Thread: String/M Theory

Don't read garbage. Read Not even wrong and the problem with Physics to balance out the nonsense you have read about string theory.

Hm, I really don't know much about it but it does seem a bit dodgy. Quarks and leptons appear to be fundamental so splitting them up even further does seem at least superficially to be folly.

It's interesting to consider string theory. Everything is made of up rings of energy... What is that energy? But then, no matter how far down you go, you'll always be asking what the lower level consists of.

Yeah I've been thinking about irreducible complexity a lot recently... like even if the Big Bang was proven to have been due to parallel dimensions located on branes colliding(M theory)... where did they come from?... and where did that come from? and so on.

Originally Posted by Xei

Hm, I really don't know much about it but it does seem a bit dodgy. Quarks and leptons appear to be fundamental so splitting them up even further does seem at least superficially to be folly.

string theory doesn't suggest that quarks and leptons can be split in to strings, but rather that they are strings with a certain vibrational frequency as opposed to point particles.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Don't read garbage. Read Not even wrong and the problem with Physics to balance out the nonsense you have read about string theory.

Sorry wendylove, But I don't get what your trying to say. Are you against String theory/M-Theory or for it?... Again Sorry I just didn't get your point on the matter. If you think I'am being like a pest asking stupid questions then you dont have to answer.
thanks in advance

Originally Posted by wendylove

Don't read garbage. Read Not even wrong and the problem with Physics to balance out the nonsense you have read about string theory.

I don't understand people who write off string theory as "garbage". How is it reasonable to toss aside a theory that is backed by a significant amount of the science community, a large amount of very coherent theoretical work, and a few predictions that will be tested as soon as the LHC is up and running. I can see betting against it, but I can't see why you would want to turn people away from it. It just seems closed minded to me. Sorry to take a hit at religious people, but its the same as someone being interested in learning more about hinduism and a christian telling them hinduism is garbage and throwing the bible at them.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

I read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene

Awesome, dude! I don't know if you knew this, but they ended up turning The Elegant Universe into a documentary-ish type, with three episodes about an hour long. I just caught it not too long ago and it was pretty awesome.

As for books, though, I'd recommend "Science and the Akashic Field: And Integral Theory of Everything" by Ervin Laszlo. At times it feels a little 'wordy' so I would 'feel it out' a little bit if you can, before buying. Good read though, especially if you already have an interest, it might be a little difficult to pick up to someone reading on the subject for the first time.

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

I don't understand people who write off string theory as "garbage". How is it reasonable to toss aside a theory that is backed by a significant amount of the science community, a large amount of very coherent theoretical work, and a few predictions that will be tested as soon as the LHC is up and running. I can see betting against it, but I can't see why you would want to turn people away from it. It just seems closed minded to me. Sorry to take a hit at religious people, but its the same as someone being interested in learning more about hinduism and a christian telling them hinduism is garbage and throwing the bible at them.

One way or another, we as laymen can't really comment. At least not until we understand stuff like this. Although I know Wendy is going for a degree in mathematics, I'm fairly certain she is not quite at that level yet.

The problem with string theory for the layman is that there is absolutely no way to test its validity. We can't look at experiments because they don't exist and we can't look at the mathematical theory because it is incredibly complex. String theory really is just a series of complex guesses that are way beyond our practical knowledge of physics.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

One way or another, we as laymen can't really comment. At least not until we understand stuff like this. Although I know Wendy is going for a degree in mathematics, I'm fairly certain she is not quite at that level yet.

The problem with string theory for the layman is that there is absolutely no way to test its validity. We can't look at experiments because they don't exist and we can't look at the mathematical theory because it is incredibly complex. String theory really is just a series of complex guesses that are way beyond our practical knowledge of physics.

I'm not sure if you were trying to say it is, but the E8 model isn't a part of string theory. It is in a seperate unification theory. As for saying that experiments don't exist, that isn't quite true. String theory does make a lot of predictions that we don't currently have the technology to test, but they aren't technically untestable. But it does make a couple of predictions that will be testable even with just the LHC. One is the AdS/CFT connection, the other is electroweakstrong unification. Like you said, these experiments are way above most of our comprehensions, but they are still experiments. I just don't see the point in blasting string theory before it gets a chance to run them.

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

I'm not sure if you were trying to say it is, but the E8 model isn't a part of string theory. It is in a seperate unification theory. As for saying that experiments don't exist, that isn't quite true. String theory does make a lot of predictions that we don't currently have the technology to test, but they aren't technically untestable. But it does make a couple of predictions that will be testable even with just the LHC. One is the AdS/CFT connection, the other is electroweakstrong unification. Like you said, these experiments are way above most of our comprehensions, but they are still experiments. I just don't see the point in blasting string theory before it gets a chance to run them.

Actually, E8 is used in string theory. source. There is a seperate unification model built on the E8 structure, however.

Alright, I stand corrected. Some forms of string theory do use E8. But what I said about string theory making testable predictions is still true.

Hey, I loved The Elegant Universe! One of my favorite books ever! Fabric of the Cosmos was great too. If you're looking for other things that are written for laypeople, there are plenty of choices. Michio Kaku is an awesome author (although I hear he is an absolute jerk in real life), his book Hyperspace was really good, as was Physic of the Impossible. I also thoroughly enjoyed, Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson. I'm in the middle of reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, and it's really good too.

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

But what I said about string theory making testable predictions is still true.

Just do a search on for string theory and the Hadron collider. It could prove string theory wrong once and for all!

I'm pretty sure that string theory is either inherently untestable or practically so.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Just do a search on for string theory and the Hadron collider. It could prove string theory wrong once and for all!

Thats what I said...

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm pretty sure that string theory is either inherently untestable or practically so.

Like I said a few posts ago, its neither inherently or practically untestable. It does makes a lot of predictions that are only testable at extremely high energies which we can't yet attain, but they are testable once we get the technology so it is definitely not inherently untestable. Even with most of its predictions at high energies, it does make a couple of low energy predictions that will be testable with the LHC, so it isnt practically untestable either. It used to be untestable (and I guess is until the LHC turns on), but it will be tested soon.