String theory. Is it a valid theory or just a bunch of made up jibberish to satisfy the curiosity of mad?

Question

physicists seeking the universal answer to what Einstein sought out his entire life.
Of course, it gets so complicated sometimes that there are probably only a couple hundred guys who can actually understand it good enough to even come close to knowing if its realistic or not.
I've read a lot about it, and it makes sense sometimes, but it seems like it might just be a bunch of theoretical hocus pocus to complicated to prove or debunk.
I think that the real answer to this question will be a lot simpler and mind blowing as Einstein's concepts were when they first came out. Simple and eventually proven. Not completely proven, but two atomic clocks, one still and the other in a jet traveling around the world sounds like good enough proof for me.
Does anyone know of any good references on this subject besides Brian Greene's books?

Answer 1

Being untestable and, therefore, unfalsifiable, string/M theory is not a theory by definition. At best, it is a philosophy or, as I like to put it, a set of equations looking for some physics to support it. (NB: I will continue to call it "theory" even though it isn't simply because that's what everyone else calls is)

One major issue with string/M theory is that it is based on something called "perturbation." Simply stated, this means that the defining equations are chopped off...some of the higher order terms are missing, because that's they only way they can be solved given current mathematics capability. Thus, in a very real sense, the current solutions are only approximations to what the real solutions might be. [See source.]

Yet another issue is using higher dimensions to get gravity to show up in the solutions. One of the driving forces behind string/M theory is to get gravity defined like the other three fundamental forces (EM, and strong and weak atomic) have been defined mathematically. This is, of course, an assumption that cannot be tested within our myopic four dimensional world; this is one of the prime reasons string/M theory really isn't a theory.

Still another issue is the fundamental assumption of duality. This is a bit hard to explain without writing a textbook, but string/M theory uses the assumption that physics phenomena will remain the same regardless of the framework or perspective used to examine them. This results in solving equations in one coordinate system because they are easier to solve than if they were solved in the otherwise most logical coordinate system. Doing linear programming duals is one example if you have the math background. [See source.]

I've been looking at string/M theory for two years now. The more I examine it, the more I tend to agree...it is hocus pocus. I believe Occam's Razor...given all things equal, the true solution tends to be the simplist...string/M theory is not the true solution.

Answer 2

Read "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin.

Excellent book from a guy who's not a fan of string theory. He does a good history of the theory and where its holes are, and then lays out the some of the alternates that should be taken seriously.

Personally i think its an incredible mathematical construct that has opened up many other venues of physics. That being said, the theory doesnt really address some of the fundamental problems in physics, nor does it provide a (currently) testable prediction.

In addition to Brian Greene's books try:

Michio Kaku: He has several books out

Lisa Randall: she has alternate views on string theory, like Smolin, and is doing some really interesting work trying to explain gravity in all this

Leonard Susskind: A big fan of the 'many-universe' interpretation of string theory...ie cosmic landscape view...

I dont think its the final answer, but i certainly dont think its been a waste of time. anyway hope this helps...

Answer 3

Basically string theory theoretically works as a model.
However even thought a model may work to explain physical concept, it may or may not represent reality.
Something may be made to work mathemathically but for the wrong reason.
So a model may be in the form of a manifold.Nevertheless the manifold is still an imaginary representation.
All theories may all have something to offer but may not represent 100% the whole phenomena.
This is why science is a continual trial and error knowledge searching process.
Ultimately we have to see it to believe it.
We believe clocks ticking time of oscilation vary in different gravity fields. The reason is because we have observed that the clock Oscilliatory Period square is directly proportional to the lenght of the pendulum and inversely proportional to the average gravity acceleration.
However this simple test was attributed only to Relativity inertial motion . The variation of time in a gravity field was known before Einstein time dilation formula of relativity which Einstein applied to inertial motion of clocks.
The gravitational time and inertial time dilation were found to be two different concepts.In inertial motion acceleration is a decreasing hyperbolic function;In motion due to gravity field aceleration can have a dual nature ; that is ,it can be both a decreasing or increasing acelleration depending the direction of motion ,whether its toward or away from the gravitational mass.
In reality Time is a function of a Gravity Field Pressure. All motion in the Universe is a function of gravity. Inertial motion is only an aproximation where the gravity field is neglected.
As per your question, the answer to the Unified theory You referred about Einstein,was really hidden in the cosmological constant formula. He Had it all along . He had a good sense of humour ; maybe he left it as a puzzle to Science to figure out what he really meant in his" Field Equation."

