Hi Plato, not wanting to appear more ignorant than I already am, or perhaps I should paraphrase being unable to recall yet what I have previously forgotten, and which one hopes shall come back to me again tomorrow or the next day or some time not too distant in the near future...

I guess that is why it was always called re-search (on earth):

Whay exactly do these theories hope to prove or disprove. That gravity is not gravity (weaker gravity) at subatomic level?

Gravity is relative, because we have defined gravity to be that which it is, we assume weight to be so, therefore a hot air baloon we define as hot air being lighter than cold air, a feather rising on the other hand we do not say it has no weight and should not therefore fall or has a weaker 'gravity' we simplt state the aerodynamic laws by which this feather which has fallen from a passing bird, is blown ever skyward to who knows where.

The same with dust particles, paper, light litter, and some times not so light litter, which is swept up by a gust of wind and placed elsewhere, who knows where. Where do all the baloons that are released at carnivals end up, do they all just pop and the remains are to be found scattered whither & thither...

But I digress - what is the purpose of the theory or competing theories. What is the physical or practical application? no matter how unscientific someone must have proposed or explained what purpose the existence of any theory as FACT has whether in science + industry. Superconductivity? that is a matter of matter or materials, surely...

Are we just wanting to see too jets collide in mid air at mach 6, just to see the spectacular fireworks at some morbid like airshow.

Do you have in laymans terms something I could explain that would make sense to a ten year old child?

Where the theory is intending to reach I think I can just barely see, its marketing value is not clear. Laters Q
Q | 06.14.06 - 6:03 am | #

"The problem with non-falsifiable theories is nothing other than that they cannot be proven wrong. If a large body of our colleagues feels comfortable believing a theory that cannot be proved wrong, then the progress of science could get stuck, leading to a situation in which false, but unfalsifiable theories dominate the attention of our field."

Plato, is that just gobbledygook, or doubletalk as One would say:
(1) if a theory can be proved-wrong, then it cannot be true (or fact)
(2) how can a false theory be unfalsiable?

Death, Man's inhumanity, Man's suffering, Man's misery are often quoted as cases against the existence of God.
Birth, Life, Man's humanity, Man's pleasure, Man's joy are quoted as cases for the existence of God.

is God prempting Susskind, that his existence has to be falsifiable?
or
does the fact that God's existence is unfalsifiable, make it false?
quasar9 | Homepage | 06.14.06 - 1:20 pm | #

Nigel,

But I may attend anyway, and see how things pan out.

I cannot post to blogspot comments but can to haloscan.

I think you might not be dissappointed. Lee Smolin's synoptic skills makes him one of the very best to listen too. Which brings perspective to the state of the union of science, in regards to quantum gravity issues.

From all that I have read, he has been a guiding light for me. Responsive postings to Lee Smolin have been equally very interesting and "his dialogues" in postings to others, very revealling as well.

Sometimes I think it s better to be quiet when a good teacher speaks, and this is no less the quality of the student in self, to pay attention to life.

I don't see why you might think Koestler wrong? Maybe you have had a peak experience?
Plato | 06.15.06 - 3:10 am | #

That gravity is not gravity (weaker gravity) at subatomic level

It is important to understand "gravity can be very strong" as your energies increase.

But to also recognize what has happened when plasmatic situations created in RHIC, in concert with the superfluid's characteristics are revealled. High energy collisions.

Note, it is always in relation to the energy valuations?

It is in how you see this, that the full scope of lensing and such, time variable measures, help to educate the mind to think in different ways. Lagrangian valuations(in blogspot "search feature" at top of page type in the word lagrangian) in the relations of the sun and earth.

This gives a you a feel for "the holes and tunnels" in spacetime fabric?

Gravity is a force. From this, follow the thinking.
Plato | 06.15.06 - 3:27 am | #

Quasar9

Getting to "the heart" of the issues is the clarity with which Susskind and Smolin meet each other head on, and give their reasons.

From this interaction, what is it we take a way? What has been answered in your "heart of hearts?"

So I try in my own mind to formulate, and seeing this interaction weight the differences and having opposition in views, askmyself that I treat this in a positive way, yet holding the oppositional differences in perspective.

Little did we know the issue was about "quantum gravity" and the approaches?

The "philosphical foundations" of each of their perspectives? And from this, the world is created in the diverse ways of their logic, but each, understands the issues of the other? Or at least, tries too.

Wonderful examples for "I" the layman/student.
Plato | 06.15.06 - 3:35 am | #

Quasar9,

Think of the realtion of Gell-Mann and Feynman, as one might think of Susskind and Smolin.

Is there a "value in archetypes" in the relations of scientists? To historical character oppositions, based in the questions and philosophical positons adopted, to the development of science?
Plato | 06.15.06 - 3:46 am | #

Thanks Plato, let me attempt it from my heart of hearts:

(1) A theory that is unfalsifiable, need not have been proven in fact, it is therefore only theoretical hypothesis

(2) False, but unfalsifiable theories may have been able to dominate in history.

After all Columbus had to wait from funding from the Catholic Queen to seek a route 'west' to the Indies, not so much to falsify that he would not fall off the edge of a flat earth, but to dare go where none or few had ventured, and in the case did not find the Indies, but he did find the route west to the Indies, there just happened to be a vast continent called America between and two oceans (Atlantic & Pacific) Spain/Portugal and the Asian continent: China & the Indies.

(1U) So, I guess in cosmological terms that is the difference between the One Universe as we 'know' or see it today (ie: there is no other), which is true only until falsified

and the holes and tunnels which some would like to 'theoretically' prove, if not in fact open, which would falsify (1U).

Yep, I now see it in my Minds eye or I. Thanks again Plato. - Q
Q | 06.15.06 - 4:40 am | #

I'm a thinking, Lisa Randall & Joanne Hewett are gonna have to pull not only at the strings in your and my 'hearts' but at the strings of God's Heart, if they want their wish granted. Could it be that that is more than just a metaphor? - Q
Q | 06.15.06 - 5:05 am | #