It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is There any Evidence for Strings?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
This question scares me? There are so many eminent scientists throughout the world and, I suppose, Physics Institutes claiming considerable funding for investigation of string theory.

People who are logical thinkers demand proof from Governments, religions etc... and rightly so.

However...is there any proof that everything out there is made from vibrating one dimensional strings or that the Universe is on a membrane?

Is there anything tangible and capable of disproving a hypothesis that would justify all the scientific papers published on a daily basis?




posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Basically, no, there is no physical evidence, rather very complex mathematics
that have been checked and added upon over the last 30 years.

Strings are to small to be measurable with any existing technology and indeed with any
technology within the foreseeable future.

However, I should add that the idea of atoms has existed for thousands of years,
though in a more scientific since in the last few centuries or so, but there was no direct
physical evidence of them until the 20th century.
Interestingly enough Ernst Mach, the man that the Mach speed measurement
is named for refused to believe in atoms because he could'nt see them.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Basically, no, there is no physical evidence, rather very complex mathematics
that have been checked and added upon over the last 30 years.

Interestingly enough Ernst Mach, the man that the Mach speed measurement
is named for refused to believe in atoms because he could'nt see them.


I take the point. However, we have advanced to an enormous amount technologically. Is there no indirect evidence then? For example, when people are seen catching a cold after contact with another infected person an inference can be made of the involvement of an infective agent.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I take the point. However, we have advanced to an enormous amount technologically.


That's relative. We've advanced a lot compared to the previous century but our knowledge of the universe is still vastly incomplete. All these theories are only a modest beginning.


Is there no indirect evidence then? For example, when people are seen catching a cold after contact with another infected person an inference can be made of the involvement of an infective agent.


Doubt it. As Iori_komei said all we have is a very elaborate mathematical system that does correspond to the universe we're observing but the physical existance of the strings will not be proven or disproven for a long time from now.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Is there no indirect evidence then? For example, when people are seen catching a cold after contact with another infected person an inference can be made of the involvement of an infective agent.


By Darkside

Doubt it. As Iori_komei said all we have is a very elaborate mathematical system that does correspond to the universe we're observing but the physical existance of the strings will not be proven or disproven for a long time from now.


Darkside, what worries me is that we can spend millions of bucks chasing neutrinos from the sun or looking for superstrings yet people cannot even get proper medical treatment in Western countries. I have worked in research myself and was shocked at the sheer number of 'pure science' projects which were amply funded to 'reveal scientific truths'. There must be balance so that more weighting is ascribed to research that advances the human race... IMHO



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Darkside, what worries me is that we can spend millions of bucks chasing neutrinos from the sun or looking for superstrings yet people cannot even get proper medical treatment in Western countries.


That's a rarity though. Most people are treated and the medical system is modern at least in the parts of Europe I've been to. If they are downrun it's the politics fault not the quantum scientists.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide

That's a rarity though. Most people are treated and the medical system is modern at least in the parts of Europe I've been to. If they are downrun it's the politics fault not the quantum scientists.


I would never blame quantum scientists - I admire their intelligence. However, are they building mountains in the air with string theory? Can the money be allocated at the next round of research grants? In my view yes, some of the money can be redirected to projects which will improve the human condition.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I would never blame quantum scientists - I admire their intelligence. However, are they building mountains in the air with string theory? Can the money be allocated at the next round of research grants? In my view yes, some of the money can be redirected to projects which will improve the human condition.


Let's say that scientists are paid little for their contribution to humanity if you keep in mind how well paid some footballers and celebrities are, which have done absolutely nothing for nobody.

I don't think they are building the string theory on thin air. The mathematical model behind them does fit in with the universe we observe and can predict things meaning it is a valid theory. However if it fails in the long run we will still have taken a step in the right direction because theories lead to other theories.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by DarkSide]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   


Let's say that scientists are paid little for their contribution to humanity if you keep in mind how well paid some footballers and celebrities are, which have done absolutely nothing for nobody.


You and I agree on this point.


