Wow, did I come up with the only one. I just would have thought there would have been more from the way Smolin talks. I'll make note that you know of only one also.
Strings as in pull the other one.
- Thread starter kaneda
- Start date
I never said the field is shrinking (now). Until/if some evidence is shown, I think it is a pseudoscience with no positive end in sight.
Enough babbling. Quote one piece of real world evidence to show that strings exist.
There isn't any. But as I said, do you think that just because we haven't seen any they don't exist. That logic implies that we've seen everything in the universe which exists. So why bother doing any more experiments?
In 1928 Dirac predicted antimatter. Noone had seen it. A few years later they did. In 1914 Einstein predicted light bending. Noone had seen it. A few years later they did. In 1916 Schwarzchild predicted black holes. Noone had seen them. Decades later we have. In the 70s someone predicted a third family in the Standard Model. Noone has seen it. A few years later they did. In the 60s someone predicted the existence of weak bosons. Noone has seen them. A few years later, they did.
Need I go on? Predictions are about saying something noone has seen before exists. Experiments then try to find it. The LHC will be able to search for things like the Higgs, supersymmetry and extra dimensions. Noone has seen any of them before but people still look.
And I notice you didn't answer my question. Who has left string theory in droves? The people I listed, which you called 'babbling' (so you could ignore it), are still there and they are the people who started it all.
In 1928 Dirac predicted antimatter. Noone had seen it. A few years later they did. In 1914 Einstein predicted light bending. Noone had seen it. A few years later they did. In 1916 Schwarzchild predicted black holes. Noone had seen them. Decades later we have. In the 70s someone predicted a third family in the Standard Model. Noone has seen it. A few years later they did. In the 60s someone predicted the existence of weak bosons. Noone has seen them. A few years later, they did.
Need I go on? Predictions are about saying something noone has seen before exists. Experiments then try to find it. The LHC will be able to search for things like the Higgs, supersymmetry and extra dimensions. Noone has seen any of them before but people still look.
And I notice you didn't answer my question. Who has left string theory in droves? The people I listed, which you called 'babbling' (so you could ignore it), are still there and they are the people who started it all.
AlphaNumeric. That sounds a lot like the kind of argument a creationist would use to show that God MUST exist.
First site I looked at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/oct/08/research.highereducation
String theory: Is it science's ultimate dead end? :bawl: :bawl: :bawl:
First site I looked at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/oct/08/research.highereducation
String theory: Is it science's ultimate dead end? :bawl: :bawl: :bawl:
I doubt many string theorists consider strings must exist. Even for something more more mainstream like the Higgs boson, we all expect it to exist but we've worked out plenty of other things which could happen and considered what we'll do if none of those things happen.
That's what a lot of research in theoretical physics has centred around for the last decade, working out as many possible outcomes of the LHC's experiments as our theories can allow for so that when it produces results we can quickly work out what parameters, particles and effects we're seeing. Assuming it's within our models' abilities to explain.
String theory is, at present, seen as the only viable way to construct a working synthesis of gravity and quantum mechanics. Hence a lot of people work on it. If someone comes up with a better idea, people will gradually shift to that. If someone proves string theory fundamentally inconsistent, we'll move to something else.
At the moment we lack experimental guides on where to go next, our current theories work too well. So until we get more experimental sign posts, we have to go down paths which seem to be the most fruitful.
ANY competitor to string theory suffers from the same problems, it will have no evidence for it, because we have no evidence for 'beyond the standard model' at the moment. We're desperate for it, but we currently don't have it. What else could string theorists be working on? Loop quantum gravity? No evidence for that. Supersymmetry (which has huge cross overs with string theory anyway)? No evidence for that. Extra dimensions (more string theory cross over)? No evidence for them yet.
So come on then Kaneda. If you could outlaw string theory research tomorrow, what would you have theoretical physicists research? It's easy to be a back seat driver.
So rather than listing the people who've been leaving string theory like I've asked twice, you provide a newspaper article, and newspapers are not exactly well known for having their finger on the pulse of science, are they?
Can you please name some of the people who you claim jumped ship from string theory enough for you to think it's a dead end? My 'babbling' proved that plenty of the big names are still there. Why did you ignore that?
It's funny you accuse me of running away from arguments when all you seem to be doing is ignoring the evidence I provide that you're wrong. :shrug:
String theory could be right or it could be wrong, most theoretical physicists believe it's the most promising theory we have to date, and it gives us self-consistent models of quantum gravity. No experiments have yet proven it, because to date we still don't have the technology, and are only just starting to find ways of putting segments of it to the test. Frustration with one's complete lack of knowledge of advanced physics isn't a good excuse for one to dismiss it. Comparing creationism, which falls apart on the arguments of a 6th grader, with string theory, which actually gives a working mathematical description of the universe consistent with proven low energy data, is utterly absurd and, if I may say so, demented.
Hi kaneda. This is a very bold statement indeed!
Now please don't take this the wrong way, but would I be correct if I said you didn't actually know any string theory? I'm not trying to point the finger here, since I know next to nothing about the subject also! But I realize that there are lots of very intelligent physicists out there who seem to think it's an idea worth pursuing.
My point is, to make a claim such as you have, you should have a very good grounding in the very complicated subject that is "String Theory". Don't be fooled into thinking that scientists just sit around saying "ooh, I bet that's made of string...", they work from some basic postulates and figure out tonnes of complicated details. So unless you too have worked through similar details, I don't see how you can be in a position to make the type of claims you have!
Would you think it fair if a blind man were to rubbish the entire works of Picasso? In a sense, this is what you seem to be doing here.
If you'd like to learn a bit about string theory (along with myself and others), head over to this thread and perhaps we could all learn something from these guys! Hey, if we get to understand this stuff and have a good argument for the theory to be fundamentally floored, we could write a decent paper!