Is String Theory A Waste Of Time?

  • Thread starter Juan R.
  • Start date
  • #51
238
0
Subsequent observations suggested that the quasar pair was not lensed!
Yes, but until further data debunks the paper I mentioned there is no reason to think that it is not a credible observation.

If it is so simple, why is the derivation of "BH" entropy claimed to be one of main successes of ST, e.g. in the Elegant Universe?
I'm not sure. Maybe it's because string theory predicts a phenomena that is derived from an established theory which boarders with quantum gravity.

As said if D=/=26 either you obtain an inconsistent theory or violating experimental data one, e.g. special relativity.
That's seems like a weird statement to me. It's like saying that QFT is wrong because Feynman's invariant perturbation formulation is only adapting it to special relativity.

If ST was only a theory of quantum gravity as you claim, then would be a nonsense the ST popular claim of derivation of Einstein field equations and the string criticism to LQG of that still cannot derive them.
I would like to see some references to the contrary.



selfAdjoint said:
Whether it would be good after 't Hooft depends on what you want. P&S is oriented to giving you the capability of doing relevant calculations: N point functions, crossing symmetries, cross sections, lifetimes, et al. It's a real working physics text.
I see. Thank you for the information. I think that I will purchase it sometime in the near future.


selfAdjoint said:
A friend told me the way to do a physics text was (a) Read through for meaning, and don't worry about derivations or excercises), then (b) read again doing the derivations if possible and getting someone to help you if you run into trouble, and finally (c) do the excercises with the same stipulations as (b).
It sounds like good advice. I too will try to use that method.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
738
Juan R. said:
But when you read comments on the blog you discover that almost all is either completely wrong or exagerated. It is impressive like Sean talk about things that he does not know (increasing the miths about string theory between laymen).
So Sean Carroll is the latest addition to your wax museum of scientists who don't know what they are talking about? Absurd, but still hilarious.
 
  • #53
416
0
Berislav said:
Yes, but until further data debunks the paper I mentioned there is no reason to think that it is not a credible observation.
I agree. Simply i said that the asumption of that that effect was predicted from string theory is wrong, because from string theory one cannot predcit anything (see also Lubos Motls comments on his blog below or quote in my non-technical article www.canonicalscience.com/stringcriticism.pdf[/URL] in its four page).

[QUOTE=Berislav]
I'm not sure. Maybe it's because string theory predicts a phenomena that is derived from an established theory which boarders with quantum gravity.[/QUOTE]

No, string theory does not predict that result, string theory [B]is adapted to[/B] that previously known result. Moreover, as already said one only obtain a numerical coincidence with entropy of GR BH, because, string theory does not work with GR BH, unlike LQG.

[QUOTE=Juan R.]
As said if D=/=26 either you obtain an inconsistent theory or violating experimental data one, e.g. special relativity.
[QUOTE=Berislav]
That's seems like a weird statement to me. It's like saying that QFT is wrong because Feynman's invariant perturbation formulation is only adapting it to special relativity.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

No! You are not fixing the point.

If you develop a QFT violating SR, then you are developing a wrong theory, because violates experimental data known. Then one formulates a QFT consistent with SR postulates and the bundle is called relativistic QFT. OK?

Now turn to ST. You can mathematically develop bosonic ST for D=4, D= 9, D=236945, etc. The point is that for D < 26 you obtain tachionic behavior and this is incompatible with SR (you obtain imaginary masses states). Then you force your bosonic theory to D=26. Therefore, D=26 is not an elegant derivation from string theory as is claimed in talks or oriented laymen books. Simply the result D=26 is an adaptation of ST to experimental data known. That is, it is a test of ST.

This is an important point, because the history of ST is the history of succesive experimental failure. Veneziano formula was invalidated experimentally, and abandoned by QCD.

