No Big Bang

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Geronimo


how would you define a "meaningful" explanation? in you view would an explanation only be "meaningful" if it allowed someone to debate the finer points of the theories involved with those who are engaged in current research into the areas of science involving those theories?

Being able to discuss them period.

JM

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Being able to discuss them period.

JM

Surely some of these lay directed texts allow readers to intelligently discuss the ideas with other lay people?

[Jon Miller]

This issue is the discussion of why, as well as often the definition of what is actually being discussed. And how can you discuss something if you don't know why what you are discussing it is the way it is? Or often even what you are really discussing?

JM

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Surely some of these lay directed texts allow readers to intelligently discuss the ideas with other lay people?

No offense, but I think that both KH and Jm is rigth when they say that you either understands the concepts or you don't. The problem is that you can't express those concepts in layman terms and still make sense - you need the full math package and a twisted brain (no offense meant here - just that the subject is a bit complex).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Geronimo


how would you define a "meaningful" explanation? in you view would an explanation only be "meaningful" if it allowed someone to debate the finer points of the theories involved with those who are engaged in current research into the areas of science involving those theories?

No, I would consider it meaningful if you were able to draw a conclusion not directly explored in the text with any degree of certainty.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Nielsen-Olesen Vortex ?

Vaguely.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Surely some of these lay directed texts allow readers to intelligently discuss the ideas with other lay people?

No, they don't.

They allow people to parrot phrases from the text. Any time somebody tries to go beyond what has been directly laid down in black and white they run the very real risk of being completely wrong.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Vaguely.

Hah, gotcha. Well, the dude worked at the Niels Bohr (I assume that this name rings a bell) institute for a couple of decades.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, I would consider it meaningful if you were able to draw a conclusion not directly explored in the text with any degree of certainty.

This was so well said that I changed my mind. It's a perfectly reasonable concept of meaningful understanding.


I suppose the only way to gain any meaningful understanding without completing the relevant PhD would be to obtain all of the textbooks available that would be used by the students and cover the material as diligently as a student would. Even then you'd be limited to that which is taught primarily from textbooks and limited in opportunity to evaluate your own comprehension of the material covered.

[KrazyHorse]

Here's the problem: lay people cannot understand the basic theories/methodologies driving physicists to reach certain conclusions. They can't even understand the proper definitions involved in stating those conclusions.

Thus, when a text is written for the general public the concepts contained within are necessarily reduced to outlines of their true selves. Precise statements of terms are reduced to common language. Derivations are reduced to analogies. Approximations are stated flatly as fact, because explaining the circumstances under which they hold true would be equivalent to explaining the full theory in all its mathematical glory.

Every time one of these simplifications is made it reduces the value of the information contained in the text. Popularised physics texts have so many simplifications that they truly impart no physics knowledge upon the reader.

No physicist could recreate the theories contained inside one of those popularised books based on the information contained within. A properly written paper or review article of 50 pages on the same subject would literally contain thousands of times more information than would the popularised text. A single equation might contain tens of times more information.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Hah, gotcha. Well, the dude worked at the Niels Bohr (I assume that this name rings a bell) institute for a couple of decades.

Don't take my ignorance of his name as proof that he's worthless as a physicist.

a) I'm not a string theorist. The fact that he is a string theorist is the best proof that he's worthless

b) I might well have read a paper by him and not even noted the name. When I check the authors of a paper I usually just look at what institution they're at. And yes, somebody at the Niels Bohr institute gets the benefit of the doubt.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Don't take my ignorance of his name as proof that he's worthless as a physicist.

a) I'm not a string theorist. The fact that he is a string theorist is the best proof that he's worthless

b) I might well have read a paper by him and not even noted the name. When I check the authors of a paper I usually just look at what institution they're at. And yes, somebody at the Niels Bohr institute gets the benefit of the doubt.

Well, I just noticed that string theory isn't any longer the hot spot, even concidered a bit fishy (haven't bothered to dig into who, why or where).

If you ever gets to visit NBI and have spare time, give a notice and the first beer is on me - that is if you think that we wouldn't start a fist fight

[KrazyHorse]

Well, I just noticed that string theory isn't any longer the hot spot, even concidered a bit fishy (haven't bothered to dig into who, why or where).

It was always a little bit fishy to non-string theorists.

It has its place in terms of being an often practical technique to solve problems which might not otherwise be solvable, but its more speculative aspects were always a bit out there.

extra dimensions, phenomenology and an attempt to merge HE theory and cosmology are the cool things in HE theory. They're less flashy than string theory, but have much stronger roots.

[Jon Miller]

I am just waiting to see if String Theory ever produces something testable. It isn't science until it does.

JM

[BlackCat]

Unless I'm wrong, then you guys heavily depends on math - that is math wich goes way beyond what I had to endure accordingly to use in semiconductors etc. No mater what, what I ever lerned back then is both forgotten and improved since - funny thing is that I actually found the math interesting, but that was before compSci.