Talk:String theory/Archive 1

message: I don't have the time nor the energy to write a long essay, but I fixed a lot misconceptions and ouright errors in the original page.
----------
A link or quick defininition for the term "perturbative" in this context would be helpful for the layman.
-----
Although the general structure of this article is quite good, I think we should word it more carefully. All the arguments given are mathematical (and valid), but in physics it is important to tie them in with experiments. Or at least clearly show their "speculative character." Here, it sounds like string theory is already a given fact... Awolf002 01:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed article a bit 

message: Is anyone able either to obtain royalty-free string images like those cool ones on that nova documentary, or render something? That'd add to the article.
[maestro] 04:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Shouldn't this article be titled "Superstring theory"? The phrase "string theory" is a popular shortening of the original term. -- BRIAN0918  02:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Superstring theory

message: we know , a mathematical  back ground concerning the origin of any sphere is a bit complex too ,a sphere is  that it has no start and no end ,. absolutely we can find the end of a sphere [ sphere of radius  R ] it is a preety simple question [ if parameters of  diff.. eq n  provide] ; but  are our  minds are  ready enough to find the origin  of any sphere.
if we say a point matter then also that same is too a sphere , if we say a differential of a space then the ouestion is redirected to the constant  k  of our space time concept.
here word sphere ,i  mean to say any originating ball or a body [equivalently], a potential field, uniform lump  matter of same constituent  originating in space time co-ordinates .
what ever we do , how hard we try  , my above question is a question to all explorers of  fundamental science, including me. 
:i think , as per mathematics says, we can only talk about matter formation[  hence energy] or the meta physics, if and only if the above puzzle is cracked through mathematics , hence getting  nearer and nearer to the truth .  this will certainly  risk free the possibility of any  wrong truth/ model of any prediction what ever we make towards universe.
further questions; connect: e2t_solar@rediffmail.com
do you have a problem : i too is  having a part of problem 
let us solve together [ contact me if interested in my question] (unsigned I prabhat)
----
I say improving the article will make masses happier. --Cool Cat  My Talk 15:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about the philosophy of a sphere? 

message: thank god. without the garden hose thing i'd have been lost. 70.177.90.39 03:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: garden hose thing

message: An anon editor inserted the comment "some scientists have asked if it even deserves to be called a scientific theory".  I was considering removing this because it seems to be a cop-out.  It gets a derogatory jab in while stating it in terms that are difficult, if not impossible to refute.  Perhaps we could say "while string theory continues to be actively researched, a growing number of scientists, most prominently Professor Such-and-such, believe that string theory will never be able to be tested."  This would also provide a much better transition to the next paragraph.  Any objections?  How about prominent anti-string theorist scientists? S.N. Hillbrand 20:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with String Theory Problems 

message: Can't multiple dimensions exist in a way that allows a particle to be in two places at once. If so, our whole universe could be a single particle (entity) that can be veiwed from an astronomical number of locations.
If there are more than 3 dimensions, I've seen references to 9, 11, and 19 dimensions in different readings, then what are those different dimensions? Could imaginary numbers have something to do with it? What about negative numbers? The first 3 dimensions are length, width and height, everyone knows that. I've even thought of time as a dimension since acceleration takes place in square seconds (units per second squared). Anyway, could the next three dimensions be negative dimensions? Could they correspond with imaginary numbers (square root of any negative number)? Is there a possibility of "imaginary" and "negative" dimensions? If there is, then there are 9 dimensions, not including time, if time even is a dimension, which I'm still debating. I know it sounds impossible, but a lot of these things sounded impossible until they were explained. The problem is, I don't know much about this stuff, and I have nobody to ask. Any input at all would be awesome. E-mail: amazinsk8r@hotmail.com. If anybody has anything you can tell me about this, please do so. Thanks in advance.
: Read up on Alain Aspect's experiments on Action at a distance. They may seem unrelated to your "particle in two places at once" question at first, but think about seeing two particles in two different places acting the same way with no mediator. You may be seeing the same particle in two places at once, where in fact the space they occupy may be the same when perceives from a higher dimension. TCorp 16:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Dimensions 

