Question about String Theory

I asked for a testable prediction. How do you test that one? String Theory makes plenty of testable predictions too if we could just go anywhere we want in the universe and build accelerators as big as we want.

What is anything in your theory made of? Last I heard it was Jello, so tell me what the Jello's made of.

Here's the thing: if your claims had any substance to them, you wouldn't need to rely on any of those names for objective evidence. If Maxwell had originally written down something completely different that got lost forever in the sands of history, it wouldn't change any of the arguments being made today, whereas it would change everything about anything you've ever said. Not to mention you don't accurately reference any of those names, and make no attempt to work with any of the math which forms the central core of their arguments. It's funny how you always complain about authority, and yet you're the one who needs to keep appealing to it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
-Jim Downey,final part of the academic decathlon in the movie Billy Madison.

the evidence before the court is
incontrovertible, there's no need for
the jury to retire
in all my years of judging
i have never heard before of
some one more deserving
the full penalty of law
the way you made them suffer
your exquisite wife and mother
fills me with an urge to defecate
since my friend you have revealed your deepest fear
i sentence you to be exposed before your peers
-pink floyd, the trial

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That Veronica Vaughn is one piece of ace. I know from experience, dude!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

" planck length "

at this moment in time, it is said elementary particles consist of vibrating strings of energy.

also m theory is replacing string theory.

 

Could it be said that "strings" are units of universal potential? I am a fan of David Bohm and to me as ex musician his authoritative vision of a universal flux (vibrational harmonics) and universal potential (non-physical causality) seems well suited to support m-theory.

Any knowledgeable concurrence, anyone?

 

Funny, I saw a lecture where Susskind described string theory as the ability to square terms in particle physics so that you could find a value of a line from one side of a particle to another. Then it is extremely hard to find any information on what a string actually is. Sometimes I have wondered if string theory is just completely on the wrong track, and it is actually a description of world lines of fundamental particles that consist of other higher particles like the photon. Then it really isn't a fair question, I don't think anyone really knows what a string actually is or is supposed to be. It is mostly just mathematical in nature, derived from the standard model. That is why no experiment can prove it right or wrong, because it is just a play on the science we already have. Then to say it is just pseudoscience would be going a bit overboard. It may actually be the best shot we have at a Grand Unified Field Theory.

 

That's right, it only tells you what the rules are, just like Newton's theory of gravity doesn't tell you what's physically making gravity work the way it does, and General Relativity doesn't tell you why objects follow geodesics in curved spacetimes.

It's not derived from the Standard Model, it's compatible with the Standard Model. Originally it was an attempt to model the strong interactions between quarks, and while supplanted by the Standard Model's quantum chromodynamics, it was found that the mechanism could actually be tweaked to describe all of physics as we presently know it, including quantum chromodynamics. String Theory most certainly does not say the same things as present scientific theories, when it comes to areas we currently have no feasible way to test such as gravitation at the quantum level (other than a small selection of theories predicting things in the LHC energy range).

 

I think this may be the first time we have agreed on one thing and that is that no theory has been able to be tested for quantum gravity, so then string theory wouldn't be able to be tested for this either. That is not something that would just apply to that particular theory but all theories, since it is more of a technological issue.

 

Ah, a troll. How unusual.

Because string theory was always Emperor's New Clothes quackery masquerading as physics, and now it's been found out, so now it's a dead duck. Only some people still lap it up, even though they don't understand it at all.

You look through a telescope.

No it doesn't. It doesn't make any testable predictions at all. None.

It isn't my theory, and it's space. Space isn't made of any thing. Instead things are made of waves in it.

Like I said, you dismiss Einstein and Minkowski and Maxwell and the evidence. And here you are defending string theory. Bah.

 

first,
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...tring-Theory&p=3191845&viewfull=1#post3191845

and second..
i'm a troll ??
who's the one claiming what is established at this point in time, by actual scientist, is wrong, with an incorrect(with physics) hypothesis,
claiming it's a theory.
and yet instead of writing a white paper and submitting it in the proper way,
you are here spewing how everything is wrong..

typical

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

funny, you continue to spew about string theory,
as i posted, M theory is replacing string, so you're whining over nothing.
except it appears you're whining about string, just to attempt to make your self intelligent.
well if you are intelligent like you like to imply, then focus your intelligence on something that actually needs attention.
comical.

so i'm going to ask agian since it was conveniently sidestepped,
do you even have any kind of degree in physics/sciences?
are you even a student of such ?

 

A telescope won't show you electrons disintegrating on their approach towards a black hole. So what do you measure with the telescope to confirm that such a thing is actually happening?

Again, if you could build particle accelerators of arbitrary size, then yes it does. There are even versions which have made predictions for experiments at the LHC or slightly higher energies, and predictions for things that could potentially be measured by a telescope, such as traces of Big Bang cosmic strings. I've asked you for a testable prediction of your own (or whatever it is you subscribe to), and you haven't told me anything about how to detect electrons disintegrating near a black hole, through a telescope or otherwise.

I never dismissed any of those people, only your insane layman attempts to reinterpret their work. Since we're stuck disagreeing on what it is they said, and you can't show any calculations to back your interpretations over mine or demonstrate that you do indeed understand basic electromagnetism, the next logical thing to do is appeal to other sources, experiments etc., and see which interpretation is more consistent with those sources (of course those sources all disagree with you, but it's up to you whether you want to be reasonable, humble and objective).

 

Gamma ray bursters. Start a thread if you want to talk about it. I'm not starting a thread, it will just get chucked into some trashcan by our local friendly "moderator" who gives free rein to abusive trolls.

You dismissed them, and the hard scientific evidence, and now you're calling me insane?

 

All you're doing is making up BS to try and fool uninformed people.

Very dishonest.

 

A vibration of a string has been stated to be a photon in string theory by string theorist. Then it would only make sense that a string is actually more just like a particle (photon). At least I am not nearly spaced out about it as the poster of this thread...

Reading about string theory can be pretty trippy.

 

M-theory is an extension of string theory.

 

at this moment in time, it is said elementary particles consist of vibrating strings of energy.

 

yes with signification, which you fail to understand.
in a sense, it's not the same as string.

 

Go ahead and start a thread in Alternative Theories where you explain how your theory or one you subscribe to predicts a property of gamma ray bursters which isn't predicted by mainstream theories, and how the prediction is tested with a telescope. I promise I'll read and respond to the OP.

 

Only someone with an intimate knowledge of the math involved could tell the difference.., even some of those would have a hard time!

Don't take this comment to imply that I understand the math involved in string theory, "It is way past my pay grade." (I stoled that quote from a particle physicist I met on a cruise. After discussing his research involving muons, I raised a question that verged on string theory..., that was his response.)