## Question about the future of string theory

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I\'m curious; assuming string theory can be reconciled with existing physics\ntheories, what could cause it to be discarded in the future?\n\nIn other words, how could string theory be disproven (if it\'s not to be\nrepresentative of reality)?\n\n--Pam\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I'm curious; assuming string theory can be reconciled with existing physics
theories, what could cause it to be discarded in the future?

In other words, how could string theory be disproven (if it's not to be
representative of reality)?

--Pam

 PhysOrg.com physics news on PhysOrg.com >> Study provides better understanding of water's freezing behavior at nanoscale>> Soft matter offers new ways to study how ordered materials arrange themselves>> Making quantum encryption practical


Pam Crouch wrote in message news:... > I'm curious; assuming string theory can be reconciled with existing physics > theories, What do you mean "reconciled"? All theories are an extension of previous theories. There has never been anything in string theory that is inconsistent with observation.



On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Pam Crouch wrote: > I'm curious; assuming string theory can be reconciled with existing physics > theories, what could cause it to be discarded in the future? There are various such possibilities. One possibility is that the humankind will give up any further progress in theoretical particle physics. In this case, people will stop working on string theory as well as everything else. The other possibility how to discard string theory is if someone finds another underlying theory that will look more convincing, attractive, realistic, $and/or$ deep and beautiful than string theory. In that case, people would jump on this other theory. Well, today it looks unlikely. There is no other (known) deeper theory besides string theory that would reproduce quantum field theory and general relativity. > In other words, how could string theory be disproven (if it's not to be > representative of reality)? If you really want to disprove string theory, you would have to find a process in the world and you would have to be able to argue that it could not happen according to anything in string theory. Yes, this possibility seems to be very far because string theory agrees with reality using the resolution how well we understand the theory today. __{____________________________________________________________________ ________} E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: $+1-617/496-0110$ Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/ eFax: $+1-801/454-1858$ work: $+1-617/496-8199$ home: $+1-617/868-4487$ (call) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^

## Question about the future of string theory

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, DickT wrote:\n\n&gt; Lubos, just to consider one scenario I have seen mentioned, some\n&gt; people think supersymmetry can be falsified by TEV level observations.\n&gt; Just suppose that were to happen, what would be the impact on string\n&gt; physics?\n\nGood question. First of all, the LHC-scale supersymmetry is natural, but\nit is not strictly speaking inevitable. One of the reasons we like\nsupersymmetry is that it explains the hierarchy problem - more precisely,\nit explains why the huge gap between the Higgs mass (the electroweak\nscale) on one side and the Planck (or GUT) scale on the other side is\nprotected against quantum corrections.\n\nThe natural value of the Higgs mass is comparable to the mass of the\nsuperpartners predicted by SUSY, but there is no definitive reason not to\nhave a little bit less natural relation - i.e. heavier superpartners. In\nother words, Nature can still be tuned a bit - instead of being heavily\nfine-tuned. Already today we know that it must be tuned on a 1% level,\nwhatever is the quantitative method that obtained this number.\n\nAt any rate, the absence of any signs of supersymmetry at the LHC will\nreduce the interests of the physics community about supersymmetry, despite\nthe possibility that SUSY can still be higher in energy. String theory is\ncorrelated with SUSY, so such a negative result will be negative news for\nstring theory, too. But SUSY and string theory are not the same thing, and\nthey are independent to some extent.\n\nNevertheless it is still possible that\n\n1. either supersymmetry needs higher energies still\n2. the world is described by a non-supersymmetric string theory, or string\ntheory with SUSY broken at extremely high scales so that it is effectively\nnonsupersymmetric\n\nAll such possibilities are there and each of them has a certain\nprobability in our scheme of the things.\n\nThe precise development of power in theoretical particle physics will\ndepend on the precise thing that *will* be discovered by the LHC. If the\nLHC discovers a single Higgs and nothing else - i.e. the minimal Standard\nModel - and I personally find this option ugly but totally plausible - it\nwill be a triumph for the Standard Model and it will extrapolate its\nvalidity much further than we thought, but it will definitely be bad news\nfor the whole future of particle physics because even with 1.5 billion\ndollars we won\'t have any new data compared to today. We won\'t move\nforward and we won\'t solve the things that we call "problems" of the\nStandard Model - on the contrary, we will have a tendency to convince\nourselves that they are not really problems.\n\nIf the LHC discovers something else and nonstringy - substructure of\nquarks (preons), substructure of Higgs (technicolor), new gauge symmetries\nin general, or something along those lines, more people will jump from\nstringy-inspired subjects on these phenomenological models and the\ntheoretical string theory will suffer, too.\n\nOn the other hand, the LHC can also discover new material supporting\nstring theory that is unrelated to supersymmetry - namely excited string\nstates; small black holes; Kaluza-Klein modes (particles moving in extra\ndimensions), and so on. Even if the stringy realization of such models\nwill not be known immediately, such discoveries could be a bigger triumph\nfor string theory than the discovery of supersymmetry.\n\n_____________________________________________________ _________________________\nE-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: +1-617/496-0110 Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/\neFax: +1-801/454-1858 work: +1-617/496-8199 home: +1-617/868-4487 (call)\n^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, DickT wrote:

