On 23/06/2013 04:57, Davoud wrote:
Ben:
There are some intriguing and attractive ideas in this article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nglement-solve
s-black-hole-paradox.html#.UcYTrfnVD6e

It begins with an explanation of what a wormhole *is* but wormholes are
not known to exist. Then it builds on that untested (and untestable)

It isn't in principle untestable although it would require engineering
well beyond anything that we can contemplate just to visit a large
enough black hole. Most theoretical physicists don't like the idea of
having a naked singularity from a maximally spinning black hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_singularities

conjecture. It's a bit reminiscent of string "theory." Turns out if you
know some math you can pick one of the 10E500 string theories and run
with it and no one can prove you right or wrong. Physicists so want
there to be a theory of quantum gravity, but they haven't yet found a
hint that there is such a theory outside of their own desires.

String theory might be right. Who knows? Even the best mathematicians on
the planet can't actually make any useful or novel predictions with it
as yet that are amenable to experimental testing.

However, the observers and their instrumentation are getting better all
the time so we live in a golden age where observation evidence will rule
out some of the theorists' wilder flights of fancy pretty soon.

No, I'm not qualified to do this research myself. But I am sufficiently
science-savvy to recognize evidence when I see it, and to remain
skeptical when I don't see it.

*****

³As a conservative, I do not agree that a division of physics into
separate theories for large and small is unacceptable. I am happy with
the situation in which we have lived for the last 80 years, with
separate theories for the classical world of stars and planets and the
quantum world of atoms and electrons.² -- Freeman Dyson in a review of
Brian Greene¹s book The Fabric of the Cosmos.

It is extremely unsatisfactory to have two theories that are mutually
incompatible at the finest scales and highest energies. It is a strong
hint that there is an underlying more complete theory that we have yet
to find. Dysons approach is a council of despair. Give up on science
since what we have now is good enough for all terrestrial engineering
purposes (which is probably true, although you can never predict what
the side effects of extreme blue sky research will be).

High energy physicists and astrophysicists compare notes a lot more than
you might think at first sight. There is much more in common between the
two big science disciplines of ultra large and ultra small.

Who would have predicted 50 years ago when the very first laser was made
from a perfect synthetic ruby crystal lovingly polished and half
silvered and illuminated by a complex flash system that one day they
would find an important use at home in every consumer CD and DVD player.

You cannot tell in advance what theoretical developments in advanced
theories will lead to new insights and ways to manipulate nature.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown