Does String Theory Satisfy Einstein's Conditions for a Physical Theory?

In summary, Albert Einstein laid out two points of view for evaluating physical theories in his autobiography. The first point is that a theory must not contradict empirical facts, and the second is that the theory's premises should be logically simple and natural. String theory, which proposes that the fundamental unit of matter is a vibrating string, does not fully conform to these conditions, as it requires additional assumptions and has not been able to produce significant new results.
  • #1
MistyMountain
48
0
Does String Theory Satisfy Einstein's Conditions for a Physical Theory?

In his autobiography Einstein said:

Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. However evident this demand may in the first place appear, its application turns out to be quite delicate. For it is often, perhaps even always, possible to adhere to a general theoretical foundation by securing the adaption of the theory to the facts by means of artificial additional assumptions. In any case, however, this first point of view is concerned with the confirmation of the theoretical foundation by the available empirical facts.
The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or " logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories since time immemorial. The problem here is not simply one of a kind of enumeration of the logically independent premises (if anything like this were at all unequivocally possible), but that of a kind of reciprocal weighing of incommeasurable qualities. Furthermore, among theories of equally "simple" foundation that one is to be taken as superior which most sharply delimits the qualities of system in the abstract (i.e., contains that most definite claims). Of the "realm" of theories I need not speak here, inasmuch as we are confining ourselves to such theories whose object is the totality of all physical appearances. The second point of view may briefly be characterized as concerning itself with the "inner perfection" of the theory, whereas the first point of view refers to the "external confirmation." The following I reckon as also belonging to the "inner perfection" of a theory: we prize a theory more highly if, from the logical standpoint, it is not the result of an arbitrary choice among theories which, among themselves, are of equal value and analogously constructed.
Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Volume One, 1949, Autobiographical Notes, p 21--23,
Open Court, Cambridge University Press.

Does string theory conform to this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
MistyMountain said:
Does String Theory Satisfy Einstein's Conditions for a Physical Theory?
In his autobiography Einstein said:
Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. However evident this demand may in the first place appear, its application turns out to be quite delicate. For it is often, perhaps even always, possible to adhere to a general theoretical foundation by securing the adaption of the theory to the facts by means of artificial additional assumptions. In any case, however, this first point of view is concerned with the confirmation of the theoretical foundation by the available empirical facts.
The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or " logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories since time immemorial. The problem here is not simply one of a kind of enumeration of the logically independent premises (if anything like this were at all unequivocally possible), but that of a kind of reciprocal weighing of incommeasurable qualities. Furthermore, among theories of equally "simple" foundation that one is to be taken as superior which most sharply delimits the qualities of system in the abstract (i.e., contains that most definite claims). Of the "realm" of theories I need not speak here, inasmuch as we are confining ourselves to such theories whose object is the totality of all physical appearances. The second point of view may briefly be characterized as concerning itself with the "inner perfection" of the theory, whereas the first point of view refers to the "external confirmation." The following I reckon as also belonging to the "inner perfection" of a theory: we prize a theory more highly if, from the logical standpoint, it is not the result of an arbitrary choice among theories which, among themselves, are of equal value and analogously constructed.
Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Volume One, 1949, Autobiographical Notes, p 21--23,
Open Court, Cambridge University Press.
Does string theory conform to this?
What do you think ? :biggrin:
 
  • #3
I would have to vote no.
 
  • #4
Actually the original string hypothesis was very simple with gratifying results. You just assumed the fundamental "thing" was a vibrating relativistic string, and took the simplest action for such a thing and developed it, and you got a graviton that was consistent with Einstein's field equations (so they thought and many still do). You got several other particles, including a tachyon you very much didn't want, but there was that graviton, and there was no 'fine tuning' or 'epicycles' about it.

The trouble was they never really got better than that first breakthrough, instead they got deeper and deeper into the math of their models and more and more contingent.
 
  • #5
did string theory ever have an original postulate?

did string theory ever have an original postulate?

if so, where was it stated?

who stated it?

was the whole point of string theory a way to get rid of points?

so strange that nobody knows string theory's original postulate, nor the person who stated it.

we can quote einstein, but who started string theory?
 
  • #6
My guess is string theory was started by L. Ron Hubbard. It starts out sounding good, but then takes all your money and gives you nothing. (I suspect "Michael Green" was a pseudonym.)
 
  • #7
Does anyone know what the annual NSF budget is for string theory?

Is it worth it?

Is it a little bit like Enron, where elite insiders are playing a joke on the unsuspecting public, and profiting from it?
 