message: Fundamental physical ideas should not only be sound in details but it also must be sensible conceptually.
General relativity says that non-gravitational physical processes occur on the geometrical framework created by gravitational field. We observe the physical processes through and with respect to the
gravitational field. If you have a theory which includes the gravitational dynamics then in it the physical processes must happen with respect to each other (relationally) with out any reference
to a background structure.
In string theory the strings move, vibrate, merge, split etc. These strings are not like spinors existing in an internal space. They are similar to classical high school textbook strings: Elastic and dynamical objects. If string theory includes gravitational field then it must not have any other background structure in which the strings exist. If it is a fundamental theory then it must not have any other forces that is responsible for the string dynamics. But string theory assumes background structures and string dynamics which is completely
absurd.
String theory may be interesting mathematics but it is not physically reasonable because it ignores the conceptual lessons of Einstein's general relativity which is the foundation of our current understanding of time, space and everything.
String theorists often talk about Einstein's dream of unification when they talk about string theory in their websites and programs. But if Einstein have been alive, he would be very disappointed with string theory because of its complete disregard for general relativity.
Once does not require a thousand explanations to disqualify a theory. By a simple reasoning one could clearly see that something is wrong with it. 
Visit Universalwatch.blogspot.org [Universalwatch.blogspot.org] for discussion on various related issues.
* This is a theory, one that many many scientist agree with and are working on it. While it's true that it is still unproven, and that people find issues with it, as exposed in the "Problems" section, it does not invalidate it. While you may be convinced its falsed, lots of brilliant people are convinced its true, so this remains a valid, encyclopedic theory. Elfguy 16:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is wrong with string theory?

message: Doesn't modern physics allow for the possibility that all living organsims are identical in terms of conscious identity and have the same one consciousness. This would mean that we are all in effect the same being living out our lives as a different person/animal/organism. That there is no differentation between me or you. "I am you"
* Yes, obviously, we are the borg! Elfguy 17:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This question is probably meaningless (unless you are a philosopher of course) and certainly doesn't have anything to do with string theory. --MarSch 12:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consciousness

message: exactly how many people are working on string theory? in the article there is like only 20, which is just too few to be believed. or are they just notable ones?
:Exactly how many is hard to say but every major cosmology department in the world has at least one string theorist.  Many people are even complaining that the sheer number of talented students studying string theory is detrimental to other areas of physics.  
:On a separate note, one might point out that the validity or conversely the spuriousness of any theory cannot be tested by merely by the number of its adherents.  Even claiming that it is a neccesary but not sufficient condition to be accepted would lead one into a morass of mob rule.  Understandably, this is not a situation where one can adequately judge the quality of research for oneself.  However, this merely means that we should assume a skeptical agnosticism regarding proclamations of proof or disproof.  S.N. Hillbrand 16:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  people working on string theory 

message: "some scientists have asked if it even deserves to be called a scientific theory: it is not yet a falsifiable theory in the sense of Popper." What is the reference for this, please? I cannot find this anywhere, and this is not footnoted. KillerChihuahua 14:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most string theorists agree with this statement, that there is no experiment that could conceivably be conducted in the next few years that would refute string theory. There are experiments that would provide strong evidence for string theory (cosmic string lensing, Kaluza-Klein particles or supersymmetric particles at LHC, a short-distance fifth force, etc...) but little that would refute it. Some prominent and semi-prominent people who have been arguing this are Philip Anderson, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Lawrence Krauss and Peter Woit. I'm sure there are many others. –Joke137 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as a non-physicist (which puts me right there with most of the people who consult WP) I confess to some confusion. If ST is falsifiable even if the methodology for that does not yet exist, then that's not a reason to say its not a theory. OTOH, if that is exactly the issue, that scientists are not sure if it will ever be falsifiable, then surely a source should be placed on the page? KillerChihuahua 19:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I would appreciate it if you would determine what would provide the best source, and add it as the cite. For Popper, the best I could do was a Guardian article which quotes Woit:  which is a source but not as good as a published paper. I am not competent to judge what sources are decent and which are undergrad slop, so I appreciate you taking up my concern. KillerChihuahua 20:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well done and thank you! Kudos. KillerChihuahua 22:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: For a complete statement of Popper's ideas concerning falsifiability, consult his "The Logic Of Scientific Discovery" which is entirely devoted to the matter. Hi There 07:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question - Re Popper

message: Could you give some sources where your "backgrounds" and "the flat spacetime solution of string theory" are described? So far, your remarks (or "caveats") seem irrelevant. Kurochka 16:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some basic caveats added by 67.169.24.49

message: Pataphysics has nothing to do with string theory by the definition of pataphysics itself: a philosophy dedicated to studying what lies beyond the realm of metaphysics. See also the protoscience article. Kurochka 07:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pataphysics criticism added by 172.135.99.87

message: I have looked in many places, but have yet to find a clear answer to the question I have in mind. What are all these additional dimensions measuring? We need three dimensions to define space and can reasonably use a fourth dimension for space-time. 
 
This is not such a hair-raising problem. Using more than three dimensions is not so weired if you think about it for a moment. It is even possible to apply numerous dimensions to a chess game, two for location on the board, one for whose turn it is, another for material and, last but not least, one for time. You can apply these same mathematical/epistemological tools to any number of problems, from assessing the value of tanks to the efficacy of baseball teams. Notice, however, that all these dimensions measure SOMETHING. They are not applied to the problem in an arbitrary way.
 
