String theory

Zukustious

I haven't heard much about String theory but I've been lead to beleive that it links quantum mechanics and general relativity. I don't know if there are many that are experts on the subject but I would like to hear what people have to say about it.

bonkey

Check out the following book :

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (by Brian Greene)

I thought it was an excellent read, and discussed the stuff really well.

Altnernately, do a search on that title/author in the science forum. I know Ive mentioned it before on discussions about String Theory.

jc

davej

Apparently researchers are abandoning string theory in droves at the moment. The major proponents (Witten et al) have quietly dropped their String theory work. . . .

Still I've read "The Elegant Universe" and it is indeed an excellent read.

davej

silverside

well i'm no expert either but find it interesting: some have called it just a branch of recreational maths - as it's hard to find experiments to prove or disprove any of it.

Read Hyperspace by Micho Kaku (sp?) its a good introduction.

bonkey

Originally posted by davej
Apparently researchers are abandoning string theory in droves at the moment. The major proponents (Witten et al) have quietly dropped their String theory work. . . .

My understanding of that is that its more related to semi-plitical, semi-career issues, rather than the hard science.

When string theory arrived, it offered a tantalising possibility of a solution to the good ol' Quantuum Gravity problem. Well - not really a soluition, but rather a different way of looking at the problem which offered potential.

Unfortunately, in our contemporary "right here, right now" mindset, because a decade or two of serious research has failed to catapult the theory over its long-established rivals, there are many who are beginning to knock its potential. Personally, I think the critique is unmerited, given the lack of time, but to a degree it is correct - there was a disproportionately large amount of research as everyone raced to be the first. Now that it looks like it may be a useful theory someday, but not for a long time, people are thinking that it may be better to throw the research grants into a less radical area with a better chance of "producing" something new and useable.

Similarly, researchers are seeing that they can continue with what is increasingly being billed as a dead-end, thus seriously putting their future career prospects at risk by being considered a fringe or creackpot researcher, rather than a mainstream one.

Some are doing so because they are disillusioned, or because they have lost interest, or even decided that it is indeed a dead end. Others are dropping it because it is becoming too much of a bete noir for them to continue without risking their careers.

While I think a scaling back of research is a smart move (there was definitely too much being spent on what is really only a possible avenue), I would hope that the current loss of interest is more a "renormalisation" of research distribution rather than an abandonment of a fledgling field.

jc

ecksor

A recent issue of New Scientist had an interview with a Portuquese researcher in Imperial College who had an interesting argument on why string theory wasn't worth bothering with (basically they can't test it, so what bloody good is it?).

Can't find the article online.

Stark

Can't test it, or doesn't provide useful results? Theories like string theory are only models, we don't need to prove that the base units actually look like strings, just that the results are useful.

ecksor

Test as in test by experiment. I don't see what you're getting at with your question. How do you know that the results of the model are useful if they don't predict an observable outcome in an experiment?

I'm aware of what a physical theory signifies.