> Lubos, just to consider one scenario I have seen mentioned, some
> people think supersymmetry can be falsified by TEV level observations.
> Just suppose that were to happen, what would be the impact on string
> physics?

Good question. First of all, the LHC-scale supersymmetry is natural, but
it is not strictly speaking inevitable. One of the reasons we like
supersymmetry is that it explains the hierarchy problem - more precisely,
it explains why the huge gap between the Higgs mass (the electroweak
scale) on one side and the Planck (or GUT) scale on the other side is
protected against quantum corrections.

The natural value of the Higgs mass is comparable to the mass of the
superpartners predicted by SUSY, but there is no definitive reason not to
have a little bit less natural relation - i.e. heavier superpartners. In
other words, Nature can still be tuned a bit - instead of being heavily
fine-tuned. Already today we know that it must be tuned on a 1% level,
whatever is the quantitative method that obtained this number.

At any rate, the absence of any signs of supersymmetry at the LHC will
reduce the interests of the physics community about supersymmetry, despite
the possibility that SUSY can still be higher in energy. String theory is
correlated with SUSY, so such a negative result will be negative news for
string theory, too. But SUSY and string theory are not the same thing, and
they are independent to some extent.

Nevertheless it is still possible that

1. either supersymmetry needs higher energies still
2. the world is described by a non-supersymmetric string theory, or string
theory with SUSY broken at extremely high scales so that it is effectively
nonsupersymmetric

All such possibilities are there and each of them has a certain
probability in our scheme of the things.

The precise development of power in theoretical particle physics will
depend on the precise thing that *will* be discovered by the LHC. If the
LHC discovers a single Higgs and nothing else - i.e. the minimal Standard
Model - and I personally find this option ugly but totally plausible $- it$
will be a triumph for the Standard Model and it will extrapolate its
validity much further than we thought, but it will definitely be bad news
for the whole future of particle physics because even with 1.5 billion
dollars we won't have any new data compared to today$. We$ won't move
forward and we won't solve the things that we call "problems" of the
Standard Model - on the contrary, we will have a tendency to convince
ourselves that they are not really problems.

If the LHC discovers something else and nonstringy - substructure of
quarks (preons), substructure of Higgs (technicolor), new gauge symmetries
in general, or something along those lines, more people will jump from
stringy-inspired subjects on these phenomenological models and the
theoretical string theory will suffer, too.

On the other hand, the LHC can also discover new material supporting
string theory that is unrelated to supersymmetry - namely excited string
states; small black holes; Kaluza-Klein modes (particles moving in extra
dimensions), and so on. Even if the stringy realization of such models
will not be known immediately, such discoveries could be a bigger triumph
for string theory than the discovery of supersymmetry.

__{____________________________________________________________________ ________}
E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: $+1-617/496-0110$ Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/
eFax: $+1-801/454-1858$ work: $+1-617/496-8199$ home: $+1-617/868-4487$ (call)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^



Lubos Motl wrote in message news:... > ... > If you really want to disprove string theory, you would have to find a > process in the world and you would have to be able to argue that it could > not happen according to anything in string theory. Yes, this possibility > ... Lubos, just to consider one scenario I have seen mentioned, some people think supersymmetry can be falsified by TEV level observations. Just suppose that were to happen, what would be the impact on string physics?



