Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Angela Collier " channel.

  1. i think people are confusing untestable for hard to test
    2
  2.  @Thedrummaman76  well said! yes we need axioms, and these can be unproveable and unobservable, if they lead to observable predictions i think science is doing very well in this regard. scientists know very well what can and cannot be tested. they know a theory is never proven, because they are always looking for new evidence and a better theory. pop sci makes all sorts of claims about what scientists say even if they don't say it
    2
  3. 'strong' is a subjective term. i would agree but somebody may think axions are a strong candidate. that's just their opinion, man
    2
  4. name an inconsistency
    2
  5. agree, nobody said it was proven. indeed, scientific theories cannot be proven, ever. they can however get support from experiment, and become accepted.
    1
  6. try looking up actual papers at google scholar and you see how bad the News is at reporting science. they are the charlatans. most scientists are fine
    1
  7. the public are relying on what the news says about what physicists write. the news is so full of fake crap that the public is rightly suspicious. but we can just go to google scholar and read the actual papers, and people would know this if the news would mention that this resource is available
    1
  8. some physicists are jealous
    1
  9.  @mnm1273  Can we find one paper on string theory that claims it as a fact? google scholar has all the papers...
    1
  10. you can't show a single quark, but the theory that includes quarks is behind most of the technology we have today
    1
  11. science communication rarely even cites a paper much less interviews an expert at length but yes, the experts in some fields have lost credibility. the failure of public health is not just in the communication of it. but if the communication were not controlled and falsified, and government had not interfered it would have been much better
    1
  12. if it's not testable it's not science. but string theory is testable in principle. it is just difficult to test. things that are not testable could be like, "this sentence is false" or "there is another universe that is not connected to ours and never has been connected to ours"
    1
  13. that was an example of science working well, and media doing it's usual hype
    1
  14. interesting take! yes i'd say there is a need for unification. black holes don't make sense without both theories, but the theories don't agree
    1
  15.  @mnm1273  that claim would be false.
    1
  16.  @mnm1273  And well written too :) A claim is false if it says that "multiple dimensions allow you to excuse any failure in predictability" Wray, Introduction to String Theory, page 6: "String theory has only one unknown parameter, which corresponds to the string length" ... ... String length is "the one and only one measurement that string theory necessitates before it can be used to make predictions." (ibid) Measure the string length and everything else can be predicted. There is zero room for "excusing" any failures, but there is a lot of advanced math to discover.
    1
  17. we see stuff and invent theories, then test them. nothing new in that
    1
  18. yes, but the testing does not have to be easy
    1
  19. did she discuss the origins of string theory? it had good evidence at first, but eventually it was realized that was due to gluons forming strings
    1
  20. no results? did she discuss the quark gluon plasma results?
    1
  21. hypothesis: it's all strings theory: it's all strings, and here's the math
    1
  22. i guess we will know how it's going when all our passwords get hacked
    1
  23. well said
    1
  24. Verified the viscosity of the quark gluon plasma, therefore it is right?
    1
  25. Did the Lutherans predict the viscosity of the quark gluon plasma? No, they did good works. Science predicts and tests. Religions serve.
    1
  26. A+ on most things, F- on at least one.
    1
  27. the galaxies are each MOND experiments. some of them support the theory and some do not. (tbc there could be many different MOND theories)
    1
  28. Agree, accusations of lying must be accompanied by a name and quote. It is irresponsible and unethical to do otherwise. So i haven't watched one second of the video. Just came for the discussion.
    1
  29.  @jessicayoung1190  Actually we found the answer. The first cybertrucks have been manufactured and delivered.
    1
  30. Sometimes. It predicted the existence and attributes of the positron before it was discovered, for example.
    1
  31.  @stupidteous  haha
    1
  32. have you ever heard a string theorist say that?
    1
  33. and it is falsifiable
    1
  34. the hypothesis is "it's all strings" the theory is that plus all the mathematical details
    1
  35.  @goatfromhell666  Agree, no proof. But String Theory did correctly predict the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma before it was created at the LHC. So far, there is some evidence that ST is useful, but not really a good test that could falsify it. So it hasn't been proven or even well tested yet.
    1
  36. one problem is that pop sci doesn't even mention when string theory is used to make a prediction
    1
  37. you know something is missing. not amiss.
    1
  38. If something is testable in any way, by any conceivable technology, it is testable. proof is not an issue. no theory is ever proven.
    1
  39. who lied, and what were the exact words?
    1
  40. it behaves like a swarm of particles, but it might be that they are in a Bose Einstein condensate which would make them act very strangely and they would be very hard to detect
    1
  41. or go to the actual papers lol the media is terrible at reporting science, but google scholar has the papers
    1
  42. agree, a claim like that should be specific. who lied, and what did they say word for word?
    1
  43. yeah that is low. pop sci people need to stop vague accusations about stuff they dont' understand. if someone said something wrong, quote them.
    1
  44. they did actually. they found gluon strings. but it turns out a different theory explains those better (QCD)
    1
  45. how did it predict the viscosity of the quark gluon plasma, before the plasma was even created?
    1
  46. indeed, the math has already predicted something that QCD could not, which was verified at the LHC
    1
  47. that's why we have theories. we won't have a VOE video of everything
    1
  48. good quote. string theory is an idea that poses questions that cannot be answered yet. but at least they are questioning the other theories.
    1
  49. yeah, unless they quote the name and the words, saying 'they lied' is irresponsible journalism.
    1
  50. yes indeed, and there have been interesting results, which i have never seen mentioned in a pop sci video like this one
    1
  51. agree, it is pop sci to blame. scientists do the work, and media reports it wrongly and typically fails to even cite the paper they report wrong
    1
  52. hypothesis: it's all strings theory: it's all strings, and here is the math that we have figured out so far
    1
  53. agree! science journalism is full of things that the scientists didn't even say
    1
  54. which makes it very testable, in principle. all we have to do is count the dimensions of nature
    1
  55. proof is not a thing in science. we use evidence to test theories. string theory is testable, in principle and hopefully also in the lab
    1
  56. We can't see quarks either but QCD has been tested. Theories are used for things we can't see. IF we could see them all we'd need would be descriptions, not theories.
    1
  57.  @Kenjiro5775  Testing something does not require Planck scale resolution. If it did, the idea of Planck limits itself would be untestable and thus not scientific.
    1
  58.  @Kenjiro5775  the scale is not the problem. testing the theory is the problem. it is difficult but not impossible.
    1
  59.  @Kenjiro5775  1. The string size can vary. Castro 1996 considers a model where "the size of the strings is bounded by the planck scale and the size of the universe" (abstract) 2. Theories model what we can't see to make predictions about what we can see. Otherwise, we could just look at stuff and would not need theories. Even if we can't see the strings, we may be able to measure other predictions of the theory.
    1
  60.  @Kenjiro5775  cite source?
    1
  61.  @Kenjiro5775  "string theory replaces point particles by strings... whose length... is approximately 10-33cm" Wray/ Berkeley, An Introduction to String Theory, p8 Quantum theory uses point particles. Are you saying quantum mechanics cannot be tested because points cannot be observed!?
    1
  62.  @Kenjiro5775  You are saying that Quantum Mechanics cannot be tested.
    1
  63.  @Kenjiro5775  agree. and strings could be discovered according to the predictions of the theory. or the theory could be falsified by experiment.
    1
  64. yeah, most videos on this don't mention quark-gluon plasma or black hole entropy calculations, or even duality.
    1
  65. yeah most of the pop-sci debunking is bunk, for this topic and others
    1
  66.  @rebokfleetfoot  True. But that is not an inconsistency.
    1
  67. QCD is used for quark calculations. But the math is very complicated. String Theory actually predicted the viscosity of the Quark Gluon Plasma before it was made at the LHC. Lattice QCD tried to do that but the math was so hard they were not sure if it was correct.
    1
  68.  @markarmage3776  agree these 'lying' accusations are bogus. they are not even wrong. if someone lied, say who, and give an exact quote.
    1
  69. yes, it is 99.9% media's fault. how often do they cite a paper? give a link to it? metnion that we can get all the papers at google scholar? media is to science what cardboard is to nutrition
    1
  70. agree, it is a media problem, not a physics problem pop sci says "this is wrong" but doesn't link to the paper that tests "this" or even mention how we can find the paper
    1