Then people suggested a generalization to gravity (string theory was not only a theory of strong force they claimed). Bosonic string theory in 4D is experimentally inconsistent and then one introduces 26D, but our world is 4D (that is another violation of experimental data) and one introduces Kaluza-Klein (that in original unification scheme predicted "Dicke" scalar field not experimentally found) and one obtain again inconsistency with experimental data and then one add supersimmetry (newer experimentally found where "predicted" and then the scale of energy increased by hand several times for consistency) and posibility for fermion families (string theory was not only a theory of strong force more gravity they claimed)) and again one obtain an experimentally inconsistent theory (nobody has shown breaking of supersimmetry to low energies [b]required[/b] by experimental data) and after of more than 30 years...

Finally one obtains a perturbative series that nobody has shown to be convergent for a theory (of everything) in a classical flat metric with perturbation, but again this is experimentally incorrect, since GR claims that causality is defined on curved g metric not on a flat n metric and then people searchs for M-theory that nobody knows that is but all people agrees that is not a theory of strings.

Note: In the past, string theorists claimed that one would not take GR seriously and one would define causality on the flat metric with graviton like a perturbative addition. Still yesterday James Graber has claimed in Cosmic variance (see above link) that

[QUOTE=James Graber]
That is, despite the observational confirmations of General Relativity predictions and the success of Inflationary ideas, it still appears that we live in a flat universe. The fact that quantum mechanics is so hard to formulate in curved spacetime may be telling us that we live in a universe that is necesarily exactly flat, not just approximately flat, or accidentally flat. Perhaps the universe is not background independent, but rather requires a flat background.[/QUOTE]

Which is obviously a complete nonsense and by this reason people is searching a M-theory. That is string theory is the history of succesive failure, and string theorists simply are modifing their ideas to ideas expreseed previously by others.

Still Hilbert-Fock quantization of string is incompatible with experimental data on quark gluon plasma and now people is using doubled quantization and tilde operators in a new version of Dp-brane theory, but that new quantization methods were not originated on string theory they were in plasma physics, etc.

And recent noncritical approach in Gelfand triplets is also wrong and violates basic experimental stuff known in other fields, etc.

and recent unitary theorems (including unitarity in BH evaporation) are wrong with well-known material in chemical physics (see Nobel lecture that i cited above). a simple electron transfer reaction already violates superstring theory and recent Schwartz (2002) claims.

Etc, etc, etc.

Since that string theory is a waste of time, there is a joke that said that recent failure of string theory in cosmology ("complete failure" according to cosmologist Krauss who is writting a book about the joke called string theory) implies that string theory was not a theory of everything it was really a theory of more than everything.


[QUOTE=Berislav]
I would like to see some references to the contrary.[/QUOTE]

I do not understand. Contrary to what?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
416
0
Chronos said:
So Sean Carroll is the latest addition to your wax museum of scientists who don't know what they are talking about? Absurd, but still hilarious.
Nice comments Chronos! Let me quote to Lubos Motl (from link above).

Lubos Motl said:
Also, another problem with Sean's text is that he paints string theory as we knew it 20 years ago or so.
And

Lubos Motl said:
Today, string theory is not just a theory of strings.
And, also,

Lubos Motl said:
Today, "string theory" is a kind of misnomer.
It is also interesting the real status of string theory like a theory of everything where one is deriving all, including cosmic strings.

Lubos Motl said:
But in order to achieve the goal fully, it should also be used to derive the right spectrum of particles with the right parameters either from no input or from a smaller set of assumptions than required by the previous theories.
Today, "string theory" cannot predict anything of this world, it is not a theory, it is not based in strings, and Sean would remain silent...
 
Last edited:
  • #55
61
0
ST has a unique approach that satisfies the enigmas of bonds

Juan R. said:
Other theories have well defined laws, postulates, etc. For example LQG has well defined laws and experimental predictions.

