string theory?

Question

do you believe in string theory?
do you believe that the k=theory is relevant??

Witten has argued that K-theory is relevant to string theory for classifying D-brane charges. D-brane objects in string theory carry a type of charge called Ramond-Ramond charge. Ramond-Ramond fields are differential forms, and their charges should be classifed by ordinary cohomology. But gauge fields propagate on D-branes, and gauge fields give rise to vector bundles. This suggests that D-brane charge classification requires a generalization of cohomology to vector bundles -- hence K-theory.

what do you think??

i think he's got a point

Answer 1

Good question.

To me the ultimate factor that is requsite is the transposing of G factors that bind the propositional adverse ratio aspects of structual propotionate invexctive corollory base numbers that actually are finite on the given aspect of G<76/09Gsp8750>

It took me 5 years to arrive at my vertex number based on the premise that G456;>=y671S.u\%

Answer 2

I agree with the Jabberwock, in that it seems that hypothesizing any number of dimensions can make the math look ever more elegant. However, math, like string theory, is just a set of abstractions. I think that although it is a useful model, it will ultimately fail, as it is too abstract and too complex. Simplicity is the ultimate goal of science, and models that increase complexity, such as string theory, are mere placeholders. I do like the notion of more dimensions, but the manner in which string theory defines dimensions is not very useful or meaningful in anything other than a mathematical manner.

Answer 3

It seems to me that if you invoke enough dimensions you can justify anything. The final proof of a theory is experimental evidence. I don't think evidence for string theory is possible because they are so small.