  • #8
MistyMountain said:
Does anyone know what the annual NSF budget is for string theory?
I don't know the exact number, but searching "string" on the NSF's awards page gives...
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/piSearch.do;jsessionid=12140160808182889516AF72BFC8F425?SearchType=piSearch&page=1&QueryText=string&PIFirstName=&PILastName=&PIInstitution=&PIState=&PIZip=&PICountry=&Search=Search
about 1000 awards, looks like around $100K each. So a hundred million dollars or so. This might be every year, but some might be multi-year grants.
And more money goes to string research from the DOE.
Is it worth it?
Is it a little bit like Enron, where elite insiders are playing a joke on the unsuspecting public, and profiting from it?
In some ways it's not that bad, but in some ways it's worse.
Most people who invested in Enron had a choice, taxpayers don't.
But the money goes to many people, rather than a few getting all of it like in most scams. So in that way it's better.
And I like the idea of smart people getting supported just to have time to think about stuff -- I just don't like that there's a string monopoly. And I'm not thrilled about this coming from taxpayers instead of from private foundations.
 
  • #9
garrett said:
So a hundred million dollars or so. This might be every year, but some might be multi-year grants.
And more money goes to string research from the DOE.
In some ways it's not that bad, but in some ways it's worse.
Most people who invested in Enron had a choice, taxpayers don't.
But the money goes to many people, rather than a few getting all of it like in most scams. So in that way it's better.
And I like the idea of smart people getting supported just to have time to think about stuff -- I just don't like that there's a string monopoly. And I'm not thrilled about this coming from taxpayers instead of from private foundations.
I think it is necessary to add some reasonable comments here. Let me first say that I am not a specialist in string theory but I certainly do not approve of it (far from). Look, at this moment in time, it seems to me that most researchers are lost: string theory should by all reasonable criteria have been disposed of in the physics community for a long time (especially supersymmetry). However it is an unparallelled mathematical persuit and does produce useful results in this area (so it would be more reasonable at this moment in time that STRT gets more MATH instead of PHYS funds). Loop quantum gravity is in no better state : people are there still turning around those problems which were known to be the main obstacles from the real beginning (Hamiltonian constraint, classical limit, interpretational issues, ...) - some of these issues are very well presented in the recent paper of Nicolai, Peeters and Zamaklar. As I have voiced on many occasions, this indicates that some drastic nontrivial new physical idea is necessary. It is not a coincidence that great thinkers are heading in radical directions at this moment in time such as 't Hooft who wants to find a deterministic Planck scale dynamics which reproduces quantum mechanics as the associated statistical theory.

Moreover, it is only a standard human reaction that the big tend to become bigger and the small need to dissapear. I am sure that the same comments would be voiced to LQG if they had the luxury of STRT.
If you want to change the system, then one should organize international concours where candidates simply have to take a few exams on standard, well established physics (and perhaps some IQ tests) and have to score in the top 10 procent in order to get a position on the appropriate level. At that moment, the candidate should have absolute freedom to express his/her preferred research and be free to move to these places where more or less equal thinkers are present (of course there are some restrictions to be determined). Anyway, the money should go more to competent, inventive persons and not so much to research programs especially in times when most programs can claim very little. I am pretty sure that more or less the same persons would get the money (lets say 70 procent of the cases), but that those same persons would choose a very different topic than the one they are kind of stuck with at the moment (publication pressure/ job opportunities and so on).

But the system of reference letters, project writing, popularity of the research topic and so on should better dissapear: theoretical physics should NOT be an industry. I think people should better realize that their theories are just that : theories. One should never cherish one's own child too much and certainly not compare his/her theory with the quest for the holy grail. In other words: relax, cool down, do not put so much pressure on people, do not force any intelligent person in a direction which you are not certain about yourself ... this has nothing to do with string theory; but everything with the market principles entering the acadamic world where freedom of thought and intellecual honesty should prevail and as is well known, this requires chaos and not structure.

Cheers,

Careful
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Careful said:
I think it is necessary to add some reasonable comments here. ...

Well said.

Humans are herd animals and have a nasty tendency to flocking.

Mathematicians and physicists are social creatures, and so understanding how their work is pursued requires a bit of social science.

Carl
 
  • #11
I motion that we petition NSF to fund every theory that

1) has no postulates
2) predicts nothing
3) is generally useless
 
  • #12
Jee, where did you get so frustrated ? :uhh: Instead of nagging, you might want to suggest an alternative and take a more positive attitude. There is a difference in uttering well founded concrete criticisms to a particular programme and questioning the investement made into it as opposed to being cynical and hitting in any direction. I am very aware that even if you had a reasonable alternative this would not change anything to the factual situation. Moreover, you would get a lot of nonsensical criticsms by people who never had a truly original idea themselves and you would not get your papers published unless you close up all holes (which STRT and LQG of course do not manage to do). But that is reality : so what are you going to do about it ?
 
  • #13
I'm not frustrated at all.

I'm not frustrated at all.

I am publishing my scientific work elsewhere. If you read the rules here, PF, like academia, forbids publishing new theories that conform to Einstein's requirements for a theory.

I just think it's funny.

1) String theory does not conform to Einstein's nor Popper's requirements for a theory.

2) PF forbids the posting of new theories that do conform to Einsteins requirements.

Ergo, we can either complain about String Theory or say nothing.

But logic and reason are forbidden here, every bit as much as they are in academia.

The reasons for this are numerous, but all one has to do is follow the money.
 
  • #14
MistyMountain said:
I'm not frustrated at all.
I am publishing my scientific work elsewhere. If you read the rules here, PF, like academia, forbids publishing new theories that conform to Einstein's requirements for a theory.
I just think it's funny.
1) String theory does not conform to Einstein's nor Popper's requirements for a theory.
2) PF forbids the posting of new theories that do conform to Einsteins requirements.
Ergo, we can either complain about String Theory or say nothing.
But logic and reason are forbidden here, every bit as much as they are in academia.
The reasons for this are numerous, but all one has to do is follow the money.

I acknowledge that the demands on papers introducing different points of view are extremely high (you even do not have to speak about a new theory of everything). However, the cautious behavior of publishers is understandable given the huge number of crackpot authors around (and then I only speak about papers which are mathematically flawed) - the probability that something remotely worthwhile can be found amongst these new candidates is extremely small. For the readers who want to read some entertaining detective stories about those ``new research directions´´, check out the website maintained by Arkadiusz Jadczyk - who holds rather unorthodox views on QM himself - in the diametrically opposite direction of mine - to say the least :biggrin: ( his polish background might explain a lot in this matter :rofl: ).

Nevertheless, this does not imply that logic is not present in academia; reason is something different :biggrin:
 
  • #15
Would you consider Ed Witten and Brian Greene and the tens of thousands of their disciples crackpots?

Why are rising physicists held to higher standards than those that get millions from the NSF?

Perhaps I just answered my own question. :)
 
  • #16
MistyMountain said:
Would you consider Ed Witten and Brian Greene and the tens of thousands of their disciples crackpots?

Why are rising physicists held to higher standards than those that get millions from the NSF?

Perhaps I just answered my own question. :)

? Ed Witten and Brian Greene are clearly brilliant mathematicians. Wether their math corresponds in any way to physical reality is an entirely different issue :smile: Look, what I called crackpots are people who cannot even get the math right (which is the most basic requirement to do physics) and do nothing but throwing speculative ideas in the air without backing up their claims with some reference material or showing what there is wrong with the standard ideas in the first place.

People who row against the current are ALWAYS held to higher standards. That is a fact of life in every society.
 
  • #17
Careful said:
? Ed Witten and Brian Greene are clearly brilliant mathematicians. Wether their math corresponds in any way to physical reality is an entirely different issue :smile: Look, what I called crackpots are people who cannot even get the math right (which is the most basic requirement to do physics) and do nothing but throwing speculative ideas in the air without backing up their claims with some reference material or showing what there is wrong with the standard ideas in the first place.
People who row against the current are ALWAYS held to higher standards. That is a fact of life in every society.

Have Ed Witten and Brian Greene gotten the math right?

If so, where is the equation?

Where are the equations that make them brilliant?

String Theorists have thrown thousands of speculative claims in the air, and not one has been backed up yet with math nor physics.

And indeed, what is wrong with physics in the first place? Why do we need string theory? What does it explain that is not expalined elsewhere?

Who says that math is the most basic requirment of physics?

I would argue that physics is the most basic requirement of physics.

As Richard Feynman said, "Physics is to math what sex is to
masturbation." He certainly knew what physics was, did he not?

"I don't believe in mathematics." --Albert Einstein.

Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.
Quoted in P A Schilpp, Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist (Evanston 1949).

Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom. --Einstein
Quoted in H Eves Return to Mathematical Circles (Boston 1988).

Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. --Einstein (NOT STRING THEORY)

Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.
Quoted in A P French, Einstein: a Centenary Volume
 
  • #18
MistyMountain said:
Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.
Quoted in A P French, Einstein: a Centenary Volume
You do not seem to understand my point that even IF string theory is not the theory of nature STILL THEN Ed Witten and Brian Greene are scientists whom you would like to have around. I agree partially with your overall feeling that we should be more concerned with physics and less with mathematics ... . However, that does not invalidate mathematical research in times where good new physical ideas are absent (mainly due to no experimental guidelines). I think this conversation is only useful when you present us your new physical paradigm.

Cheers,

Careful
 
  • #19
OK--so let's keep Brian Greene and Ed Witten around for pop-science books that obfuscate Einstein, TV shows with cool special effects, and half-truths and cover-ups from the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. :)

But what about the tens of millions of tax payer dollars that go to all their disciples? Is that right, good, or just?

Is it helping or hurting physics and greater science? Surely the grad students performing actual work and teaching the science classes should be paid instead. Even the moderators on this board would agree with that.

My new paradigm will not be announced here as new paradigms based on logic and reason are not allowed here.
 
  • #20
Misty, I think Careful makes a good point. You need to show the math. I agree that Greene and Witten are pushing the envelope. While their conclusions are debatable, their math is solid. I say we should appeal to the observational evidence. It does not support their conclusions. You should focus on that part.
 
  • #21
**
But what about the tens of millions of tax payer dollars that go to all their disciples? Is that right, good, or just?
**

These tens of millions of dollars are peanuts in the US budget :biggrin:
Look, you are complaining here that a *small* amount of money is spent to productive, intelligent, peaceful people who very likely are in a useless branch of physics. Save your world improving skills for better purposes (and there are pleanty of them in the US).

**
Is it helping or hurting physics and greater science? **

It is severly restricting the development of plausible alternative theories, yes. But I have already commented on this issue.


**
My new paradigm will not be announced here as new paradigms based on logic and reason are not allowed here.[/QUOTE]**

Oh, but you can ! In the independent research section :smile:

So, shall we meet there ??
 
  • #22
It is a small amount of money, so why does the government not give a few million more to every grad student. There aren't that many grad students, and it will be a drop ing the bucket.

What makes you say string theorists are more peaceful than other scientists or academics?

Most grad students are peaceful people--they wear sandals and light candles during on campus events--perhaps we can get them more funding.
That seems a strange prejudice.

The catch-22 of the independent research section is that it isn't independent research unless it's based on string theory's or lqg's gobbly gook.
 
  • #23
**It is a small amount of money, so why does the government not give a few million more to every grad student. There aren't that many grad students, and it will be a drop ing the bucket. **

? You are losing everyone here I guess :bugeye:

**What makes you say string theorists are more peaceful than other scientists or academics? **

I never made such claim, read what is written ! :grumpy:

**
The catch-22 of the independent research section is that it isn't independent research unless it's based on string theory's or lqg's gobbly gook. **

Rubbish ! You might go and see what some people propose there :tongue2: I am sure that if you write down a well motivated text which contains no obvious flaws and does not *strictly* contradict experiment, then we will be able to discuss it. Just do not say you have a theory of everything since that is ridiculous, you should start by giving your physics axioms and develop some insight how you modify QM as to make it consistent with GR :devil: (of course, your field equations should also be included)
 
  • #24
Careful said:
Rubbish ! You might go and see what some people propose there :tongue2: I am sure that if you write down a well motivated text which contains no obvious flaws and does not *strictly* contradict experiment, then we will be able to discuss it. Just do not say you have a theory of everything since that is ridiculous, you should start by giving your physics axioms and develop some insight how you modify QM as to make it consistent with GR :devil: (of course, your field equations should also be included)

Well then, you are on.

I will post "a well motivated text which contains no obvious flaws and does not *strictly* contradict experiment."

And I will go further.

I will present a single simple postualte that accounts for the physical reality underlying both relativity and quantum mechanics.

That's right--I will present a postulate--something String Theory has yet to do.

I will show how the timeless, ageless photon--a concept of relativity--and quantum entanglement, are united in a single framework--this has not yet been done anywhere. I believe string theory completely ignores entanglement.

I will do that which string theory does not do, and I will be banned for it, because string theory, and its high maffia priests, must be protected at all costs.

In fact, my theory will answer the following questions:

Why is the speed of light constant in all frames?

Why are light and energy quantized?

How can matter display both wave and particle properties?

Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics?

Why does time stop at the speed of light?

How come a photon does not age?

Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing?

Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction?

Why are mass and energy equivalent?