In string theory there is no laws or postulates, just a mathematical gulash that is adapted each time that an inconsistency or sound error is found in the formalism. In fact, there is no real theory. String theory is a just program for searching a theory already called string theory. In M-theory is still poor. Nobody know that M-theory is, but it is claimed that is elegant :bugeye:

What arrogance!!
In general, I agree with your statement; however:

From ST, that is, the logic of the geometry of the strings' formation and coalescence, Pauling, shortly before his death, indicated that he agreed that one might predict the mechanics of bonding . . . as applicable to subatomic bonds, atomic bonds (5 chemical bonds), including the Bjerknes hydrodynamic “action-at-a-distance” effect, van der Waals forces, and the Casimir force.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
416
0
brunardot said:
In general, I agree with your statement; however:

From ST, that is, the logic of the geometry of the strings' formation and coalescence, Pauling, shortly before his death, indicated that he agreed that one might predict the mechanics of bonding . . . as applicable to subatomic bonds, atomic bonds (5 chemical bonds), including the Bjerknes hydrodynamic “action-at-a-distance” effect, van der Waals forces, and the Casimir force.
?

A related question for you:

What is a bond?
 
  • #57
416
0
Some people claim in Cosmic variance for experimental observation of decreasing of newtonian force at short scales. If true this would be the final knock to string theory before the well-known claim of that string theory will be finished at HLC.

String and M-theories "predicts" strong effective gravitational interaction to shorter distances.

Somewhat like the rule 1/r^(2+d) for d extra dimensions (some recent RS brane model introduces Yukawa like exponential correction from extra 5th dimension).

I will say next is not rigorous but intuitive.

We can observe that smooth behavior is obtained formally with

d < 0 for r –> 0 on 1/r^(2+d) for d "extra" dimensions.

It is interesting the chossing d = -2 for short scales (dimensionality in string M theory is fixed to 10-11D but it is not in other advanced approaches) because:

i) It is compatible with recent advances in triangulations quantum gravity (hep-th/0505154). Where dimensionality of spacetime is reduced not increased to short scales.

That is, Calabi-Yau manifolds conjeture vanishes and all formalism of string theory turns wrong. Moreover spacetime become fractal to shorter scales and therefore the use of differentiable manifolds (CY, G2) on string, brane, and M theory again is an oudated (wrong) method.
Again i was correct and string M theorists (of course smart as they are :-) completely wrong.

As explained in April www.canonicalscience.com/stringcriticism.pdf[/URL]

I and others are working in nondifferentiable manifolds time ago, but string theorists (irrelevant and ignorant as they are) still believe that one can model universe using a CY (10D string theory) or recent M2 manifolds (in 11D M-theory).

Above June preprint exposes ideas similar to derived from canonical science: fractality and non-diferentiability.

ii) d -2 for r –> 0 imply formally elimination of divergencies on (1/r^2) force strengh since (1/r^2) —-> (1/r^0) and this would permit to us the developing of a non-divergent full quantum gravity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
238
0
Simply i said that the asumption of that that effect was predicted from string theory is wrong, because from string theory one cannot predcit anything (see also Lubos Motls comments on his blog below or quote in my non-technical article
I disagree. String theory predicts the existance of cosmic strings. The newly discovered phenomena can be interpreted as a cosmic string and to my knowledge not as anything else, for the time being, at least.

No, string theory does not predict that result, string theory is adapted to that previously known result.
I will respond to this issue later. Since I can't find any references at this time.

