Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

String theory

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU
 
indigobusiness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-04 09:27 PM
Original message
String theory
Relativistic quantum field theory has worked very well to describe the observed behaviors and properties of elementary particles. But the theory itself only works well when gravity is so weak that it can be neglected. Particle theory only works when we pretend gravity doesn't exist.
General relativity has yielded a wealth of insight into the Universe, the orbits of planets, the evolution of stars and galaxies, the Big Bang and recently observed black holes and gravitational lenses. However, the theory itself only works when we pretend that the Universe is purely classical and that quantum mechanics is not needed in our description of Nature.
String theory is believed to close this gap.

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic3.html

Particle physics interactions can occur at zero distance -- but Einstein's theory of gravity makes no sense at zero distance.

String interactions don't occur at one point but are spread out in a way that leads to more sensible quantum behavior.

http://superstringtheory.com/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pmbryant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-04 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. Believed by some, not by others
Unfortunately, there's not much to go on in the real world at this point. Even after 20 years at the forefront of theoretical physics research.

Here's an interesting passage from a NY Times article last week:
At the end of the Aspen celebration talk turned to the prospect of verification of string theory. Summing up the long march toward acceptance of the theory, Dr. Stephen Shenker, a pioneer string theorist at Stanford, quoted Winston Churchill:

"This is not the end, not even the beginning of the end, but perhaps it is the end of the beginning."

Dr. Shenker said it would be great to find out that string theory was right.

From the audience Dr. Greene piped up, "Wouldn't it be great either way?"

"Are you kidding me, Brian?" Dr. Shenker responded. "How many years have you sweated on this?"

But if string theory is wrong, Dr. Greene argued, wouldn't it be good to know so physics could move on? "Don't you want to know?" he asked.

Dr. Shenker amended his remarks. "It would be great to have an answer," he said, adding, "It would be even better if it's the right one."


I quote more from that article here: http://pmbryant.typepad.com/b_and_b/2004/12/string_theory_d.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigobusiness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. Michio Kaku weighs in on String Theory
M-Theory: The Mother of all Superstrings

Every decade or so, a stunning breakthrough in string theory sends shock waves racing through the theoretical physics community, generating a feverish outpouring of papers and activity. This time, the Internet lines are burning up as papers keep pouring into the Los Alamos National Laboratory's computer bulletin board, the official clearing house for superstring papers. John Schwarz of Caltech, for example, has been speaking to conferences around the world proclaiming the “second superstring revolution.” Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Prince- ton gave a spell-binding 3 hour lecture describing it. The after- shocks of the breakthrough are even shaking other disciplines, like mathematics. The director of the Institute, mathematician Phillip Griffiths, says, “The excitement I sense in the people in the field and the spin-offs into my own field of mathematics ... have really been quite extraordinary. I feel I've been very privileged to witness this first hand.”

Cumrun Vafa at Harvard has said, “I may be biased on this one, but I think it is perhaps the most important development not only in string theory, but also in theoretical physics at least in the past two decades.” What is triggering all this excitement is the discovery of something called “M-theory,” a theory which may explain the origin of strings. In one dazzling stroke, this new M-theory has solved a series of long-standing puzzling mysteries about string theory which have dogged it from the beginning, leaving many theoretical physicists (myself included!) gasping for breath. M-theory, moreover, may even force string theory to change its name. Although many features of M-theory are still unknown, it does not seem to be a theory purely of strings. Michael Duff of Texas A & M is already giving speeches with the title “The theory formerly known as strings!” String theorists are careful to point out that this does not prove the final correctness of the theory. Not by any means. That may make years or decades more. But it marks a most significant breakthrough that is already reshaping the entire field.

Parable of the Lion
Einstein once said, “Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size.” Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life searching for the “tail” that would lead him to the “lion,” the fabled unified field theory or the “theory of everything,” which would unite all the forces of the universe into a single equation. The four forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) would be unified by an equation perhaps one inch long. Capturing the “lion” would be the greatest scientific achievement in all of physics, the crowning achievement of 2,000 years of scientific investigation, ever since the Greeks first asked themselves what the world was made of. But although Einstein was the first one to set off on this noble hunt and track the footprints left by the lion, he ultimately lost the trail and wandered off into the wilderness. Other giants of 20th century physics, like Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli, also joined in the hunt. But all the easy ideas were tried and shown to be wrong. When Niels Bohr once heard a lecture by Pauli explaining his version of the unified field theory, Bohr stood up and said, “We in the back are all agreed that your theory is crazy. But what divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough!”

The trail leading to the unified field theory, in fact, is littered with the wreckage of failed expeditions and dreams. Today, however, physicists are following a different trail which might be “crazy enough” to lead to the lion. This new trail leads to superstring theory, which is the best (and in fact only) candidate for a theory of everything. Unlike its rivals, it has survived every blistering mathematical challenge ever hurled at it. Not surprisingly, the theory is a radical, “crazy” departure from the past, being based on tiny strings vibrating in 10 dimensional space-time. Moreover, the theory easily swallows up Einstein's theory of gravity. Witten has said, “Unlike conventional quantum field theory, string theory requires gravity. I regard this fact as one of the greatest in- sights in science ever made.” But until recently, there has been a glaring weak spot: string theorists have been unable to probe all solutions of the model, failing miserably to examine what is called the “non-perturbative region,” which I will describe shortly. This is vitally important, since ultimately our universe (with its wonderfully diverse collection of galaxies, stars, planets, sub- atomic particles, and even people) may lie in this “non-perturbative region.” Until this region can be probed, we don't know if string theory is a theory of everything -- or a theory of nothing! That's what today's excitement is all about. For the first time, using a powerful tool called “duality,” physicists are now probing beyond just the tail, and finally seeing the outlines of a huge, unexpectedly beautiful lion at the other end. Not knowing what to call it, Witten has dubbed it “M-theory.” In one stroke, M-theory has solved many of the embarrassing features of the theory, such as why we have 5 superstring theories. Ultimately, it may solve the nagging question of where strings come from.

