|Jul9-05, 11:31 PM||#1|
String Theory a Dead End?
By reading through some of these threads, it seems many of you here don't think string theory is the best approach. Is this merely a personal preference amoung many of the knowledgeable posters here, or have there been some recent problems with string theory, or have there just not been as many recent developments in string theory? Has string theory become a dead end? And I would like to hear your personal oppinions, but I'm also interested in some unbiased information as well. I assume many of the huge players in string theory are still pursuing it? (Ed Witten, Michael Green.. that's about all I know without looking a few more names up ) ?
|Jul10-05, 12:01 AM||#2|
Good question. There are 2 excellent experiments in the near future that will "make or break" string theory in the next couple years. One of course, is with the Large Hadron Collider 2 years away and the other is with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna scheduled to launch in 2013. The first will test for sparticles and extra dimensions while the latter will test for gravitational waves produced right after the Big Bang. Both of these experiments could produce much supporting evidence for string theory.
|Jul10-05, 12:09 AM||#3|
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think string theory [and I used to be a big fan] has hit a reef. The 'landscape' fiasco was really damaging. And appealing to the anthropic principle did not help the cause. It's not a practical approach and still does not produce useful predictions. I'm not biased against ST, but sooner or later any viable theory must produce results [i.e., testable predictions].
|Jul10-05, 08:11 AM||#4|
String Theory a Dead End?
I think the rumors of string theory's death are greatly exaggerated. Admittedly supersymmetry by itself faces make or break experiments at the LHC, but people, anticipating this, are lookiong again at non-supersymmetric bosonic string theory, seeing what they can do with the more modern mathematical techniques that have been introduced since it came out in the 1980s.
|Jul12-05, 04:47 PM||#5|
I think that the biggest threats to string theory are those that propose solutions to the same questions without requiring a large number of dimensions or supersymmetric particles. When you get to a 4-5D solution with just a handful of additional particles and some assumptions about the nature of empty space, that makes specific verifiable predictions about the world it is hard to justify the elaborate edifice of string theory even if it looks pretty.
|Jul13-05, 12:17 PM||#6|
I think we are seeing the start of a "String Diaspora"
symbolized, for me, by the depression that Florian Gmeiner expressed after attending yesterday's panel discussion of "The Next Superstring Revolution".
Diaspora is Greek for scattering or dispersion and refers to the historical emigration from Israel after a failed revolution (an unsuccessful uprising against the Roman Empire). And it has the root "spor" reminding us of the scattering of spores or seeds----the verb "sporein" refers to the sowing of grain.
Distler was in Toronto, blogging from String 05, and he declined to say anything about the panel discussion (about the state and future of string research), which may turn out to have been the most significant part of the conference.
Then Florian Gmeiner said:
it’s a pity that you don’t comment on the panel discussion.
Being a phd student I feel quite depressed after having listened to it.
And Distler replied that panel discussions like that were a "silly exercise"--- advising Gmeiner to ignore it and get back to work.
Imagine what might result from the dispersion of a many smart young mathematically sophisticated people like Florian Gmeiner into other fields.
In that sense his depression may be a hopeful sign---a coming to grips with reality that may precipitate constructive action and have fruitful consequences
|Jul13-05, 12:52 PM||#7|
I think another hopeful sign is Urs interest in Category Theory, and in particular the celebration in Sydney of category theorist Ron Street that is currently competing for attention with the Toronto String 05 conference.
"Categories in Algebra, Geometry and Mathematical Physics
Conference in honour of Ross Street's sixtieth birthday
July 11-16 2005, Macquarie University, Sydney"
I think it is probably a bit much to expect, or wishful thinking, that resort to Categories will save the superstring/M program, or validate it, or show the way out of the landscape wilderness.
It seems more important that Category research has a wide spectrum of potential application in a lot of different directions---it is more apt to show us new things (I imagine) than to validate things we already know. And it is seductively elegant mathematics that can dazzle and absorb young researchers.
It offers string people a way out of string, and something that is wonderful and beautiful and arcane to do---with something of the same elite feel or a similar pretension to universality.
Category has, I think, the same potential for being hyped as a comprehensive panacea or as something like the philosopher's stone of the alchemists.
Plus it might actually be good for something, you never know.
The Street festival conference is about Categories as applied with to algebra, geometry, and mathematical physics.
In his post Urs CALLS it "Mathematical String Physics" which makes it sound nice and homey but in fact Category Theory has the ability to transform whatever it is applied to, beyond recognition. And I belive that Urs is imperceptively and gradually emigrating to a foreign country. His mind is in Sydney instead of Toronto.
Of course I dont know and am just guessing, but these are the signs of a diaspora to me----the depression of the phd student Florian, the excitement of Urs over category.
