• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for String Theory!!

T'ai Chi

Penultimate Amazing
T
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
11,219
So, anybody got any?

Seems to be more philosophical than anything, at least at the moment.

10, 11, or whatever dimensions. Fine, I'll say that 4 exist, so provide us even a shred of evidence (other than making the mathematics work out nice) that any extra ones exist in reality.

They should apply for the JREF prize. ;)
 
Re: Re: Evidence for String Theory!!

CFLarsen said:

Why? Are there any claims that this is paranormal?
Click to expand...

Do you consciously avoid interpreting the wink faces (ie. ;) ) or something?
 
There isn't much; string theorists are the first to admit that. However, that's not say that the theory is untestable.

There are some experiments which should be completed in the next few years which will start to provide proper evidence either for or against string theory, in its various forms.
 
Re: Re: Re: Evidence for String Theory!!

T'ai Chi said:
Do you consciously avoid interpreting the wink faces (ie. ;) ) or something?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I just don't see the relevance.

What have you done to find evidence yourself?
 
iain said:
There isn't much; string theorists are the first to admit that. However, that's not say that the theory is untestable.

There are some experiments which should be completed in the next few years which will start to provide proper evidence either for or against string theory, in its various forms.
Click to expand...
Well, I think its safe to say I have no working knowledge of Quantum Mechanics or much physics beyond the highschool level, but...

Is it possible to revise General Relativity in a way to describe the universe just as well as String Theory, but without all those extraneous spatial dimensions?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence for String Theory!!

CFLarsen said:

What have you done to find evidence yourself?
Click to expand...

What have you done?

I'm not a string theorist or a physicist, so how the he** should I know where to start? .. except by asking them or their supporters for evidence.
 
Didn't we talk about this before? String theory does make some testable predictions. I would believe that is good enough to be considered science.

How would you justify Einstein working on relativity or past research in black holes if you dismiss them just because there was no evidence backing them. I am no physicist but I'm willing to guess that "making the mathematics work out nice" is a justifiable way to work on a project.
 
String Theory is a model for generating predictions about the way energy particles behave. But it is like any other theory , it is the predictions that it makes which will decide it's usefullness.

The mathematics of string theory are quite mind boggling, and so at this point the theory is likely to remain theoretical for quite a while.

I would say that it is like relatibity in that it is a theory based model. It is trying to generate a model for the behavior of energy particles, that is not based upon observation. If they could sort through the huge number of ways that strings can potential manifest themselves, then they could begin to really winnow the theory. If I recall it has some thing to do with the Calabai-Yau mathematics of how potential strings would actualy manifest as vibrational harmonies, and there are literaly millions to sift through to decide which might be useful.
 
Re: Re: Re: Evidence for String Theory!!

T'ai Chi said:


Do you consciously avoid interpreting the wink faces (ie. ;) ) or something?
Click to expand...
Tr'oll,

We've just become innurred by your persistent use of smilies as a pre-emptive defense for any tr'olling post whose claims or insinuations you know you'll need to back away from. I'm sure, of course, you think the maneuver clever and unassailable. However, it is a variation on poisoning the well, and is a logical fallacy. JREF readers will, of course, be utterly shocked to hear that you are engaging in a fallacious ploy. Shocked, I tell you.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence for String Theory!!

BillHoyt said:

Tr'oll,

We've just become innurred by your persistent use of smilies as a pre-emptive defense for any tr'olling post whose claims or insinuations you know you'll need to back away from. I'm sure, of course, you think the maneuver clever and unassailable. However, it is a variation on poisoning the well, and is a logical fallacy. JREF readers will, of course, be utterly shocked to hear that you are engaging in a fallacious ploy. Shocked, I tell you.
Click to expand...

No mud please. I'm looking for evidence for string theory. You're welcome to post it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence for String Theory!!

T'ai Chi said:
What have you done?
Click to expand...

Is it impossible for you to refrain from trying to shift the blame to me? Where did I express a wish to know the evidence for/against string theory?

T'ai Chi said:
I'm not a string theorist or a physicist, so how the he** should I know where to start? .. except by asking them or their supporters for evidence.
Click to expand...

Google. "String theory". Or, even better, try the universities. Go to your book store. Library.

There is a life outside JREF, you know....
 
He has a point. I doubt many of us here can make any authoritative statement about the correctness of "String" or "M" theory. I know I can't.
I read "The Elegant Universe" and understood perhaps 5% of it.
Many of us get our scientific "knowledge" from similar popularisations. They make sexier reading than basic mechanics or structural science texts.
As a result, we may think (or even convince others) that we know more than we do.

I take the work of many advanced scientists on trust. I trust the peer review system and the essential integrity of those involved.
Some folks feel the same about PSI / ESP researchers.
Some folks feel that way about the College of Cardinals.

Where we choose to draw our sceptical line varies. We must be able to rationally defend our choice. That's about the best most of us can do.

I do wonder if Tai Chi, or any of us could recognise solid evidence for string theory if he saw it, or would he still be obliged to take it on trust that the experimentalists are not lying? I suspect not. This is not an ideal state of affairs, but some things are just very hard to understand.
 
I watched that two-part PBS series on string theory, and it was the consensus of physicists that there was no observable evidence at this time.
The proposed "strings" are of an order of magnitude so much smaller than individual atoms or even subatomic particles that we'd need an entirely new toolset to do so.

Hawking said we'd need a particle accellerator equivalent to the Earth's orbit to generate sufficient energy for such observations.

At present, we have mathmatical models (and I too, am math-challenged) that seem to agree with observed phenomenon.

Some of the "mainstream" physicists interviewed in the PBS segment were quite dismissive of the idea, at least at this point.
 
hammegk said:

As doubtful as your ability to even attempt a substantive reply?
Click to expand...
I give substantive replies to honest questions. I give substantive replies to topics not raised disingenuously. This thread is a troll by a tr'oll who, like you, wastes times hiding behind the failure to state fallacy. And who, like you, when he gets out from behind the safety of that quack-quack blind usually finds a mess of loose feathers, his wings severely singed, and buckshot holes in his right flank. But do quack on.
 
I give you credit for possession of the most over-developed ego I've seen in action.
 
Yahweh said:
Is it possible to revise General Relativity in a way to describe the universe just as well as String Theory, but without all those extraneous spatial dimensions?
Click to expand...
If anyone could manage to reconcile General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, they would immediately win just about all of the major science awards that exist and be hailed as the greatest genius since Newton and Einstein.

I don't claim to understand either String Theory or quantum mechanics well enough to speak authoritatively, but my impression is that the "extra" dimensions are necessary because the vibrational patterns in systems of lower dimensions aren't complex enough to model the forces of the physical world.

So no, there's no known way to do what you're asking.

[edit] Quick question to knowledgeable posters: what exactly is a tr'oll? I'm familiar with 'trolls', but this is a new term for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom