Is String Theory the Monopolistic Theory in Modern Physics?

[schema]

"unified theory..." I strongly suspect that we are not going to know how to unified all the quantum fields until we know where quantum theory comes from to begin with. And String theory doesn't even start to address this.

Before we can understand QM, we have to have a complete working standard model. One of the problems with the model now is that is being challenged by particles that aren't predicted by the model. Take for instance the "2nd" higgs that was discovered some months back. It wasn't heavy enough to be an accurate model prediction, yet the theorists ignored the fact and gladly announced it. That is the problem with string theory to being with- it is centralized around a "theorized" model that is only complete in theory (sparticles, gravitons).

String theory or not, our biggest problem is the model itself. It is polarizing. Some theorists wish to describe reality as it SHOULD be (according to the model) instead of how it actually is.

 

[schema]

I think we will find symmetry in the future. I think the secret lay somewhere in the higgs field. I can't wait to see what kind of exotic particles CERN is going to discover in the next decade.

 

[mitchell porter]

schema - it seems like part of your problem with string theory is actually a problem with the very idea of gravitons, because you are thinking of "gravity caused by gravitons" as logically incompatible with "gravity caused by curved space"?

 

[schema]

schema - it seems like part of your problem with string theory is actually a problem with the very idea of gravitons, because you are thinking of "gravity caused by gravitons" as logically incompatible with "gravity caused by curved space"?

What evidence is there of string theory? I don't think there is enough to warrant revisions to General Relativity. The idea seems more like meta-physics, or philosophy to me. But I am open minded and willing to debate the facts without being biased.

At the moment, Einstien's theory holds true which is evidenced by detectable gravity waves.

 

[mitchell porter]

String theory grew out of particle physics, and one of its attractions is that it has the potential to explain numbers that quantum field theory can't - I mean numbers like the parameters of the standard model. In a field-theoretic framework, they are necessarily freely adjustable parameters, but in a string theory, given a particular topology (etc) for the extra dimensions, they are potentially calculable.

I mentioned "gravitons vs curved space" because it seems to be a factor in your thinking - you seem to think it's an either/or choice. But in an advanced theory of quantum gravity, a graviton should be a "quantum of curved space". It's not throwing out general relativity, it's combining it with quantum mechanics.

 

[Mandelbroth]

Is string theory worthwhile?

I usually don't poke my head too much into this part of physics forums. I typically stay with the mathematical portion of the forum, so perhaps "mathematically elegant" means something different to me than to you.

Is string theory worthwhile? This is an odd question for a scientist, particularly because it says, to me, that the person asking has no interest in science.

Is it worthwhile to spend millions upon millions of dollars constructing a 27 kilometer ring for firing really small particles at each other in the hopes of proving the existence of a theoretical particle that explains the phenomenon of mass? Surely this money could have been spent on providing food to starving children or finding a cure for cancer?

Of course it's worthwhile! If you think it isn't, then you should seriously reconsider if you'd be better off with a career in underwater basket weaving. Science is about discovery. It's not about whether or not we spend an almost ridiculous amount of our resources attempting to understand an idea that could very well be false. It's about understanding the intricate workings of the universe. If string theory is wrong, then it's wrong, but we shouldn't stop working on it until we figure out a way to prove whether it IS right or wrong.

As for mathematically elegant, physics is often inelegant on its own. It doesn't particularly help that you guys use that disgusting prefix notation for integrals. It hurts my eyes. I'd really appreciate a mathematically elegant part of physics.

 

[DiracPool]

At the moment, Einstien's theory holds true which is evidenced by detectable gravity waves.

Ummm, have gravity waves been detected yet? If so, you better tell these guys before they blow a lot of dough on that detector they're planning on building...

http://lisa.nasa.gov/

 

[DiracPool]

It's not about whether or not we spend an almost ridiculous amount of our resources attempting to understand an idea that could very well be false. It's about understanding the intricate workings of the universe. If string theory is wrong, then it's wrong, but we shouldn't stop working on it until we figure out a way to prove whether it IS right or wrong.

