Black Holes=Universes

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's hard enough dealing with creationists missusing the word theory without scientists doing it as well.

You meant it's not a theory and is just a hypothesis.

...just a hypothesis. - Well, that is what theories are - basically. We have not yet seen a football that do not follow the force of gravity. - Note -. This do not specifically say that such objects could not exist. All it says is. Here is the hypothesis about 'gravitation'. It is believed to be correct because fotballs falls down kicked in the air. Well. Then if we find a upwards flying football we need to modify the theory which we call gravitation. Until we do that theory is assumed correct.

Note. Fotballs are large objects - as are planets. They follow Newtons laws. Because they live in the 'macroscopic' universe.

Then quantum mechanics are a completely different animal. Here we do see fotballs that fall upwards. We therefore need a different physics. Consisting of different mathematical equations. We solve these equations and get results. These results speak about waves. Not normal waves but waves in quantum mechanics. These explain how objects behave in 'microscopic' space. Like for examples how electrons behave. They are footballs that fall upwords. Electrons are not footballs and not waves. We understand them by solving mathematical equations. This works and - wolla! - We don't need to explain why the footballs called electrons fall upwords when kicked. - The math works and therefore we beleve in our 'hypothesies'. The hypothesies are correct for now because we have not yet seen an object for which they are not correct.

Originally posted by bikingviking
...just a hypothesis. - Well, that is what theories are - basically. We have not yet seen a football that do not follow the force of gravity. - Note -. This do not specifically say that such objects could not exist. All it says is. Here is the hypothesis about 'gravitation'. It is believed to be correct because fotballs falls down kicked in the air. Wel ...[text shortened]... esies are correct for now because we have not yet seen an object for which they are not correct.

The physics relating to black holes apparently isn't enough for us to understand all that's going on. I don't see why our super-duper computers can't "model" a black hole and come up with all the answers...

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's hard enough dealing with creationists missusing the word theory without scientists doing it as well.

You meant it's not a theory and is just a hypothesis.

I hear what you are saying, but that's not the way language is used in the field. No one talks about superstring hypothesis. Hypotheses, like physical laws, should be simple statements, something short and snappy - the untested hypotheses relevant to supergravity are:

1) There are additional dimensions we have not yet detected.
1a) The additional dimensions are compactified.
2) Supersymmetry is a local symmetry of nature.

with string theory there is an additional hypothesis:

3) Fundamental particles are string-like rather than point-like

The actual apparatus of supergravity is too well developed to be described as an hypothesis. Besides, some of the ingredients have been tested - the method of quantizing classical fields and general relativity as the classical field theory to be quantized. So I think it's better to use the term theory, even if it's not been empirically validated yet. It maps to the way scientists actually use the language.

That creationist spout pseudoscientific bull should not cause science to change it's language. If you say, it's just a theory, people know what you mean. If you want to emphasise the empirical justification then say something like: "It's empirically well grounded." or "The theory has strong experimental evidence supporting it.", or "well established theory". For something like supergravity qualifiers like "speculative" are suitable.

Trying to call theories hypotheses is playing into the creationists hands because it makes hypotheses seem impenetrable. When they try to dignify creationism by talking about intelligent design theory use words like "ungrounded" and "desperately contrived".

The nice thing about keeping laws and hypotheses short is that they can be stated to non-specialists in simple language, without compromising on precision. This improves public understanding of science. If we get pedantic and start describing huge pieces of arcane technology as hypotheses then when we're asked what the hypotheses are it becomes difficult to state them, which makes science seem inaccessible. This plays into the hands of creationists and peddlars of pseudoscience more than calling a speculative theory "just a theory".

Edit: Although you can point out that I should have said: "The hypotheses underpinning the theory of 11 dimensional supergravity have not been empirically validated." or some such formulation.

Originally posted by woadman
The physics relating to black holes apparently isn't enough for us to understand all that's going on. I don't see why our super-duper computers can't "model" a black hole and come up with all the answers...

The problem is knowing what equations to program into our "Super-duper computers".

Black holes are one of the few places where you need both gravity and
quantum mechanics and we don't yet have a unified theory that explains both.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I hear what you are saying, but that's not the way language is used in the field. No one talks about superstring hypothesis. Hypotheses, like physical laws, should be simple statements, something short and snappy - the untested hypotheses relevant to supergravity are:

1) There are additional dimensions we have not yet detected.
1a) The additional d ...[text shortened]... y of 11 dimensional supergravity have not been empirically validated." or some such formulation.

String Theory [or Supersymetry... ect] are theoretical frameworks.

But they are not tested and proven scientific theories [yet].

