Skip to comments.Is string theory in trouble?
Posted on 12/18/2005 5:46:34 AM PST by samtheman
click here to read article
I've been doing reasearch for my doctoral on g-string theory. Now, if I can just find a school which offers that as a major...
According to my paycheck, inflation is bad.
John Kerry won the election in some alternate universe! Scary ;^)
bump for later
Why do we have to go that route? We still aren't certain that the universe collapses are we? And if it does and recreates forever then the universe we see today would be inevitable.
Have you checked the University of Phoenix, they seem to have a Major for everything.
Careful, that could lead to the conversion of singularity.
You are behind times..Kids in Middle School now meet that as standard requirements, no "doctor" required. Called self help lab.
It gets down to semantics. If you look at the bubble of stars we can see with our telescopes and call that "the universe", but consider there are other bubbles out there that we can't see, and call the whole collection of bubbles "the cosmos" (which I think is the way Alan Guth does it), then you get the idea. Other word-choices could be made to get the same idea across.
We still aren't certain that the universe collapses are we?Not certain, but things are looking bad for the Big Crunch. Our expansion rate appears (recent observations) too high, and with the cosmological constant (that Einstein himself predicted and then rejected but which now turns out to be there) it will be harder than ever for the measured mass to pull itself all together again.
Ping for when I'm smart.
LOL, when i am smart too buudy!
I'm convinced that string theory is nothing more than high-fallutin' BS invented by stoned graduate students.
"In any case, am pretty mystified by all these abstract goings-on in the physics world nowadays."
Me, too. I think there's a lot of BS out there now that serves merely to keep people publishing and hence their jobs. I'm going to laugh when the LHC fails to find extra spatial dimensions.
Doesn't the casimir effect prove a non-zero "cosmological constant"?
It's seldom "truth." It's theory which fits all known data. If the data changes, the theory is modified or a new theory is advanced.
Newtonian physics works just fine for many things. But it doesn't take in account the effects of relativity.
In some segment of the multiverse there's undoubtedly a "g-string university".
That is a cosmological battle - Big Crunch or Cold Empty Universe. In other words, will the Universe end in fire or ice (metaphorically speaking). Data suggests that (based on our current thinking), the universe will gradually drift away into nothingness.
Which reminds me of the Robert Frost poem:
Some say the world will end in ice,
some say it will end in fire,
And having tasted desire,
I hold with those who say fire.
Have you checked the University of Phoenix, they seem to have a Major for everything.
Little Rock, AR has a vast amount of information on file with respect to everything related to this subject ... in the Clinton Library.
In an infinite number of universes, surely there is one with flying monkeys!I can't get my head around infinity. I prefer to speculate (and all of this is in the realm of speculation) on the possibility of a large but finite number of other bubbles and also prefer to think of us and our monkeys (flying or otherwise) as unique in all the cosmos. But that's just my particular fancy and means nothing.
What is interesting is that people who "know better" (that is, those who can do the math) are speculating along the lines of this article.
the argument that we find the universe improbably friendly to life because we are alive in this universe is neither an explanation nor an argument, but merely begs the question.You are right. It's not an argument, or an explanation. It is a speculation. And to my mind, an interesting one. Frankly, more interesting than the supposition that a book written by the scholary members of a nomadic desert tribe a few thousand years ago actually specifies the dynamics of the universe.
To my mind (and I'm not trying to win an argument, merely justify my own speculations), it makes more sense to toy with ideas of alternate big-bangs (in which some get the physical constants "right for life" and others don't), than to believe that a book written at the dawn of mankinds erudition correctly lists the technical specifications of our cosmos.
What would differ in those "anomolous" patches? Would they not conform to the same physical laws that govern this "patch?" Are we supposed to believe that Relativity extends to the very fabric of reality, and that Truth itself varies from locale to locale?
Would an intelligent observer from Tau Ceti IX see a universe governed by different laws, arising from completely different origins? Can we no longer rely on the assumption that certain values are immutable and universal?