Now turn to ST. You can mathematically develop bosonic ST for D=4, D= 9, D=236945, etc. The point is that for D < 26 you obtain tachionic behavior and this is incompatible with SR (you obtain imaginary masses states).
Bosonic string theory is devoloped by at first leaving the number of dimensions unknown. One then (as I said before) because of unphysical (as you say, tachionic) residual terms in the commutation relation of the Lorentz boost and angular momentum operator imposes the 26 dimensionality. The residual terms are then zero. I don't see anything wrong with this. Maybe it isn't "elegant", but then again that is a subjective concept.

and then one add supersimmetry (newer experimentally found where "predicted" and then the scale of energy increased by hand several times for consistency) and posibility for fermion families (string theory was not only a theory of strong force more gravity they claimed)) and again one obtain an experimentally inconsistent theory (nobody has shown breaking of supersimmetry to low energies required by experimental data) and after of more than 30 years...
Aha. So you dislike supesymmetry as well as string theory. :grumpy:

Still Hilbert-Fock quantization of string is incompatible with experimental data on quark gluon plasma and now people is using doubled quantization and tilde operators in a new version of Dp-brane theory, but that new quantization methods were not originated on string theory they were in plasma physics, etc.

And recent noncritical approach in Gelfand triplets is also wrong and violates basic experimental stuff known in other fields, etc.
I don't know about those approaches. I do know however about the BRST formalism, which is a supersymmetry! And to my knowledge works quite well.

I do not understand. Contrary to what?
Contrary to "the ST popular claim of derivation of Einstein field equations". That is, that supersymmetry coupled with gravity isn't the low energy limit of superstring theory.

Some people claim in Cosmic variance for experimental observation of decreasing of newtonian force at short scales.
This sounds like a very important discovery! I thought that we couldn't reach the necessary energy to observe such radical changes in the laws of spacetime. Some references, please!

Juan R. said:
brunardot said:
In general, I agree with your statement; however:

From ST, that is, the logic of the geometry of the strings' formation and coalescence, Pauling, shortly before his death, indicated that he agreed that one might predict the mechanics of bonding . . . as applicable to subatomic bonds, atomic bonds (5 chemical bonds), including the Bjerknes hydrodynamic “action-at-a-distance” effect, van der Waals forces, and the Casimir force.
?
I agree with Juan R. :biggrin:
 
  • #59
42
0
The beautiful paradox of String Theory is that anyone dumb enough to devote 30 years of their life to a non-theory--a theory without postulates, laws, and experimental evidence--will also be dumb enough to defend that theory to the death.
 
  • #60
61
0
Bonds

Juan R. said:
?

A related question for you:

What is a bond?
A bond, as originally referenced herein, must be a physical manifestation, as must all phenomena . . . unlike currently proposed “action-at-a-distance.”

A bond is an attractive force that arises from the motion of energy when that energy is such that it is trying to separate that which intrinsically resists separation because of counter forces or the intrinsic nature of the source of that which will not separate.

Fundamental bonds are interacting, hyper-relativistic, complex-oscillating solitons that are within and without the nucleus of an atom. “Dark” energy is an extreme example of this solitonic phenomena as heuristically described by Taisoids. See: http://www.2-CQ.info/TaisoidDiscussion/

mcgucken said:
The beautiful paradox of String Theory is that anyone dumb enough to devote 30 years of their life to a non-theory--a theory without postulates, laws, and experimental evidence--will also be dumb enough to defend that theory to the death.
I have similar sentiments concerning the defense of paradigms that do not internally reconcile, do not reconcile with one another, and only reconcile with observation within narrowly, contrived parameters.

Concerning alternative theory, as per Weinberg's "new physics," Planck appears to have it right with his pessimism concerning "scientific innovation."
 
Last edited:
  • #61
1,548
0
brunardot said:
Concerning alternative theory, as per Weinberg's "new physics," Planck appears to have it right with his pessimism concerning "scientific innovation."
Was able to find Plank's quote - that is pessimistic !–
I hope it isn’t really that bad when something well documented and verifiable is brought forward. I know it took some time for Einstein but as verification came in the majority of those disagreeing with it accepted relativity rather than disappearing – some maybe never did.
I’d hope things would be better now.

As to Weinberg's "new physics" comment.
I assume your referring to the one in the Bryce DeWitt Physics Today article Jan 2005. Also rather pessimistic.
I'd hope we can all do better than that.

