your opinion about string theory!!?

Question

is it worth working on it? will it ever be proved by mankind?

Answer 1

Right now it does not seem that promising. Most scientists and mathematians consider it too complex and feel that a simplier solution must exist. The fact that there are several string theories and none are currently complete are also issues.

However, there are not a lot of other really promising theories seemingly able to explain things on that scale. Right now the main alternatives appear to be based on experimental physics observing more particles and interactions and trying to deduce theories from experimental data. Unfortunately, that is getting harder and harder with quarks, virtual particles, and elemental forces. Energies to see these are so high only a few labs can even hope to work from this angle. However, maybe someone sitting in their back office will dream up a non-string theory to explain these things.

It is also possible that some string theorist will come up with a complete theory tomorrow. If so, it should be able to make a lot of predictions about sub-atomic physics, light, gravity, etc. which one should be able to test.

Answer 2

M-Theory which is an extension of String Theory is believed by some to be a candidate for the TOE. The Theory is logical, elegant and avoids many contradictions found in other theories. Unfortunately, the power and elegance of a Theory does not guarantee it is valid. It'll simply take further research. I'll give an example: The Multi-verse theory is far superior to the One Universe and the Big Bang theory and avoids massive contradictions and absurdities. Yet, it is impossible to directly observe any other Universes or the Universe whose death led to the creation of our own. Proving the theory becomes virtually impossible, hence it will likely always remain a provisional theory like String Theory. Both the String Theory, M-Theory, and the Multi-verse theory are a derivative of Quantum Mechanics. Still, as a person of science myself, I can only thumb my nose in contempt to those who believe that just suddenly out of a total Void, Time and the Universe just kind of "popped" into existence out of nowhere and had a begining. One thing is certain: Something has always existed. Now the problem is, exactly what that something is, or maybe a someONE. The Multiverse theory which is spatially infinite, and has existed for all eternity, and in one form or another always will. If Mass-Energy cannot be created ex nihilo, then there's no way to escape the conclusion that at least energy and matter, constantly in a state of flux and change, have always existed.

However, now, further developments in Quantum Mechanics appear to validate the Hindu and Buddhist view that the Universe for all practical purposes is nothing but a virtual reality, but one so perfect, as to be indistinguishable from reality. In fact, it looks less and less like the big machine of Newton, and more and more like the Holodeck on Star Trek.

In other worlds, there not a whole heckuva lot of difference between the world of dreams, which you have created, and the external world around you, except the greater permanency and consistency of external reality, which deludes one into thinking dreams are unreal while the ball of crud we live on, is real.

Answer 3

11 dimensional string theory, (and 26 dimensional M theory), has not produced anything.

It is possible that the extra 7 dimensions of space in string theory, (that are not perceived), are mathematical deception that first appeared with 5 dimensional Kaluza-Klein Theory.

String theory is possibly deception involving adding dimensions of space to the already existing 3 dimensions of space one dimension at a time at 90 degree angles to the previous dimension.

That string theory is possibly invalid is stated at the end of the wikipedia article on string theory.

Answer 4

String theory is a model of fundamental physics, whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects called strings, rather than the zero-dimensional point particles that form the basis for the standard model of particle physics. The phrase is often used as shorthand for superstring theory, as well as related theories such as M-theory. By replacing the point-like particles with strings, an apparently consistent quantum theory of gravity emerges. Moreover, it may be possible to "unify" the known natural forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear) by describing them with the same set of equations, as described in the theory of everything.

Answer 5

Finding compelling supporting evidence may be possible, if the theorists are ingenious enough to devise theoretical predictions of physical effects at lower energies than they have thus far, and if the energies required to test those predictions come within the range achievable by particle accelerators now or in the future. So far that hasn't happened.

Answer 6

it's called a string theory. It's continuous

Answer 7

it's still being worked on, but there is no way to prove it, so is it worth it? i guess it is to the scientists who study it. they have to pay the bills somehow. will it ever be proven though? maybe, but not in any near future, and by then they will have some other theory.

Answer 8

I still can't remember how many quarks there are and what they are supposed to do. Taking chemistry in college was bad enough with just protons, neutrons, and electrons. I have decided that if I cant see it, I don't care about it. words to live by.

Answer 9

The fundamental particles of the universe that physicists have identified—electrons, neutrinos, quarks, and so on—are the "letters" of all matter. Just like their linguistic counterparts, they appear to have no further internal substructure. String theory proclaims otherwise. According to string theory, if we could examine these particles with even greater precision—a precision many orders of magnitude beyond our present technological capacity—we would find that each is not pointlike but instead consists of a tiny, one-dimensional loop. Like an infinitely thin rubber band, each particle contains a vibrating, oscillating, dancing filament that physicists have named a string.String theory adds the new microscopic layer of a vibrating loop to the previously known progression from atoms through protons, neutrons, electrons, and quarks.Although it is by no means obvious, this simple replacement of point-particle material constituents with strings resolves the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity (which, as currently formulated, cannot both be right). String theory thereby unravels the central Gordian knot of contemporary theoretical physics. This is a tremendous achievement, but it is only part of the reason string theory has generated such excitement.String theory proclaims, for instance, that the observed particle properties—that is, the different masses and other properties of both the fundamental particles and the force particles associated with the four forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity)—are a reflection of the various ways in which a string can vibrate. Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have resonant frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate—patterns that our ears sense as various musical notes and their higher harmonics—the same holds true for the loops of string theory. But rather than producing musical notes, each of the preferred mass and force charges are determined by the string's oscillatory pattern. The electron is a string vibrating one way, the up-quark is a string vibrating another way, and so on.Far from being a collection of chaotic experimental facts, particle properties in string theory are the manifestation of one and the same physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration—the music, so to speak—of fundamental loops of string. The same idea applies to the forces of nature as well. Force particles are also associated with particular patterns of string vibration and hence everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under the same rubric of microscopic string oscillations—the "notes" that strings can play.For the first time in the history of physics we therefore have a framework with the capacity to explain every fundamental feature upon which the universe is constructed. For this reason string theory is sometimes described as possibly being the "theory of everything" (T.O.E.) or the "ultimate" or "final" theory. These grandiose descriptive terms are meant to signify the deepest possible theory of physics—a theory that underlies all others, one that does not require or even allow for a deeper explanatory base.In practice, many string theorists take a more down-to-earth approach and think of a T.O.E. in the more limited sense of a theory that can explain the properties of the fundamental particles and the properties of the forces by which they interact and influence one another. A staunch reductionist would claim that this is no limitation at all, and that in principle absolutely everything, from the big bang to daydreams, can be described in terms of underlying microscopic physical processes involving the fundamental constituents of matter. If you understand everything about the ingredients, the reductionist argues, you understand everything.The reductionist philosophy easily ignites heated debate. Many find it fatuous and downright repugnant to claim that the wonders of life and the universe are mere reflections of microscopic particles engaged in a pointless dance fully choreographed by the laws of physics. For decades, physicists have puzzled over the weakness of gravity in comparison with the other fundamental forces of nature. "A tiny magnet can lift a paper clip, even though all the mass of the earth is pulling it in the opposite direction," Randall noted in her book on the search for extra dimensions, titled "Warped Passages."Einstein tried to come up with an overarching theory that could apply equally well to gravity and the other forces, but just couldn't do it. In fact, the theories that govern gravity and quantum mechanics are totally separate, and totally incompatible in the four-dimensional world we know.Over the past couple of decades, Einstein's successors have focused their quest for a "theory of everything" on string theory — the idea that the fundamental constituents of matter are tiny stringlike objects vibrating at different frequencies. String theorists could come up with equations to cover gravity as well as quantum effects, as long as they were given 10 or 11 dimensions to work with.The theories work even better if you can think of our four-dimensional space-time continuum as a type of membrane, or "brane," embedded in a "bulk" that takes in even more dimensions. Randall and Sundrum found that gravity's comparative weakness was perfectly understandable if particles called gravitons could leak off a brane into a five-dimensional bulk. In fact, they said, it could well be that gravitons are leaking across the bulk into our own brane (the "Weakbrane") from an extradimensional brane nearby "Gravitybrane").Admittedly, this sounds like a made-up world straight from "Alice in Wonderland" — and indeed, Alice has been invoked more than once by theorists themselves. The only thing that could save extradimensional physics from the fiction shelf is the prospect of finding real-world evidence to support the braneworld concept.Although there are no guarantees, Randall and Sundrum are holding out hope that ambitious experiments will soon produce precisely that kind of evidence....
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/DZeroB_s.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050504175948.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news11398.html

Answer 10

No.

Supporting information is rather thin.