The Truth about the Starting Strength Method

[Jonathon Sullivan]

The post #72 is from Sean Herbison: something that cannot be tested in the foreseeable future (< 1000 years in this case) cannot be science... .

Science is not commerce, and science has made predictions that had to await suitable technology for observation before.

And one might point out that a theory that proposes entities with energies so high that we can't produce them with foreseeable technology might make other, unexpected predictions if it continues to be nurtured. Quantum gravity and string theory are not a waste of our time and effort. But this argument probably is.

[Sean Herbison]

The post #72 is from Sean Herbison: something that cannot be tested in the foreseeable future (< 1000 years in this case) cannot be science...

That's not what I was saying at all.

neither strings nor gravitons are, as far as I am aware, observable with any technology we could even hope to possess for millenia, if ever.

Millennia? That's an awfully long time in terms of the progress of technology. It's possible that these are things we won't ever be able to observe based on innate laws of how the universe works. But if they aren't, I doubt it will take millennia.

My point was that I doubt Silly's statement. If the technology is indeed possible (though it may not be), I believe saying it will take millennia is an underestimation of how fast technology advances.

I'm saying if it can be done, it won't take >1000 years, not that it's not science.

[nykid]

I get it George. Really. We fucked up, really bad, and we're sorry.

Lol. I love you, Rip.

[Elephant]

Assuming a good enough piece of software, you can have a computer run through a huge amount of algebra and say "right" or "wrong" to everything you've written

My proposed algebra to check: for a given polynomial (integer coefficients, finite number of unknowns), tell me if it has an integer solution.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

That's not what I was saying at all.


My point was that I doubt Silly's statement. If the technology is indeed possible (though it may not be), I believe saying it will take millennia is an underestimation of how fast technology advances.

I'm saying if it can be done, it won't take >1000 years, not that it's not science.

My understanding was that a collider of sufficient power to produce strings would have to be at least several times the size of the earth. But I'm not as up on this stuff as I should be, so perhaps I'm mistaken. And it seems there are hints the LHC might be able to detect gravitons, so I'm definitely mistaken about that...not that it changes my mind about the topic at hand.

[David A. Rowe]

*ahem*

NEEEEERDS!!!

[Matthew_888]

That's not what I was saying at all.
My point was that I doubt Silly's statement. If the technology is indeed possible (though it may not be), I believe saying it will take millennia is an underestimation of how fast technology advances.
I'm saying if it can be done, it won't take >1000 years, not that it's not science.

My bad: I misunderstood your comment.

[Sean Herbison]

My point was that I doubt Silly's statement.

Oops, sorry Sully.

My understanding was that a collider of sufficient power to produce strings would have to be at least several times the size of the earth. But I'm not as up on this stuff as I should be, so perhaps I'm mistaken.

Hard to predict anything like this over that time period, but I'm an optimist in this regard. And in 1000 years I think that we'll either find a way to produce enough energy or, perhaps more likely, find a different way to test it that doesn't require that much power.

But that's just a (S)WAG.

And it seems there are hints the LHC might be able to detect gravitons, so I'm definitely mistaken about that...not that it changes my mind about the topic at hand.

What was the topic again?

*ahem*

NEEEEERDS!!!

Is this news to you?

[Matthew_888]

*ahem*

NEEEEERDS!!!

Well no: it is not nerdy at all. Actually, it should concern everyone. The "string theory" stuff is not interesting in itself... what was interesting was: "when do we consider a discipline science or not science?"

The "string theory" is a very (very very) far edge case where the proposed definition of science cited above may fail. The fact that one has to go that far to discuss the applicability of the proposed definition
looks like a good thing to me: this definition applies in 99.9999% of the cases.

Since even PhD students in physics do not even have a clue of what science is actually about, and that this idea took literally thousand of years to "mature" into incredible advancements, I think it's an interesting
topic to discuss specially wrt Rip quotation: "And we have a word for testable, reliable science. That word is “engineering"" which is ambiguous or misleading for anyone nescient about the state of "published science"
today or believing in guys like Degrass Tyson that pervert the inherent agnosticism of science into scientism: complete inversion of meaning.

To summarize, trying not to misrepresent Sullivan and Herbison positions, I say this stuff called "string theory" is not even science since it's not testable today nor in the foreseeable future given energies and scales at stake (check the Internet for more).
It is plagued with humongous variations (about 10^500 when the number of atoms in the universe is about 10^86)... you cannot even use algebraic operations with this kind of numbers (try to compute this: (10^500 + 1)/2.45 mod 15345).

So: not testable, not now, not in the foreseeable future: not science. Maybe someday, but not now. Also, other things need attention at the most fundamental level, for example economy so that we avoid to have a planetary financial crash in the next 5-10 years that would send everyone against each other... wonder how a string theorist would survive in these conditions... It mean that it's bad because you have public funds and very high intellectual energies running behind the wrong rabbit.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

Oops, sorry Sully.

I did assume it was on purpose. I didn't take too much offense. I've been called worse, and as I openly confessed earlier, I haven't been on my best behavior in this thread.

What was the topic again?

Is it not science, just because it doesn't make predictions we can test today? My answer is: yes. It might be. In the case of string theory, my answer is: quite possibly yes--I'm not sure we know enough (us in particular or humans in general) to be sure yet, because my sense is that ST may yet make predictions that can be tested. Matthew888 and I will have to agree to disagree on this. I understand his point about pressing concerns, but cutting funding from string research or investigations of quantum gravity won't Save The World. Then again, neither will anything else.

Is this news to you?

I viewed it as a celebratory remark, not a shocked observation. But either way.