[LeoK]

Hi

Wondering about String Theory (ST).

1. Isn't the ST dead declared by some US physics institution(s)?

2. Is there some physic observation(s) involved in ST or is it just
a plain theory?

3. Is there any observation(s) that exclusively confirms ST?

4. Why is the explanation of ST so hard so that any standard layman
can't understand it?

LeoK

[Guille]

Originally Posted by LeoK Hi Wondering about String Theory" (ST).

As all of us do. Let me give you my personalñ answers, which although are nto ofical, they are factual:

Originally Posted by LeoK 1. Isn't the ST dead declared by some US physics institution(s)?

I guess so. It's also dead according to most of the members in this webpage. And by all the realists. And by all the physicists that are not biast. And the theory itself declares to be wrong. But still, they can do nothing if some physicists want to carry on with it, not wanting to accep the TRUTH.

Originally Posted by LeoK 2. Is there some physic observation(s) involved in ST or is it just

Originally Posted by LeoK a plain theory?

No observation of strings, of membranes, of vibration.... There are some observations but actually metaphysical: for example: "the strings of musicalinstruments vibrate" therefore "strings (fundamental) vibrate".

Originally Posted by LeoK 3. Is there any observations(s) that exclusively confirms ST?

Definatelly NOT.

Originally Posted by LeoK 4. Why is the explanation of ST so hard so that any standard layman

Originally Posted by LeoK can't understand it?

Because stringists have been abstracting the theory more and more. Actually the theory itself is possible to understand by avarage people, but the math definatelly not.

[SimpleKid18]

The main problemsthat I have with string theory are:
1) They are so small that they can not be seen, so there is no visual evidence of this.
2) There is no explanation of vibrating strings in space, as we do not yet know what space is made up of, as there is no air, liquid, solid or gas.
3) There is no explanation of why the strings vibrate at different frequencies.
And finally, my biggest problem with ST is:
4) Why does it account for everything, yet it does not count for individual things??? e.g The string theroy says that space-time is all connected by the individual strings vibrating at different frequencies, but a 3D image is set aside from the 4D space-time, so I ask: How can a 3D object be moving at a different vibrating frequency from the rest of its environment? Where is the barrier between the two string frequencies? If, for example, an animal moving in space-time will be moving at a different frequency from its surroundings but when the animal grows larger, it is all still vibrating at the same frequency but where do the new strings come from. Can they reproduce? No, they are not biological. We know they are not biological because string theory also incorporates inanimate objects that do not grow e.g. rocks.

What do you think?

[LeoK]

Originally Posted by SimpleKid18 The main problemsthat I have with string theory are: 1) They are so small that they can not be seen, so there is no visual evidence of this. 2) There is no explanation of vibrating strings in space, as we do not yet know what space is made up of, as there is no air, liquid, solid or gas. 3) There is no explanation of why the strings vibrate at different frequencies. And finally, my biggest problem with ST is: 4) Why does it account for everything, yet it does not count for individual things??? e.g The string theroy says that space-time is all connected by the individual strings vibrating at different frequencies, but a 3D image is set aside from the 4D space-time, so I ask: How can a 3D object be moving at a different vibrating frequency from the rest of its environment? Where is the barrier between the two string frequencies? If, for example, an animal moving in space-time will be moving at a different frequency from its surroundings but when the animal grows larger, it is all still vibrating at the same frequency but where do the new strings come from. Can they reproduce? No, they are not biological. We know they are not biological because string theory also incorporates inanimate objects that do not grow e.g. rocks. What do you think?

The second post here mentioned that ST is not realistic.

ST may be right as a theory of physics, but the odds are rather minimal
for to be so.

Discussing theories that are not realistic and Dead declared is also not
realistic for people, try another theory that has better odds, is an advise
from me.

LeoK

[pramodmaths]

." Is there some physic observation(s) involved in ST or is it just
a plain theory?"

" Is there any observation(s) that exclusively confirms ST?"


Till now the theory is not verified through any experiments but the people are expecting that
the theory will be verified by 2008-09 with the good accelarators LHC in CERN

" Why is the explanation of ST so hard so that any standard layman
can't understand it?"

Actually St is very pure in mathematics and it need a lot of knowledge of pure mathematics
for example in Differential Geometry and Functional analysis etc.
which is obvious as if you will try to get a unified theory you have to include gravity.
and as soon as you consider gravity there is curvature due to mass and then euclidien and minkoskion space are not the approprate one and you have to get an idea of doing calculus on manifold i.e. to get a very closer look of curved spaces in a crude sense..................

and mathematics becomes too much hard .