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.

[C19fan]

As a FYI, Brian Greene is a very prominent String Theorist.

[Steely Tom]

No more twenty-six dimensional space? I’m heartbroken.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

The null terminator is about to be lost on string theory.

[verga]

Link not working for me.

[InterceptPoint]

Gotta run. Gotta read later. Brian Greene is always interesting.

[Sgt_Schultze]

What! String theory deniers?
The science is settled, so say the models.
Eliminate the heretics!

[DesScorp]

Try this one: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/

[kosciusko51]

I've posted this before, but it is still appropriate:

From Amazon (emphasis added):

"In this illuminating book, the renowned theoretical physicist Lee Smolin argues that fundamental physics -- the search for the laws of nature -- losing its way. Ambitious ideas about extra dimensions, exotic particles, multiple universes, and strings have captured the public’s imagination -- and the imagination of experts. But these ideas have not been tested experimentally, and some, like string theory, seem to offer no possibility of being tested. Yet these speculations dominate the field, attracting the best talent and much of the funding and creating a climate in which emerging physicists are often penalized for pursuing other avenues. As Smolin points out, the situation threatens to impede the very progress of science. With clarity, passion, and authority, Smolin offers an unblinking assessment of the troubles that face modern physics -- and an encouraging view of where the search for the next big idea may lead."

I should point out that some of Smolin's conjectures on fundamental physics have their own problems.

[Larry Lucido]

If there are no tiny strings, how do they make those tiny violins?

[Sgt_Schultze]

“Testable” and “repeatable” are two tenants of the scientific method that modern grant-driven research discards at its convenience.

[kosciusko51]

Yeah, that is one of Smolin’s points as well. Also, the fact that it is hard to get funding in theoretical physics if it doesn’t relate to string theory.

[blueunicorn6]

I have come up with CAT THEORY. I believe that everything is explained by tiny cats chasing those tiny strings. Well, it makes sense after three bourbons.

[fso301]

I began learning the mathematical underpinnings of string theory during an intense period in the spring and summer of 1985. I wasn’t alone. Graduate students and seasoned faculty alike got swept up in the potential of string theory to be what some were calling the “final theory” or the “theory of everything.”

35-40 years ago is about right for this theory. Scientific progress is measured one funeral at a time.

[circlecity]

"“Testable” and “repeatable” are two tenants of the scientific method that modern grant-driven research discards at its convenience."

Not to mention predictability.

[Beowulf9]

To me it seems the article doesn’t say the theory is wrong but so far unproveable.

[babygene]

“Try this one:”

Server not found

Firefox can’t find the server at www.smithsonianmag.com.

Check the address for typing errors such as ww.example.com instead of www.example.com
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer’s network connection.
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

[Grampa Dave]

Sheldon may have given up on the string theory. :)

[Gritty-Kitty]

A string sees a sign outside a bar that says “No Strings Allowed”. So he unravels his ends and ties himself in the middle. He walks in and the bartender says, “Are you a string?”. He replies, “No, I’m a frayed knot.”

[carjic]

For later