Tiny strings, 100 billion billion times smaller than protons, vibrating at mad frequencies in higher dimensions creating all matter in the universe.

As it's pretty much untestable at the moment, there's not much science to it. You can test relativity. You can test quantum mechanics. All you can do with string theory is write PBS documentaries about it. CRAP, WF 5, until there is some way to get a testable prediction out of it, and to test that prediction.

I think Randall Munroe said it best:



Or, to summarize even further:

CRAP

You can't test for evidence of x-amount of dimensions, but this is a pretty solid belief in the minds of many scientists and physicists. It's coming 'round the bend.

All particles in our universe being 3-dimensional manifestations of multidimensional "vibrating strings" that create ripple effects and connect an infinite number of parallel universes... it's a really beautiful idea, especially to a guitar player.

From what I understand of it, all String Theory really does is tie together a lot of other popular and generally accepted current theories of Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics in a particularly elegant mathematical way. At this point in time, it's like "theoriticians gone wild". Don't expect to see too much conclusive proof for this one any time soon.

The PBS and Science Channel specials always make it sound like this just might be the big discovery that will enable human time travel or the "warp drive" or some such bullshit. They also like to focus on the stories of the guys who thought this stuff up, just shootin' the shit during a train ride. They never really get too much into the real meat-and-potatoes of the theory itself. but then I guess they have an obligation to their advertisers not to bore the hell out of the audience.

For being the closest thing we have to reconciling Quantum Theory with the Theory of Relativity, I'll give it a NOT CRAP.

Colonel Panic wrote:All particles in our universe being 3-dimensional manifestations of multidimensional "vibrating strings" that create ripple effects and connect an infinite number of parallel universes... it's a really beautiful idea, especially to a guitar player.

I always thought the same.

From what I understand of it, all String Theory really does is tie together a lot of other popular and generally accepted current theories of Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics in a particularly elegant mathematical way. At this point in time, it's like "theoriticians gone wild". Don't expect to see too much conclusive proof for this one any time soon.

Closer

The PBS and Science Channel specials always make it sound like this just might be the big discovery that will enable human time travel or the "warp drive" or some such bullshit. They also like to focus on the stories of the guys who thought this stuff up, just shootin' the shit during a train ride. They never really get too much into the real meat-and-potatoes of the theory itself. but then I guess they have an obligation to their advertisers not to bore the hell out of the audience.

I've never caught this on PBS or the Science Channel. Hell, I don't even have the Science Channel. I do, however, recomend Michio Kaku's book Hyperspace. Lots of wild ideas and untestable theories, but it's really fascinating. Easy-reading on the layman as well.

i not crapped it, although i only give it a 1 in 10 dimensions chance of actually being correct.


iirc, the pbs special is hosted by brian greene, who i caught lecturing about this stuff 10 or so years ago. his book 'the elegant universe' is like brief history of time plus string theory. its definitely a good read.

H-GM wrote:http://www.universetoday.com/2008/01/29/method-to-test-string-theory-proposed

Hmmm... brane inflation, eh? I think thats what I would need to be able to understand this stuff.

One thing I never really understood is how the "inflationary period" of the Big Bang theory is supposed to work. Supposedly, the Universe expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light ought to allow? Does this book have an adequate explanation for that one?

Crap.

I'd rather back hidden variables than this horse. I am also the kind of fool who thinks renormalization is a blight on physics.

I wish I'd waited 'till I finished reading both of those books before voting...