RB
 
  • #62
61
0
There is much cause for Pessimism

RandallB said:
Was able to find Plank's quote - that is pessimistic !–
I hope it isn’t really that bad when something well documented and verifiable is brought forward. I know it took some time for Einstein but as verification came in the majority of those disagreeing with it accepted relativity rather than disappearing – some maybe never did.
I’d hope things would be better now.

As to Weinberg's "new physics" comment.
I assume your referring to the one in the Bryce DeWitt Physics Today article Jan 2005. Also rather pessimistic.
I'd hope we can all do better than that.

RB
Weinberg has been calling for the apparent need for a "new physics" since before "Dreams of a Final Theory," 1992.

Einstein was never personally accepted by American academia. A special institute (IAS) had to be built just for him because, as an outsider, he was not personally acceptable within the "Halls of Academia." His Nobel was given as a "slap in the face"; as, he didn't believe in QM for which he set the ground work; and, was so rewarded. SR and GR never earned him a Nobel . . .

As for someone coming forward that is "well documented and verifiable"; they must pass peer review to be so qualified. Peer review is a conspiracy to protect the sinecure of those threatened by such a Paradigm Shift.

I am nothing but pessimistic in the vein of Planck.

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul.

What does happen is that its opponents gradually
die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning.

Max Planck [1858-1947]
The Philosophy of Physics, 1936


Carefully examine the logic of the posts at the two closed threads in this forum at: Number Theory, 1.) An elliptical constant; and, 2.) Is -1 a prime number?

Then compare the above, by clicking the below link, to the open-minded expression that is viewed elsewhere for discussion.

Number Theory

Truth will out when the marketplace for ideas is open and free flowing.

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad." -Aldous Huxley
 
Last edited:
  • #63
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
Einstein was never personally accepted by American academia. A special institute (IAS) had to be built just for him because, as an outsider, he was not personally acceptable within the "Halls of Academia." His Nobel was given as a "slap in the face"; as, he didn't believe in QM for which he set the ground work; and, was so rewarded. SR and GR never earned him a Nobel . . .
The statement about the Institute for Advanced Study is wrong. When the IAS was planned, Einstein was still an apparently contented Professor at Berlin; it was only after it had been created and had its first members (the American mathematician Otto Veblen and others), that the Hitler regime come to power and Einstein was forced to leave Germany. The IAS leaped at the opportunity to offer the most famous physicst in the world a place.

I well remember that Einstein had a much better reception in "red state" academia than did Quantum Mechanics. Indiana University, for example had Vaclav Hlavaty, a worker in Einstein's Unified theory in the 1950s, but the physics department was trying mightlily to establish a modern classical physics tradition to compete with QM, for which not one course was given.
 
  • #64
61
0
selfAdjoint said:
The statement about the Institute for Advanced Study is wrong. When the IAS was planned, Einstein was still an apparently contented Professor at Berlin; it was only after it had been created and had its first members (the American mathematician Otto Veblen and others), that the Hitler regime come to power and Einstein was forced to leave Germany. The IAS leaped at the opportunity to offer the most famous physicst in the world a place.

I well remember that Einstein had a much better reception in "red state" academia than did Quantum Mechanics. Indiana University, for example had Vaclav Hlavaty, a worker in Einstein's Unified theory in the 1950s, but the physics department was trying mightlily to establish a modern classical physics tradition to compete with QM, for which not one course was given.
At my age, details often slightly transmute from conversations with Philip Morrison 50 years ago.

IAS was incorporated May 20, 1930; but did not open its doors until 1933, at which time Albert Einstein was its first professor.
 
  • #65
416
0
brunardot said:
A bond is an attractive force that arises from the motion of energy when that energy is such that it is trying to separate that which intrinsically resists separation because of counter forces or the intrinsic nature of the source of that which will not separate.

Fundamental bonds are interacting, hyper-relativistic, complex-oscillating solitons that are within and without the nucleus of an atom. “Dark” energy is an extreme example of this solitonic phenomena as heuristically described by Taisoids.
Only can say
!


