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.
Correct me, please, if I'm wrong. But does "string theory" (now known as M theory?) actually meet the requirements of being designated a theory. I've sometimes heard it referred to as a mathematical construct. The math fits but the predictions are sort of hard to verify in any conceivable fashion?
This is also relevant to the topic of this thread because the OP source mentions string theory, and Feynman's explanation of moogles highlights the issue with string theory.
I also call atomic orbitals by that name because everybody else does, even though I know electrons don't really orbit the nucleus. So you're not mistaken. It doesn't meet the scientific definition of a theory but since everyone uses that misnomer it's become part of the language. Even the wiki calls it string theory and calls it a theoretical construct when it's really a mathematical construct.
Originally posted by Phage
Correct me, please, if I'm wrong. But does "string theory" (now known as M theory?) actually meet the requirements of being designated a theory. I've sometimes heard it referred to as a mathematical construct. The math fits but the predictions are sort of hard to verify in any conceivable fashion?
I think what he's saying is that just because you can't prove it's true, doesn't mean it's not true.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi
What?
as i have said time and time again. science and religion will unite
String theory contains an infinite number of distinct meta-stable vacua, and perhaps 10^520 of these or more correspond to a universe roughly similar to ours — with four dimensions, a high planck scale, gauge groups, and chiral fermions. Each of these corresponds to a different possible universe, with a different collection of particles and forces. What principle, if any, can be used to select among these vacua is an open issue.
The point is, to put it another way, you're missing 519 zeroes in that number.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
first of all, with only my ignorance, I am still aware there are 20's of different versions of string theory. I dont know what your point there is
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Chronon
That's fascinating. While they have insufficient data for the calcs at this point, I wonder if the prediction would be able include the conditions which may exist in the subsequent universe. Would the physics of that universe be the same as the predecessor?
In a process called Vacuum Instability, the Higgs Boson particle may become unstable and the result would be the creation of new space or what we would call a universe.
Originally posted by HairlessApe
If you find any interesting speculation revolving around this question, I would like to know.
No, it's not. One is a length, the other is not.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Well at first glance it seems like their concept of vaccu may be similar to the idea of planck length?
Therefore I'm not certain we've solved the discrepancies with competing speculative ideas about the very early universe. Even the hypothetical inflaton particle and field has never been experimentally confirmed.
All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period. Proposed scenarios differ radically.