 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / June 2005No Strings?? percentage of possibility
How many percentage do you believe strings could really exist and string theory be right?? Is it possible there are no strings. If so. How do you explain all the mathematical elegance.. like how the equations spontaneously produce the gravitons or how all the equations and subsets can be solved by assuming certain dimensions that others have independently calculated. For Mathematicians. Is there a principle that can explain all the coincidences (in case the strings are just illusions)?? Remember back in 1925 to 1926 when Matrix Mechanics, Wave Mechanics and Quantum Algebra were produced independently by Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Dirac (respectively) and they are all compatible in the end because they describe something that has basis in reality... Quantum Mechanics. Could M-theory be in similar situation?? If you believe strings won't be found and no basis in reality. Pls. explain all the mathematical elegance of s tring theory and what produce all the coincidences. This is the sole reason I'm starting to have faith in M-theory as the TOE. Any mathematicians here familiar with M-theory who knows the reasons for all the coincidences in case it is just illusion in the end? p6 > How many percentage do you believe strings could really > exist and string theory be right?? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > is the sole reason I'm starting to have faith in M-theory > as the TOE. What elegance? It's plug ugly. What coincidences? It derives nothing. > > How many percentage do you believe strings could really > > exist and string theory be right?? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > What elegance? It's plug ugly. What coincidences? It derives nothing. Try to see thru the eyes of Witten and all those "ugly patterns" will be a thing of beauty and symmetry. The question is. Could it be all just a mathematical effect or illusions without any basis in reality? p6 >>>How many percentage do you believe strings could really >>>exist and string theory be right?? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > The question is. Could it be all just a mathematical effect or > illusions without any basis in reality? What don't you get? It has no basis in reality. It derives nothing and makes no testable predicitions. > How many percentage do you believe strings could really > exist and string theory be right?? How can it be "right" sans empirically falsifiable predictions ? [Old Man] > p6 p6: >How many percentage do you believe strings could really >exist and string theory be right?? String theory could really be right. It could also really be wrong, although it's unlikely that it could be totally wrong given that it contains everything from quantum field theory to the kitchen sink. >Is it possible there are no strings. Well, let's see. No one has ever observed strings experimentally, nor has anyone ever done an experiment verifying a prediction unique to string theory, so would you conclude that the existence of strings is an inevitable consequence of the data due to the elegance of the theory? >If so. How do you explain all the mathematical elegance.. like how The same way I explain all mathematical elegance: as elegant mathematics. In some cases it appears that the elegant mathematics leads to elegant physics. Is there some connection here that requires the existence of physics that corresponds to some notion of elegant mathematics? >the equations spontaneously produce the gravitons or how all the >equations and subsets can be solved by assuming certain dimensions >that others have independently calculated. For Mathematicians. Is >there a principle that can explain all the coincidences (in case >the strings are just illusions)?? You'll have to wait until my nobel prize speech in which I point out why all of physics was obvious to the pythagoras had he not been so caught up pondering triangles. >Remember back in 1925 to 1926 when Matrix Mechanics, Wave Mechanics >and Quantum Algebra were produced independently by Heisenberg, >Schrodinger, and Dirac (respectively) and they are all compatible >in the end because they describe something that has basis in reality... >Quantum Mechanics. No, in the end whatever they discovered independently was due to not realizing that the mathematics they used was just different ways of saying the same thing. A great deal of time could have been saved if everyone knew what was going on before encountering any puzzling phenomena. >Could M-theory be in similar situation?? If you believe strings won't be >found and no basis in reality. Pls. explain all the mathematical elegance >of s tring theory and what produce all the coincidences. This is the sole >reason I'm starting to have faith in M-theory as the TOE. To make sure we're on the same page, read both volumes of ``Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians,'' which develops some of the concepts needed to form an opinion about the subject based on more than a hunch. What I take from string theory is internal structure of particles. That insight alone is valuable. | How many percentage do you believe strings could really | exist and string theory be right?? IMHO, some kind of string theory should exist that matches nature. Simple. Take a point-like object and have it be massless or possibly even just very near to massless and have it go in a circular-like motion at c. You then have a string. That being the case however, then the point-like object is really more fundamental than the string. Could the point-like object just be a smaller string? You betcha! ;-) FrediFizzx |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.