bernard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> One problem I have with this post is that you
> throw in a number of different frontier questions
> all at once and it is too much to deal with all at
> once. The question of Higgs has to do with
> completion of the Standard Model. Some of this
> other stuff (vacuum energy ec. is more relevant to
> things like dark matter
>


But they are all related. In fact according to the physicists the Higgs is far more related to vacuum energy than dark matter is. Higgs derived his theory from the fact there is zero point energy.

I realise I was doing a bit of a shotgun approach but I think its good to keep a broad perspecitive clearly in focus. Why should the nature of dark matter be considered in isolation of quantum gravity ??? Its like someone studying clouds and coming up with a theory of clouds and another person studying evoporation and a different person studing rain.


>
>
>
> I don't much beleive in the "many worlds" or in
> superstring theory. Since they have not produced
> testable consequences and/or experimental evidence
> supporting them, they are too far out for me :-(.
>

Yes they are speculative and "many worlds" is so unevidenced and against common sense at the same time that I'm completely with you on that. With M theory the 'basic' maths has come from theories that are supported by experimental evidence. The fact no one knows what the results mean does not mean some of the things they suggest should be ignored IMO.

>
> Probably not enough. The only way to really see
> what is going on in quantum mechanics,
> superstrings, etc. is to be able to see what the
> mathematics lead to. Although I had quantum
> mechanics in graduate physical chemistry, it was
> primarily applied to the needs of chemists and it
> was many years ago. Physics has come a long way
> since. What I do is what scientists usually do
> when dealing with areas that differ from their own
> expertise; as a first approximation you go along
> with what the majority of scientists in area of
> science see as valid. Questions and problems that
> are in the frontiers (or exotic) in that area I
> consider interesting, but I don't worry too much
> about them. I want to see the dust settle among
> the contenders with the credentials to fight the
> fight before I take sides. I particularly take
> reports in popular magazines or the press with a
> load of salt. My other principles are that 1)
> extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence and 2) untestable theories are just that-
> theories.
>

Yes I agree with all that. So where is the extraordinary evidence for the fact that the vast majority of physicists accept that the entire visible and detectable universe represents only 4% of the total ? They suggest WMAP says as much but they use completely unproven and extraordinary theories to come to that interpretation of WMAP. Its pure speculation.

And as far as extraordinary claims a huge proportion of leading physicists claim there are billions of other universes. My claims are damn right down to earth compared to the completely unividenced stuff coming out from the academics. I do realise testability and clear deinitions and understanding are vital though - its just a hobby for me though and would require going back to university and studying physics to even be able to start doing anything seriously

Simon