argued. To the general public, of course, all this is faintly baffling.
Nevertheless, string theory proved encouragingly effective - at a theoretical level - to explain both the very small and the incredibly large, and so it began to dominate the study of fundamental physics at universities through the world. According to protagonists, it would soon be possible to describe the cosmos in a few simple equations that could fit on a T-shirt.
But as the years have passed, scientists failed to produced a single practical observation to support the theory. One problem, they said, was that the energy needed to break open matter and study the strings inside it is so colossal that it would require machines big enough to cover the planet.
On top of these problems, recent calculations have produced a surprising prediction from string theory: that there may be an almost infinite number of different universes, some of which would be like our own, and others that would be very different.
And it is at this point that the rot set in. An unprovable theory that talks of unseeable parallel universes and 10-dimensional space has proved too much for some physicists. 'Quasi-theology' and 'post-modern' have been among the most polite terms used; 'bogus' and 'nonsense' among the less forgiving.
'Far from a wonderful technological hope for a greater tomorrow, string theory is the tragic consequence of an obsolete belief system,' said Stanford University's Robert Laughlin, winner of the 1998 Nobel prize for physics.
For a theory that purports to explain the entire structure of the universe, such a high-level attack is very serious. Nor is Laughlin alone: for example, Peter Woit, of Columbia University, and Lee Smolin, of the Perimeter Institute, Canada, have just published books attacking string theory.
'Too many people have been overselling very speculative ideas,' said Woit - author of Not Even Wrong - last week. 'String theory has produced nothing.'
This point was backed by Smolin, whose book is called The Trouble with Physics. Scientists have poured all their energies into a theoretical approach that is proving sterile, he said. 'It is as if every medical researcher in the world had decided there was only way to fight cancer and had concentrated on this line of attack, at the expense of all other avenues,' he said. 'Then that approach is found not to work and scientists discover they have wasted 20 years. That's the parallel with string theory.'
Part of the problem, say critics, is that, in the Eighties, talented young physicists were encouraged by professors to take up string theory because of its immense promise. Now they are middle-aged department heads who have committed their lives to the subject and cannot see it is bogus. It is the scientific equivalent of the emperor's new clothes.
Not surprisingly, such accusations are angrily rejected by string theorists. A theory of everything cannot be created overnight, they argue. It is like complaining about the sound made by an unfinished violin. 'String theory is on the right path,' said David Gross, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and another Nobel prize winner. 'But this path is quite long. Further breakthroughs are required.'
Nor is it correct to argue that the theory is wrong because it makes no provable or disprovable predictions, said Sanjaye Ramgoolam, of Queen Mary, University of London. 'There are a number of ways that we could prove - or disprove - string theory. For example, Europe's new Large Hadron Collider [being built at Cern in Geneva] may well be powerful enough to provide evidence that suggests we are on the right road.'
And as for the notion that string theorists have their heads stuck in the sand and refuse to see the truth, this is firmly rejected by Green: 'All scientists are excited by new ideas. That is why we are scientists. But when it comes to a unified theory, there have been no new ideas. There is no alternative to string theory. It is the only show in town - and the universe.'
A dinner party guide to string theory
· Matter is made up of infinitesimally small strings of vibrating energy.
· Different vibrations produce different particles, like the quark and the electron.
· We live in a 10-dimensional universe.
· Proponents say it is the only hope we have of producing a unified theory of everything, the holy grail that eluded Einstein.
////////////////////We're on a road to nowhereCome on insideTakin' that ride to nowhereWe'll take that rideFeelin' okay this mornin'And you know,We're on the road to paradiseHere we go, here we go
////////////////Treatment Options for Vitiligo:
Medical Therapies
Topical steroid therapy
Topical psoralen photochemotherapy
Oral psoralen photochemotherapy
Depigmentation
Surgical Therapies
Skin grafts from a person's own tissues (autologous)
Skin grafts using blisters
Micropigmentation (tattooing)
Autologous melanocyte transplants
Adjunctive Therapies
Sunscreens
Cosmetics
Counselling and support
Medical Therapies
Topical steroid therapy
Topical psoralen photochemotherapy
Oral psoralen photochemotherapy
Depigmentation
Surgical Therapies
Skin grafts from a person's own tissues (autologous)
Skin grafts using blisters
Micropigmentation (tattooing)
Autologous melanocyte transplants
Adjunctive Therapies
Sunscreens
Cosmetics
Counselling and support
///////////////////LAD IN A SPF TIME AND PLACE
//////////////////ANIMAL LOVERS=We pet the dog, and then we eat the cow
////////////////our massive, industrial-scale systems of cruelty to cows deeply debase all humanity
////////////////Koch isn't saying that we shouldn't inflict pain on animals because they're related to us; he's saying we shouldn't inflict pain on animals because they're capable of experiencing pain. Our common ancestry is just a way to become aware of that fact
VEGAN BY EMPATHY
//////////////////// thought lots of carbohydrate was bad?
Not true at all. Your body was designed to run on mostly carbohydrates. And as you can see from the charts at the top of this page, all plant foods are mostly carbohydrates -- not just potatoes and bread. In fact, as you can see above, the ONLY way to avoid carbohydrates is to eat only meat, which is the only food without carbohydrates. And since meat has no carbohydrate, all that's left is dangerous amounts of protein and fat.
If you were trying to avoid carbohydrates because you thought they were fattening, then either (1) you probably WEREN'T avoiding carbohydrates, because you now see that all plant foods are mostly carbohydrates (even broccoli and beans), or (2) you were really avoiding carbohydrates the only way possible, by eating lots of meat. But that meant you were overdosing on fat or protein, or both.
The only problem with carbohydrates are with those that are heavily refined -- like white sugar and white flour. White sugar is empty calories with no other nutritional value. White flour has had vitamins and minerals removed, and is deficient in fiber. (Better is whole wheat flour.)
Not true at all. Your body was designed to run on mostly carbohydrates. And as you can see from the charts at the top of this page, all plant foods are mostly carbohydrates -- not just potatoes and bread. In fact, as you can see above, the ONLY way to avoid carbohydrates is to eat only meat, which is the only food without carbohydrates. And since meat has no carbohydrate, all that's left is dangerous amounts of protein and fat.
If you were trying to avoid carbohydrates because you thought they were fattening, then either (1) you probably WEREN'T avoiding carbohydrates, because you now see that all plant foods are mostly carbohydrates (even broccoli and beans), or (2) you were really avoiding carbohydrates the only way possible, by eating lots of meat. But that meant you were overdosing on fat or protein, or both.
The only problem with carbohydrates are with those that are heavily refined -- like white sugar and white flour. White sugar is empty calories with no other nutritional value. White flour has had vitamins and minerals removed, and is deficient in fiber. (Better is whole wheat flour.)
GO FOR BROWN CARBS AND EAT SPARINGLY
//////////////I always stutter when I try to be politically correct."
///////////////OWN TAKE ON THIS=OTOT
/////////////OPAN-AGM BORN 1994-95 BGUIATI
/////////////////When it comes to fairness, though, it is a different story. Economic theory has contrived a species it calls Homo economicus—a "rational maximiser" who grabs what he can for himself. But, curiously, he makes no appearance in the ultimatum game, a classic economics experiment.In this game, two players, a proposer and a responder, divide a reward. It could be a cake. It could be cash. It could even be a bunch of grapes. The game is so named because the proposition is an ultimatum. The responder can either accept the division or reject it. If he rejects it, both players receive nothing.
HOMO ECONOMICUS- A RATIONAL MAXIMISER
////////////////////In the early mammalian lineage, there is a pattern of progressive reduction of the various secondary jaw elements and an expansion of the dentary bone to take over the whole job of the jaw. We have an excellent record of the transformation of the jaw and skull elements in mammalian evolution — in short, what we see is that everything but the dentary gets smaller and smaller, and gets pushed farther and farther back towards the skull. We have transitional forms that have double articulations of the jaw with the skull—one between the old articular bone and the quadrate bone of the skull, and another between the dentary and the squamosal (the current jaw joint in modern mammals)—and then forms where the old hodge-podge of bones have been cast free of the jaw altogether.
In us, the old articular and quadrate bones have completely lost their role in supporting the jaw as a joint and instead have become imbedded in the middle ear of mammals, suspended with the stapes between two delicate membranes to specialize in conducting sound vibrations to the inner ear. What does the hearing apparatus look like in Yanoconodon?
In us, the old articular and quadrate bones have completely lost their role in supporting the jaw as a joint and instead have become imbedded in the middle ear of mammals, suspended with the stapes between two delicate membranes to specialize in conducting sound vibrations to the inner ear. What does the hearing apparatus look like in Yanoconodon?
/////////////////The benefits of 80 million years without sex
by PHYSORG
Reposted from:http://www.physorg.com/news111332210.htmlScientists have discovered how a microscopic organism has benefited from nearly 80 million years without sex. Bdelloid rotifers are asexual organisms, meaning that they reproduce without males. Without sex, these animals lack many of the ways in which sexual animals adapt over generations to survive in their natural environment. Although other asexual organisms are known, they are thought to become extinct after relatively short time periods because they are unable to adapt. Therefore, how bdelloid rotifers have survived for tens of millions of years has been a mystery to scientists. Bdelloids typically live in freshwater pools. However, if deprived of water they enter a dehydrated state in which they can remain for many years, surviving almost complete water loss. They then revive, having suffered no ill effect, once water becomes available again.
by PHYSORG
Reposted from:http://www.physorg.com/news111332210.htmlScientists have discovered how a microscopic organism has benefited from nearly 80 million years without sex. Bdelloid rotifers are asexual organisms, meaning that they reproduce without males. Without sex, these animals lack many of the ways in which sexual animals adapt over generations to survive in their natural environment. Although other asexual organisms are known, they are thought to become extinct after relatively short time periods because they are unable to adapt. Therefore, how bdelloid rotifers have survived for tens of millions of years has been a mystery to scientists. Bdelloids typically live in freshwater pools. However, if deprived of water they enter a dehydrated state in which they can remain for many years, surviving almost complete water loss. They then revive, having suffered no ill effect, once water becomes available again.
/////////////////COE=ANGLICAN CHURCH
/////////////////UK WOMEN=45% OF WORKFORCE
////////////////
No comments:
Post a Comment