From: dchatterjee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Allegations against FFT and Vijay's posting on Weinberg 8-)
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:25:10 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1jlcqcINNil8@aludra.usc.edu>, fafat@usc.edu (Vijay Fafat) writes:
> From sci.physics:
> 
> interesting interview with steven Weinberg carried by the library of
> science (by Walter Gelles), [typed without permission.]
> 
> Q. why do you say that a sense of beauty in physicists' theories is a 
> sign that we're making progress towards a final theory?
> 
> A. very often, the initial acceptance of a theory isn't really based on
> experimental support, but rather, on the aesthetic response scientists 
> have towards the theory. This was true in good measure of Einstein's general
> theory of relativity and the electroweak theory. Now, why should our sense
> of beauty play a role comparable to experimental data? one reason may be that
> behind all phenomena there really is a very beautiful, unified theory...what I 
> call a final theory. In fact, there almost has to be. If there was a theory
> that was not beautiful, that had a lot of ugly, arbitrary elements, we would
> never call it a final theory; we would go on looking for some more beautiful
> thing underneath it. So the fact that by making theses aesthetic judgments, we
> actually make progress, suggests that we may be catching hints of the beauty
> in the final theory.
> 
> Q. How much predictive power world a final theory have?
> A. The "standard model" of elementary particles and forces- the theory
> we've been using for the last 15 years or so- has many arbitrary elements.
> There are a number of constants (like masses and charges), and then there
> are more fundamental things like the symmetries and the menus of particles
> that furnishes the representations of the symmetry groups. all of these are 
> just taken from nature, we dont know why they are what they are. A final 
> theory had better be able to explain all these things.
> This doesn't mean that a final theory will immediately enable us to calculate
> everything we want. For instance, we already know the fundamental theory of
> strong nuclear forces, but we still dont know how to use it to calculate
> even a thing as basic as the mass of the proton. The calculation
> is mathematically so complicated that for the present it is beyond our
> reach. But though a final theory may not explain everything, it will have
> enough predictive power--will explain enough about the standard model--so that
> we'll be sure it's the right answer.
> 
> Q.How close are we to discovering a final theory?
> A. There are many historical examples of people who thought we were very
> close, and then it turned out we weren't so close...
> I personally think that the discovery if string theories was a major step
> towards a final theory; in fact they really represent the first time in the
> history of physics that we've had a real place to look for a candidate for
> a final theory. [with previous theories such as the standard model], there
> done seem to be any theoretical framework in which gravitation made 
> mathematical sense on a quantum level. Now the string theories do that.
> So I think there's at least 50-50 chance that some sort of string theory
> will turn out to be pretty close to a final theory.
> There is a definite sense of things converging towards a final answer, but that
> doesn't necessarily mean we're going to reach the answer next year or in 10 
> years.
> 
> Q. Will scientists ever be able to devise experiments to test string theory?
> A. Not directly, I suspect. I dont think we'll ever be able to detect
> particles that correspond to excited states of a string. On the other hand,
> if by using string theory we're able to calculate all the unknown quantities
> in the standard model and if these figures turn out to agree
> with experimental results, then that would be a verification of string theory.
> 
> Q. If a final theory is discovered, would theoretical physics come to an end?
> would cosmology?
> A. I imagine there wouldn't be much motivation to do particle physics except
> perhaps in areas that overlap with astrophysics or nuclear physics. on the
> other hand theoretical physics would continue. There are many fascinating
> open problems in solid-state condensed matter, nonlinear phenomena, 
> turbulence, and chaos that would be left unsolved. The same is even more
> true of astronomy and cosmology. No, the discovery of a final theory
> would end just one kind of science: the search for those principles that
> dont have any explanation in terms of deeper principles.
> 
> Q.Could a final theory tell us whether the universe is open, closed, or
> oscillating?
> A. It might. One reason we dont know what kind of universe we inhibit
> is the problem of dealing with gravitation on the quantum level. if you
> trace the universe back to ten or 20 billion years ago, you come to a time
> when the universe was so condensed that you would have to apply rules of 
> quantum mechanics to the whole universe, not just to individual atoms and 
> nuclei. Nobody really knows how to do that. It's possible that when we learn
> how, with the aid of a final theory, we'll discover that the universe has
> to be open or closed or expanding or oscillating.
> 
> couple more questions one on importance of the superconducting super collider
> for future progress of physics, and one on social consequences of final the
> theory when discovered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


   An excellent article from Vijay in the recent times. However FFT (the Hyde
   side of Vijay D.Fafat) maybe should stop peeping thru the "keyhole" where
   Ms.Schacko rules. " All lust abandon ye who peep thru' here 8-) " - Dante.

   8-)

     - deb chatterjee
    (a good samaritan)