Most people don't know that we haven't ever actually "seen" an atom in any real sense like you see your hand, rather its size and physical design/shape it takes is believed to be what it is simply because it fits a mathematical mold. Fortunately we've even had a chance at testing this design/shape in many instances (ie see the atom bomb).

Any string theorist will tell you there technically is no evidence for string theory. There is no proof that strings exist. Rather its much like that of early "proofs" of the atom - it fits a mathematical mold that makes a bunch of physicist and mathematicians happy cause they feel like they're getting/cutting at the edge of knowledge. The idea that there doing this all the while implicating 'science' in their field to me is rather questionable.

Consider the difference between hypothesizing atoms vs strings.

In order for the string theory to work we have to accept new dimensions. Something like 10-13 they're at now, does anything then 3 (excluding time as a plausible fourth) even make logical sense? Nope, but it helps the math!

Mutliverse, now we have more then one Universe on our hands which completely laughs at the idea of any one day being "testable"

String theory sucks because it doesn't just cause us to accept strings as existant alone in their own right, no in order to even get there we have to invite its friends, unlike the atom of the past it forces us to accept other abstract ideas as well, such as 13 dimensions and other universes, why? Simply so the math can fit. String theory sucks, and it isn't Science.

neither is evolution

ah o God! Lets leave creationism vs evolution out of this please. Thats another subject.

Nor are T-shirts.

String theory has made predictions, we have experiments that will either destroy those predictions, or fullfill them, string theory has come along way.

As far as your comment about atoms, you couldnt be more wrong.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080221153725.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724150342.htm

Now talking about atoms and string theory in the same breath is like talking about a single skin cell on the earth surface, then saying seeing the earth is important when talking about that skin cell. Now if you where referring to quarks and electrons then maybe we are on to something.

Also if you think something has to appeal to your common sense just to be real then you are sadly mistaken.

Does superpositions makes sense to you? This computer you are using makes use of QM, and we have made use of superpositions in cryptography, it works therefor it is . . .


As far as whether string theory sucks or not, I reserve criticisms for when predictions get tested.

Its far better then many other hypothesis becuase it actually does make predictions . . . ever heard of supersymmetry?

It sounds like you have read a little and are skeptical, that is good and healthy, but don't stop now, its just getting good.

Actually supersymmetry is not a prediction of string theory, but rather a requirement for the the theory to be true.

Moreover, there are many theories which can support supersymmetry. Some can take it or leave it.

String theory on the other hand requires it.

So if supersymmetry is discovered to be false, string theory falls.

However, if supersymmetry is discovered to be true, it doesn't prove String Theory.

Personally I don't care whether String Theory is true or not, but there are many things about it that I'm personally not impressed with.

I tend to agree with Lee Smolin's assessment in his book, "The Trouble with Physics".

I think there are many other possiblities that haven't even been though of yet.

In fact, I think if String Theory turns out to be true it would be a really lucky guess.

I could write a book on my view on this, but I'll refrain from doing that here.

Like I say, I don't care one way or the other, but I see a lot of weaknesses in String Theory. And I have better ideas to pursue. But again, that would require the writing of a book which I have no intention of doing on an Internet thread.

So you quote two relatively recent articles (2008). Blah, Lame (I'll admit I haven't kept up to date on the visibility of atoms, but not exactly because it was actually relevant to my point as ill now argue). Seen or not recently was kinda besides the point anyway, the point was more concerned with whether or not they could be identified/seen when they were originally being theorized about. And no it is ok to talk about they're existence in the same breath because I'm doing in a way that is about how to go about hypothesizing they're existence, how far apart they are from each other (or size) in the sense of being 'viewable' is then irrelevant and really just besides the point. I am not arguing they can't exist because of the actions of an atom, I am arguing they don't exist because of how their existence is coming about (bringing along the friends of mutliverse and extra dimensions), so size is again, irrelevant.

As far as your other arguments after this the poster before me here did a pretty good job at refuting them I think. Your predictions take into account other assumptions (extra universes and dimensions) so if they're fulfilled, I could really care less. They use each other to prove each other, all the while neither of them are independently 'testable' (like the weird behavior of quantum mechanics) by any means whatsoever. Its completely pointless "science".