I don't think they are building the string theory on thin air. The mathematical model behind them does fit in with the universe we observe and can predict things meaning it is a valid theory. However if it fails in the long run we will still have taken a step in the right direction because theories lead to other theories.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by DarkSide]


Yes Darkside Science is there to improve the boundaries of our knowledge of the Universe. I have no problem with that unless we see the gross inequality even in our 'advanced' cultures. I just wonder if some funds cannot be reallocated to , for example low cost housing schemes, local schemes to regenerate micro-economies etc... I am not anti-science, believe me.

However, can you say, with your hand on heart that you would choose to fund this type of science in favour of schemes in poor neighborhoods that may give some human dignity back to those who live there?

I would not like to make that choice...



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I see where you're coming from. You're wondering why we're funding research on string theory when there are so many other areas that have practical application in todays society.

I just don't agree with it. Maybe i don't care about people that much, or maybe i just care about other things too. I can certainly tell you i don't think we should divert all funds to issues like health care or starvation. There are things that can be done to solve those problems, and more funding isn't the answer. Infact, LESS funding would likely do more. Example, cut government out of health care. Give it to private companies and let the free market sort it out. Same with education. Let private companies compete. You'll find the product is better and likely more attainable. Yes, some people will fall by the wayside. But how is that different from today?

If you want a different perspective, look at it this way. It isn't just the end of the road that matters with regard to all this research you believe is misdirected. The path from point A to B will yield so many other discoveries, and practical applications could arise from there.

Example. Quantum teleportation. If you change one particle here, its properties change in a different location. Right now it's a novelty. In the coming years, more research may lead to something as wild as teleportation. This would change the world in MANY ways for the better.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0


Let's say that scientists are paid little for their contribution to humanity if you keep in mind how well paid some footballers and celebrities are, which have done absolutely nothing for nobody.


You and I agree on this point.


I don't think they are building the string theory on thin air. The mathematical model behind them does fit in with the universe we observe and can predict things meaning it is a valid theory. However if it fails in the long run we will still have taken a step in the right direction because theories lead to other theories.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by DarkSide]


Yes Darkside Science is there to improve the boundaries of our knowledge of the Universe. I have no problem with that unless we see the gross inequality even in our 'advanced' cultures. I just wonder if some funds cannot be reallocated to , for example low cost housing schemes, local schemes to regenerate micro-economies etc... I am not anti-science, believe me.

However, can you say, with your hand on heart that you would choose to fund this type of science in favour of schemes in poor neighborhoods that may give some human dignity back to those who live there?

I would not like to make that choice...



Given enough knowledge of physics, and time invested, we can become for all intents and purposes God. Nothing is free.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Yes Darkside Science is there to improve the boundaries of our knowledge of the Universe. I have no problem with that unless we see the gross inequality even in our 'advanced' cultures. I just wonder if some funds cannot be reallocated to , for example low cost housing schemes, local schemes to regenerate micro-economies etc... I am not anti-science, believe me.


Gross inequality?? The vast majority of any developped country is middle-class...


However, can you say, with your hand on heart that you would choose to fund this type of science in favour of schemes in poor neighborhoods that may give some human dignity back to those who live there?

I would not like to make that choice...


I would. Because diverting money from science would hardly be enough to solve their problem number 1, and number 2 because that is a structural and economical problem. Feeding them with free money won't do them any good.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Gross inequality?? The vast majority of any developed country is middle-class...


Darkside, I teach in a deprived area where the vast majority of people are on low income and more than half of the students receive free meals from the Government - for some, it is their only meal of the day. I could name you over a hundred districts in the UK which have over 60% unemployment. I know about inequality because I grew up in one of these districts. You have to get around more Darkside...


I would. Because diverting money from science would hardly be enough to solve their problem number 1, and number 2 because that is a structural and economical problem. Feeding them with free money won't do them any good.


I suppose I could go along with that and what has been said by Cyfre. However, it is not a matter of giving out handouts, it is about regeneration of local economies by starting self-employment programmes to encourage the growth of low carbon footprint, low environmental impact SME's.

Look, I do see the importance of Science that may lead to teleportation, travel at above the speed of light etc... But I expected scientific arguments for researching into this field and we have ended up embroiled in a socioeconomic debate.

Let's reorient the debate: if you are a scientific funding body, do you allocate funding to projects that will benefit life directly (for example a field PCR test to detect pathogens in foods that arrive at docklands) or do you allocate it to a project which needs billlions of dollars to build a detecting 'tub' for solar neutrinos?



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Darkside, I teach in a deprived area where the vast majority of people are on low income and more than half of the students receive free meals from the Government - for some, it is their only meal of the day. I could name you over a hundred districts in the UK which have over 60% unemployment. I know about inequality because I grew up in one of these districts. You have to get around more Darkside...


I know there's inequality everywhere, but my point is that the majority of the population is made up of middle-class. I'm not promoting inequality
It's a side-effect of our economical system.


I suppose I could go along with that and what has been said by Cyfre. However, it is not a matter of giving out handouts, it is about regeneration of local economies by starting self-employment programmes to encourage the growth of low carbon footprint, low environmental impact SME's.


Agreed.


Look, I do see the importance of Science that may lead to teleportation, travel at above the speed of light etc... But I expected scientific arguments for researching into this field and we have ended up embroiled in a socioeconomic debate.


Well the scientific reasoning behind the string theory is to unify quantum theory and general relativity, which will give us a "theory of everything" and basically be able to explain everything that occurs in the universe, it's origin, it's future , etc using only 1 theory. Now that may well lead to us having the stuff you said teleportation, FTL travel, surfing into other dimensions :p

Then again it might turn out to be bunk, hell even the big bang might not have happened, who knows.


Let's reorient the debate: if you are a scientific funding body, do you allocate funding to projects that will benefit life directly (for example a field PCR test to detect pathogens in foods that arrive at docklands) or do you allocate it to a project which needs billlions of dollars to build a detecting 'tub' for solar neutrinos?


That's a difficult question indeed. I think I would fund those that would benefit us immediatly in priority.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by DarkSide]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Darkside thank you for those honest answers.

Next question, is there any indirect evidence for string theory?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Darkside thank you for those honest answers.

Next question, is there any indirect evidence for string theory?

Not really, and by the way it's falling out of favor with physicists.

The argument is that if it were true, we would have seen some progress on unified field theory and that it would have made some testable predictions that were correct. There's a current project at CERN to test one phase of it, but I haven't heard results yet.

Here in the US, funding for science has been cut savagely. It's difficult to get the grants for anything non-military related, and many research projects (human genome, medical research, social research) has been zapped in favor of Homeland Security and other war-related applications.

(I'm speaking from experience, here, trying to fund anthropological projects.)



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Darkside thank you for those honest answers.

Next question, is there any indirect evidence for string theory?

Not really, and by the way it's falling out of favor with physicists.

The argument is that if it were true, we would have seen some progress on unified field theory and that it would have made some testable predictions that were correct. There's a current project at CERN to test one phase of it, but I haven't heard results yet.

Here in the US, funding for science has been cut savagely. It's difficult to get the grants for anything non-military related, and many research projects (human genome, medical research, social research) has been zapped in favor of Homeland Security and other war-related applications.

(I'm speaking from experience, here, trying to fund anthropological projects.)


That is highly worrying Byrd - I do see the need for funding 'pure biological science' ahead of 'pure physics' but I have been expecting things to change for researchers after leaving the field in disgust 15 years ago. Reading New Scientist job ads I still see the same scenario - low pay for research scientists higher pay for the Biotech ($$$$$$$) Industry. We used to discuss this matter as bioresearchers and we saw a cycle where low pay would force the new raft of graduates and postgraduates to turn away from biomedical research and then for salaries to increase to attract people back - it never happened and the status of British bioscience has suffered as a result. It sounds even worse in the US. You have my sympathies.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join