I have no problem with the term "String Theory"... But String Theory is a
hypothesised explanatory framework for a set of phenomena [supposedly
all phenomena, it is a GUT after all] and not a full blown Theory, backed
up and supported by huge mountains of evidence and with no viable
competing alternatives. Like say Evolution by Natural Selection.

I don't believe that anywhere in the definition of hypothesis does it require
the hypothesis to be simple.

And I am not saying that science should change it's language because of creationists
or other whack-jobs. I'm saying that scientists should be more careful when talking
to the general public, and not use the same informal language used between peers
where everyone knows what everyone else is talking about.

I hold that it's far more confusing for the lay person to have your double standards
on what a hypothesis or theory is, than to stick clearly to a clear distinction as happens
in other fields.

If we get pedantic and start describing huge pieces of arcane technology as hypotheses then when we're asked what the hypotheses are it becomes difficult to state them, which makes science seem inaccessible.

They are easier to explain if you call them theories?????

I think you will find that they are just plain hard to explain and it makes no difference in
explaining them if you call them theories, hypothesis, or magic spells.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
[b]... will repeat again exactly the same way.

If we - in life "2" - remember something that happened in life "1", doesn't that make life "2" (slightly) different from life "1"?[/b]

That's what you said last time!

Originally posted by googlefudge
String Theory [or Supersymetry... ect] are theoretical frameworks.

But they are not tested and proven scientific theories [yet].

I have no problem with the term "String Theory"... But String Theory is a
hypothesised explanatory framework for a set of phenomena [supposedly
all phenomena, it is a GUT after all] and not a full blown Theory, backed ...[text shortened]... makes no difference in
explaining them if you call them theories, hypothesis, or magic spells.

They are easier to explain if you call them theories?????

No, but the hypotheses become conflated with the entire theory, so scientists themselves become confused about what the hypotheses are and start trying to explain the theory rather than just the one line hypotheses.

A theory consists of a mathematical framework and some assumptions about the world. My claim is that the assumptions are the hypotheses. The mathematical framework is no less valid if the theory doesn't relate to the actual world. The other advantage of a hypothesis being a simple proposition is that it's clear it's being directly tested.

Two different theories will have overlapping predictions, depending on how different they are. On everyday distance and time scales, quantum theory, relativity, and Newtonian mechanics all predict the same thing. In fact a basic requirement for speculative theories like supergravity is that they should reproduce the standard model at low energies. So to test the hypothesis that supersymmetry is a symmetry of nature they need to see a superpartner in LHC. Tests for theories can be quite indirect.

The problem with the formulation you are advocating is that one doesn't hypothesise theories. One builds theories around hypotheses. So it's not the theories that are hypothesised, but statements about the world which act as axioms within the theory. While there is no experimental evidence for a theory to distinguish it from the Standard Model it is speculative. If there is corroboration then it has empirical validation. But for the hypotheses to be validated requires a direct test.

If there is direct validation of a hypothesis then it changes status. It is no longer a hypothesis, but it can hardly be called a theory, it's too simple. It can't be called a law either - to be a law of nature it has to be as certain as anything in this world and withstand the paradigm theory changing with only minor tweaking. Newton's laws of motion have this status. When one introduces general relativity all one needs to do is replace "straight line" with "geodesic". Quantum mechanics does rather more damage, but one can put expectation brackets around them. Axiom isn't quite the right word either. So I feel the correct word for a validated hypothesis is thesis.

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein

"Seek simplicity, and distrust it" - Whitehead's Rule

"It's morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money" - eeh? instert joke here - Canada Bill Jones's Motto

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." - Isaac Newton

"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." and
"When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." - Called "Occam's Razor". Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models.

"Nature operates in the shortest way possible." - Aristotle

"I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice." - Albert Einstein

(Not to the letter correct. I wish I could have made more of an effort here).
"Who are you to decide what god can and can't do" - Niels Bohr. In reply to Albert Einstein.

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." - Albert Einstein

"Science is the art of systematic simplification" - Karl Popper

Originally posted by bikingviking
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein

"Seek simplicity, and distrust it" - Whitehead's Rule

"It's morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money" - eeh? instert joke here - Canada Bill Jones's Motto

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain the ...[text shortened]... ehensible." - Albert Einstein

"Science is the art of systematic simplification" - Karl Popper

I think Bohr is meant to have said: "Stop telling God what to do.", at least that's how I remember it.

The other problem with talking about hypothesised theories or a hypothetical theory is that it can mean: "Suppose a theory exists to explain X.", it doesn't necessarily mean: "X is explained by this existing theory which hasn't been tested."