BTW Baez is giving an interesting talk in Sydney. I started a thread
|Jul13-05, 12:53 PM||#8|
String theory has never accomplished one thing.
It has not explained on single phenomena.
It has unified nothing.
It is one big joke.
I know the theory that will replace it, but I am forbidden from posting it here, until said theory is published in a peer-reviewed journal. And so the myth of string theory prevails in this tragic tautology that killed contemporary physics, and the careers of many young physicists--both those who accepted String Theory and those who railed agianst it.
Ten years ago I almost went into string theory, but it smelled like a hoax.
Too many glossy pictures in the NYT. Too many TV shows.
And not one experiment nor solid mathematical principle.
So I devoted my years to other ventures.
And now it's paying off.
Rock on to all the independent thinkers and true physicists, who live in logic, reason and reality!
Down with the arrogant postmodern hoaxers and jokesters!!
|Jul13-05, 01:04 PM||#9|
mcgucken I dont need this kind of noisy announcements
and I cant think of anyone else at PF that does
we should think carefully about the situation of a lot of talented people, many of them idealistic youngsters wanting to devote their lives to advancing science
it's good to have some continue in string because parts of the string program might turn out to work eventually and be very valuable.
but some of them (like maybe Gmeiner for instance) are not going to be happy doing string careers because they have higher aspirations. they want to be in a theoretical research line that they think is really going somewhere, and they (some of them) dont think string is.
those that feel trapped and frustrated in string should find ways out. and those who believe in its promise and are highly motivated can keep on.
what your crowing sounds like is "schadenfreude"
which doesnt do anyone any good.
|Jul13-05, 01:20 PM||#10|
Please do not misunderstand me.
I have a huge concern for young physicists, scientists, and intellectual entrepreneuers. That is why I am sounding off.
I'm a little bit embarassed for all us physicists that String Theory has come to claim such a prominent role in the public's eye, when it is nothing more than a hoax, supported by neither math, physics, nor reality.
I just want to let rising physicists know that more important than getting that postdoc or writing that grant proposal for the tenured String Theorist is sticking with logic and reason. I'm just trying to keep them from joining the Ponzi scheme.
You can always do theory from outside the academy--in fact it is often better out there--think of Einstein and Bell.
A lot of prominent physicicists agree with this. I'll quote them at your request.
One of the funniest things is that nobody knows what "M" stands for in "M" theory! They're laughing at us!
|Jul13-05, 01:23 PM||#11|
|Jul13-05, 01:32 PM||#13|
and marcus :)
|Jul13-05, 01:38 PM||#14|
touché, and very true it is
for I do love a bit of malarky now and then
if we keep it light, the talk will be all right
actually we are very fortunate to be at a time in physics history when there are big shifts under way
(big changes in thinking which we may not even be fully aware of)
it is fun to watch
I have to go and do some reading and get lunch,
|Jul13-05, 02:03 PM||#15|
String theory incorporates some accurate ideas; such as: seminal energy that is manifested as vibrating (actually, complex oscillating) strings.
However, fundamentally, string theory incorporates, or attempts to explain, the irreconcilable theories of conventional physics’ standard models, which have proven to be incorrect except under specific conditions. Simply put, the standard models in their present form are contrived; and no fundamental theory, as string theory claims to be, can be expected to integrate them.
String theory is correct in assuming that an infinite source of energy manifests as oscillations and emanates from beyond Reality (and. also . . . so returns to this source).
These oscillations, which are complex amalgams of slide, swing, and vibration, must be defined mathematically so that they incorporate all the observed properties of reality, which are properties that can be mathematically expressed.
A starting point, which should not be too difficult, would be to consider the geometry and source that would, together, describe the genesis of these complex oscillations and their etiology as they morph to mass.
Regarding “M”: I think of “M” as standing for Many theories. I know of others that consider “M” standing for Membrane or Multi-dimensional. I believe the final word should go to Paul Townsend.
|Jul18-05, 09:19 AM||#16|
In fact, the only great contribution to math was Witten (Fields Medals awarded) work, but contrary to popular myth, it was mainly based in previous Witten work in QFT, differential geometry, and supersymmetric quantum mechanics. That is, was not a pure contribution from string theory to math.
|Similar Threads for: String Theory a Dead End?|
|Not Even Wrong? I Thought String Theory Was Dead?||Beyond the Standard Model||8|
|Introductory Interactive Online String Theory Seminar at the String Coffee Table||Beyond the Standard Model||0|
|Why is LQG a dead end but not m-theory?||Beyond the Standard Model||36|
|How does string field theory differ from string theory||Beyond the Standard Model||17|