Is a career in string theory worth pursuing without experimental proof?

  • Context: Physics 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rahaverhma
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiments
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the viability of pursuing a career in string theory, particularly in light of the lack of experimental proof and the high costs associated with such research. Participants highlight that theoretical physics, including string theory, often lacks direct physical variables and relies heavily on mathematical frameworks. Dr. Stephen Hawking's remarks about the impracticality of building particle accelerators to test these theories underscore the financial and logistical challenges faced by theoretical physicists. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the importance of considering broader aspects of physics beyond just string theory and particle physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of string theory concepts and terminology
  • Familiarity with theoretical physics and its mathematical foundations
  • Knowledge of experimental physics and its relationship to theoretical models
  • Awareness of funding challenges in scientific research
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of M-theory and its experimental challenges
  • Explore funding sources for theoretical physics research
  • Learn about alternative branches of physics beyond string theory
  • Investigate the role of mathematical modeling in theoretical physics
USEFUL FOR

Theoretical physicists, physics students, and anyone considering a career in physics, particularly in areas related to string theory and its experimental challenges.

rahaverhma
Messages
73
Reaction score
1
We know the fact that we physicists are now understanding physics only mathematically(string theory) , there is not even a single physical variable(except time, space) in the equations. Yes, obviously, it had to happen because how much far can my eye see? It had already started from quantum mechanics.And,we have even hypothesized about multiverse, supersymmetry etc. But, you want the proof or be the witness in the lab. Dr. Hawking says it would require billions of dollars to experiment the now findings. So, I am frightened about my career that if all these theories would only be accepted after experiments, till then am I the person in doubt for myself? Then, my friend doing Computer Engineering is far much better than me cause he is doing something in reality and I was not? Advise me, please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Science has to be tested in the real world, not just theorized on paper. What's the problem with that?
 
Should I be getting my salary for some unproven theory? And it might even require trillions of dollars for that . actually, I want to be a theoretical physicist.
 
Only a very small fraction of theoretical physicists work in string theory, and only a small fraction work in particle physics theory. All branches of physics have both experimental and theoretical aspects. Is there nothing in physics that interests you besides string or particle physics theory?
 
Last edited:
Hi there!
rahaverhma said:
We know the fact that we physicists are now understanding physics only mathematically(string theory) , there is not even a single physical variable(except time, space) in the equations. Yes, obviously, it had to happen because how much far can my eye see?
I know very little about string theory, but how do you know what variables are used in equations? And what does any of this have to do with your eyesight? I'm struggling to understand your question (and I suspect others might also).

rahaverhma said:
So, I am frightened about my career
You mean, your future career?

rahaverhma said:
Dr. Hawking says it would require billions of dollars to experiment the now findings.
What prof Hawking (jokingly) said was:

We don't exactly know what the Planck length is in M-theory, but it might be as small as a millimeter divided by a hundred thousand billion billion billion. We are not about to build particle accelerators that can probe to distances that small. They would have to be larger than the solar system, and they are not likely to be approved in the present financial climate. (Universe in a Nutshell)

I am not in a position to give you general career advice, but I can tell you one thing: your life choices should not be based on what you read in "pop-sci" book. We have members here who specialise in theoretical particle physics, perhaps they can tell you more about how they get funding for their work, or what their work entails.

All the best.
 
Hypercube said:
Hi there!

I know very little about string theory, but how do you know what variables are used in equations? And what does any of this have to do with your eyesight? I'm struggling to understand your question (and I suspect others might also).You mean, your future career?What prof Hawking (jokingly) said was:

We don't exactly know what the Planck length is in M-theory, but it might be as small as a millimeter divided by a hundred thousand billion billion billion. We are not about to build particle accelerators that can probe to distances that small. They would have to be larger than the solar system, and they are not likely to be approved in the present financial climate. (Universe in a Nutshell)

I am not in a position to give you general career advice, but I can tell you one thing: your life choices should not be based on what you read in "pop-sci" book. We have members here who specialise in theoretical particle physics, perhaps they can tell you more about how they get funding for their work, or what their work entails.

All the best.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
9K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K