• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

String theory

Ha'kiv

Lieutenant Commander
Never liked the theory at all

Some of their concepts I managed to get through my thick head actually seemed quite appealing, but I've been noticing people pointing out it's actually quite an ugly theory, contrary to what string theorists are claiming. Why don't you like it?
 
String theory is interesting. I've read Brian Green's books, as well as a few dozen other physics books ranging from the extremely pop-sci standards like The Physics of Star Trek, to the deeper and more philosophical types (a la Roger Penrose -- I really enjoyed Emperor's New Mind), and a couple of solidly text-ish books. The truth is that I am a Physics Groupie, though. I am fascinated and awed by it (and always end up talking physics when drunk), I understand it well enough, but that's where my relationship with physics ends: understanding, not inception, not creativity. Like any good groupie, my job is to stand at the sidelines and get hot and bothered, rather than attempt composing the music myself; I may go as far as to strum a few chords, but that's it. So, while I find the theory interesting, I can't give any really concrete or insightful explanation as to whether it's the most brilliant bit of hypothesizing in the field or folly that should send us all running to the loop quantum gravity team.

Right now I am imagining various physicists in "TEAM STRING THEORY" and "TEAM LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY" tee shirts which is kind of awesome.
 
I think I'm more or less in the same position. I think this is also the reason why no one wants to talk to me when I'm drunk. However I doubt I'm even capable of the few chords - yet. I have to stay optimistic about that. I don't want to even form an opinion considering string theory since I don't have anywhere near enough knowledge to do so.
 
^Apparently I give fantastic physics lectures somewhere around the fourth glass of wine. The really funny thing is finding diagrams and graphs scribbled in my planner or on a napkin from some bar in my purse the morning after. My drunken physics lectures require visual aides.
 
Haha :3 Have you seen the movie Primer? I ruined my desk trying to explain it when on mushrooms.
 
^LOL


One of the many reasons I don't play with psychedelics. My art is surreal enough as it is. Or speed for that matter: I can only imagine my gusto trying to explain the AI put fourth in Emperor's New Mind." I'd likely end up building a Turing machine.
 
Or the incorrect use of it.
Also if you haven't seen Primer, I recommend it. I think you would enjoy it.
 
String theory is an active research theory in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.[1] It is a contender for the theory of everything (TOE), a manner of describing the known fundamental forces and matter in a mathematically complete system. The theory has yet to make testable experimental predictions, leading some to claim that it cannot be considered a part of science.

Well.. What do you guys think?

I'll take your word about not producing any testable predictions, yet. I'm pretty sure that statement is true, unless it's changed recently. However, if string theory is true, it does predict a universe that looks remarkably like ours. Of course, you could argue that the theory was retrofitted to match our universe.

However, the point remains, that it could be true and is consistent with our universe. So, I would say that it IS part of science. Further testing is required. But, certainly it has testable hypothesis and research is commencing. So, a bit silly to say it isn't part of science. It's just not highly supported yet.

Mr Awe
 
I copy-pasted the description from Wikipedia, it does not reflect my judgement.
However I believe it's been accused of this because their main predictions aren't testable - it's still not possible to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
 
^^ Oh, it has testable hypothesis for sure. For example, scientists are actively searching for the extra dimensions that it predicts. I think a lot of testable hypothesis are beyond our current technology though. Another example, string theories predict that singularities are different than other theories. Obviously, difficult to test now. So, we might have to wait some. That's why they called it a piece of 21st theory that was dropped in the 20th century.

Mr Awe
 
I think a lot of testable hypothesis are beyond our current technology though.
That's what I meant, yes. They are being very harsh on the lads because of an disadvantage we all share, I suppose. However I've noticed their arguments are too often along the lines of "Well it's simply too beautiful not to be true". On the other hand, critics claim it's actually quite ugly. But I can't judge.

Then again, they accuse them of not being objective, but many theories have been proved because the supporters were being silly and too stubborn to give it up. It would be a lot worse if we let it go, and it turns out to be true.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top