| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Allan" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2004 01:02:06 AM |
| Object: |
The acceptance of string theory |
I have a feeling this post will either be ignored or maybe even spark a
heated debate.
Anyway, here goes.
How well accepted now is string theory in the scientific community.
There seems to be a growing number of young 'string' enthusiasts who are
calling string theory the first great leap towards a grand unified theory of
everything.
And there are also many that point out that string theory can not be tested
or observed in anyway and therefore has no place in science at all but
should only be considered a philosophical model.
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
20 Dec 2004 10:24:43 AM |
|
|
"Allan" <alpal@eftel.com> wrote in message
news:41c678ef$1@news.eftel.com...
I have a feeling this post will either be ignored or maybe even
spark a
heated debate.
Anyway, here goes.
How well accepted now is string theory in the scientific community.
There is no string theory yet which makes testable critical
predictions.
There seems to be a growing number of young 'string' enthusiasts who
are
calling string theory the first great leap towards a grand unified
theory of
everything.
There has been such a "growing number of young 'string' enthusiasts "
for nearly 3 decades now. There are not many theories with such a
long gestation period.
And there are also many that point out that string theory can not be
tested
or observed in anyway and therefore has no place in science at all
but
should only be considered a philosophical model.
There is no objection to string theorists trying to round off a string
theory sufficiently to enable it to produce testable predictions.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
20 Dec 2004 02:28:47 AM |
|
|
"Allan" <alpal@eftel.com> wrote in message news:41c678ef$1@news.eftel.com...
I have a feeling this post will either be ignored or maybe even spark a
heated debate.
Anyway, here goes.
How well accepted now is string theory in the scientific community.
There seems to be a growing number of young 'string' enthusiasts who are
calling string theory the first great leap towards a grand unified theory
of everything.
And there are also many that point out that string theory can not be
tested or observed in anyway and therefore has no place in science at all
but should only be considered a philosophical model.
The theory must make quantitative predictions that can be
empirically tested. String theory isn't a part of science if it
isn't empirically falsifiable.
However, work towards the goal of making falsifiable
predictions from string theory is a part of science, and ought
not be discouraged. At the same time, string theorists ought
to shut-up and start calculating.
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
20 Dec 2004 11:25:12 AM |
|
|
Allan wrote:
I have a feeling this post will either be ignored or maybe even spark a
heated debate.
Anyway, here goes.
How well accepted now is string theory in the scientific community.
M-theory has no empirical basis, no predicted observations, no
physical meaning of any kind amidst its 10^300 acceptable vacua. It
is strictly an exercise in mathematics until that changes.
There seems to be a growing number of young 'string' enthusiasts who are
calling string theory the first great leap towards a grand unified theory of
everything.
And there are also many that point out that string theory can not be tested
or observed in anyway and therefore has no place in science at all but
should only be considered a philosophical model.
M-theory provides employment without danger of empirical
falsification. It is MBA philosophy arrived in physical science.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
20 Dec 2004 12:24:40 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
M-theory provides employment without danger of empirical
falsification. It is MBA philosophy arrived in physical science.
It is also a good occasion to write books (e.g. Brian Greene) and have
PBS make Nova specials. I remember when Nova was actually about science.
Now it has gone the way of -Scientific American-.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
27 Dec 2004 01:14:31 AM |
|
|
t is also a good occasion to write books (e.g. Brian Greene) and have
PBS make Nova specials.
yes, and one thing they said on that nova special was that someone
working on ST just happened to notice that it explains quantum gravity.
since he wasn't trying to invent a theory of quantum gravity, it can
legitimately be asserted that it predicts (by unintentionally modeling)
gravitation.
and if it does indeed to be the GUT, the fact that we aren't smart
enough to build zillion GEV devices can be seen as our failing, not
STs. ST will, in fact, have "predicted the universe". by being the
only comprehensive model, one which includes all other models (QM, etc)
as subsets.
====
okay, flame me. there are just two kinds of things in the universe:
objects and opinions. I really only care about understanding the
former.
=[ d
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
27 Dec 2004 09:31:49 AM |
|
|
<dt041054@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104131671.052946.293230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
t is also a good occasion to write books (e.g. Brian Greene) and
have
PBS make Nova specials.
yes, and one thing they said on that nova special was that someone
working on ST just happened to notice that it explains quantum
gravity.
since he wasn't trying to invent a theory of quantum gravity, it can
legitimately be asserted that it predicts (by unintentionally
modeling)
gravitation.
Actually, they were, and they are. (string theorists in general, I
mean). That's why they talk about a "Theory of Everything". The
point being that the strong, EM and weak forces have already been
unified and the string theorists are trying to bring gravitation into
the fold as well.
and if it does indeed to be the GUT, the fact that we aren't smart
enough to build zillion GEV devices can be seen as our failing, not
STs. ST will, in fact, have "predicted the universe". by being the
only comprehensive model, one which includes all other models (QM,
etc)
as subsets.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
27 Dec 2004 01:57:27 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
<dt041054@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104131671.052946.293230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[...]
yes, and one thing they said on that nova special was that someone
working on ST just happened to notice that it explains quantum
gravity.
since he wasn't trying to invent a theory of quantum gravity, it can
legitimately be asserted that it predicts (by unintentionally
modeling) gravitation.