Answer 4

Dont know about any books, just what I have seen on the web and TV.

I have looked into this to and it is very interesting. You may or may not agree with me but here goes.

As they try and break up the quark and see what it is made of, there is a breakdown in the technology, the bits are just too darn small. So they use mathematics to try and "see" what is going on.

So we have a problem with quantum physics and general relativity, they dont jive together. So to make them do so this theory has come up.

As you know gravity is the problem. So to make it work there must be more than one universe side by side just a fraction away from ours. Maybe many universes. (anyones guess)

Well, the strings in the theory could be the physical manifestation of an invisible God. God is a Spirit and as such he cannot be seen. Yet the imprint of the Spirit that binds all things together through out the universe may leave a physical impression.

The spirit world is just a fraction from our physical world.
Angels (real ones, not those chubby children with wings)
come and go with out ever being seen. Sometimes they are seen but since they look human, they go unnoticed.
This explanation fixes the gravity problem. Since there are at least 2 realms of consciousness, physical and spiritual, then the gravity could be shared between these 2 realms. This does not mean that the spirit world is bound by gravity, but it is there just the same.
In the book of Revelations, John saw many people standing before the throne of God. STANDING, not floating. Therefore gravity must be present there as well as here.

I know you may think I am nuts, but it does fit the example given by those in the know and it makes alot more sense than just "Other universes" like planets and galaxies a millimeter away from our face.

That is my thought.

Answer 5

ive pasted you a link to some stuff what may help you but just think about this while you read it...the universe is like a big clockwork device all conected with gears and cogs and these gears and cogs are very old and worn so nothing can be accurate ...einstein was wrong basically even the time around the earth bends with the gravity of the moon so if you have a atomic clock in a jet flying round the earth and one on earth the time will stay the same as the time where the jet is gets bent with the earths time but if you have atomic clocks on satelites around the earth in the same place and clocks on the earths surface at standstill the time excelerates and decelerates from start of day to night depending on the gravitational pull from the moon ,like the earth is slightly egg shaped being streched towards the moon . the gears of time also get stretched. i hope this explanes things a bit. oh look up for nasa projects .. nasa and time travel. they are working on it right now and have been for a few years or so.

Answer 6

Well, what DID you expect? Any theory that depends on terminology that must have been created by Terry Pratchett on speed is bound for failure! "Ah Haar Boson!. Unwind the worldsheet or I'll make you walk the Planck! Ah cannae do it Captain! She's bound for the braneworld an there's no tuurning back! If we hit an event horizon at this speed we're dooomed unless I can swing aboot the haptron collander the noo! The best we can do is to exploit the inherent instability in the theory! Well then Mr Polyakov, tachyon us out of here!" Zwooosh! (All breath sigh of relief). .

Answer 7

I did some research myself about string theory. A lot of it sounds valid, yet scientists are trying to prove that it's true. I mean because it's still a theory. Now, scientists are trying to to build a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland to prove that extra dimensions exist. If they are able to successfully prove that, then they will get closer to proving string theory is correct.
At the mathematical level, string theory makes sense, that's why it's difficult for scientists to disprove it; therefore, they want to see if they can prove it using all the advanced technology that we have today.
Also look up the name of Edward Witten online and he goes into a great deal explaining about string theory.

Answer 8

well a theory still a theory until it's proven or checked with some experiences, for exemple special relativity seems non logic for some, but it can be demonstrated , so everyone must accept it, but the problem with the string theory is that it cannot be tested right now because u need a lot of energy and to work on subatomic particules and strings

Answer 9

Many good theories are results of critical laboratory obervations and the heavy use of mathematical reasoning. Some of these theories are SIMPLY not for the "common everyday man" to comprehend. For me, string theory has good basis even though it sounds favorably metaphysical.

Answer 10

Its just pseudoscience . . . no matter what the theory predicts, you can never test any outcomes. So you ultimately have to take it on faith. That is not science to me. The theory is attractive, but ultimately you are going to have to get some data that you can either test for or observe . . . otherwise its all castles made of sand. Let's leave faith to the theologians and not pretend that it is good science.