String Theory: Right or Wrong?

[Guille]

If there is anybody in favor, that agrees, and supports string theory, m-theory or whatever is it's actual name, please state it.

There is one thing I agree with string theory: fundamental particles aren't and can't be zero-dimensional. Although I don't believe them to be 1 dimensioal either. But it is nearer to my n of dimensions of fundamental particles (always talking about fermions, not bosons).

[subversion]

May the force be with you Sub.

thanks Guilleus Maximus, that really means a lot to me. You got 800 posts?!?! Man you're freaking crazy.

Force be also with you.

[Guille]

thanks Guilleus Maximus, that really means a lot to me. You got 800 posts?!?! Man you're freaking crazy.

Force be also with you.

I am Imperatum Caesar Guilleus maximus postimus (815 already), which means that I AM THE FORCE.

Do you think that string theory is correct about 1 dimensional fundamental particles?

[Juan R.]

Is it true that particles can't zero dimensional?

Now, I am not sure. Some comments.

1) The idea of extended particles is really old. It is before the development of quantum mechanics. However, all models of extended electrons were show to be inconsistent (appear unphysical forces). String theory simply copied those ideas.

2) The idea of extended particles could be done (i unknow if one can obtain a consistent theory) from others theories without appeal to 6 or 7 dimensions. For example in LQG there is a quantum of volume, perhaps particles are in that quantum of volume.

3) As said in several ocassiona that says Brian Greene in his Elegant universe book is not true. It is a book for obtaining attention and funding of research and lack of explain things really. For example, the "classical" idea of that pointlike particles does not exist and only extended object exist is false. String theory was substituted by brane theory and M-theory. In brane theory there is lot of objects of multiple dimensions, including pointlike objects!!! In fact the pointlike objects play a increasing role in the theory. Nobody know that M-theory is still, but there are some proposals. The best known in (M)atrix formulation, what claim that Last theory of Nature is a theory of D0-branes. D0-branes are pointlike particles. In fact, the computation of entropy of Black holes that Greene talk in his book was done thanks to brane theory thecniques, not from original string theory. The name of string theory is left by "marketing" purposes.

Therefore the history of "string" theory is:

- Pointlike particles cannot exist. Are an approximation of an unidimensional string (70s). A graviton is one of the modes of vibration of an unidimensional string.

- The string is not fundamental, there are objects with more dimensions (e.g. membranes) and with less ones (particle-like) (80s).

- String lose importance. In M-theory, the fundamental object are the D0-branes. Universe may be a collection of D0-branes (Banks hypotesis). The graviton is obtained from theory of D0-branes (90s).

One can see that discourse of "string" theorists is decade dependent. Now many of them begin to admit that perhaps all of this stuff is a waste of time.

[mkirkpatrick]

There was a recent film on tv regard string theory,the way it was presented and packaged
looked really convincing,is it the way it really is?Probally not! But it seemed so elegant?



regards michael.

[dipayankar]

String Theory can never be proven. It is a very cosmetic theory. Look good, but of no use. It has not acheived anything till now. It has only complicated things. The universe is not so complex. It should be much more simpler than what String Theory projects..

ok, this is the final discussion to understand the position of athe members of the forum about string theory.

Do you agree with it or disagree? Why? In what?

Do you think that generally string theory is right or wrong? why?


I hope that from this thread we can get a general position as web page forum in regaridng the theory.

[PROFET]

i believe that experience has tought us objects with three dimensions, no matter how much we divide them, at watever scale, will have 3 dimensions.

this is just a vague thought, but think about it, when does a 3 dimensional object cut down to one, how do we find that exact cut, does it exist at all?

[RascalPuff]

It's wrong because numbers and equations are not reality. The tonnage per string is preposterous. Dimensions have definitional geometric requirements per dimension - where are eleven of them coming from; based on what ST premise? String theory is based on non metric mathematics. It's an insult to (fading) scientific method, especially considering the fact that it's been around for three decades. (Incidentally, Prof. Hawking just did a 180o on black holes, as of 2004.) Refer

[RascalPuff]

It's wrong because numbers and equations are not reality. The tonnage per string is preposterous. Dimensions have definitional geometric requirements per dimension, four are popularly recognised for a century - where are eleven (and more) of them coming from; based on what standard theoretical premise? String theory is based on non metric mathematics for which there is no established counterpart. It's an insult to (fading) scientific method, especially considering the fact that it's been around for three decades. (Incidentally, Prof. Hawking just did a 180o turn-around on black holes, as of 2004 - an allegory phenomenon I have publicly questioned since its outset. A phenomenon which took the quasi hysterical foreground of scientific and lay controversy for three decades; superimposing and otherwise displaceing a host of worthy subjects and discussions. Refer http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...ack+holes+2004 (or Google: 'Hawking black holes 2004').

IMHO, SuperString controversy is of the same, singing & dancing, hip-hopping genre as black holes. Science is rapidly and measurably becoming a Hollywood stylized heat sink. Re: The Inelegant Universe http://geocities.com/mileswmathis/string.html
SuperStrings - an example of an idea become a hypothesis, promoted to a theory. 'Super String Theory' is a popularly parroted non sequitur. And yes, like the in situ big bang (pinata thrashing) hypothesis, it certainly does have its adament army of defenders.
Summary: There doesn't seem to be any SuperStrings, or black holes, and, the big bang 'theory' continues to prove itself an unworthy hypothesis.

[mkirkpatrick]

It is an interesting idea,that become a theory,gained fair merit,then lost it again,well then,
back to the drawing board then chaps?




regards michael.