Is String Theory About to Unravel?

smithsonianmag.com ^ | Brian Greene

[BenLurkin]

The idea underlying string unification is as simple as it is seductive. Since the early 20th century, nature’s fundamental constituents have been modeled as indivisible particles—the most familiar being electrons, quarks and neutrinos—that can be pictured as infinitesimal dots devoid of internal machinery. String theory challenges this by proposing that at the heart of every particle is a tiny, vibrating string-like filament. And, according to the theory, the differences between one particle and another—their masses, electric charges and, more esoterically, their spin and nuclear properties—all arise from differences in how their internal strings vibrate.

Much as the sonorous tones of a cello arise from the vibrations of the instrument’s strings, the collection of nature’s particles would arise from the vibrations of the tiny filaments described by string theory. The long list of disparate particles that had been revealed over a century of experiments would be recast as harmonious “notes” comprising nature’s score.

Most gratifying, the mathematics revealed that one of these notes had properties precisely matching those of the “graviton,” a hypothetical particle that, according to quantum physics, should carry the force of gravity from one location to another. With this, the worldwide community of theoretical physicists looked up from their calculations. For the first time, gravity and quantum mechanics were playing by the same rules. At least in theory.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Well, Dr. Sheldon Cooper from the Big Bang Theory has given up his research on string theory so that is probably the reason why it’s falling apart....

[arthurus]

The link doesn’t.

[onedoug]

But the mathematics are so compelling. General Relativity and quantum theory unified. If only we could test it.

I’m sticking.

[CrazyIvan]

Do the cats belong to Schrodinger?

[GeronL]

All your cats are belong to Shr..... never mind

[kosciusko51]

Do the cats belong to Schrodinger?

Until you look at them, they do and do not at the same time.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks BenLurkin.

---

· String Theory Ping List ·

---

---

· Join · Bookmark · Topics · Google ·
· View or Post in 'blog · post a topic · subscribe ·

---

[mdmathis6]

You need to “string” yourself up for that joke.

[mdmathis6]

You need to “string” yourself up for that joke.

[blueunicorn6]

Our cat was in a box. I thought she was dead. I went to pick her up. She was just sleeping. I’ll bet Schrodinger never had to have twelve stitches.

[mdmathis6]

So a theory named after what the science has been doing to tax payers...in other words: the practice of “stringing us” along!

[PIF]

http://tdtechnosys.com/boldial/is-string-theory-about-to-unravel/

[cgbg]

Terence McKenna on the Big Bang Theory:

“Give us one free miracle and we can then go from there...”

Another McKenna quote:

“Reality is not only stranger than we suppose, it may be stranger than we can suppose”

[Boogieman]

In physics, it’s worse to be unprovable than it is to be wrong.

[minnesota_bound]

I knew it when Sheldon Cooper gave up on string theory, he realized he has been wasting his time working on it for 20 years

[Trentamj]

Thomas Kuhn, who was both a physicist as well as explainer of the sociological/cultural notion paradigm, would almost certainly better explain what is happening to the physics community better than any of the physicists themselves can. String theory is just the current paradigm or, presently-prevailing dogma from which scientists diverge at the risk of being labeled as either eccentrics, or heretics. Advocates of the String Theory paradigm justify the rigidity of their adherence to it by saying that: "It (String Theory) makes the math (unifying Quantum and Relativity Theories) work." However, all that these highly-educated folks really mean by this argument that they like String Theory because it supports what they fundamentally believe in the first place: That Quantum Theory and the Theory of Relativity can be unified. As a result, these theoretical physicists are ever-trembling on the verge of committing a very fundamental fallacy in logic: Circular Reasoning, or Begging the Question, which involves the error of assuming the conclusion of your reasoning as its first premise.

Now, anyone can prove anything by assuming their desired conclusion as a premise, or logical starting-point; however, the obvious circularity of said reasoning has a way rendering it less than compelling to anyone but, perhaps, the speaker. It has long been my suspicion that the advocates of String Theory have been perfectly aware of this particular deficit in their reasoning. But like the Naked Emperor, these theorists rely on an army of obsequious courtiers, AKA their fellow physicists, to help maintain the pretense that String Theorists are not factually naked in their reasoning, and thereby are not shivering in the winds of absurdity.

[navyguy]

I am soooo strung out on this theory. Lets talk about something with real gravitas, like General Relativity...

[Billthedrill]

Lets talk about something with real gravitas, like General Relativity...

We could discuss Schrodinger. Or not. You won't know which until you click on the thread.

[Mears]

I absolutely LOVE threads like this.

I have no idea what is being discussed.

Keeps me humble.

.

[CodeToad]

String theory was retarded from the beginning. It was a child-like fantasy based on little evidence. Might was well believed in a comic book character.