Why not string theory? Because enough is enough
backreaction.blogspot.com
Why not string theory? Because enough is enough
1–10 of 123 posts
Re: Why not string theory? Because enough is enough
#2> Even with that problem fixed, however, it was quickly noticed that moving the superpartners out of direct reach would still induce flavor changing neutral currents that, among other things, would lead to proton decay and so be in conflict with observation.
Dissonance strikes again!
Re: Why not string theory? Because enough is enough
#3I've got a theory that string theory is more of a sociological phenomena than real science. It started as a genuine attempt to model how the nucleus was held together and then continued because it's a good area to do maths and write papers rather than because it models reality.
One thing I don't get, which may be down to my own stupidity - take maybe the simplest interaction in physics - you have two electrons in space a few cm apart and the accelerate away from each other due to the charges repelling. I'm not sure how that is supposed to happen if everything is strings. Do they ping tiny strings at each other and how do they know which way to aim? Maybe some string person can enlighten me.
Re: Why not string theory? Because enough is enough
#4Article isn't about TCL.
Re: Why not string theory? Because enough is enough
#5I've got a theory that string theory is more of a sociological phenomena than real science. It started as a genuine attempt to model how the nucleus was held together and then continued because it's a good area to do maths and write papers rather than because it models reality. One thing I don't get, which may be down to my own stupidity - take maybe the simplest interaction in physics - you have two electrons in spa…
Strings are supposed to act like Leptons / quarks / etc. Like how quantum mechanics averages out when your taking about planets. The problem is they are like epicycles in that they can describe any shape. Much like how Epicycles are effectivly taking a fourier transform of an orbit and can thus describe any shape, String theory can describe any possible universe.
Re: Why not string theory? Because enough is enough
#6I've got a theory that string theory is more of a sociological phenomena than real science. It started as a genuine attempt to model how the nucleus was held together and then continued because it's a good area to do maths and write papers rather than because it models reality. One thing I don't get, which may be down to my own stupidity - take maybe the simplest interaction in physics - you have two electrons in spa…
Strings are supposed to act like Leptons / quarks / etc. Like how quantum mechanics averages out when your taking about planets. The problem is they are like epicycles in that they can describe any shape. Much like how Epicycles are effectivly taking a fourier transform of an orbit and can thus describe any shape, String theory can describe any possible universe.
Why are this comment and the parent comment downvoted? As someone who doesn't know about string theory it's hard to tell.
Re: Why not string theory? Because enough is enough
#7I've got a theory that string theory is more of a sociological phenomena than real science. It started as a genuine attempt to model how the nucleus was held together and then continued because it's a good area to do maths and write papers rather than because it models reality. One thing I don't get, which may be down to my own stupidity - take maybe the simplest interaction in physics - you have two electrons in spa…
> you have two electrons in space a few cm apart and the accelerate away from each other due to the charges repelling. I'm not sure how that is supposed to happen if everything is strings.
At the level of quantum theory, you don't have charges repelling. You have charged particles, like electrons, exchanging other particles--photons in the case of the electromagnetic force. So really it's all particles (or all quantum fields, if you look at it another way). And you can make any particle (or quantum field) out of strings, so string theory is just the next level down, so to speak, where all of the particles--the ones that exchange other particles, and the ones that get exchanged--are just different vibration states of strings.
Re: Why not string theory? Because enough is enough
#8Speaking as a professor specializing in string theory, I'd say, "More power to her." I have no idea whether string theory gets too much attention relative to its actual value in modeling the real world, but I think one essential part of finding the right amount of attention for any physical theory is for theorists to make their best judgement about what's worth their time to study.
In fact, it's quite comforting to me to see people deciding to focus in other directions: to my eye, that means the system is working (though perhaps the author would argue it's not working efficiently), and I'd hate to see other worthwhile angles of attack wither away purely due to lack of attention. For myself, I got excited about string theory in grad school and decided to go that route, and I'm still finding it fascinating today. (And it still feels worthwhile to keep studying it, though perhaps I'm not quite as optimistic about its ultimate success as I was 15 years ago.)
Re: Why not string theory? Because enough is enough
#9I've got a theory that string theory is more of a sociological phenomena than real science. It started as a genuine attempt to model how the nucleus was held together and then continued because it's a good area to do maths and write papers rather than because it models reality. One thing I don't get, which may be down to my own stupidity - take maybe the simplest interaction in physics - you have two electrons in spa…
Particles themselves are just models of localized field quantizations. It's a bit analogous to how a person is just a quantification of the molecules they comprise. You can gain and lose new molecules by the millions, but you're still the same person -- like the crest of a wave.
Anyway, particles repel because that is the nature of the fields they exist in. Electrons don't have to do anything 'to' each other to repel, they just have to interact with the electromagnetic field. The string model simply employs the word 'string' to describe some components of the field.
Re: Why not string theory? Because enough is enough
#10"[A]cademia is currently organized so that it invites communal reinforcement, prevents researchers from leaving fields whose promise is dwindling, and supports a rich-get-richer trend."
A really awesome quote there. (Perhaps a bit self-serving for me).