Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Scientists often don’t know what they’re talking about

Categories
Education
Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When reading the following, remember that string theory is taught and discussed in physics courses. Also ask yourself whether Gross’s criticisms apply to evolutionary theory — is it “missing something absolutely fundamental”?

Nobel laureate admits string theory is in trouble
10 December 2005
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825293.700.html

“WE DON’T know what we are talking about.” That was Nobel laureate David Gross at the 23rd Solvay Conference in Physics in Brussels, Belgium, during his concluding remarks on Saturday. He was referring to string theory – the attempt to unify the otherwise incompatible theories of relativity and quantum mechanics to provide a theory of everything.

“The state of physics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity”
Gross – who received a Nobel for his work on the strong nuclear force, bringing physics closer to a theory of everything – has been a strong advocate of string theory, which also aims to explain dark energy. “Many of us believed that string theory was a very dramatic break with our previous notions of quantum theory,” he said. “But now we learn that string theory, well, is not that much of a break.”

He compared the state of physics today to that during the first Solvay conference in 1911. Then, physicists were mystified by the discovery of radioactivity. The puzzling phenomenon threatened even the laws of conservation of mass and energy, and physicists had to wait for the theory of quantum mechanics to explain it. “They were missing something absolutely fundamental,” he said. “We are missing perhaps something as profound as they were back then.”

From issue 2529 of New Scientist magazine, 10 December 2005, page 6

Comments
GilDodgen: Good comment. The modern rift between "faith" and "science" CAN close (as it once was closed before Darwin).Red Reader
December 9, 2005
December
12
Dec
9
09
2005
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
Perhaps the universe was not only designed, but designed to be endlessly discoverable. In my opinion, Gonzalez and Richards have made a compelling case for design-discoverability when it comes to cosmology. I couldn't put their book down. At the close of the 20th century we have discovered something very interesting: The physical and biological universes are comprised of three important entities, not two: matter, energy, and information. Information is clearly non-physical and non-reducible to the laws of physics, chemistry, probability or any combination of these. The dispassionate conclusion would seem to be that mind precedes matter, not the other way around. I have reached that conclusion, and make no apologies for it.GilDodgen
December 9, 2005
December
12
Dec
9
09
2005
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
HA HA!Usurper
December 9, 2005
December
12
Dec
9
09
2005
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
The problem is that they're trying to intelligently design the theory. Perhaps they should try an evolutionary algorithm instead...keiths
December 9, 2005
December
12
Dec
9
09
2005
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
A quantum theory of evolution?DaveScot
December 9, 2005
December
12
Dec
9
09
2005
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply