World Science Scholars

5.5 Entropy

discussion Discussion
Viewing 9 reply threads
    • Do you think string theory is asking us to give up too much we thought to be fundamental for it to be the law of nature? Explain your answer.

    • Yes: From what I’ve heared here, we are supposed to give up EVERYTHING we thought we have understood so far, and in addition, we were able to describe our world with it’s constants and laws quite nicely, We cannot and should not give up everything, without even replacing it with some appropriate equivalent. After all, it is my understanding that our “classical” physics should be the “limit” of string theory, pretty similar to Newton’s gravity being the limit of Einstein’s relativity (in a nutshell).

    • The very idea to generalize all the theories and to put them under the same umbrella i.e. to explain all the forces of nature and laws of physics with one single fundamental law is fascinating. No, I don’t think so since to unify all the theories we need to rule out several blurring aspects.

    • I have a lens that gives a higly-magnified image when I hold it close to the object I am viewing. As I slowly move the lens away from the object, the image gradually becomes blurred and is eventually lost altogether. However, as I continue to move the lens slowly away from the object, the image becomes sharp again, but upside down. This reminds me of the aspects of string theory described in an ealier video. This makes me think that looking at the universe with string theory is like looking at fundamental truth through such a lens rather than looking at the fundamental truth directly. So when we use string theory we are never really seeing that fundamental truth – we are always seeing an image that preserves some properties of the reality but is in some ways distorted. So, to see the fundamental truth, we have to put down the lens. This might not be easy – all of our theories might be metaphorical lenses through which we see various distortions of reality. Moreover, it might not be possible to put down the lens. We cannot look at the universe from “outside”, as there is no outside. And the fabric of the universe itself might be creating these distortions (e.g. perhaps the distortions would vanish if all matter was removed from the universe). To change the metaphor only slightly, it is as if we are living inside a hall of mirrors, and the distorting mirrors are an integral part of the very structure of our universe. So, there is such a thing as fundamental reality, but how can we ever hope to see it?

    • Yes! Every new discovery in the field of science comes with bashing and sweeping of some concepts, which are so called fundamentals at that period of time. Feeling sorry or guilty for that action will not give us any advantage over the discoveries. Think That how Newton would look, if he travelled across the time and found that his calculus was praised by mathematicians and physicist till now and his ‘Corpuscles Theory’ regarding the concept of light is thrown in the trash by everyone. Laws of nature is not an invented one! it is just discovered. It’s always there for whole time and we just found that in the past centuries. And When giving up most of the concepts that we believed as ‘fundamental’ , We can just say that we have misunderstood for many years and goes on. So, these all actions clearly indicates that the concepts of universe according to our understandings, are evolving , toward the most precise form.The Theory That connects every dots and phenomenons to the fullest as possible

    • Sadly yes, feels like string theory is already winning. I understand that this is inevitable in the world of science but still as of the moment it is still hard to grasp that after decades another theory will gonna force us to changes our current understand about the nature of reality. Even if string theory not yet been proven to be correct feels like I should start accepting the new reality. But I’ll be happy if its proven to be true because it is just means that our understanding of reality is improving and we’re one step moving towards unravelling the truth.

    • In order to take the necessary leap ahead we must more or less gradually accept the new competitive theories.

    • Not at all. I think it is time we seriously look at evolving and redefining nature and the definition of fundamentality. Working theories, such as Eric Weinstein’s Geometric Unity Theory, show promise and even likely inclusion in future theories to come. I firmly believe string theory will be unified with other theories, such as aforementioned, and Robert Lanza’s Biocentrism. When the quanta/Higgs field/Akashic field/Etheric field/realm start to be viewed as all inclusive, we will create the results desired when needed most.

      You must be logged in to view attached files.
    • I think string theory is forcing us to look up everything we thought we knew for sure again. Even if string theory would not be the main theory of the world, it gave us this important fact that we shouldn’t close our minds on any principles we think we know in science.

    • Well, that has been the general trend in science after all. What we thought once to be true and fundamental eventually gets replaced by a better model. String theory is asking some very fundamental questions and trying to unify all laws into one fundamental law or unify physics.

You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.

Send this to a friend