How reliable is the string theory?

[K.I.L.E.R]

Is there any way that it can be proven at all?

With the advance of nanotechnology have our chances of experimenting with these theories improved?

 

[drspangle]

How about - "What is string theory?"

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

From what was said, string theory is about the universe made up of strings which fit quantum mechanics with general relativity (mixing the big with the small).

Everything is comprised of strings so small that we may never see them or test to see if the theory is correct with our current methods.

 

[carpediem]

Here's some info on it

The problem is more, as far as i understand, that it's impossible to falsify with the technology we have today. Then there is more than 1 string theory too, so which one would be the absolute correct one? They are all correct in theory, but shouldn't be in practice... Right?

 

[nutball]

Well, I'm no expert on string theories, but nevertheless I'm rather sceptical of them. The idea of inventing a whole slew of extra spatial dimensions simply because they make the maths more elegant doesn't sit well with me. The fact that these extra dimensions are magically unobservable, and hence it's almost impossible to prove they don't exist, is a gift from heaven for any string theorist. It's akin to the multiverse theories -- impossible to disprove, oh how convenient, give me some more research grants.

Anyway, I thought string theories were old hat these days, and all mathematical pranksters *cough* sorry theoretical physicsts had moved on to other stuff.

 

[sytaylor]

There was a guy who pulled all the string theories together some years ago (I forget his names) and made one that is so fundementally sound it reads like a law and would explain everything more or less. It like any physics theory however, needs evidence and a practical test that works everytime to become a law. The first step to finding if the sring theory is little more than mathamatical masturbation would be the discoveries made from new atom smashers currently being built. Essentially if string theories predictions are correct, and we can identify "Gravitons" (IIRC?) that supposedly escape upon the smashing of an atom (thus making it a far weaker force than it should be when mass and force are calculated)... String theory would no longer be just a sound theory, but a sound theory with some good supporting evidence worth some serious investigation.

 

[London Geezer]

You can't prove what you can't test and you can't deny the existance of something just because you can't see it, the theory being theoretically possible and correct...

 

[Leto]

That would mean someone is pulling the strings

 

[Guden Oden]

I first read the topic as "how reliable is string underwear"... Probably shows what kind of stuff I got on my mind.

 

[Deepak]

I first read the topic as "how reliable is string underwear"... Probably shows what kind of stuff I got on my mind.

Or maybe you saw K.I.L.E.R there.....

 

[VtC]

The problem is more, as far as i understand, that it's impossible to falsify with the technology we have today. Then there is more than 1 string theory too, so which one would be the absolute correct one? They are all correct in theory, but shouldn't be in practice... Right?

That's where M theory comes in.

The idea of inventing a whole slew of extra spatial dimensions simply because they make the maths more elegant doesn't sit well with me.

Much that same argument was made to Einstein when he "arbitrarilly" made the speed of light the fastest you can go in the universe, just because it made the math come out right. Strings are just an "arbitrary" limit on how small things can be, and they happen to make the math come out right.

 

[Gump]

According to physicists, M-Theory IS String Theory, albeit the latest version which includesthe "ekpyrotic scenario" proposal, branes, etc. Personally I consider M-Theory an addition to String Theory.

One of the predictions of String Theory is scheduled to be tested in 06/07 assuming the particle accelerators currently available are capable of providing the required parameters (there is talk of building a new one or adding onto an existing one just for this test).

Considering that I've always wondered why it's titled a "theory" since technically it only meets the specifications of a hypothesis at this point, never mind "scientific consensus" (which is often built on emotional attachment). Oh well, semantics...