Intriguing, but I suspect more of a parlor exercise than a physical reality.
Steady State (or any pop theory amounting to such) is an elegant mathematical way to commit the logical fallacy of "begging the question" by not addressing: What was the First Cause?
Remember: Nothing creates itself.
Remember: There is no such thing as infinity.
Q.E.D., Kalam Cosmological Argument, q.v.
That has to be the funniest ping I've seen!
It's like trying to reconcile where the interior of your house came from (if it's all you've ever known) if you have no understanding of anything outside your house.
Post this picture with your
Research Assistant ad.
Shall we go after the M-theory and trash the string theory?
I'm a frayed knot
Not certain, but things are looking bad for the Big Crunch. Our expansion rate appears (recent observations) too high,
I thought a couple of years ago scientists were puzzled by measurements that the expansion of the universe was speeding up, accelerating. This flew in the face of gravity which should decelerate the rate. I have not heard any contrary reports since. I'd settle for an answer on the driving force behind this acceleration as more useful than wondering if the universe is antropical.
Seems true. Nice turn of phrase, too. In my falsificationist persona, I suppose I am one of them.
I don't know that this is a straightforward Shroedinger case, but it does pose some intriguing questions.
A 'multiverse' in which every possibility happens blows Hell out of the experimental method, though.
the experimental method still works for events inside our universe, which are the only events we can see or test anyway
like i said, this is speculation, but i personally find it interesting.
Is string theory in trouble?Excellent.I'm a frayed knot
I thought a couple of years ago scientists were puzzled by measurements that the expansion of the universe was speeding up, accelerating.That's the way I understand it. It turns out Einstein was right when he predicted a cosmological constant. Even though later he back-tracked and called it "my greatest mistake".
How is the belief in alternate universes different than the belief in a deity?
The 'saddle' theory rings a bell, though. Make it a saddle that saddles the bottom and sides of the horse as well and you have a torus-like structure -- the old jelly donut theory.
Just watched the DVD Nova series on "The Elegant Universe" the other night. Very colorful and thought it presented some great models.
I can't add anything here, just making an observation.
I think space and matter only defines two aspects of the universe. Add time and you have a tri-universe, each aspect directly related and an emanation of the other.
So add them up and what do you get? Space + Matter + Time = 3 separate but unrelated units.
But multiplied, as Space x Matter x Time = the entire volume = 1 triuniverse.
> Is string theory in trouble?
It always had been hanging by a thread.
Cosmology theories have changed radically more than once
during my lifetime, and may do so several times more.
My, these physicists are full of themselves, aren't they? Somebody's pet mathematical model is in trouble, and that changes the very nature of science.
Only it doesn't. The nature of science is to destroy models like string theory. That is how progress is made.
What's more, the demise of string theory will have no repercussions at all outside a few esoteric realms of physics. Chemists, biologists, geologists, and engineers won't even notice it is gone.
"But in my heart of hearts, I just don't believe that life could exist in the interior of a star, for instance, or in a black hole. "
It doesn't seem likely to me, either, yet life has been discovered on earth in places that a few years ago would have seemed inhospitable, like undersea sulfurous volcanic vents, antarctic ice.
So I wouldn't rule out other places in the universe. We learn more surprising and amazing stuff every day.
On a slightly related note, I've wondered if at the most basic level we have just zeros and ones. In other words, maybe matter/energy exists in just on/off or left/right or whatever 2 states. Maybe all the subatomic particles reduce to 2 opposite choices at the lowest level. This idea appeals to me as a mathematician/programmer. Occam's Razor?
I would tend to agree but for a slightly different reason. If there are no other universes, that would tend to suggest that the event that created this universe was a one time event in all of eternity. It just doesn't have the right feel. The concept of eternity itself suggests that all things are possible and in some sense a concurrent reality.
multi-echo ping.. from a house of mirrors..