Is String Theory a Theory Of Everything?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the nature of string theory and whether it qualifies as a "Theory of Everything" (TOE). Participants explore the implications of string theory in unifying fundamental forces, its explanatory power regarding the universe, and the limitations of the theory in addressing foundational questions about the nature of strings themselves.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that string theory may unify the four fundamental forces but does not fully qualify as a TOE since it does not explain the fundamental nature of strings themselves.
  • Others suggest that if string theory is correct, it has the potential to be a TOE, contingent on resolving current issues related to the beginning of the universe.
  • A viewpoint is presented that a complete TOE would need to address consciousness and the means by which we distinguish objects and concepts.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the possibility of any theory being final, suggesting that scientific discovery is an ongoing process that may never yield an absolute truth.
  • Another participant posits that the vibrations of strings could explain the composition of matter and energy, likening it to understanding music through sheet music.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of testable predictions from string theory, which some participants believe contributes to its unpopularity among certain physicists.
  • Some participants mention the existence of predictions associated with string theory, such as the graviton and supersymmetry, while others question their validity and relevance.
  • There are discussions about the aesthetic appeal of string theory and its theoretical completeness, alongside a recognition of the historical tendency for scientific theories to be overturned by new discoveries.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on whether string theory qualifies as a TOE. Disagreement exists regarding the completeness of string theory, its testability, and the implications of its predictions.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the absence of testable predictions for string theory, which raises questions about its acceptance in the scientific community. Additionally, there are references to the philosophical implications of defining a TOE and the nature of scientific inquiry.

  • #31
abbott said:
... (time or space "before" the big bang,..).

hello abbott, and welcome to the forum
You can take the quotes off before
Time and space before the big bang are alive and well
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0402053
(Moreover useful, since they get rid of the socalled horizon problem, which I'm told would otherwise require some fine-tuning or hard-to-swallow assumptions about inflation)

that link is to a review article, it has a bibliography with references to
a bunch of articles about the discovery that there isn't a bigbang singularity after all---spacetime doesn't have a boundary there

popular articles for general audience are harder to find
the German science-writer Rudi Vaas has some ScientificAmerican-type articles, tell me if you would like to see them. Maybe i can find the links anyway.

Here's one
http://arxiv.org/physics/0407071
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
thanks for the refernce, it's giving me lots of new questions

first I'll try and explain what i think it says (I passed high school physics with a b- so a lot of the paper was sandscrit to me)

It sounds like they are looking past the big bang by inverting spacetime? and they discovered that when we look at the big bang from one perspective direction of time (backwards) it appears to be the point right before a singularity is reached. And then by inverting time its direction changes to forwards, which changes is description to a point of expansion right before a singularity is reached?

if I am right about this then what it calls to my mind is the inversion of what both directions of time seem to be about to describe. there is no square root of infinity or 1 (if 1's square root is itself, its square root cannot exist for the same reasons singularities can't exist).

anyways, so what i was thinking was if we uninvert? our description of time before the big bang doest that describe what's at the end of the "forward" direction of time. wouldn't then time become what comes out of a singularity and what goes into a singularity?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
9K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K