String Theory

Do you believe that string theory is the key to the theory of everything?

  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

Sure, there are different versions of string theory, but overall, the principles remain. Is the quest for physical truth coming to an end? It has once before been said that, “there is nothing left to discover in physics.” Of course, that was right before Planck, Einstein, Poincare, Heisenberg, Bohr, and Schrodinger decided to show up.

So, are we ready to gift wrap physics? Or are we waiting for a batch of intellectual giants to come on stage?

I would like a legitimate answer, not one that is wrought from ego alone.

Throughout history there have been people saying that the book is closed.

And they were all, without exception, wrong.

But I do think that String Theory represents an important step forwards in our understanding of the universe.

Come on guys… does no one have an opinion on this?

Give us a basic breakdown of what it actually solves, then I’ll tell you if I think it’s any good.

superstringtheory.com/basics/index.html

The above is a link to a string theory website.

Here’s the nutshell version:

All matter is made of stuff, so what is it? Beneath the atoms, neutrons, electrons, protons, quarks, etc… there lay tiny strings.

These strings are tiny loops of energy which vibrate a certain way to give matter its form.

Strings make up everything.

When taken to the next level (meaning, scientists call 11 dimensions into play) it is called M-theory. M stand for membrane. This is a string theory that reconciles all previous string theories and states that there are infinite Universes floating around like membranes.

Long story short, one can derive all principles of science and reality from string theory, especially M-theory.

Theory: Tiny loops of energy that make up everything.

Is there a problem in postulating infinite possible universes?

It’s your opinion I am asking for.

Personally, I figure it as a convenient theory that gives us comfort while looking for something better. It is purely grounded in philosophy at the moment, so the subjectivity of it is monumentous.

This is the 21st century equivalent to the “aether” in my opinion.

I agree that it may give us comfort until we find something better, and that it may be the best theory currently if it can consume all the others, but my real question is: How do we avoid the problems of reductionism?

To my knowledge string theory is untestable at this point in time, an enormous amount of energy (unobtainable) is needed to probe for postulated objects of that size. Someone more knowledgable about the subject than me can probably affirm or deny if pragmatically testable predictions can be made from the theory, but to my knowledge, it seems pretty unlikely.

Therefore, at the moment, it is simply a mathematical construction which is supposed to be an elegant marriage between QM and GR. Talk of multiple universes is, of course, pure conjecture.

Multiple universes are also used to explain uncertainty. But, as NoelyG said, it is all untestable. In that sense, it is unscientific, so it can’t really be an end-all theory of physics.

Is that like David Lewis’s possible worlds thing?

String theory and M(aster/embrane) Theory is very exciting to me… it represents huge pioneering efforts into our knowledge of the universe. However I believe we (the scientific community involved with Mtheory) are eons away yet from making any concrete progress with these suggestions. It is almost as if we are getting ahead of ourselves here… too many science fiction novels fuel too much ambition, impatience. Maybe.

-OKComputer

My two cents:

One cent: We have have reached the limit of out ability to measure and understand the universe. That doesn’t mean that we aren’t kept from an infinite regression of reality beyond this point.

One more cent: Math will never represent reality since reality doesn’t use “equals” signs. This belief is still largely unformed for me, but I believe it is probably true. Our math anthropomorphises reality. I believe the math of reality is something that we cannot even fathom.

Membrain you should start a thread about theoretical problems in math. That’d be some good shit yo!

O lord no. And get all these math-boys berating my about insulting the majesty of math? That’s one of the problems with points like this: experts are too beholden to their educations to think openly; and non-experts don’t care!

I voted “No” in the poll by the way.

Fuck em man. This is the philosophy forum! It’s our job to question assumptions! It takes balls (and some reasonable intelligence) to argue with math lovers. Let’s do it man. I’ve got your back.

Um, no. Like I said, it’s a waste of time!

I agree with the goal of questioning assumptions, but 99.99 of what I see appears to be validating assumptions (and academic ones at that).

Oh well.

Always a possibility. But the nice thing about the self-correcting nature of science is that when we veer too far off track, massive discrepancies arise and people start tracing them backwards. Work that is going on in Epigenetics right now, which hearkens back to the LarMarkian Heresy, is a good modern example of this.

True. The better question is what use string theory will have. Discovering electrons is interesting, but applying that discovery and making a television has a much greater impact on our daily lives. So, we’ll see where it takes us in twenty-odd years.

good point

String theory does not seem to be the way out, because I think that there is something inherently missing in the basic theory of QM, and also that Einstein and Dirac would turn out to be right. String theory is nolonger elegant nor is its base sound, so my guess is that there has to be a second Quantum revolution at a very basic level if we are to think about a unification. I also have a feeling that nonlinear dynamical concepts would have to play a big role in the new quantum revolution.
[/quote]