If we need as many as 26 dimensions to explain the universe, what are we measuring with 22 of them?
I am NOT criticizing the theory here, but its exposition. Let's face it. If this theory has no basis in fact, you're telling a whopper. If it does indeed have a sound basis in fact, you are STILL telling a whopper. The only way to tell a whopper is to make it as plain as you possibly can. Otherwise, people think you are trying to slip something by them.
 
From what I have been able to gather after consulting many, many sources, these additional dimensions are for establishing locations, volumes, and magnitudes in space. In other words, the are no different from the three space dimensions we use every day but are only applicable on the scale of these very tiny strings.  Unfortunately, no article I have found says this outright. I'm still left wondering if they are not measuring something I do not know about, energy levels, or quantum states, or some such.
 
And here is an interesting quote from Georg Friedrich Bernhard Reimann:
 
"The realm of the small seemed particularly important, Riemann noted. “Knowledge of the causal connection of phenomena is based essentially upon the precision with which we follow them down into the infinitely small,” he said. “One pursues phenomena into the spatially small in order to perceive causal connections, just as far as the microscope permits."
 
Here is the link to the quote:
 
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084075/html/221.html
 
70.116.68.198 00:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions and Measurement. 

message: Respecting Kurochka's edit, I must add that the secondary (as it were) definition of "pataphysics" as describing anything that is "speculation based on speculation" has undeniable value in the context of string theory discussion.
Just as the definition of the word "red" need not include a description of an apple, the definition of pataphysics need not mention string theory for the word to have critical value in the context of a discussion of string theory.
Pataphysics accurately describes a criticism of string theory that so far does not seem to have proper nomenclature.
When certain physicists complain that string theory is a 'philosophy' (which has a very broad meaning), they are really saying that string theory is now a mathematical world of its own (i.e., a completely speculative mathematical model run amok, rather than a verifiable description of the physical universe).
In this context, the word "pataphysics" accurately encompasses the complaint, as "pataphysics" describes a world of speculation that is twice removed from reality (first by a theory, then as a theory based on a theory!).
No matter what your ultimate opinion on the validity of string theory, "pataphysics" correctly describes what string theory is said (by opponents) to have become: a speculative mathematical universe unto itself, and one that is based on prior speculations (in this case, the mathematics of quantum mechanics and general relativity, themselves unproven), and is thus "verifiable science twice removed".
Speculation based on speculation = pataphysics = string theory.
*Unfortunately, I have to repeat my arguments more clearly. First of all, string theory is NOT philosophy in the very sense of the word, whatever "certain physicists" imply. If you need a proper nomenclature for string theory, I will give you. String theory is a protoscience. It does not need to be verifiable, it need to falsifiable. That's the problem, and the article tells us about it. Finally, you don't have to prove quantum mechanics and general relativity because they ARE falsifiable, and none of many experiments has disproved these theories so far. Kurochka 12:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pataphysics a valid addition to the critical nomenclature of string theory

message: According to string theory the universe is only meta-stable. A sufficient jolt of energy in the right way could cause a spontaneous quantum flip, causing the vacuum decay into a stable state from the source at the speed of light. This would be catastrophic and destroy everything in the universe. Although we are currently unable to create such a fuse, advanced civilizations elsewhere in the universe should be able to create a energy density necesarry induce vacuum decay. Hypothetically, the oldest form of intelligent life in the universe is only a few thousand years older than us due to gamma-ray burst sterilization of galaxies. If the gamma-ray burst theory proves to be incompatible with evidence, the oldest carbon based civilizations in the universe would be 3 billion years old. At any moment we could be sent into the dustbin of cosmic history by the advancing front of a vacuum phase transition triggered by a civilization years ago. In fact, if there truly are other intelligent civilizations in the universe, the phase transition (or any other of the many forms of distruction) may have already been triggered in different points throughout the universe. It may be only a matter of time before we feel the effect. (search: "RHIC disaster scenarious" on google)--Aero77 16:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The possibility that we are living in a false vacuum has never been a cheering one to contemplate. Vacuum decay is the ultimate ecological catastrophe; in the new vacuum there are new constants of nature; after vacuum decay, not only is life as we know it impossible, so is chemistry as we know it. However, one could always draw stoic comfort from the possibility that perhaps in the course of time the new vacuum would sustain, if not life as we know it, at least some structures capable of knowing joy. This possibility has now been eliminated.
It may not help you sleep at night. Take comfort in the fact that the case they considered is ever so slightly different from that considered in string theory. –Joke137 18:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That would be a particularly foolish assumption. -- Fropuff 19:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see the usage statement at the top of this page. –Joke 22:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: False Vacuum Decay

message: Substituted at 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment