Posted on 12/19/2006 10:31:24 PM PST by djf
I recently completed writing a high school/college-level history of physics in the 20th century. It was a great opportunity to catch up on developments in the field.
The biggest surprise turned out to be historical. For the first three-quarters of the century, progress in both theoretical and experimental physics steadily transformed our fundamental understanding of the physical universe. Then a multidimensional mathematical approach called string theory caught fire. To many physicists, it appeared to be the path to their science's holy grail, the "grand unification" of all known forces and fundamental particles into a single theory.
But, instead of continuing the advance of theoretical physics, the rise of string theory began a period filled with tantalizing near-miss formulations that continues until today. That is The Trouble With Physics, according to the title of a new book by Lee Smolin, a onetime physics wunderkind who in mid-career founded the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario.
Smolin hasn't completely given up on string theory but is clearly pessimistic. His central argument is that it is time to start asking whether too many people are putting too much effort following ideas in string theory that seem promising at first but inevitably lead down blind alleys.
Smolin's assessment is downright rosy compared with the critique offered by Columbia University mathematician Peter Woit in Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law. He draws his title from a famous remark by Wolfgang Pauli, who once described a particularly poorly written paper as "not even wrong." A wrong idea can be valuable if it ultimately leads one in a productive direction. String theory is not even wrong, Woit asserts, because each refinement seems to lead physicists further astray.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Luv it!!!
String theory is a 21st century tautology. Logically correct, physically meaningless.
This is a knotty problem
I'd rather KNOT give up on the string theory.
Especially George Noori and Art Bell.
/S
A string was tied up in a knot, and the ends were all raggidy. When asked if he was the answer to the string theory, he replied "I'm a frayed knot".
This thread is going no where.
So where does chaos theory stand?
/watch out for butterflies
The article didn't help me understand the issue, but the witty comments this thread has attracted where well worth the read. Thanks :-)
the concept itself is rather threadbare
Ping & while you're at it, could you add me to your stringy list?
Well, I know little of the theory itself. But I know ABOUT the theory.
Even the skeptics of string theory admit that in a sense it is correct, as a mathematical model.
But it seems there is a disconnect between the theory and physical reality. If we assume the theory is true, the universe goes on. If we assume it is untrue, the universe goes on. It is untestable by any of the current models.
Eddington described the situation and warned that we cannot fall into false knowledge. It is insufficient to describe the universe in terms like "the slithy toves did gyre and gimbel in the wabe"
I need to go back and reread "The Domain of Physical Science".
Where are the pragmatists when you need them?
I think Snoop Dog described it best...... "Shizzle is in da Phajizzile"
I'd read this article in more detail but I'm tied up this morning.
E=mc² (± 3)
LOL!
Or thereabouts!
String theory is where they put the really ugly math.
I don't have the branes to figure it out.
Actually, I probably do, but my work on predicting next weeks lotto numbers will be far more profitable.
My kind of String Theory..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.