I think that hits at the heart of the issue. In my opinion, of course string theory research should continue with spirit and vigor. The issue is how much of the public resource should be devoted to research that can't be tested and, accordingly, which collegiate department should the study fall under (math or physics), which will also determine the allocation of funding to some degree.

 

[friend]

which collegiate department should the study fall under (math or physics), which will also determine the allocation of funding to some degree.

I think that it should be considered math until it makes predictions.

 

[schema]

Ummm, have gravity waves been detected yet? If so, you better tell these guys before they blow a lot of dough on that detector they're planning on building...

http://lisa.nasa.gov/

detetcing gravity waves with QM. How apropos.

they are simply programming a satellite to confirm for themselves previously recorded obesrvations:

http://www.universetoday.com/97107/effects-of-einsteins-elusive-gravity-waves-observed/

they plan to study the same binary system.

 

[WannabeNewton]

You know, there was a time when general relativity was seen to be largely in the domain of mathematics, as a theory wielded primarily by mathematicians (e.g. Choquet-Bruhat) until John Archibald Wheeler came along. It wasn't always seen the way it is seen today by physicists.

 

[ShayanJ]

What evidence is there of string theory? I don't think there is enough to warrant revisions to General Relativity. The idea seems more like meta-physics, or philosophy to me. But I am open minded and willing to debate the facts without being biased.

At the moment, Einstien's theory holds true which is evidenced by detectable gravity waves.

mmmm...I think you're missing some points.

At first...physicists aren't revising GR,they're just trying to extend it to the quantum realm!

And second...its not all about string theory.One day,physicists realized that they can't use GR in the quantum world,so they started a search for an extension to it.and then,as a result of that need,some of them grabbed string theory.
Its not because of string theory that they're trying to extend GR,string theory as it is now,is a result of the need to extend GR!

I usually don't poke my head too much into this part of physics forums. I typically stay with the mathematical portion of the forum, so perhaps "mathematically elegant" means something different to me than to you.

Is string theory worthwhile? This is an odd question for a scientist, particularly because it says, to me, that the person asking has no interest in science.

Is it worthwhile to spend millions upon millions of dollars constructing a 27 kilometer ring for firing really small particles at each other in the hopes of proving the existence of a theoretical particle that explains the phenomenon of mass? Surely this money could have been spent on providing food to starving children or finding a cure for cancer?

Of course it's worthwhile! If you think it isn't, then you should seriously reconsider if you'd be better off with a career in underwater basket weaving. Science is about discovery. It's not about whether or not we spend an almost ridiculous amount of our resources attempting to understand an idea that could very well be false. It's about understanding the intricate workings of the universe. If string theory is wrong, then it's wrong, but we shouldn't stop working on it until we figure out a way to prove whether it IS right or wrong.

As for mathematically elegant, physics is often inelegant on its own. It doesn't particularly help that you guys use that disgusting prefix notation for integrals. It hurts my eyes. I'd really appreciate a mathematically elegant part of physics.

Thanks...So good for a mathematician! :D
In fact,we need a theory of Quantum Gravity and now we have some candidates.It is just a matter of taste that we choose which of them first for investigations.Well,the one that is chosen first,may be proved to be wrong,but that doesn't mean we have wasted time.We did learn some physics in that process!
And about the last paragraph...I personally will welcome every mathematician who wants to make physical theories mathematically rigorous and elegant!

 

[GODISMYSHADOW]

I am not capable of really understanding the math behind string theory, but what little I can understand is quite beautiful. I can see why it's adherents are so dedicated to it... it's incredible to have such an otherwordly frame work and have general relativity pop out of it. If I'm not mistaken Witten has said at some point that that is equivalent to empirical verification.