snip

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/mtheory_superstrings.shtml


Academic papers -(pdf files)

Symmetries and String Field Theory in D=2
http://www.mkaku.org/articles/Symmetries_and_String_Field_Theory_in_D2.pdf

Sub Critical Closed String Field Theory (Less then 26)
http://www.mkaku.org/articles/Sub-critical_Closed_String_Field_Theory_in_D_(Less_Than_26).pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight armadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-20-04 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. String theory...zzzz...
Twenty years and not a single experimentally testable prediction. NOT ONE. Is this science? It doesn't seem to past the test to me.

But what the hell do I know, I'm just a soft condensed matter experimentalist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Squeegee Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-20-04 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. That's not true
Edited on Mon Dec-20-04 01:53 PM by Squeegee
String theory has made accurate and testable predictions, such as the unification of electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces. What I think you mean is that String Theory is not directly verifiable since it deals with events at Planc-scale distances and requires more than 3 physical dimensions that we currently have no real way of measuring or observing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pmbryant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-20-04 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Actually, I'm pretty sure it is true
Certainly electroweak unification cannot be claimed as a great "prediction" success of String theory, since that unification was both hypothesized and experimentally confirmed well before String theory became a major topic of research in 1984.

--Peter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Squeegee Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-21-04 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. No, not really
String theory since the very early 70's predicted the unification of all forces through supersymmetric quantum field theory, which was shown to be true for the electroweak case, but has not yet been proven in the general case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pmbryant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-21-04 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Interesting, but I still think this fails to be a "prediction"
Thanks for pointing that out. But if String theory really made such a big breakthrough in the early 70s, why did it not become a big subject of research until 1984?

I suspect the answer is that there were many competing "Grand Unified Theories" back in the 1970s, and all of them "predicted" force unification, at least in general. Physicists since Einstein have believed in their hearts that all forces must be unified.

As I understand, Glashow, Salam, and Weinberg came up with the detailed electroweak unification theory and corresponding predictions for which they won the Nobel Prize in 1979 (and whose predictions were apparently experimentally verified in 1983). But I doubt they used String theory to do so, since Glashow has been one of the most vocal critics of String theory for quite a while.

But I am not familiar with the gory details.

--Peter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Squeegee Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-04 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yeah, something like that
In the 70's, there were several competing Grand Unified Theories: String theory, Technicolor theory (?), and various other supersymmetric and non-symmetric gauge theories. When the electroweak force was verified in 1984, the collider experiments supported the supersymmetric theories and disproved the non-symmetric ones, so String theory continues to limp along...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. It appears as though you've got an unhelpful view of science...
There's a *lot* more involved with the value of a scientific theory than simply its Carnapian "predictive value". See, for example, Ptolemaic vs Copernican astronomical models (Kuhn's old book is wonderful).

Your "history" of string theory rocks: "I suspect", "As I understand", "I doubt", "I am not familiar".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pmbryant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-05 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Unhelpful?
I never said that only value of a scientific theory was its "predictive value". Predictions are necessary, though. As otherwise, how can a hypothesis by tested?

And perhaps my writing style is inferior, but if you dispute my brief, "history", please let me know what I'm mistaken about.

Peter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineYooper Donating Member (555 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-04 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. The 1979 Nobel prize (Glashow, Weinberg, Salaam)
was awarded for work done in the 60s. Here's a link to the Nobel press release:

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1979/press.html

This pretty seriously predates the emergence of string theory. It's probably better described as a "post-diction", which is to say the predictions of string theory are consistent with what was already known about the unification of electromagnetic and weak forces.

What do you know? My 100th post takes me back to physics, where my degrees are! (I work in Computational Biology now.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Squeegee Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-05 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. If you look at the time-line, it's not as clear-cut
1967: In his paper A Model of Leptons, Steven Weinberg relies on Lie group theory combined with quantum field theory to explain the weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces in a single theory, using the Higgs mechanism to give mass to the weak bosons. Adbus Salam and Sheldon Glashow share the Nobel Prize with Weinberg in 1979 for Electroweak Theory.

1968: Gabriele Veneziano begins modern string theory with his paper on the dual resonance model of the strong interactions.

1970: Yoichiro Nambu, Leonard Susskind, and Holger Nielsen independently discover that the dual resonance model devised by Veneziano is based on the quantum mechanics of relativistic vibrating strings, and string theory begins.

1971: Gerard 't Hooft proved that the unified electroweak theory proposed by Glashow, Salam, and Weinberg was renormalizable, and the theory gained full respectability.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigobusiness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. So, String theory is a snooze because of our limited ability to test it?
You illustrate the singular biggest flaw regarding science and the scientific method -- the lynchpin that secures the backbone of science itself:

"Twenty years and not a single experimentally testable prediction. NOT ONE. Is this science? It doesn't seem to past the test to me."

Confining what IS to our abilty to measure it is a bit like flat-earthers arguing with Columbus, or trying to find God by measuring a Cathedral.

Anytime science is bound, rather than elevated, by its tools and methods it becomes as questionable as the things it questions.

Science seems unwilling to accept that it might not be able to entirely demystify the nature of things, and that our fullest reach might excede our laboratory grasp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC