Undergrad Why bother with Astrophysics if we have String Theory?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relevance of studying astrophysics in light of string theory and the hypothetical "theory of everything." It emphasizes that no such comprehensive theory currently exists, and string theory has not been validated. Even if a unifying theory were developed, its complexity would make it impractical for direct application to large-scale astrophysical models. Consequently, researchers would still need to create accessible theories for astrophysics and related fields. The conversation concludes that predicting outcomes based on an unproven theory is futile, highlighting the ongoing necessity for traditional astrophysical research.
Gjmdp
Messages
147
Reaction score
5
If there is a "theory of everything", a single equation that basically explains everything, why should be study Astrophysics, Condensed matter, or so?

I mean we should rather study String Theory, Quantum Gravity... So, am I wrong? Maybe I'm leaving some important details.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no "theory of everything" at this time and string theory hasn't yet been shown to be correct. And even if there was a theory of everything, fundamental physical theories, while extremely important, are often impossible to use in calculations and models of large objects in their "raw" forms. The calculations are just too complex for us to compute. So we'd still have to make theories and models for astrophysics, condensed matter, and other areas that are less fundamental and more easily computable.
 
Drakkith said:
There is no "theory of everything" at this time and string theory hasn't yet been shown to be correct. And even if there was a theory of everything, fundamental physical theories, while extremely important, are often impossible to use in calculations and models of large objects in their "raw" forms. The calculations are just too complex for us to compute. So we'd still have to make theories and models for astrophysics, condensed matter, and other areas that are less fundamental and more easily computable.
Ok, maybe the equation is just too complex. But Cosmology may easily be computed by this equation (I mean, is the "very" general view of the universe=, so no longer we'll require Astronomical observation to make models that predict this things, and therefore, there won't be more research on Cosmology. Right?
 
Trying to make predictions about what a non-existent theory does is pointless. We'll have to wait and see if and when it happens.

Thread locked.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K