Yes, that’s why it’s a honey-pot for every crackpot pseudo-scientific theory. I have read Greene’s “The Elegant Universe” which explains String Theory and the reason for the extra dimensions. I have no issue with Greene’s ideas, they are speculative but a reasonable guess as to what might explain and unify Relativity and Gravity in a simple way. The guess is based on the interpretation of the available data. The next step to take is to discover if the Theory is falsifiable - ie could any observation or experiment prove/disprove the Theory - if the answer is “No”, then it is just speculation. Luckily, I think there may be a way to detect anomalies in observed Relativity effects which could be explained by String Theory. Even this would not “prove” String Theory", just that it hasn’t been falsified yet. It would give us more reason to believe we were on the right path though and warrant further investigation. This is the Scientific method.
All kinds of scam artists use the “mysteries” of Science to promote and advertise their own brand of pseudo-Science - its analogous to the way Religion works, or the way Advertisers mis-inform to sell their product,- It is just extremely clever Advertising and mind control. Yes Science is stranger than Science-fiction, this does not make it equivalent to it.
It would depend on what it was that “Tesla did” that you are referring to.
I largely agree, everyone can make up a “theory” about the Universe, however some are more grounded in Science than others and therefore have more “weight” behind them. Greene’s theory would carry more weight than Smolin’s, though its interesting enough for me to investigate further. I could honestly make up a theory right here and now and I could ask you to prove me wrong…it would be the same thing.
I have no idea what philosophical metaphysics is, but if Smolin’s theory is anything to go by, at first sight it looks like philosophy and physics don’t mix too well…it appears more philosophical than scientific to me.
Edit: On second sight Smolin’s ideas do not seem without merit but I’m struggling to get my head round the different philosophical arguments between the Anthropic Principle and Time being “real” so to speak. Definitely interesting arguments though, but like I say, more philosophical. I would have to read a lot more to be able to form an opinion - just saying Jury’s out on Smolin for the moment
Definitely interesting and I agree with his general statements about science. I found the following review a very good source for a condensed version of all the relevant and thought-provoking arguments - definitely not pseudo-Science and of a higher order of magnitude than run of the mill ideas/theories, scientific or philosophical. Please read it and give me your thoughts. Cheers:
“Better not to think of science as a quest for timeless truths. Science, he writes, creates “effective theories.” These are models—incomplete by definition. They are effective in limited domains, and they are approximate. That doesn’t have to be a failing. Science can construct better and better theories, approaching the truth with closer approximations. But a perfect model of the universe would have to be the size of the universe. We humans are finite creatures, with little brains.”
The underlying question to me is – Is it not consciousness that is moving within the “Real Time Universe”, rather than the Universe itself? I think I’m getting at what Einstein was getting at:
“People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
However, I’m also troubled by the concept of the “Now”, which isn’t surprising as its an alternative way of saying “consciousness” – the very hard question of Science.