P.S: Drugs are not good :yuck:

Intrinsically of course
 
Last edited:
  • #66
416
0
As said from string theory, one cannot predict anything. This irritatting point begins to be broadly admitted by most honest string theorists.

That experimental observation, if real, cannot be explained from string theory but, and this is my point, you can modify string theory for adapting it to that data once you know that data. Historically that was the way.

You appears rather confounded, I recomend to you The book “Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions,” to be published this year by Krauss.

Krauss, a leading expert on cosmic dark matter and dark energy, argues that string theorists have produced no satisfactory explanations for anything.

That is, basically, I said in April.

Berislav said:
Bosonic string theory is devoloped by at first leaving the number of dimensions unknown. One then (as I said before) because of unphysical (as you say, tachionic) residual terms in the commutation relation of the Lorentz boost and angular momentum operator imposes the 26 dimensionality. The residual terms are then zero. I don't see anything wrong with this. Maybe it isn't "elegant", but then again that is a subjective concept.
I will explain again. String theorists claimed to public that theory was elegant; all was fixed in the theory in a natural manner (still people believe that string theory contains a single parameter), and cannot be experimentally tested.

Reality is as follow. You begin from a 4D formulation (initially people did not leave dimensionality unknown) but quantizing the open bosonic string, you obtain the spectral decomposition for the first excited state.

[tex]
m^2 = (2 \pi T_{0}) \left[1 - \frac{D-2}{24}\right]
[/tex]

For D<26 you obtain violation of Lorentz invariance, and for D>26 you obtain negative square mass states and by Einstein mass formula

[tex]
m = \frac{m_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
[/tex]

tachionic behavior ([tex]v > c[/tex]). Both behaviors are not observed in nature (the tachionic behavior of ground state is ignored now), therefore the result D=26 is the direct outcome of a direct experimental test of string theory. String theory may be consistent with previous theories, which explain past and present experiments. E.g. choosing D=4, bosonic string theory cannot explain data that special relativity already explain.

Since 40 years ago, string theory has been experimentally tested and modified for adapting it to known data. This is the point that string theorists fail to adequately explain to people, young students, etc.

Berislav said:
Aha. So you dislike supesymmetry as well as string theory.
Physics is not about like or dislike. Physics may explain the world we know. The world that we know does not provide signs of multidimensional strings or supersymmetric states.

Until now, all our experience is about non-supersymmetric universe in 4D. A honest physicist would construct a theory for a non-supersymmetric universe in 4D and after if one day additional dimensions or supersimmetry are discovered then generalize the framework. But string theorists first developed a mathematical theory for 26D and then began the 40-years dark age.

Remember that supersimmetry was added to string theory for solving some of its consistency problems and violation of experimental data.

All of string theory is about add, and add, and add, and add until that one day you obtain a theory that nobody know, is not defined, it has so many conjectures, unproved beliefs and open questions that can say anything and the contrary of anything. For example, if supersymmetry is not observed in next accelerator generation, then string theoreticians will be invoke a new change of scale (as in the past) or will add some new mathematical device that “cancels” it. The “theory” (so say) is permanently in a safe state.

Berislav said:
I don't know about those approaches.
Ok, but people working in other fields knew it, and those true physicists developed those fantastic approaches without pompous claims such as that of Brian Greene and friends. String theorists, arrogant as they are, claimed that all was already known and explained by string theory: the most important theory! The Last formulation!

if I remember correctly, they discovered that traditional quantization is not sufficient 5 years ago, and now are adaptation previous old version of brane theory to new formalism as explained in article. Still today, they are working with the simplest version of formalism (developed 20 or 30 years ago by others) now we are working with new more general theories. Perhaps by 2015, some string theorist will say “hey guys, this is not rigorous, we may use this theory” (we are working today) for obtaining the 123th version of string theory.