On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Lubos Motl wrote: [...] > On the other hand, the LHC can also discover new material supporting > string theory that is unrelated to supersymmetry - namely excited string > states; small black holes; Kaluza-Klein modes (particles moving in extra > dimensions), and so on. Even if the stringy realization of such models > will not be known immediately, such discoveries could be a bigger triumph > for string theory than the discovery of supersymmetry. Hi Dr. Motl, How readily testable are predictions like the Kaluza-Klein modes? Have people worked out the cross-section for production and looked at how the signal would look in the LHC? What about the excited string states? I'm not really sure if I even understand what you mean by that. [Moderator's note: Quoted text trimmed to a reasonable amount by moderator$. -usc]$



> On the other hand, the LHC can also discover new material supporting > string theory that is unrelated to supersymmetry - namely excited string > states; small black holes; Kaluza-Klein modes (particles moving in extra > dimensions), and so on. Even if the stringy realization of such models > will not be known immediately, such discoveries could be a bigger triumph > for string theory than the discovery of supersymmetry. I agree with this conclusion. Can someone elaborate on how some of these would be detected if they are produced. In particular, I am most curious about how the small black holes might be detected at the LHC under two scenarios: (1) they radiate (2) they don't. Are detectors being built for both cases?



Suppose LHC discovers yet-another-generation of quarks?



On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Creighton Hogg wrote: > How readily testable are predictions like the Kaluza-Klein modes? Have > people worked out the cross-section for production and looked at how the > signal would look in the LHC? What about the excited string states? I'm > not really sure if I even understand what you mean by that. Hi Creighton, all these predictions are testable as long as the LHC has enough energy to produce the particles, quanta of the new fields. KK-modes of the Standard Model particles - those only exist in the models without branes, roughly speaking - look like heavier partners of the known particles that would be seen, at the LHC, via their decay product because they would probably decay rapidly (like $\tau) -$ but anyway, from the decayed particle you can measure its energy and couplings. The KK-modes of weakly interacting particles, such as the graviton (that always exists, even though we don't know their masses yet) would not be seen inside the detector, and they would manifest themselves as missing energy. Their discovery would be analogous to the discovery of neutrino - but be sure that the dependence of their production rate on various parameters has been worked out, and it is even likely that they got the numbers right - which does not guarantee that the theory is right. ;-) The excited string modes of the particles also look like heavier partners, but if we were really lucky, we could see a very characteristic spectrum of their masses that would coincide with excitations of a string. These possibilities are unlikely because the low-energy gravity are not too likely and differ from string theory in 10D, and therefore the mass spectrum is not that easy anyway. Best wishes Lubos __{____________________________________________________________________ ________} E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: $+1-617/496-0110$ Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/ eFax: $+1-801/454-1858$ work: $+1-617/496-8199$ home: $+1-617/868-4487$ (call) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^



On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Alan wrote: > I agree with this conclusion. Can someone elaborate on how some of > these would be detected if they are produced. In particular, I am most > curious about how the small black holes might be detected at the LHC > under two scenarios: (1) they radiate (2) they don't. Are detectors > being built for both cases? If the black holes are produced by the LHC and Hawking is wrong - they don't radiate $- we$ will see their existence for a while, but very easily, because such a black hole will eat Switzerland and then the rest of our blue planet. There are good reasons not to be afraid of this combined risk because if such dangerous black holes could be produced, the stars around would probably not be here anymore. Well, let me be more realistic. Even stable black holes of this small mass would need a long time to absorb matter around because their gravity is still too weak. (I have not done calculations how quickly such a black hole grows, has someone done it?) Because such stable black holes are black, they would only be seen as missing energy, an apparent violation of momentum/energy conservation laws. If they radiate, a small black hole would be seen as an unstable particle that decays into a very large number of products that are virtually isotropically distributed around it. This would be a very unusual, shocking signal, that you could not miss. __{____________________________________________________________________ ________} E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: $+1-617/496-0110$ Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/ eFax: $+1-801/454-1858$ work: $+1-617/496-8199$ home: $+1-617/868-4487$ (call) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^



Hmm, why do you think that if we find more Guage symmetries in nature, that would be bad for String theory? Lets say we observe a rather simple GUT like SO(10). I was under the impression most Stringy toy models often used this as a given (or some SO(n) theory, where n might be large) instead of formally reducing to the simple parameter space of the standard model? Or am I way off base. Another question(s).. What would a highly enlarged Higgs sector mean exactly, $and/or$ the absense of any result. Would the fine tuning scare people out of particle physics, or would we be compelled to rehit the drawing boards. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com To view this post with LaTeX images: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...769#post260648



"Alan" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:ltadnXJsTYVXhGHdRVn-rA-100000@adelphia.com... > Can someone elaborate on how some of these would be > detected if they are produced. In particular, I am most curious about > how the small black holes might be detected at the LHC under two scenarios: > (1) they radiate (2) they don't. Are detectors being built for both cases? Presumeably you don't need different detectors, but have to check the same detector for different signatures. Signatures of stringy black holes have been computed in a couple of papers. See for instance K. Cheung: Black hole, string ball, and p-brane production at hadronic supercolliders, http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxi...hep-ph/0210242 .



