Is string theory crazy enough to be correct? It seems the more incredible we find the universe to be, the more far-fetched the theories become, the more believable they are.
2006-11-09 14:48:14 · 10 answers · asked by alfiore1 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
"crazy" is not really a reliable indicater. If I theorize atoms are miniature frogs, and forces are the results of their tiny tongues shooting out at tiny flies, that is crazy but (probably) not correct.
Actually, the basic idea of string theory not only makes sense but is pretty natural. The craziness comes in when they follow up the results of those initial ideas.
In traditional partical physics elementary particles like electrons and quarks are assumed to be point particles - that is, to have qualities like mass and charge, but to have a size of literally 0. This is a simplification that works well, but a size of 0 doesn't make much sense to me, at least. String theory assumes that those particles are not points but have a structure, and then tries to determine what it can about those structures.
Weirdness from simple assumptions is not restricted to string theory. Quantum physics also starts from a simple, one-line assumption and builds a large, weird, and ultimately very useful theory from it.
What interests me is that there are 3 possibilities: string theory could be right, and could be the long-desired "theory of everything"; it could be wrong, in which case lots of scientists have wasted lots of time and effort developing a beautiful but worthless theory; or it could be right like Newtonian physics is right, useful in many calculations but only under certain restrictions.
2006-11-09 15:21:34 · answer #1 · answered by sofarsogood 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
. Crazy is a measure of how different an idea is from previous ideas. It is not an indicator of possible correctness. Throughout the history of science, ideas which have been widely regarded as crazy have usually turned out to be wrong.
. String theory might not even be considered a theory, or a family of theories. It is more a computational framework than a theory of governing principals. There is more math than physics in it.
2006-11-09 14:55:13 · answer #2 · answered by PoppaJ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An excellent book on string theory which doesn't require you to be a mathematician is Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe."
It gets my highest rating for communicating scientific ideas to the general public without dumbig anything down.
2006-11-09 14:52:44 · answer #3 · answered by hznfrst 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's possible, but as the theory is only about 20 years old, it will likely be revised and improved over time.
just think of how confusing electricity seemed 100 years ago - old ladies would put pans under the outlets in case electricity dripped out overnight. In 100 years, string theory or its replacement theory may be as widely accepted as electricity is today.
EDIT:
maggiemae, google "Superstring theory"
2006-11-09 14:52:21 · answer #4 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
String Theory is not very widely accepted in the scientific community. That is because there have been very little, if any, evidence supporting it.
There are lots of scientists working on it though.
2006-11-09 16:32:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi. String theory may or may not be correct, but at least it prevents us from saying "thar be dragons".
2006-11-09 14:51:06 · answer #6 · answered by Cirric 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it would help if you'd tell me what the string theory is. now i'll have to google it!
2006-11-09 14:51:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just play along with it.
2006-11-09 14:49:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
hard point. browse over google or bing. that will help!
2014-12-10 19:52:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
www.reasons.org
2006-11-09 14:51:17 · answer #10 · answered by jamesdkral 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