As for dark matter, if you define it as "there is something going on we don't understand, and we will label it dark matter while we investigate" then I would disagree that dark matter hypotheses are BS. I'm tangentially involved with a high-pressure liquid Xenon detector project that will be able to detect WIMPs (one of the proposed dark matter particles). So, at least dark matter physics so far makes falsify-able predictions, right? ;)

I looked over two books; The Little Book of String Theory, and also the critical book Not Even Wrong. String theory math is too much for me and I don't understand it. I personally believe that string theory is a collaborative effort with many brilliant minds making contributions and tinkering with it, yet no one, not one person anywhere, understands it.

 

[Ilja]

... it's incredible to have such an otherwordly frame work and have general relativity pop out of it. If I'm not mistaken Witten has said at some point that that is equivalent to empirical verification.

If he said this he was clearly wrong. General relativity, despite looking complex for a newcomer, follows from quite simple symmetry principles. So if it somehow pops up out of other theories this is fine but clearly not decisive, and is far away from empirical verification.

If you doubt, for my own ether theory http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 I can make a similar claim. The Einstein equations of GR appear in a natural limit $\Xi, \Upsilon\to 0$, which is AFAIU a much simpler limit in comparison with the way string theory has to use to get rid of tachyons.

 

[Ilja]

In fact,we need a theory of Quantum Gravity and now we have some candidates.It is just a matter of taste that we choose which of them first for investigations. Well,the one that is chosen first,may be proved to be wrong,but that doesn't mean we have wasted time.We did learn some physics in that process!

The problem with string theory is another one: It presents itself as it is the only game in town. Not just as one of many wildly speculative approaches which has reached some minor points.

And the actual way science is organized supports this unjustified monopolistic position. Young scientists, those who should start developing alternative approaches, have to think about their next job after the two years of their actual job. So they have to write papers about something where one can get many job offers, thus, for a mainstream direction.

Give young scientists a badly paid but safe job. This would give them the freedom to develop something different, an alternative to string theory. And maybe publish about this a single paper after 15 years, maybe never. If only one of a hundred guys succeeds with proposing such an alternative, this would be much better than a thousand new papers about string theory.

And after this, other, less successful scientists would be free to try out the new direction. Today it is impossible. Even if an alternative theory is published, it will be ignored, because nobody can risk to work in a new direction with only a single guy working in it.

You doubt? Look at http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591. A published alternative, the results would be a wet dream for string theory (predicting all fermions of the SM, together with the gauge group and its action on fermions, compatible with gravity), but no reaction.

 

[ShayanJ]

The problem with string theory is another one: It presents itself as it is the only game in town. Not just as one of many wildly speculative approaches which has reached some minor points.

And the actual way science is organized supports this unjustified monopolistic position. Young scientists, those who should start developing alternative approaches, have to think about their next job after the two years of their actual job. So they have to write papers about something where one can get many job offers, thus, for a mainstream direction.

Give young scientists a badly paid but safe job. This would give them the freedom to develop something different, an alternative to string theory. And maybe publish about this a single paper after 15 years, maybe never. If only one of a hundred guys succeeds with proposing such an alternative, this would be much better than a thousand new papers about string theory.

And after this, other, less successful scientists would be free to try out the new direction. Today it is impossible. Even if an alternative theory is published, it will be ignored, because nobody can risk to work in a new direction with only a single guy working in it.

You doubt? Look at http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591. A published alternative, the results would be a wet dream for string theory (predicting all fermions of the SM, together with the gauge group and its action on fermions, compatible with gravity), but no reaction.

Yeah...you're mostly right!
But «It presents itself as it is the only game in town.» is a little...weird!String theory is only a theory,it can't "present" itself!
Its just that Its supporters seem to have great faith in it and I think that's because string theory isn't only a quantum gravity theory,but also a TOE.But other famous candidates of QG,are just QG theories!
But yes,I agree that some of the supporters of string theory may look at themselves as a cult believing a common thing which is completely out of scientific view.Although it is OK that when there is not enough evidence showing which theory is right,then every one has the right to choose a theory to work on,on non-physical grounds but NO theory should be ignored and all of them should be given equal chance and also the possibility should be considered that non of the existing theories are right!
Maybe some kind of Anti-Monopoly movement should be started among physicists which always tries to balance the chance given to competing theories!