Why is time not the fourth dimension, but an emrgent property of the fourth dimension interacting with three spatial dimensions?

Why is time a scalar, and yet also sometimes considered a dimension?

Why does the block universe make no sense? We do have free will, so teh block universe cannot exist--this theory shows that it does not.

Why does time's arrow point in the direction it points in? Why
entropy?

Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling
with the velocity c?

Why is there a minus sign in the following metric?
x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2

What deeper reality underlies Einstein's postulates of relativity?

What deeper reality underlies Newton's laws?

What underlies the laws of Inertia?

Why does general relativity fail at short distances? Why does quantum
mechanics dominate at short distances?

Why have so many great minds, Einestin, Godel, Wheeler, Hawking, and
Penrose called for a new conception of time? What should that new conception of time look like?

I will post my theory--based 100% in logic and reason, and it will be banned from here without explanation, while string theory, with its faith-based 10+n dimensions will continue to receive its own forum.

String theory does not attempt to answer any of the abve questions.

It is a none-theory, as a famous nobel prize winner recently called it in his book.

Perhaps you know his name?
 
  • #25
OK Misty, post your theory on the Independent Research forum, following the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82301" you will find there. And if you're serious, refrain from posting here on what your wonderful theory can do until you finish doing that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
Huh ?? Almost all things you quote are known already (and c = constant by convention in GR :biggrin:, this is called ```choice of units´´ ). And string theory does take into account entanglement :rofl: :rofl: Anyway, I am looking forward to your post : promises to be a lot of fun.

Cheers,

Careful
 
  • #27
Careful said:
Huh ?? Almost all things you quote are known already (and c = constant by convention in GR :biggrin:, this is called ```choice of units´´ ). And string theory does take into account entanglement :rofl: :rofl: Anyway, I am looking forward to your post : promises to be a lot of fun.
Cheers,
Careful

First off, thanks to everyone here & happy holidays. Though my words seem heated at times, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to everyone in this thread. You all seem fairly adept and intelligent. Physics is a tough sport, and I appreciate all the good sports here. :)

Is there any theory out there that accounts for both quantum mechanics and relativity with a simple postulate?

I have one, and I will post it soon. I am currently writing up a $1.00 NSF grant proposal. With it I will buy some pencils. I will get the paper out of my own pocket.

Yes--c is constant. But why is it constant? How is it constant? What underlying physical reality makes it this way? Does string theory answer this? Does any theory answer why? Remember how Newton said that Gravity held the moon in orbit about the earth? The theory was excellent--almost perfect, but then Einstein asked how and why, and he came up not with new math, but with new physics--the curvature of space-time.

Also, where does string theory take entanglement into account? Where does string theory account for action at a distance? I thought that we had agreed here long ago that string theory made no mention of these things, providing no deeper framework for the EPR paradox.

I will soon post my theory in Independent Research. But first let's address some of the current shortcomings of current theories:

Why is the speed of light constant in all frames?
Does any theory address this? Does any theory provide an underlying physical framework for this?

Why are light and energy quantized?
We know that they are, but does any theory tell us why they are? What underlying physical reality dictates this?

How can matter and energy display both wave and particle properties?
Does any theory provide an underlying physical reality that predicts that matter and energy can display both wave and particle properties?

Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics?
Why is there action at a distance? What physical reality causes the EPR paradox?

Why does time stop at the speed of light?
We know it does, but why? What's the physical reality behind this?

How come a photon does not age?

Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing?

Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction?
What is the physical reality that causes this?

Why are mass and energy equivalent?
What is the physical reality that causes this? We know E=mc^2, but what does this imply about the deeper reality behind it all.

Why is time not the fourth dimension, but an emrgent property of the fourth dimension interacting with three spatial dimensions?
Our physical reality dictates that time is not the fourth dimension, as we can not move backwards through it. We can't even stand still in it.

Why is time a scalar, and yet also sometimes considered a dimension?

Why does the block universe make no sense? We do have free will, so the block universe cannot exist--this theory shows that a block universe does not exist.

Why does time's arrow point in the direction it points in? Why
entropy? What is the physical reality behind entropy?

Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling
with the velocity c?

Why is there a minus sign in the following metric?
x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2

What deeper reality underlies Einstein's postulates of relativity?

What deeper reality underlies Newton's laws?

What underlies the laws of Inertia?

Why does general relativity fail at short distances? Why does quantum
mechanics dominate at short distances?

Why have so many great minds, like Einestein, Godel, Wheeler, Hawking, and Penrose called for a new conception of time? What should that new conception of time look like? What is the physical reality of space-time?

