[_ Old Earth _] String theory

[Vic C.]

String theory thread here...

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=11362

:D

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Has nothing to do with creationism or evolution.

 

[Vic C.]

Has nothing to do with creationism or evolution.

And your point is??? I give you people the benefit of the doubt by stating you may know more about this than we do, but... *sighs*

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Has nothing to do with creationism or evolution.

And your point is??? I give you people the benefit of the doubt by stating you may know more about this than we do, but... *sighs*

That doesn't make it on topic, if you want the input of people who know about science then you should have a forum for the purpose. I think that might be a pretty good idea in general. Or you could simply invite us over to the conversation. Sorry if I sounded terse, I'm happy you consider we mangy bunch for this sort of discussion.

 

[Blazin Bones]

If you have an idea for a forum, suggest it in the suggestion box. That's what it's there for. 8-)

 

[Vic C.]

... Or you could simply invite us over to the conversation. Sorry if I sounded terse, I'm happy you consider we mangy bunch for this sort of discussion.

I did...by posting the link here in the first place and by saying in another post, "...I think maybe some of our Evolution posters might be of some help here." :P :wink: If I had the ability to move the thread, I would have.

Maybe a Christianity and Science Forum is not a bad idea at all. 8-)

 

[ThinkerMan]

... Or you could simply invite us over to the conversation. Sorry if I sounded terse, I'm happy you consider we mangy bunch for this sort of discussion.

I did...by posting the link here in the first place and by saying in another post, "...I think maybe some of our Evolution posters might be of some help here." :P :wink: If I had the ability to move the thread, I would have.

Maybe a Christianity and Science Forum is not a bad idea at all. 8-)

Shouldn't it be called the "Christianity OR Science Forum".

Sorry, I couldn't resist a little atheistic needling.... :wink: :wink:

I think it's a grand idea...it will allow cosmology and abiogenesis a good forum, and keep evolution seperate.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Hey, would you like me to move the thread here? If you say yes just make sure it's cool with BL or free first.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I call mod! :smt117

 

[ThinkerMan]

I call mod! :smt117

Reminds me of one of my favorite Far Sides...

 

[LadyAttis]

As for string theory being applicable to evolutionary theory... Not really it's sorta hard to explain but I'll try. Physical laws such as string theory, quantum mechanics and Relativity[special and general theories] are distinct in that they deal with specific criteria. String theory deals with the laws of physics at the sub-quantum level[below planck scale]. Quantum mechanics deals with sub-atomic level. And Relativity literally deals with large scales in speed and mass. For biology, chemistry, and etc these specific fields in physics are not applicable. Essentially it's the divergence of composition, although all physical objects must obey the natural laws observed in physics they are not applicable to all situations, there are special cases and special compositions for each case. Like I said it's pretty hard to wrap your brain around, hell I'm just figuring that out in the last two years but once you understand that specific point you're pretty much clear on what these sort of physical theories/laws are about.

-- Bridget

 

[Blazin Bones]

Hey LadyAttis, Glad to meet You. About that science and God forum I like the Idea too. 8-)

 

[keebs]

And Relativity literally deals with large scales in speed and mass.

Nope. SR can deal with any velocity (it is important to differentiate between the two), and GR only breaks down at r=0 (although it is no considered r=h/2*pi, as most GUTs predict a discrete space of that interval).

For biology, chemistry, and etc these specific fields in physics are not applicable.

Nope. Physics is pretty much applicable to any other type of science (which is why I love physics). Examples: Quantum mechanics applied to genetics led to the theory of Quantum Evolution. The laws of chemistry arise out of the laws of quantum mechanics (but usually it is very hard to apply, computationally-wise...so we still deal with it usually as though they are seperate). And, via the same route, string theory is applicable to biology and chemistry. Heck, there's even a special name for physics applied to biology...biophysics (haha, who'd have figured?).

 

[LadyAttis]

And Relativity literally deals with large scales in speed and mass.

Nope. SR can deal with any velocity (it is important to differentiate between the two), and GR only breaks down at r=0 (although it is no considered r=h/2*pi, as most GUTs predict a discrete space of that interval).

Not really because SR can't be applied to say the velocity of your car the difference in the time dialation is so small you can't notice the difference between newtonian application of forces vs einstein/mikowsky application of forces.

For biology, chemistry, and etc these specific fields in physics are not applicable.

Nope. Physics is pretty much applicable to any other type of science (which is why I love physics). Examples: Quantum mechanics applied to genetics led to the theory of Quantum Evolution. The laws of chemistry arise out of the laws of quantum mechanics (but usually it is very hard to apply, computationally-wise...so we still deal with it usually as though they are seperate). And, via the same route, string theory is applicable to biology and chemistry. Heck, there's even a special name for physics applied to biology...biophysics (haha, who'd have figured?).

