who else can understand string theory and general relativivt

Post Reply New Topic

I like string theory,but it is a little odd. but what isn't. right now general relativity and quantum mechanics are joining together,slowly.

Yes, I can. Being a chemist, I am always interested in what creates light/matter in the universe. I have extensively studied their relationships and spend my nights working on my own theories relating to them. This is what I do in my down time. There is something major that I can see that is missing in String Theory that prevents our understanding of how the four major forces interrelate (keeping us from a working Theory of Everything). It is that missing piece that I have been working on finding for the past year in my spare time.

The problem i have with string theory is that while its underlying forces can be tested and proven, the strings itself can never be. There can and will be better theories that unite both GR and quantum physics without creating a sciencefiction element like 'strings'.

Doesnt mean i only accept 'facts' tho.. i dont really like it when everyone takes something that someone wrote 100 years ago as their holy grail. Such things really stop our technological advancement, its just that 'strings' really came out of nowhere and really does not prove anything

This is my problem with string theory.. I saw a sketch a while back that pretty much sums it up for me:

Guy1 "What if everything was really made up of tiny vibrating strings?"
Guy2: "Ok what would that mean?"
Guy1: "Well.. nothing really.. but wouldn't it be cool?!"

String theory is interesting and all but since it can never be proven and doesn't really change anything does it even need to exist?

I'm not really certain that string theory can never be proven. It actually makes a number of predictions like supersymmetry which if found, could show evidence for string theory albeit indirectly. Also, if string theory is true then actually it would change a great deal, including giving us an explanation as to how gravity works on a quantum scale. The central problem in physics that string theory is trying to solve is to try and reconcile the fact that quantum mechanics and Einstein's general relativity are fundamentally incompatible.

Is it true that photons are made of photonium?

Yes and breaking news photonium is now theorized to be made of kitten sneezes.

String Theory is fascinating. Michio Kaku is one of the most interesting theoretical physicists today and has probably done the most to make complex theories like his more accessible to people who haven't acquired much knowledge of modern physics and don't understand things like why it was worth spending billions on the Hadron collider.

The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
http://smile.amazon.com/dp/039333810X

I highly suggest this book. It's beautifully written, and no prior physics knowledge is required.

I don't get string theory at all. I understand quantum mechanics at a sort of gross level, as applied to chemistry (indeed, I didn't really 'get' chemistry until they started into quantum explanations), and I've never had a problem getting the basics of general relativity. I couldn't do much of the relevant math, though.

I thought String Theory and General Relativity were separate topics. One can accept GR without accepting ST.

The only thing I know of String Theory was what I saw in that public television show, probably the same thing listed above. I get that a system of equations can have several solutions. I get the part that if you accept certain solutions, you have to accept them all, and as I recall, that means you have to accept more than three spacial dimensions.

String theory - like parallel universes and supernatural beings - was invented to explain away certain issues with our incomplete perception of reality.

Is it not enough to see that the universe is beautiful without also having to imagine that it is held together by invisible string?

Unfortunately String Theory is currently impervious to empirical testing. And there is more than one String Theory. Which one is right (if any)?

Please see "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. String Theory has turned out to be a dud.

String theory is a theory, and it's a very interesting theory. We don't have the empirical tools to test it. That doesn't mean it is automatically wrong or that those tools will never ever exist. Science works by starting with theories - it always has, and probably always will.

"String Theory" is not even a theory in the strictest sense, since a "Theory" was previously an hypothesis that has been validated empirically.

An hypothesis is an idea that is testable.

An idea is a speculative concept that was conceived in order to explain gaps or apparent discrepancies in our current understanding.

Right now, "String Theory" has not even progressed beyond the conceptual stage - it is not testable (like an hypothesis), thus it has never been tested (like a real theory).

: : So the more correct name for "String Theory" is actually "String Concept".

QED

Bravo. There's no experimental evidence in support of string theory. I've been hearing for decades about string theory, how the next breakthrough is just around the corner, but it never comes. Maybe the math behind it is beautiful, but that doesn't make it good physics.