Why is the maximum and minimum four-velocity of every single object in the universe c? What does this say about the underlying physical reality of space-time?

Neither LQG nor String Theory address any of this.

I wish that String Theory did all of this, as it would free me up to go skiing.

But alas, just as thousands must get paid by NSF and go skiing at cool conferences, someone's got to further physics.

I will post in Indpendent Research soon.

And again, a big thanks to everyone here.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!
 
  • #28
**
Yes--c is constant. But why is it constant? How is it constant? What underlying physical reality makes it this way? **

As I said, c is constant by choice of units in GR. These units are justified by the Michelson Moorely experiments. If you want to make a theory why these units are preferred, fine. But then you will need to start from at least Weyl geometry and find a mechanism which breaks the conformal symmetry.

**Also, where does string theory take entanglement into account? Where does string theory account for action at a distance? **

Come on, string theory is based upon QFT which uses pleanty of entanglement.


**I will soon post my theory in Independent Research. **

I am looking forwards to this... :tongue:

**But first let's address some of the current shortcomings of current theories:
Why is the speed of light constant in all frames? **

That is not a shortcoming IMO

**
Why are light and energy quantized? **

I am not sure if light is quantized but energy for sure is not (it is only so for bound states); Hamiltonians for radiation have a continuous spectrum.

** We know that they are, but does any theory tell us why they are? **

Are you going to provide us with a theory which explains hbar ?? So you have a sub Planck scale dynamics :smile: ? You must be superior to Einstein.

**
How can matter and energy display both wave and particle properties?
Does any theory provide an underlying physical reality that predicts that matter and energy can display both wave and particle properties? **

Sure QM does.

**
Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? **

Kinematical entangled states : you learn that in your second course of QM.

** Why is there action at a distance? What physical reality causes the EPR paradox? **

None of local realist nature (at least at large distances). This is Bell's theorem.

**Why does time stop at the speed of light?**

Because large boosts blow eigentime up to infinity in the limit. :smile:

**Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing?**

Because experiment tells you so.

** Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction?**

They do not contract, this is just a property of Lorentz transformations.

**Why are mass and energy equivalent?
What is the physical reality that causes this? We know E=mc^2, but what does this imply about the deeper reality behind it all. **

Ah, this would require a truly deeper insight into the structure of matter; so I am getting more and more eager to hear about your theory.

**
Our physical reality dictates that time is not the fourth dimension, as we can not move backwards through it. We can't even stand still in it. **

Time is special for sure and Einstein's general theory is not sufficient. However, you can add a postulate of time in physical situations where there is a physical starting point (such as the big bang as in our universe).


** We do have free will, so the block universe cannot exist--this theory shows that a block universe does not exist. **

That is highly DEBATABLE.

**
Why does time's arrow point in the direction it points in? **

??


**Why
entropy? What is the physical reality behind entropy? **

Entropy is about statistics and not about dynamics.

**
Why does general relativity fail at short distances? **

Does it ?


**Why does quantum
mechanics dominate at short distances? **

Because it was devised in such a way as to fit the experiments...
GR was developped out of the head of a great mind and experimental confirmation came afterwards. That is why it is such a great theory.


And so on ... :grumpy:
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Careful said:
**
**Also, where does string theory take entanglement into account? Where does string theory account for action at a distance? **
Come on, string theory is based upon QFT which uses pleanty of entanglement.

Where does String Theory predict quantum entanglement?

You say string theory is based upon QFT.

Does this mean that QFT is more fundamental than string theory?

I thought that for the past thirty years string theorists have been claiming that string theory is more fundamental than QFT.

I have researched tons of String Theory papers, and have yet to see one that accounts for or discusses entanglement, action at a distance, the EPR paradox, or Bell's Inequality.

Could you please provide a link to the paper(s)?

I would most certainly want to reference them in my upcoming post on my theory which unifies relativity and quantum mechanics, while providing the underlying physical framework for action at a distance.

Thanks!
 
  • #30
**
You say string theory is based upon QFT.
Does this mean that QFT is more fundamental than string theory? **

They can claim whatever they want, but for example people are busy with string scattering dynamics which can be related to euclidean 2-D quantum gravity models with topology change (the so called matrix models) - the latter being (formally - in terms of the feynman series) a QFT.

**
I have researched tons of String Theory papers, and have yet to see one that accounts for or discusses entanglement, action at a distance, the EPR paradox, or Bell's Inequality. **

They do not need to do that - just as LQG does not need to - since they use quantum theory as a cornerstone.