Actually, they were, and they are.
Are, yes. But the original claim is right, too. String theory was
originally an attempt to model strong interactions. It was unsuccessful,
in part because it contained massless particles that didn't make sense
in the original setting. But in 1974, Scherk and Schwarz noticed that
one of these massless particles had the characteristics of the graviton,
and suggested that the theory might really be a quantum theory that
included gravity.
So in that sense, it's true that string theory as a theory of quantum
gravity was discovered by accident.
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
27 Dec 2004 11:58:44 PM |
|
|
<carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:cqppf7$nl5$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
Franz Heymann <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
<dt041054@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104131671.052946.293230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[...]
yes, and one thing they said on that nova special was that
someone
working on ST just happened to notice that it explains quantum
gravity.
since he wasn't trying to invent a theory of quantum gravity, it
can
legitimately be asserted that it predicts (by unintentionally
modeling) gravitation.
Actually, they were, and they are.
Are, yes. But the original claim is right, too. String theory was
originally an attempt to model strong interactions. It was
unsuccessful,
in part because it contained massless particles that didn't make
sense
in the original setting. But in 1974, Scherk and Schwarz noticed
that
one of these massless particles had the characteristics of the
graviton,
and suggested that the theory might really be a quantum theory that
included gravity.
So in that sense, it's true that string theory as a theory of
quantum
gravity was discovered by accident.
Of course you are right.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
20 Dec 2004 07:27:47 AM |
|
|
Allan wrote:
I have a feeling this post will either be ignored or maybe even spark a
heated debate.
Anyway, here goes.
How well accepted now is string theory in the scientific community.
There seems to be a growing number of young 'string' enthusiasts who are
calling string theory the first great leap towards a grand unified theory of
everything.
And there are also many that point out that string theory can not be tested
or observed in anyway and therefore has no place in science at all but
should only be considered a philosophical model.
String theory, branes, and such... may have mathematical elegance, but
be aware that there is NO empirical data for these ideas. In fact, it's
hard to even come up with ways to test the ideas. It will be interesting
to see if they become physics or remains philosophy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nexcet" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
20 Dec 2004 08:14:12 AM |
|
|
if there's math. There's science.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
20 Dec 2004 10:24:44 AM |
|
|
"Nexcet" <travis.font@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103552052.648734.126230@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
if there's math. There's science.
Nonsense. There will never be any science asociated with transfinite
numbers
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
27 Dec 2004 11:37:36 AM |
|
|
I saw the PBS "documentaries" and could easily see through the
consistent attempts to legitimize ST and the work of those pushing it
by continually minimizing objections to it as mere opinion and not
necessarily valid obstructions to its validity.
Sad to say about PBS, but true. Once they had to open it up to
commercial advertisements, we knew it would not be long before such pop
science would creep in. It was very informative, however, once one
gets past the propaganda, about the current state of ST. I think it is
the best model candidate for unifying gravitation with the other forces
because its basis supports my claims that energy is the force which
unifies the others simply because the universe could not exist without
it. Energy distinguishes it from an otherwise "Great Void" which is
claimed to have existed before the BB.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
27 Dec 2004 03:26:38 PM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104169056.857867.72740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I saw the PBS "documentaries" and could easily see through the
consistent attempts to legitimize ST and the work of those pushing
it
by continually minimizing objections to it as mere opinion and not
necessarily valid obstructions to its validity.
Sad to say about PBS, but true. Once they had to open it up to
commercial advertisements, we knew it would not be long before such
pop
science would creep in. It was very informative, however, once one
gets past the propaganda, about the current state of ST. I think it
is
the best model candidate for unifying gravitation with the other
forces
because its basis supports my claims that energy is the force which
unifies the others simply because the universe could not exist
without
it. Energy distinguishes it from an otherwise "Great Void" which is
claimed to have existed before the BB.
Considering the fact that gravitational potential energy is negative,
there is a distinct possibioity that the total energy of the Universe
is in fact zero.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
27 Dec 2004 01:37:15 AM |
|
|
String theory is like a blank slate.
You can project any math on it you like.
Can you call that a working theory?
I mean really?
I would say the entire theory is fudge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
27 Dec 2004 12:00:36 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104133035.286156.150290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
String theory is like a blank slate.
You can project any math on it you like.
Can you call that a working theory?
I mean really?
I would say the entire theory is fudge.
It is possible that you could be right.
It is a certainty, however, that you are not in a position to
criticise the work of string theorists
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The acceptance of string theory |
27 Dec 2004 08:44:22 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104133035.286156.150290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
String theory is like a blank slate.
You can project any math on it you like.
Can you call that a working theory?
I mean really?
I would say the entire theory is fudge.
It is possible that you could be right.
It is a certainty, however, that you are not in a position to
criticise the work of string theorists
Franz
I know what I see.
Who are to judge franz?
You are low as they come.
You actually think that you are somebody.
Guess what franz? I know I am nobody.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
