Should the string theory be put aside?

[trophy33]

It seems that the string theory failed to be the unifying theory or to bring anything of practical use to the table, regardless of enormous resources thrown at it. Is it time for other models to get the attention?

 

[the Vital One]

It seems that the string theory failed to be the unifying theory or to bring anything of practical use to the table, regardless of enormous resources thrown at it. Is it time for other models to get the attention?

The "theory of everything" unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics has not been discovered yet. This means that we cannot say that string theory has "failed" and we cannot yet judge how useful or practical it is.

All we know for now is that it has cooled in popularity among physicists in recent years. Science is based on evidence, data and analysis and not on how popular an idea is.

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems that the string theory failed to be the unifying theory or to bring anything of practical use to the table, regardless of enormous resources thrown at it. Is it time for other models to get the attention?

As they say, you can't pull yourself up by your own strings.





Nevermind.

 

[RileyG]

As they say, you can't pull yourself up by your own strings.





Nevermind.

Nice one.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm telling you, and I've studied it throughly, the answer is 42.

God Bless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seems that the string theory failed to be the unifying theory or to bring anything of practical use to the table, regardless of enormous resources thrown at it. Is it time for other models to get the attention?

What? Throw out the collective cacophony of string theories as if they're just so many old, broken violins? Nah!

What else would modern humanity use by which to inspire and buttress the multi-tudes of political and sci-fi narratives they still wish to write?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm telling you, and I've studied it throughly, the answer is 42.

God Bless.

Now what is the question?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm telling you, and I've studied it throughly, the answer is 42.

God Bless.

According to the Gospel of Matthew, the answer, however typologically written, really is 42.

Eat your heart out, Douglas Adams!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Now what is the question?

The question is: "Who cares?"

 

[Hans Blaster]

The question is: "Who cares?"

Let's see:

Q: Who cares?
A: 42

Unless "42" is a person, this doesn't work.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's see:

Q: Who cares?
A: 42

Unless "42" is a person, this doesn't work.

That's perceptive, Hans. So, since you're on the right track, I suggest you continue to roll with it .......

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's perceptive, Hans. So, since you're on the right track, I suggest you continue to roll with it .......

Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Oh forget it, Hans. Let's just talk about whether or not String Theories should be given up or not, as the OP is requesting. What do you think? Is it time to dispatch this effort in Theoretical Physics?

(But I know that the answer is 42. It has been since about 4 B.C. Or, maybe I should say it has been since about A.D. 74; it depends on who you are as to what the year should be)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh forget it, Hans. Let's just talk about whether or not String Theories should be given up or not, as the OP is requesting. What do you think? Is it time to dispatch this effort in Theoretical Physics?

I watched that clip. It was mostly Brian Greene(?) and Eric Weinstein bantering about academic politics. I really don't want to see it devolve in to Weinstein's actual politics. They are quite dire.

It seems a rather arrogant leap to skip over full unification of the Standard Model of particle physics to SM+GR, that was the project of string theory. There is plenty of real work in unknown spaces of theory that don't involve gravity.

(But I know that the answer is 42. It has been since about 4 B.C. Or, maybe I should say it has been since about A.D. 74; it depends on who you are as to what the year should be)

12024. I don't like backward counting calendars.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I watched that clip. It was mostly Brian Greene(?) and Eric Weinstein bantering about academic politics. I really don't want to see it devolve in to Weinstein's actual politics. They are quite dire.

Yes, it looked and sounded like Brian Greene, so I ... kind of guess it was him? Weinstein, though, is someone with whom I'm barely familiar.

As far as the 'politics' of String Theory are concerned, I lean more toward those of Lee Smolin and Sabine Hossenfelder. They're not quite so dire, even if some folks in the Physics community aren't fond of them.

It seems a rather arrogant leap to skip over full unification of the Standard Model of particle physics to SM+GR, that was the project of string theory. There is plenty of real work in unknown spaces of theory that don't involve gravity.

That sounds reasonable.

12024. I don't like backward counting calendars.

Well, for those of us who are into Historiography and the Christian faith, calendars (and the past) mean something. But I get it if the past doesn't mean all that much to you. At least you're not a Marxist in that respect.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, it looked and sounded like Brian Greene, so I ... kind of guess it was him? Weinstein, though, is someone with whom I'm barely familiar.

It's better that way. He spends most of his time in public fora whining about others not paying attention to *his* "theory of everything* and the rest of the time he's even worse.

As far as the 'politics' of String Theory are concerned, I lean more toward those of Lee Smolin and Sabine Hossenfelder. They're not quite so dire, even if some folks in the Physics community aren't fond of them.

That sounds reasonable.

Well, for those of us who are into Historiography and the Christian faith, calendars (and the past) mean something. But I get it if the past doesn't mean all that much to you.

That's an odd thing to say. It is true I do not care about your religion, but I do like history. It occurs to me that it is now the last day of Fructidor. (Then 6 days of the san culottes to close out year 232! Party on!)

At least you're not a Marxist in that respect.

I'm not a Marxist in any respect.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's better that way. He spends most of his time in public fora whining about others not paying attention to *his* "theory of everything* and the rest of the time he's even worse.

I'll keep that in mind if I come across him any more in the media. Thanks for the heads up!

That's an odd thing to say. It is true I do not care about your religion, but I do like history. It occurs to me that it is now the last day of Fructidor. (Then 6 days of the san culottes to close out year 232! Party on!)

Oh yeah. The history of calendars is interesting in and of itself (Philosophically speaking for those of us who think "time" is a neat little thing).

Party on!

I'm not a Marxist in any respect.

That's so good to hear! ... the less we have to argue about, the better.

 

[Mountainmike]

The "theory of everything" unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics has not been discovered yet. This means that we cannot say that string theory has "failed" and we cannot yet judge how useful or practical it is.

All we know for now is that it has cooled in popularity among physicists in recent years. Science is based on evidence, data and analysis and not on how popular an idea is.

It never will be. The quest always was a fools errand of scientism, based on a philosophical misunderstanding of what science can tell you.

Many failed to see what was staring them in the face.

The question “ is” an electron a wave or a particle , is proof of the misunderstanding,
The answer is ontologically it “ is“neither since wave, particle or probability wave are just math models of observation, as are all our models - they are emperiological, not fundamental. Ineeed “ electron” is just a model.

Hawking In his last book finally got it , when he refers to his concept of “model dependent reality” in which there are multiple models which can conflict . so neither is an underpinning. Goodbye theory ot everything.

But then Einstein answered this decades before when he referred to the philodophical watch as analogy to the universe, in which the externals of the watch are observable , but nobody can other than guess at what is inside, and , even if their guess model matches externals, they cannot claim the model is “ right” or “ unique“ and therefore not universal . That is An admission there can be no theory of everything. An admission science is emperiological Not ontological.

Kant hit the nail on the head a century before when went further stating that all we can see is phenomena , the underlying noumena are unknowable not least because our senses are limited.

So That is where string theory was always bound to fail.
You have observations in 3 dimensiins so 3 equations in 11 dimension unknowns . Since we cannot observe other dimensions the model is a waste of time. The special cases reduce to what we already know. No value added.

All of physics is just a model. Not ontological or fundamental, although everywhere it is useful, in fact arguably man’s greatest achievement, but Some places it works better Than others.
So creating models like string theory which can never be useful ( too many unknowns) ,always was for the birds!

nowhere are the models an ontological reality. And there can never be a theory of everything. We cannot sense “ everything,“we have a limited portal on the universe, trapped in sensory limits.

I really do wish schoolkids and many scientists were forced to study philosophy of science.
with any tool you have to know it’s limitations.