Look, as SelfAdjoint said, you should better first explain your theory in the independent research section but frankly, I am pessimistic. From talking with you, it seems that you do not have a proper understanding of the problems at hand.

Cheers,

Careful
 
  • #31
Careful said:
**
You say string theory is based upon QFT.
Does this mean that QFT is more fundamental than string theory? **
They can claim whatever they want, but for example people are busy with string scattering dynamics which can be related to euclidean 2-D quantum gravity models with topology change (the so called matrix models) - the latter being (formally - in terms of the feynman series) a QFT.
**
I have researched tons of String Theory papers, and have yet to see one that accounts for or discusses entanglement, action at a distance, the EPR paradox, or Bell's Inequality. **
They do not need to do that - just as LQG does not need to - since they use quantum theory as a cornerstone.
Look, as SelfAdjoint said, you should better first explain your theory in the independent research section but frankly, I am pessimistic. From talking with you, it seems that you do not have a proper understanding of the problems at hand.
Cheers,
Careful
Physics dictates that we stick with the facts every step of the way.

Fact 1: String Theory claims to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics and relativity.

Fact 2: String Theory provides no physical model of the universe that predicts 1) entanglement and other quantum behavior 2) the constant velocity of light and relativistic phenomena.

Fact 3: String Theory is not more fundamental than QM, SR, and GR, nor does it unify them in a physical framework.

Now these are facts, and unless you provide hard, tangible papers or references that demonstrate otherwise, they will remain facts.

Saying that String Theory doesn't really need to do anything that it set out to accomplish is kinda ridiculous. It's a lame excuse for abject failure.

Saying that String Theory works fine because it tries nothing and succeeds at the same might get millions from the NSF, but it won't trump my theory which does provide a deeper physical framework unifying QM, SR, and GR.

Just making sure we're going to deal with FACTS here, before I post my theory.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
I don't know if you understood my comments, but you are repeating things which I already answered (corrected) and you are denying things I partially agreed with. Also, you seem to be judging string theory on the marketing pep talk and not on their undeniable mathematical accomplishments. I repeat myself: post your theory and I will see myself if you are smarter than Einstein or not :devil:

I note that you answered until now none of my criticisms on YOUR remarks :biggrin: I hope your ears will be in a better state when you post your brilliant theory.

Cheers,

Careful
 
  • #33
Careful said:
I don't know if you understood my comments, but you are repeating things which I already answered (corrected) and you are denying things I partially agreed with. Also, you seem to be judging string theory on the marketing pep talk and not on their undeniable mathematical accomplishments. I repeat myself: post your theory and I will see myself if you are smarter than Einstein or not :devil:
I note that you answered until now none of my criticisms on YOUR remarks :biggrin: I hope your ears will be in a better state when you post your brilliant theory.
Cheers,
Careful

There you go again--speaking in ambiguities. "Things here and things there." Speak in specifics please.

String Theory is a physical theory--is it not supposed to be physics? Does it not have its own forum at Physics Forums? Again, string theory has failed in everything it has attempted. I am judging String Theory in the context of physics. It is you who are giving it a marketing pep talk. All these great accomplishments--and you can't mention a single one. THAT'S A FACT.

I have addressed every single criticism you have made on my remarks.

But you shy away from defending String Theory against the following FACTS of its failure to advance physics.

Physics dictates that we stick with the facts every step of the way.

Fact 1: String Theory claims to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics and relativity.

Fact 2: String Theory provides no physical model of the universe that predicts 1) entanglement and other quantum behavior 2) the constant velocity of light and relativistic phenomena.

Fact 3: String Theory is not more fundamental than QM, SR, and GR, nor does it unify them in a physical framework.

Now these are facts, and unless you provide hard, tangible papers or references that demonstrate otherwise, they will remain facts.

Saying that String Theory doesn't really need to do anything that it set out to accomplish is kinda ridiculous. It's a lame excuse for abject failure.

Saying that String Theory works fine because it tries nothing and succeeds at the same might get millions from the NSF, but it won't trump my theory which does provide a deeper physical framework unifying QM, SR, and GR.

Just making sure we're going to deal with FACTS here, before I post my theory.
 
  • #34
**There you go again--speaking in ambiguities. "Things here and things there." Speak in specifics please. **

?? Your entire list of objections of what contemporary physics cannot offer answers to contained quite a few bloopers :biggrin: which I adressed specifically (everyone who knows english can verify that).

