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.
I explained why string theory is unlikely to be proven or disproven anytime soon here, unless we develop some radically different views on string theory, and since string theorists don't even know what string theory is (I'm not making that up, a leading string theorist actually said that), it's possible ideas about it can change.
Originally posted by transmundane
So ... am I completely off course with this, or is String Theory really dead?
Many thanks for your feedback!
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I explained why string theory is unlikely to be proven or disproven anytime soon here, unless we develop some radically different views on string theory, and since string theorists don't even know what string theory is (I'm not making that up, a leading string theorist actually said that), it's possible ideas about it can change.
Originally posted by transmundane
So ... am I completely off course with this, or is String Theory really dead?
Many thanks for your feedback!edit on 13-12-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
Originally posted by nixie_nox
String theory became unnecessarily popular. It was just a theory, and one that wasn't widely accepted by the scientific community.
Originally posted by transmundane
For starters, bosons are particles of force rather than particles of matter (fermions). In other words, bosons are what impart energy onto fermions and set the whole subatomic soup we swim in into motion.
In the case of the Higgs, it's what gives particles their symmetry (or mass)
what determines why, and how many, electrons are stuck to a nucleus, for example.
Once the discovery of the Higgs was made at the LHC, and the peer reviews seemed to support it, scientific publications exploded with the news: the Standard Model is now complete! (oh, and String Theory is dead)
The Standard Model, if I understand it correctly, predicts the existence of all of the elementary particles such as fermions, bosons, leptons, gluons, etc., and does a pretty good job of showing how they all interact too.
To me this seems like a description of our solar system -- we can tell both through mathematical models and observation how the earth (for example), rotates around the sun, how it would rotate if the sun was half its size, or if the earth was twice as big, are a third of the distance farther, etc. But it doesn't seem to explain what the earth and the sun are really composed of, it just describes their physical properties and interactions.
it doesn't seem like the Standard Model and String Theory in any way contradict each other.
In other words, the Standard Model does seem to have been fully proven
Originally posted by transmundane
If I understood your linked post, your claim (based on the Wikipedia article), is that the power consumption required to prove String Theory is so high that it's not likely to happen any time soon. Is that correct?
Since the post started with: "there may be a few predictions of string theory which can be tested in the LHC" I wouldn't say that interpretation is completely accurate. Obviously that points to some capabilities of testing limited aspects of string theory in the LHC.
Originally posted by transmundane
If I understood your linked post, your claim (based on the Wikipedia article), is that the power consumption required to prove String Theory is so high that it's not likely to happen any time soon. Is that correct?
While you were writing your post, I was writing my post which included the screenshot illustrating blind people touching an unknown creature trying to figure out what it is. This was done by a string theorist so I appreciate his candor.
Originally posted by TrueBrit
Someone said that they do not believe that the Higgs and its attendant feild actually exist. Others have said in this thread, that no one understands string theory.
As both professors said in the videos in my previous post, we can conceive of higher energy levels that might demonstrate string properties. The problem is, we don't know how to achieve those energy levels, since the LHC doesn't come close.
String theory, interesting a concept as it may be, and educational in some areas as it most certainly is, has not been validated, nor indeed has any widely understood effort been made to do so, probably because the very essence of these strings is so intangible and mysterious, that the mind cannot begin to see how one might go about isolating and examining such a thing.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Note that just before 2 minutes in the video she states we don't have near the energy levels needed to test string theory.
Modulii is free to disagree with the Harvard professor
And here's the screenshot of the string theorist explaining how string theorists are still not sure what string theory is, so that's a problem; how do you test it if you don't know what it is?
Originally posted by Moduli
The word "symmetry" doesn't make sense here, but it is what gives some particles (e.g., quarks and electrons) their mass. It's not "where" all mass comes from, though. Most of the mass of a proton, for example, does not come from the masses of the constituent quarks, but from the total energy.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There's also the problem of string theory making too many predictions, that aren't unique.
That's a pretty good video if you want more than the dumbed down explanations for the masses.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Where does the "other" mass come from besides the higgs giving mass to quarks and electrons? what is the other mechanism which imparts mass onto non quark and electron particles?
What about the concept of a "string", the physical aesthetic of that idea,, became so appealing? why was it chosen?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Since the post started with: "there may be a few predictions of string theory which can be tested in the LHC" I wouldn't say that interpretation is completely accurate. Obviously that points to some capabilities of testing limited aspects of string theory in the LHC.
Originally posted by transmundane
If I understood your linked post, your claim (based on the Wikipedia article), is that the power consumption required to prove String Theory is so high that it's not likely to happen any time soon. Is that correct?
It's not the power consumption that's the key issue, it's the energy levels that are created, as explained by this Harvard professor/particle physicist who also works with string theorists ideas as she explains:
Lisa Randall: String Theory
...
Note that just before 2 minutes in the video she states we don't have near the energy levels needed to test string theory. The post I linked to previously conveyed a thought experiment about the scales which would be needed to create higher energy levels, if we just scaled up the LHC design. In reality, we can only scale it up so far, and we would need to come up with more innovative designs to get higher energy levels. An example of a new technology that might help would be room temperature superconductors, for example.
Modulii is free to disagree with the Harvard professor, and with Wikipedia, and with many other sources, but I find Harvard professor Randall's explanation more credible than modulii's explanation.
Here's another professor saying more or less the same thing, and he puts the LHC experiments in perspective relative to the above quote from my linked post, regarding what they may or may not accomplish:
...
And here's the screenshot of the string theorist explaining how string theorists are still not sure what string theory is, so that's a problem; how do you test it if you don't know what it is?
...
David Gross: The Coming Revolutions in Theoretical Physics
There's also the problem of string theory making too many predictions, that aren't unique.
That's a pretty good video if you want more than the dumbed down explanations for the masses.