Berislav said:
Contrary to "the ST popular claim of derivation of Einstein field equations". That is, that supersymmetry coupled with gravity isn't the low energy limit of superstring theory.
From ST one cannot derive GR.

Berislav said:
This sounds like a very important discovery! I thought that we couldn't reach the necessary energy to observe such radical changes in the laws of spacetime. Some references, please!
As said it is a rumor, there is not paper still, but is appears that result is solid.
It seems that deviations from Newton's gravitational law at distances slightly below 100 microns were detected at the "4 sigma" confidence level. Since assertion would be revolutionary an increase to "8 sigma" is being worked. Traditionally string theory has claimed for the contrary fact, (I even have seen the r^-7 corrections to Newtonian potential from Matrix theory) but don’t worry, if finally true, string theorists will invoke some new mathematical device for saving string theory again. That is will develop the 45th version of the “theory”.

Robert B. Laughlin said:
People have been changing string theory in wild ways because it has never worked.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
1,548
0
brunardot said:
His Nobel was given as a "slap in the face"; as, he didn't believe in QM for which he set the ground work; and, was so rewarded. SR and GR never earned him a Nobel . .
Somebody gave you a bad "time line" on this as well.
His Noble Prize was in 1922. Quantum Mechanics didn’t start until 1925/26.

Quantum Physics is not incompatible with Classic Physics. Just as relativity is “classical” so is Quantum Physics, as Einstein choose to continue to work on it, is “classical”.
It is the Quantum Mechanical interpretation and explanation of Quantum Physics that is non-classical due to the uncertainty issue, as are theories that grow from it like Strings.
Is it frustrating, sure, most honest QM’ers admit it is too, but they work with it because it works.

The biggest problem I see with most opposition to QM is that they just oppose, or produce something with no real foundation (Classical or QM), but instead an even more bizarre foundation than uncertainty.

As to strings being a waste,
maybe some of the extreme versions are, but the idea has set some additional higher standards that any future explanation needs to cover in order to be a replacement theory.

For example:
Strings has been shown to be dependent on having 6 additional dimensions. However, that allowed for at least 5 “string viable” independent interpretations that couldn’t be reconciled until one more dimension was added, “M Theory”, for a total of 11.
To me this means a complete theory, be it classical or QM, must explain:
A) If real – Show where these extra dimensions are and what they do.
OR
B) If not real – explain why it appeared they were real.

Does this set the bar higher and more difficult?
Or is it more information and data that will helpful in reaching the goal?

I think it can be helpful, trick is figuring out how to climb the data.

RB
 
  • #68
61
0
Predictions

Juan R. said:
As said from string theory, one cannot predict anything. This irritatting point begins to be broadly admitted by most honest string theorists.
ST can predict much with slight adjustments in the theory.

Like for instance: the internal geometry of the "strings."

Unfortunately, its predictions cover the gamut of current enigmas, which theoretical physicists are loathe to discuss in detail. Probably, for fear their house of cards and their grants and sinecures will fall.
 
  • #69
416
0
mcgucken said:
The beautiful paradox of String Theory is that anyone dumb enough to devote 30 years of their life to a non-theory--a theory without postulates, laws, and experimental evidence--will also be dumb enough to defend that theory to the death.

Great!!

Specially when in those 30 years other people have studied things that really work.

Due to failure of string M-theory for explaining physics, some string theorists are this year given talks on "religious" implications of string theory :biggrin:
 
  • #70
61
0
Stand

RandallB said:
Somebody gave you a bad "time line" on this as well.
His Noble Prize was in 1922. Quantum Mechanics didn’t start until 1925/26.
I will stand (or fall) on my basic statement.

(Did you miss the phrase, "he set the groundwork"?
 
  • #71
416
0
brunardot said:
ST can predict much with slight adjustments in the theory.

Like for instance: the internal geometry of the "strings."