**
String Theory is a physical theory--is it not supposed to be physics? **

Sigh, this is an example where I partially agreed with you :grumpy:

**
It is you who are giving it a marketing pep talk. All these great accomplishments--and you can't mention a single one. THAT'S A FACT. **

I am not a string theorist, but as far as I have heard string theory has uncovered beautiful results in the fields of algebraic and differential geometry (through amongst others, the study of moduli spaces and Gromov Witten invariants), and AFAIR also in number theory. But it is better that a string theorist adds here some concrete references. Again, I am not giving a marketing pep talk for string theory, far from.

**
I have addressed every single criticism you have made on my remarks. **

You have adressed NONE (see my first remark).

Are you finally going to post your theory Einstein ? We shall give it an unbaised review. :devil:
 
  • #35
Yes, I agree that concrete references would be nice.

So far here are the rules according to you:

1) String Theory need not provide a physical framework to unify QM, SR, and GR at a more fundamental level.

2) You yourself do not understand String Theory, but because you "have heard" it is beautiful, you consider it to be a most accomplished theory, worthy of hundreds of millions in funding.

3) You agree that it would be nice for a String Theorist to provide some concrete links or references to support your claims, but that you yourself are unable to do so.

I hope that you uphold the same elevated standards when judging my theory.

Will I be expected to utilize logic and reason and provide references and concrete examples, or will I only have to proclaim that my theory is beautiful for it to succeed?

Again, if there is any REAL String Theorists out there who can address the following, that woudl be great:

Physics dictates that we stick with the facts every step of the way.

Fact 1: String Theory claims to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics and relativity.

Fact 2: String Theory provides no physical model of the universe that predicts 1) entanglement and other quantum behavior 2) the constant velocity of light and relativistic phenomena.

Fact 3: String Theory is not more fundamental than QM, SR, and GR, nor does it unify them in a physical framework.

Now these are facts, and unless you provide hard, tangible papers or references that demonstrate otherwise, they will remain facts.

Saying that String Theory doesn't really need to do anything that it set out to accomplish is kinda ridiculous. It's a lame excuse for abject failure.

Saying that String Theory works fine because it tries nothing and succeeds at the same might get millions from the NSF, but it won't trump my theory which does provide a deeper physical framework unifying QM, SR, and GR.

Just making sure we're going to deal with FACTS here, before I post my theory.
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. What is String Theory?</h2><p>String Theory is a theoretical framework in physics that attempts to explain the fundamental nature of particles and their interactions by describing them as tiny vibrating strings rather than point-like particles.</p><h2>2. What are Einstein's conditions for a physical theory?</h2><p>Einstein's conditions for a physical theory include being mathematically consistent, able to explain all known physical phenomena, and making testable predictions that can be verified through experiments.</p><h2>3. Does String Theory meet these conditions?</h2><p>String Theory is still a developing theory and has not yet been proven to be mathematically consistent or able to explain all known physical phenomena. However, it has made some testable predictions, such as the existence of extra dimensions, which have yet to be confirmed through experiments.</p><h2>4. What are some criticisms of String Theory?</h2><p>Some criticisms of String Theory include its lack of experimental evidence, its complexity and difficulty in making testable predictions, and the fact that it has not been able to be fully integrated with other theories, such as quantum mechanics.</p><h2>5. Is String Theory the only theory that attempts to unify all of physics?</h2><p>No, there are other theories, such as loop quantum gravity and supersymmetry, that also attempt to unify all of physics. However, String Theory is currently the most well-known and widely studied theory in this area.</p>

1. What is String Theory?

String Theory is a theoretical framework in physics that attempts to explain the fundamental nature of particles and their interactions by describing them as tiny vibrating strings rather than point-like particles.

2. What are Einstein's conditions for a physical theory?

Einstein's conditions for a physical theory include being mathematically consistent, able to explain all known physical phenomena, and making testable predictions that can be verified through experiments.

3. Does String Theory meet these conditions?

String Theory is still a developing theory and has not yet been proven to be mathematically consistent or able to explain all known physical phenomena. However, it has made some testable predictions, such as the existence of extra dimensions, which have yet to be confirmed through experiments.

4. What are some criticisms of String Theory?

Some criticisms of String Theory include its lack of experimental evidence, its complexity and difficulty in making testable predictions, and the fact that it has not been able to be fully integrated with other theories, such as quantum mechanics.

5. Is String Theory the only theory that attempts to unify all of physics?

No, there are other theories, such as loop quantum gravity and supersymmetry, that also attempt to unify all of physics. However, String Theory is currently the most well-known and widely studied theory in this area.

Similar threads

Replies
47
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
898
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top