-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
-
We hope the site problems here are now solved, however,
if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us
string theory
- Thread starter glo
- Start date
Donut Hole
Active Member
The equations look pretty, but there is no empirical confirmation. Without evidence to back it up, I don't think it can be fairly called much more than a very extensively worked out and interesting hypothesis.
Upvote
0
Donut Hole said:
Concurred. As of yet, there is no real practical way to provide any tangible evidence of strings, branes, and parallel universes. It will be a philosophy of physics rather than a theory.
Upvote
0
Illuminatus
Draft the chickenhawks
Quite well-constructed mathematically, but with no empirical support. There'll be facilities (particle accelerators and the like) opening up within the next 5 years or so that'll let scientists test some of string theory's predictions.
Upvote
0
pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,914
- 17,818
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
True, no proof as of yet, but the math sounds plasuable, (Read / Listen to The Fabric of the Cosmos)
once the new accelarators are running, and if they are able to find the new particles that are predectid by the theory, it will go a long way to show it's true.
once the new accelarators are running, and if they are able to find the new particles that are predectid by the theory, it will go a long way to show it's true.
Upvote
0
Iron Sun 254
Insane Genius
- Aug 23, 2004
- 11,546
- 256
- 56
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Mathematically it's sound and it seems plausible plus, from a Christian perspective, the idea that the whole universe does what it does because of vibrations is very appealing. When God said "Let there be light" his voice set about the vibrations by which the whole of everything was created.
Upvote
0
pgp_protector said:
Maybe, but maybe not. If you've been keeping up with talks on string phenomenology and the LHC, they admit they can't predict what will be observed, and aren't certain they'll be able to meaningfully interpret the data.
We could be in for a lot more waiting and a lot more talking.
Upvote
0
Mathemetically, it solves the contradictions between general relativity and quantum theory, and is the only theory that does so, which is why it has so much recognition.
But as everyone has said, as of right now, there is absolutely no way to test it, because what it proposes is rather intangible to us. Particle accelorators, which will smash subatomic particles together at speeds close to the speed of light, may have some leads, but other than that, you really can't call this a truly scientific theory.
If you want to read up on it, a good book to start with is Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, which is nice because you don't need any background knowledge in physics beyond the high school basics to understand what he is saying.
But as everyone has said, as of right now, there is absolutely no way to test it, because what it proposes is rather intangible to us. Particle accelorators, which will smash subatomic particles together at speeds close to the speed of light, may have some leads, but other than that, you really can't call this a truly scientific theory.
If you want to read up on it, a good book to start with is Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, which is nice because you don't need any background knowledge in physics beyond the high school basics to understand what he is saying.
Upvote
0
Mongoose said:
If that were true, then why can't string theory be used to make predictions about any physical situation? Both general relativity and QM can. Shouldn't anything that "solves the contradictions" between them do the same?
Upvote
0
Illuminatus
Draft the chickenhawks
Locrian said:
String theory can make some predictions. The problem is that at the present, we're lacking the technology to test them.
Upvote
0
Locrian said:
I don't know, I'm just basing that off of what I have read. Perhaps I have read it wrong, and string theory merely attempts to solve the contradictions. But then I am led to wonder why this theory has received the attention that it has gotten and why physicists would waste their time with it. Is there another reason this theory is so popular? What can it do?
On the other hand, what sort of thing would you expect string theory--or anything that would solves the contradictions between general relativity and quantum mechanics for that matter--to predict? See, I'm not very educated on the matter, so this may sound stupid, but I was under the impression that string theory predicted quantum mechanics and general relativity, while quantum mechanics and general relativity would then, in turn, predict the very things we use them for today.
Upvote
0
I do not entirely agree with your statement that string theory has made predictions we simply can't test. The LHC will be coming online soon, and there has been no reasonably cohesive agreement on what will be seen. On the contrary, at recent conferences on string theory phenomenology no one really even bothers to try; the effort is primarily on using the information the LHC provides to tune up string theory.
There is nothing wrong with that. This is one way science is done, and I'm excited to see what they will come up with. However, I worry that the public has been convinced there is some kind of experimental evidence for string theory. On the contrary, they can't predict most experiments that already have been done, much less ones still to be done. I love progressive science, but I do not agree with how it has been dissiminated.
Whether they've been wasting their time depends on whom you ask. String physics is 10-40 years old in one form or another, and has been reasonably similar for 25 years. Never has any scientific endevor required so much work and produced so little. On the other hand, those working in it would suggest that the stakes are higher then ever before; what's twenty five years of a tiny group of people on a tiny budget when information about our universe this deep is on the line?
In any case, here's some facts you may or may not know. Almost no one in physics works on string theory. Almost no one in physics follows string theory closely. A large portion (far more than half) of physicists don't care about string theory, or consider it of much importance. A sizable number consider it a misguided field.
Of course, the quality of a program does in no way depend on how many like or care for it.
There is nothing wrong with that. This is one way science is done, and I'm excited to see what they will come up with. However, I worry that the public has been convinced there is some kind of experimental evidence for string theory. On the contrary, they can't predict most experiments that already have been done, much less ones still to be done. I love progressive science, but I do not agree with how it has been dissiminated.
Mongoose said:
Whether they've been wasting their time depends on whom you ask. String physics is 10-40 years old in one form or another, and has been reasonably similar for 25 years. Never has any scientific endevor required so much work and produced so little. On the other hand, those working in it would suggest that the stakes are higher then ever before; what's twenty five years of a tiny group of people on a tiny budget when information about our universe this deep is on the line?
In any case, here's some facts you may or may not know. Almost no one in physics works on string theory. Almost no one in physics follows string theory closely. A large portion (far more than half) of physicists don't care about string theory, or consider it of much importance. A sizable number consider it a misguided field.
Of course, the quality of a program does in no way depend on how many like or care for it.
Upvote
0
Lubos Motl (start at the top) had some interesting things to say about a particular brand of string theory that has cropped up lately. Do not take his entry as suggesting that he thinks string theory is false - he is a string theorist after all! - but this desperate turn to the anthropic principle is a sign of ways theorizing without experimenting can go awry.
Upvote
0
Since there has been much talk about experimentally testing string theory, I'll list the possible experimental proofs listed in Brian Greene's book The Elegant Universe that could help the cause for string theory.
-Experimental proof of the existence of the graviton.
-Experimental proof of the existence of supersymmetry.
-Experimental proof of the existence of particles with charges that are of very small fractions.
-Experimental proof of predictions string theory will make about the mass of neutrinos (especially if they are of nonzero mass).
-Experimental proof of proton decay and various transmutations of quarks that violate properties of quantum field theory.
-Experimental proof of small long-range force fields predicted by certain Calabi-Yau shapes.
-Experimental proof of the contents of dark matter that are predicted by string theory.
-Experimental proof of the possible predictions string theory makes about the mismatch between predictions of the cosmological constant.
-Experimental proof of the existence of the graviton.
-Experimental proof of the existence of supersymmetry.
-Experimental proof of the existence of particles with charges that are of very small fractions.
-Experimental proof of predictions string theory will make about the mass of neutrinos (especially if they are of nonzero mass).
-Experimental proof of proton decay and various transmutations of quarks that violate properties of quantum field theory.
-Experimental proof of small long-range force fields predicted by certain Calabi-Yau shapes.
-Experimental proof of the contents of dark matter that are predicted by string theory.
-Experimental proof of the possible predictions string theory makes about the mismatch between predictions of the cosmological constant.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