Unfortunately, its predictions cover the gamut of current enigmas, which theoretical physicists are loathe to discuss in detail. Probably, for fear their house of cards and their grants and sinecures will fall.
On non-technical article cited above I talk of physical predictions.

In a this year preprint, Giddings even admits that he wait that string theory could not finally predict anything.

Some celebrated string theorists as Susskind begin to accept that the theory
cannot explain anything and this has caused some recent trouble. Susskind
adds:

Susskind said:
More and more as time goes on, the opponents of the idea admit that
they are simply in a state of depression and desperation.
The famous “cyber-string” theorist Luboš Motl has recently wrote

Luboš Motl said:
Some people really seem to be excited by the very fact that they can
embed a relatively convincing framework into string theory whose
conclusion is that we can't predict anything.
Etc
 
  • #72
1,548
0
Fall

brunardot said:
I will stand (or fall) on my basic statement.

(Did you miss the phrase, "he set the groundwork"?
That basic statement was; (His Nobel was a "slap in the face"; as, he didn't believe in QM .....)
The issue in 1911 to 1922 was that relativity was controversial, AND he was German; WW1 political issues between Nations etc. that obviously only got worse and these issues affected the Noble Committee.
Not a slap in the face prize, but a reluctant giving by a committee forced to give due to popular worldwide demand for the man and for SR & GR. So, even if they refused to put SR & GR in the award, that’s what really got him there - wide acceptance of his new "scientific innovation".

Yes, the prize highlighted Light as quantum – setting the groundwork from 1900 for Quantum Physics, not Quantum Mechanics. The groundwork for Quantum Mechanics wasn’t set until 5 years later, thus that QM issue with Einstein did not start until after 1925.

I’ll vote for FALL
 
  • #73
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
Juan R. said:
if I remember correctly, they discovered that traditional quantization is not sufficient 5 years ago
You have said this before. Could you gives us a statement or link to clarify it? Is it light cone quantization you are talking about or something else?
 
  • #74
238
0
selfAdjoint said:
Is it light cone quantization you are talking about or something else?
I don't think he's refering to that. He mentioned something about:
Juan R. said:
LPS in Gelfand triplets!!!
in post #32.
 
  • #75
61
0
RandallB said:
That basic statement was; (His Nobel was a "slap in the face"; as, he didn't believe in QM .....)
The issue in 1911 to 1922 was that relativity was controversial, AND he was German; WW1 political issues between Nations etc. that obviously only got worse and these issues affected the Noble Committee.
Not a slap in the face prize, but a reluctant giving by a committee forced to give due to popular worldwide demand for the man and for SR & GR. So, even if they refused to put SR & GR in the award, that’s what really got him there - wide acceptance of his new "scientific innovation".

Yes, the prize highlighted Light as quantum – setting the groundwork from 1900 for Quantum Physics, not Quantum Mechanics. The groundwork for Quantum Mechanics wasn’t set until 5 years later, thus that QM issue with Einstein did not start until after 1925.

I’ll vote for FALL
The intent of intellectual discussion should be that all participants remain upright with a broadened vision.

There was plenty of time before the morning of April 19, 1955 to award a Nobel for SR and GR if the original intent was not a "slap in the face" by the inside academic elite.

Don't forget that for many of these years Einstein detested the cavalierness of Oppenheimer, which was reciprocal if you carefully read "between the lines.".

I raise salient issues throughout this thread and other threads on this forum; yet, everyone attacks minutia and stops/locks large threads without letting me reply; yet, there is a loud "ignore"-ance on the important issues that I raise for discussion.

Am I to understand the salient issues that I raise are accepted without discussion as being correct; and, only the minutia requires tweaking?

Where is sensibility and intellectual inquiry within theoretical physics, which I continue to insist is entirely based on metaphysical concepts of forces and mathematics.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Is String Theory A Waste Of Time?

Replies
2
Views
961
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
70
Views
27K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
298
Views
115K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
13K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
14K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Top