2-Universes - Need help

[vandivx]

I wouldn't say the guy doesn't know his physics, its just that I find those books way too much geared to layman, to ordinary folks on street that never came near science past their high school and who typically are humanistic oriented and find it fashionable to have some physics book on their coffeetable (if I overdo it)<br /><br />the ones I like are those books that are written like for layman but are actually good reading for any physicist/astronomer because they include lots about people who did the science that the book is about and are typically written about that area of science that the writer knows specifically (personally)<br /><br />Brian Greene's books are like something that any physicist could write if he had writing ability, he can write on any area od physics but that's because he writes on a level that anybody in the field is familiar with, I mean any PHD out there knows all that but those other books are written by specialist about their area of interest and the authors I think expected to be read by their coleagues too as well as serious educated amateur scientists and science students (at university they typically don't teach the history and human side of science, at most it is mentioned in passing before lectures start and only if some professor is bent on doing that, most are not)<br /><br />I have a bunch of piled up books for laymen at my side right now, at the top is excellent astronomy book by <br />Zdenek Kopal - Man and His Universe (Czech emigrant - /> British astronomer)<br />Steven Weinberg - Dreams of a Final Theory, <br />David Lindley - The End of Physics, <br />Amir D. Aczel - Entaglement, <br />B.K. Ridley - Time, Space and Things (Canto), <br />Werner Heisenberg - Physics and Philosophy, <br />Newton's Philosophy of Nature - Selections from his writings, <br />Timothy Ferris - The Red Limit + Coming of Age in the Milky Way + The Whole Shebang, <br />J.A. Wheeler - Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foam, <br />Marcia Bartusiak - Through a Univers <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />Howdy KB, <br /><br />I'm 3/4 of the way thru and getting more confused with every page. 11 diminsions, Calabi Yau spaces, supersymetry !</i><br /><br />You're trying to absorb too much information at one time. I mean, the book is 447p. long! And you started reading it last weekend? Be sure to read the glossary NOW, before going any further. This will give you a "heads up" on all those new words. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">That's exactly right. It's called, formally, Scientific Empiricism. One of the basic premises of the sciences is that events exist independently of humans. In other words if we were not here, then then nothing would change. If I or at least one other person were not here, then there would be no change in the external universe. This is heavily evidenced in our universe. </font><br /><br />there is absolutely nothing empirical about a theory of 2 universes.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

This thread isn't dead yet? I didn't respond because who wants to respond in a psychic network? People are trying to read other's mind and respond against things that's not even stated in posts. Anyway.<br /><br />Take a computer for example. When a computer runs, it exhibits amazing intellegence. But we all know a computer can not do anything beyond the hardware/software laws it is built from. This statement holds even for the futuristic super AI computers. The same way we can not go beyond the laws this universe used to create us. Our behaviors are restricted by laws of nature. For example, can you imagine something that doesn't exist? Let me be more clear, can you imagine something that is not the product of cocepts of this universe? You want a faster than light vehicle? Note, vehicle, distance, time, all are concepts of this universe. Now do you see the relation between this universe and us?<br /><br />With all this observations can anyone say with certainty 'this is all this universe has to offer'?<br /><br />Some modern scientific findings may match Kant's ancient philosophy, but Kant's conclusion and scientific conclusions differ widely, anyone can see the differences.<br /><br />vanDivx is right, read the first book of these popular writers, what comes next are like the fillers in a CD. True even for Hawking's books.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[scomil39]

Hello emperor,<br /><br />Glad to hear from you. I understand your computer analogy and it makes since to me. <br /><br />I don't think I'll recommend "Elegant Universe" to anybody. After about the 4th chapter it's just pure jibberish. And from scanning the headings in his second book "The Fabric of The Cosmos" it does indeed look like rehash. So you and vanDivx called it right on these popular science writers. At least this one anyway. However, I will probably go ahead and try to give it a whirl anyway.<br /><br />Green does spend quite a bit of time dealing with a major issue with String Theory and that is the fact that so much of it requires testing and proofing (wording?) of analogies to the theory itself because the theory itself is not testable with our current expiremental know how or any currently foreseable knowhow of the near future. I may not have explained that just right but hopefully you get my meaning. If anyone has read the book they will surely see what I mean.<br /><br />So this brings up a question. <br /><br />Have we reached a point in our study of the fundemental particles where it is now the sole domain of the theoritician and the experimentalist is relegated to the role of office assistant or something?<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">Have we reached a point in our study of the fundemental particles where it is now the sole domain of the theoritician and the experimentalist is relegated to the role of office assistant or something? </font><br /><br />lol. yes. <br /><br />