string theory...why do we need the whole shebang?

[gnostic]

String Theory, Superstring Theory, M-Theory, Super-symmetry.

These are the theoretical physics in recent years that were meant build a bridge between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The purpose of String Theory the older theories with a-theory-for-everything.

I'm not a physicist, although I do have a background in physics due to my 2 courses - in first, civil engineering, and later in computer science - I still find it fascinating to read physics, like new discoveries, and even reading theoretical physics, like the variants of String Theory. I read and learn a number of different fields of science (like String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, etc) over the last 10 years, in my own free time.

But each new variant of String Theory has become even more complex than either of these two competing theories (Relativity and QM) put together, that none of these new theories has been tested and verified.

But the questions are -

1. Do we need String Theory (or any one of these variant strains of String Theory)?
2. Why do we need a theory for everything in one neat package? (String Theory is anything but neat. It seemed even more overly complex than just Quantum Mechanics by itself).
3. Why not just accept that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will never be successfully combined into one?

 

[Meow Mix]

String Theory, Superstring Theory, M-Theory, Super-symmetry.

These are the theoretical physics in recent years that were meant build a bridge between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The purpose of String Theory the older theories with a-theory-for-everything.

I'm not a physicist, although I do have a background in physics due to my 2 courses - in first, civil engineering, and later in computer science - I still find it fascinating to read physics, like new discoveries, and even reading theoretical physics, like the variants of String Theory. I read and learn a number of different fields of science (like String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, etc) over the last 10 years, in my own free time.

But each new variant of String Theory has become even more complex than either of these two competing theories (Relativity and QM) put together, that none of these new theories has been tested and verified.


But the questions are -

1. Do we need String Theory (or any one of these variant strains of String Theory)?
2. Why do we need a theory for everything in one neat package? (String Theory is anything but neat. It seemed even more overly complex than just Quantum Mechanics by itself).
3. Why not just accept that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will never be successfully combined into one?

1) Do we need string theory specifically? No. There are alternative approaches to quantum gravity which may or may not even have a dual relationship with string theory (e.g., there is a wider question: are strings fundamental and fields emergent, or are fields fundamental and strings emergent, or is either answer acceptable so long as you remain consistent?)

It's also conjectured that there are some dualities between some string theories and gauge theories, which would be useful if true (i.e. Maldacena conjecture, anti-deSitter/conformal field correspondence). But that certainly isn't a reason to require a string theory as an approach.

String theory was already technically falsified with the discovery that our universe has an accelerated expansion -- as all string theories originally predicted a zero or negative-lambda universe -- and has only been saved by post hoc postulating that higher dimensions are folded in particular topologies called Calibai-Yau manifolds (of which there are about 10^500, and out of which we have no method currently known for determining which, if any, describes the actual cosmos ).

It also hasn't been demonstrated to produce finite answers, contrary to popular science claims. String theory is perturbative, so when we ask it questions we get answers in the form of infinite series. Only the first term is demonstrably finite under all conceivable conditions, the second and third terms are demonstrably finite under MANY conditions (but there are some conceivable, though admittedly exotic, conditions where they could blow up), and I haven't heard anything about the rest. Point being: one of string theory's strengths was supposed to be its ability to give defined answers and go where modern physics hasn't been able to go; but that simply hasn't been shown to be the case.

There are reasons to pursue string theory, sure, but it's not everything it's cracked up to be in the popular media by the likes of Kaku, Greene, Susskind, et al.

2) String theory isn't a theory of everything; just a theory of quantum gravity and the standard model.

3) Because something is very very wrong between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and there's no reason why we shouldn't be looking to figure out what that is since we know it's there

 

[gnostic]

2) String theory isn't a theory of everything; just a theory of quantum gravity and the standard model.

That's what some have claimed, as a replacement to both General Relativity and Quantum Physics.

3) Because something is very very wrong between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and there's no reason why we shouldn't be looking to figure out what that is since we know it's there

Perhaps...

If you're going to view QM at astronomical level, then sure, you will encounter problems with the infinity and forces of QM. And if you're going to view General Relativity at the subatomic level, then there is a pitfall, because at quantum level, everything is less predictable, which make GRers nervous.

Both GR and QM are great, as long as each don't venture out beyond their respective fields. And that's to me, is just fine by me.

But for sure, scientists should try to figure out if they can make the two to meet in the middle, but at this point, I think String theorists are causing new problems. Instead of answering the questions, they adding another 50 questions. And it doesn't help when much of can't be tested beyond their respective mathematical models.

I am more of engineer than a scientist. So I would like to be able to TEST the design, proposal, hypothesis or theory, before constructing the real things. This is why I like experimental physics than theoretical physics...there's nothing to sink my teeth into, except numbers and equations.

I have enough trouble, dealing with 4 dimensions. Why would I want to, deal with 11 dimensions, ie the alternate reality that we cannot possibly test?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

String Theory, Superstring Theory, M-Theory, Super-symmetry.

These are the theoretical physics in recent years that were meant build a bridge between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The purpose of String Theory the older theories with a-theory-for-everything.

I'm not a physicist, although I do have a background in physics due to my 2 courses - in first, civil engineering, and later in computer science - I still find it fascinating to read physics, like new discoveries, and even reading theoretical physics, like the variants of String Theory. I read and learn a number of different fields of science (like String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, etc) over the last 10 years, in my own free time.

But each new variant of String Theory has become even more complex than either of these two competing theories (Relativity and QM) put together, that none of these new theories has been tested and verified.

But the questions are -

1. Do we need String Theory (or any one of these variant strains of String Theory)?
2. Why do we need a theory for everything in one neat package? (String Theory is anything but neat. It seemed even more overly complex than just Quantum Mechanics by itself).
3. Why not just accept that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will never be successfully combined into one?

1) Technically we don't need most of the science we have now. Its simply its own reason and we like to learn. Knowledge for knowledge sake in many cases. However much of this research ends up with real world applications that can further and advance our societiies.

There are also other theories though much less imposed in the scientific community.

2) As meow mix said string theory isn't the theory of everything. The closest thing I can think of when you talk about the theory of everything is Unified field theory which is the eventual goal of understanding in physics where we understand the gaps between relativity and quantem mechanics.

3) This goes along with number 2 as well. Its a mystery. We don't know why something is and we are trying to figure it out. There is a reason for the discrepancy and why shouldn't we try to figure it out?

 

[Slapstick]

String Theory, Superstring Theory, M-Theory, Super-symmetry.

These are the theoretical physics in recent years that were meant build a bridge between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The purpose of String Theory the older theories with a-theory-for-everything.

I'm not a physicist, although I do have a background in physics due to my 2 courses - in first, civil engineering, and later in computer science - I still find it fascinating to read physics, like new discoveries, and even reading theoretical physics, like the variants of String Theory. I read and learn a number of different fields of science (like String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, etc) over the last 10 years, in my own free time.

But each new variant of String Theory has become even more complex than either of these two competing theories (Relativity and QM) put together, that none of these new theories has been tested and verified.

But the questions are -

1. Do we need String Theory (or any one of these variant strains of String Theory)?
2. Why do we need a theory for everything in one neat package? (String Theory is anything but neat. It seemed even more overly complex than just Quantum Mechanics by itself).
3. Why not just accept that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will never be successfully combined into one?

I think the standard model is the first piece of the pie when it comes to particle physics. Much like in chemistry you have a complete full blown periodic table. Particle physicist in my opinion have just now scratch the surface and have a lot further to go. With the discovery of the Higgs, they have developed a model that will allow them continue on with their theoretical research in particle physics and conduct more tests and experiments.

 

[fantome profane]

There is a story that Michael Faraday was once asked what practical use electricity would ever have. He replied that he didn't know, but that one day the government would tax it.

It may be hard for us to imagine but when researchers were doing work into electricity and magnetism, and radio waves etc they often were not trying accomplish anything other than trying to understand them. Faraday for example did not see his work on electricity as being a step towards building a laptop computer, or even a lightbulb for that matter.

We can't imagine what might come out of string theory, or super string theory. But that doesn't matter to me. I think the attempt to understand is a worthy pursuit in and of itself. And even if it does not reconcile relativity and QM the attempt may be fruitful in ways we have not yet considered.

 

[PolyHedral]

2) String theory isn't a theory of everything; just a theory of quantum gravity and the standard model.

What? I thought string theory was the silver bullet of physics that sadly had the minor problem of not having produced a testable prediction.

 

[Ouroboros]

What? I thought string theory was the silver bullet of physics that sadly had the minor problem of not having produced a testable prediction.

I believe you were thinking of the shoe string theory. It's a new theory I just came up with. It completely explains everything... except losing single socks in the washing machine, but that's explained by the sock-gnomes. Just saying...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It completely explains everything... except losing single socks in the washing machine

Man, that's the one thing I was really hoping there'd be an explanation for!

 

[Ouroboros]

Man, that's the one thing I was really hoping there'd be an explanation for!

Could it have something to do with Schrodinger's cats? The uncertainty principle of socks. That's what we're really are talking about!