Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I'm sorry, marcus, but strings continue to dominate high energy theory

  1. Jun 6, 2004 #1

    jeff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I'm sorry, marcus, but as you well know, strings continue to dominate high energy theory, despite your efforts to fool people into somehow doubting this. In fact, marcus, strings have gone through a number of (relatively) barren periods, the last one ending when D-branes and dualities where discovered ushering in the so-called second string revolution. However, these tools may have taken us as far as they can on their own, so we need to find new ones that will help us see more deeply into a vast, complex and profound theory which has already changed utterly and permanently the way we think about quantum theory, but whose underlying principles have yet to be discovered or fully understood.

    One high profile issue at the moment is how to accomodate in strings the observation that the universe is in a period of accelerating expansion. The obvious approach (although not necessarily the correct one; strings could - and in my view probably will - surprise us) is to invoke the idea of a positive cosmological constant and hence study within string theory the simplest solution to einstein's equations that has one, namely de sitter space.

    However, there are problems to solve in relation to treating de sitter space by string theory in it's present form, and string theorists by and large do not find any of the current approaches to this issue convincing. In fact, we feel not that strings have "crashed" but that we simply haven't learned enough about what string theory actually is to clear this very interesting hurdle (that is, if it is a hurdle).

    The general level of faith in string theory really hasn't been shaken very much by any of this since, really, string research is still widely viewed as being in it's infancy, with this by now familiar cycling between periods of consolidation and discovery not being viewed as reason to change fields. In fact, university physics departments are as keen on hiring string theorists as they've ever been.

    This would of course change if strings could be shown to be inconsistent, but so far - unlike every other approach - it has passed everyone of the many and nontrivial consistency checks put to it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 7, 2004 #2

    jeff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Bumppppppp
     
  4. Jun 9, 2004 #3

    jeff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Great idea!
     
  5. Jun 11, 2004 #4

    jeff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Please see initial post
     
  6. Jun 11, 2004 #5

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Jeff this is really poor thread behavior, bumping your own thread up with meaningless posts and flooding the board with highly similar threads. Do we really need cheap tactics like this?
     
  7. Jun 11, 2004 #6

    jeff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Is it acceptable for marcus to raise an issue, and then after I respond to it, follow up with a post that says in effect, "since nobody has responded to this issue..." etc. You get the idea. If you can't see the provocation in marcus's behaviour, you need your head examined.
     
  8. Jun 11, 2004 #7
    The statistical information is really quite revealling and is opening up insight as to the direction research in strings might be going? As stated before, deep thinkers are incubating I'm sure, and the deeper insights have yet to surface.

    One of the important questions is to see where minds have focused within the context of Membranes and LQG. Their are all trying to describe the dance of the bee?:smile:

    I hope some will accept the humour of it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2004
  9. Jun 11, 2004 #8

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    As far as I can see there is no post by Marcus on this thread. There are three posts by you in a row.
     
  10. Jun 11, 2004 #9

    jeff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Have you got rocks in your head? My comment obviously wouldn't apply to a thread I started since marcus would never post to it. Look in the "strings crash lessons" thread at his post after my posting of keywords.
     
  11. Jun 11, 2004 #10

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    No I don't have rocks in my head, and with all due respect you are getting very close to an abusive flamer. This is my last post on this thread.
     
  12. Jun 13, 2004 #11
    Hey Jeff what does it mean to be PF contributor?
     
  13. Jun 13, 2004 #12
    Sorry nevermind I figured it out-- you pay for your account
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: I'm sorry, marcus, but strings continue to dominate high energy theory
Loading...