I read that book elegant universe and it talked about string theory and I didnt understand a darn thing. Whats this about lots of universes all rolled up and little things called quantum strings? I have enough issues in this universe and I hate to think there is more me's in other universes with other issues.

atoms are not visible because they are smaller than the wavelength at which we can see stuff. But if you use smaller wavelength detectors like xrays then they can be

Abra thank you for correcting me. I think we all agree on the viability of string theory being in the state of yet to be proven and not really a theory at all, but a self consistent model really (from what I read) but my point stands I will reserve criticism till an experiment can validate it.


Im not into bashing others hard work especially when its not my field and the tools (maths) are that complex, I have alot of respect for the scientist who can work on it. And I feel Edward Witten is undeniably brilliant.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090106145008.htm

It appears advancements are being made.

I was under the impression that string theory was outdated and superceded by an equally useless membrane theory. Our great mathematical minds at work.

for that matter whatever happened to solitons?

Well this is the way I look at it.

There are three things to keep in mind about research like this.

1) They are developing new mathematical methods to explore this idea that is string theory, many times in history we have proposed wrong theories but developed good tools in the processes that end up being extremely important in later correct hypothesis.

2) This kind of pop sci field such as string theory gets people interested in science, many of them will never go into string theory, many will start off wanting to go into string theory but be attracted to different research as they advance in there studies.

3) The technical difficulty of any cutting edge physics may take decades or even centuries to flush out and if we give up or criticize it unduly we may never know the truth.

I think if this topic was titled String theory is not a theory I would have fully agreed and then even supported the topic, but as everyone is sure to know that has seen me post knows that I am a science Fan boy! lol

I didn't mean to sound like I was bashing the men who work on the theory. I think most of them realize that it's a theory of pure mathematics.

Ed Witten is probably more aware of this than anyone.

I actually have a theory about pure mathematics. I really need to publish it.

In any case, my theory suggest that models that are based on pure mathematics may not yeild trustworthy results. The reason being very simply that our pure mathematics is not ontologically correct.

And of course, we have seen many examples in the past where scientific ideas based on pure mathematics have lead us astray in the past.

Like the OP suggested, there is no physical evidence for any more than 3 (or 4) dimensions. The idea that we need all the dimensions of String Theory is entirely a pure mathematical idea.

So from that point of view, String Theory is entirely a GUESS.

That's not meant to bash the men who work on the theory because I'm sure they are all aware that it's just a guess.

In fact, it really should be called "String Guess" instead of "String Theory" because it's truly based more on guesses than on actual evidence.

The problem with pure mathematics is that mathematics is not science. In fact modern mathematics isn't even scientific at all really.



That's a good point, but I think Lee Smolin has good arguments that other fields and ideas should be encouraged also.

I think the concern that many people have is that science is putting all their eggs in one basket with "String Guess".




I don't think we should give up on String Theory, but I do think we should stop acting like as if it's already promising. It's actually not so promising for many reasons.

In fact, many people who are actually working on the theory have said that there are so many solutions to the so-called theory, that it could never be used to make predictions even if true!

In other words, the very solutions to the equations may be infinite!

In fact, that goes in line with my mathematical theory, because what I see String Theorists doing is working in a 'mirror'. They are reflecting pure mathematics back onto itself is what they are actually doing. And you know what happens when you turn to mirrors together. You get an infinte regression of reflections. That's what String Theory will ulimatley lead to, even if true.




I agree.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that String Theory Sucks. I think it has some use even if all it does is get people thinking about mathematics.

Yea I didn't mean to imply you there abra, I know where you stand we are two members of the choir of science!

But I did want to ask you a question. Where did the prediction of the mini black holes come from for the LHC Experiments?

Was that string theory, I have got my wires crossed lately, I seem to remember hearing that there finally may be a testable prediction, do you remember hearing that?

Was it the MBH's?

I haven't been keeping up with science lately and my mind is growing feeble.

So I'm not sure what's going on with the LHC experiments.

However, I can say with certainty that the theory of Mini Black Holes existed long before String Theory.

They were believed to have been created during the Big Bang just using standard physics and GR.

String Theory may have something additional to say about them however. That part I'm not clear on.

One thing that I found quite interesting is that when mini black holes evaporate they explode and the explosions are gargantuan.

In fact, there's a story about this in the opening prolouge of Kip Thorne's book, Black Holes & Time Warps.

the concept of black holes goes back to 1783 - John Michell



strings? strings are just grasping at straws!
but then again all theory is just grasping at straws.

our understanding is limited
no matter how many dimensions

doesn't make the world any less real though...



Go Strings!

All this is nice , but how does it help me find my glasses in the morning?

tie a string to em