On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Lubos Motl wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Creighton Hogg wrote: > > > How readily testable are predictions like the Kaluza-Klein modes? Have > > people worked out the cross-section for production and looked at how the > > signal would look in the LHC? What about the excited string states? I'm > > not really sure if I even understand what you mean by that. > > Hi Creighton, > > all these predictions are testable as long as the LHC has enough energy to > produce the particles, quanta of the new fields. KK-modes of the Standard > Model particles - those only exist in the models without branes, roughly > speaking - look like heavier partners of the known particles that would be > seen, at the LHC, via their decay product because they would probably > decay rapidly (like $\tau) -$ but anyway, from the decayed particle you can > measure its energy and couplings. Well, I was worried more about being "viably" testable. I haven't seen many papers addressing the feasibility of detection in one of the LHC experiments. For example, > The KK-modes of weakly interacting particles, such as the graviton (that > always exists, even though we don't know their masses yet) would not be > seen inside the detector, and they would manifest themselves as missing > energy. Their discovery would be analogous to the discovery of neutrino - > but be sure that the dependence of their production rate on various > parameters has been worked out, and it is even likely that they got the > numbers right - which does not guarantee that the theory is right. ;-) Well I know that things like the graviton would be seen as a missing transverse energy, but I'm worried that the cross-section of production is too low and that the signal would be swamped by a comparatively large neutrino background. Afterall, the production cross-section of gravitons has to be proportional to the gravitational constant, which is rather small. Or would it be proportional to the $10-D$ gravitational constant which is much bigger (if I remember right)?



"Lubos Motl" wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.31.0407200002550.253...harvard.edu... > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Alan wrote: > There are good reasons not to be afraid of this combined risk because if > such dangerous black holes could be produced, the stars around would > probably not be here anymore. Well, let me be more realistic. Even stable > black holes of this small mass would need a long time to absorb matter > around because their gravity is still too weak. (I have not done > calculations how quickly such a black hole grows, has someone done it?) Thanks, Lubos. Regarding the calculation: yes, a poster over in the spr group did a "back of the envelope" estimate in a recent thread. The calculation suggests, confirming your intuition, that significant accretion is not a problem, say relative to the life of the sun.



On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Haelfix wrote: > Hmm, why do you think that if we find more Guage symmetries in nature, > that would be bad for String theory? It depends which gauge symmetries. A discovery of a grand unified group would be great for string theory - a friend of Grand Unified Theories. ;-) We won't discover the GUT group directly, however. The additional gauge bosons are very massive - their mass is at the GUT scale which is $10^16$ GeV. The GUT group is broken and the LHC can't see it directly. This is true for all GUT models I am aware of. The GUT theories are tested indirectly, via their predictions of proton decay etc. When I suggested that the new evidence of new gauge symmetries won't support string theory, I meant some random assorted new gauge symmetries - especially new Z' bosons, as they're called, new broken neutral Abelian gauge symmetries. Although many string models in the literature gave us (many) new U(1) symmetries $- I am$ thinking about the four-dimensional free fermionic heterotic models, for example $- I am$ afraid that their precise structure would not help us too much to make a conceptual or another significant progress in connecting string theory with reality - unless there will be a shocking pattern that I'm not able to predict now. There can be new confining non-Abelian symmetries, in principle - a totally new particle hyperproton made of hyperquarks - where all these particles are 1000 times heavier than protons and quarks (near the hyper-QCD TeV scale). That would be certainly fun for many people, but I would certainly view it as a strange signal that does not confirm any principle that has been derived from string theory. Of course, later, people could show that such things have a perfect stringy explanation ;-), but I can't write a whole book of fiction what could happen because the spectrum of such possibilities is huge. > Lets say we observe a rather simple GUT like SO(10). I was under the > impression most Stringy toy models often used this as a given (or some > SO(n) theory, where n might be large) instead of formally reducing to > the simple parameter space of the standard model? Or am I way off > base. Perhaps, I don't understand your text enough to reply. String theory can construct SO(10) GUT, E6 GUT, SU(5) GUT, the Standard Model plus various hidden groups, and so on - all these possibilities can be realized within string theory in many different ways. It does not seem that any particular solution would help us to find TOE - but of course, the confirmation of GUT would be amazing. Another comment: we can't see GUT directly at the LHC, and the LHC also can't distinguish between different GUT scenarios. The LHC can only see new symmetries that are broken or confined at a few TeV. > Another question(s).. What would a highly enlarged Higgs sector mean > exactly, $and/or$ the absense of any result. Would the fine tuning scare > people out of particle physics, or would we be compelled to rehit the > drawing boards. I am not a specialist, so my comments can be off the board. But the fine-tuning is not necessarily correlated with the size of the Higgs sector. If there is a single fundamental Higgs doublet, it is likely that we will have to live with the idea that the Standard Model is essentially complete up to many TeVs, and Nature is fine-tuned whether we like it or not. If there are two Higgs doublets, such as in SUSY models, the hierarchy can be protected by SUSY. Already today, the masses of superpartners are clear to be slightly higher than what would be perfectly solving the hierarchy problem. Various people in physics hate the fundamental scalar fields, and they propose that the Higgs must be composite, with a new strongly coupled group at a TeV scale - technicolor-like models (another pseudosolution of the hierarchy problem). I would say that this approach is almost exactly contrary to the thinking in string theory, and if the Higgs were shown to be made of techniquarks, string theory would almost certainly be in trouble for a while $- at$ least because such models have not been studied much in the stringy context as far as I know. String theory does not favor the "preon" religion - the religion that says that everything, including gauge bosons, should be made of fundamental spin-1/2 particles. String theory has no problem at all to generate gravity; fundamental gauge fields with spin 1; and fundamental scalars (with spin 0). They are equally fundamental as spin 1/2 particles. In fact, string theory often generates too many scalars. There can be many Higgses etc., but it seems fair to say that the Higgs(es) in string theory have been almost always fundamental fields, not composites. Just like the discovery of SUSY; GUT; KK modes; excited strings; even fractional charges would be a supportive news for string theory, I think that the discovery of new chaotic particles; preons; composite Higgs; compositeness of other Standard Model particles - all these things would be setback for string theory, I think, and they would support other branches of particle phenomenology. The minimal Standard Model with a single Higgs would be a sort of neutral result. We would, in some sense, know as much as we know today (with a different upper limit of validity of the Standard Model). The precise models that proposed new physics at the LHC would be eliminated, and analogous models based on the same principles, but using higher energies, would compete according to virtually unchanged rules. All approaches that needed a relatively low scale to be natural - not only SUSY, but virtually anything solving the hierarchy problem - would be uniformly weakened, and the anthropic principle and the possibility of fine-tuning would be strengthened. The same holds for other non-conceptual discoveries such as potential heavy generations of quarks and leptons (they should still come together, for anomalies to cancel). If we were able to see many generations, we might get more hints to see the patterns in masses. But if it is not so, I think that no specific subculture in particle physics would be strengthened. None really care whether there is a 4th heavy generation of fermions. Of course, a confirmation of any specific model that has appeared in the literature would be a huge victory for the author(s) of the model, and (s)he would gain a big influence on the development of particle physics. The number of possibilities is huge - but I tend to think that the first found beautiful possibilities that survived - such as SUSY - are still most likely. If SUSY is found, we will be saying that we were just trying to waste time before the new experiments by studying alternative models. Of course, if SUSY is not found, we will be saying that we had been wasting time with SUSY. ;-) __{____________________________________________________________________ ________} E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: $+1-617/496-0110$ Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/ eFax: $+1-801/454-1858$ work: $+1-617/496-8199$ home: $+1-617/868-4487$ (call) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^



Oh, I see, so everyone is in agreement about all the details of string theory, and it is undeniably established that strings are the *only*possible* explanation for a zero-mass particle with two degrees of spin? If that were the case would there be a need to discuss string theory in this forum? That's what I'm referring to. Sorry if I didn't state it precisely enough for you. --Pam "Ulmo" wrote in message news:53ca460a.0407141212.3601b29c-10....google.com... > Pam Crouch wrote in message news:... > > > I'm curious; assuming string theory can be reconciled with existing physics > > theories, > > What do you mean "reconciled"? All theories are an extension of > previous theories. There has never been anything in string theory that > is inconsistent with observation. > >



Pam Crouch wrote in message news:... > Oh, I see, so everyone is in agreement about all the details of string > theory, and it is undeniably established that strings are the > *only*possible* explanation for a zero-mass particle with two degrees of > spin? If that were the case would there be a need to discuss string theory > in this forum? That's what I'm referring to. Sorry if I didn't state it > precisely enough for you. I think the question should be - is there any experiment possible whose outcome would rule out string theory?

 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads for: Question about the future of string theory Thread Forum Replies Beyond the Standard Model 1 Advanced Physics Homework 5 Advanced Physics Homework 5 Advanced Physics Homework 6 Advanced Physics Homework 5