Not really, there is no such scientific field called 'quantum evolution.' There is an POPULAR book that hasn't been PEER REVIEWED called Quantum Evolution, it's a good piece of reading but isn't SCIENTIFIC. It's a good interpretation but not reasonable in giving EXPERIMENTAL DATA that verifies its claims. So actually we don't come under the world of quantum mechanics. BUT we do come under QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS, we're EM critters. I'll give you an experiment for you try at home. We all know about the POPULAR four states of matter[solid, liquid, gas and plasma[there two more einstein/bose condensates and fermionic condensates]]. We seem to be pretty liquid-like but solid-like on the outside, mostly. Put your hand through your other hand. Can't? Hah that's cause the electron bonds between atoms that make up your body's solid parts are strong enough to repell almost any force direct at them. That's what makes objects solid. If we didn't have EM forces to keep us from falling apart at the slightest classical kinetic motion we would probably be turned into Hollywood movie goo. So we are QED critters just not QM critters, it's called fallacy of composition.

-- Bridget

 

[keebs]

Not really because SR can't be applied to say the velocity of your car the difference in the time dialation is so small you can't notice the difference between newtonian application of forces vs einstein/mikowsky application of forces.

My point was that it does not necessarily deal with large scales in speed and mass. And, it can be applied to the velocity of my car, although it is unnecessary to do so.

Not really, there is no such scientific field called 'quantum evolution.' There is an POPULAR book that hasn't been PEER REVIEWED called Quantum Evolution, it's a good piece of reading but isn't SCIENTIFIC. It's a good interpretation but not reasonable in giving EXPERIMENTAL DATA that verifies its claims.

Not really, as the popular book is just a popular book on the subject. The reason it may appear as though the whole subject is just based on a popular book is because it is a new field of study, and there are not as many resources available on it.
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:quant-ph/0403017
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/quantumbiology.htm
And there is also peer review:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/?0101019

That's what makes objects solid. If we didn't have EM forces to keep us from falling apart at the slightest classical kinetic motion we would probably be turned into Hollywood movie goo. icon_smile.gif So we are QED critters just not QM critters, it's called fallacy of composition. icon_smile.gif

Following that logic, we should also consider ourselves critters of the nuclear forces as well. Hell, why don't we just generalize it all and say we are QFT critters. Get a hold of yourself, you're digging way too deep and you're not even making a good point.

 

[keebs]

And a side question: do you actually know the details of QED? The things like the QED lagrangian and it's gauge structure...because that'd be pretty cool :-D

 

[LadyAttis]

It's been a while since I read Feynman's paper. >.< Don't make me think this early in the morning.

-- Bridget

 

[LadyAttis]

Not really, as the popular book is just a popular book on the subject. The reason it may appear as though the whole subject is just based on a popular book is because it is a new field of study, and there are not as many resources available on it.
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:quant-ph/0403017
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/quantumbiology.htm
And there is also peer review:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/?0101019

Good but I haven't seen any experimental evidence to validate quantum evolution. I swear it seems popular to add a word that has a Q in it to anything. Maybe creationists need to quit using C in cubic and use Q and say Qubic. :roll:

Following that logic, we should also consider ourselves critters of the nuclear forces as well. Hell, why don't we just generalize it all and say we are QFT critters. Get a hold of yourself, you're digging way too deep and you're not even making a good point.

Actually I'm not digging too deep. Because nuclear forces cannot be applied like QED can be applied to objects at our scale. And scale is the issue.

-- Bridget

 

[LadyAttis]

Course I'm a proponent of holographic principle of physics, personally. It would explain what we have a discrete spacetime but at the same time localized systems that seem continious.

-- Bridget

 

[keebs]

Good but I haven't seen any experimental evidence to validate quantum evolution.

DNA has been shown to behave (note, it's important to say behave because as of this moment we cannot say that it is one) as a "quantum mechanical biowave computer". You can read the paper here: http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/dna-wave.doc

Actually I'm not digging too deep. Because nuclear forces cannot be applied like QED can be applied to objects at our scale. And scale is the issue. icon_smile.gif

Not really, because your main argument was about how things don't fall apart because of electron bonds, and that is on the same scale as the nuclear forces. In fact, electrons would not be able to form those bonds if it weren't for the nuclear forces.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:07 am Post subject:
Course I'm a proponent of holographic principle of physics, personally. It would explain what we have a discrete spacetime but at the same time localized systems that seem continious. icon_smile.gif

Yes, I am quite fond of the holographic principle myself...however, I'm not willing to accept the current form, as it relies on M-theory. I do believe, however, that there is another form of the holographic principle that is true. It does not quite explain why space is discrete however.