Slashdot Mirror
Current Thoughts in String Theory
DrLudicrous writes "The NYTimes is running a nice little synopsis of the current ideas in string theory. Apparently, there is still quite a bit of disagreement about how to interpret the various theories, with some string theorists supporting a semi-deterministic worldview a la Einstein (God does not play dice), while others believe our universe is just one possibility among many, with respect to various physical parameters."
Still, intriguing stuff.
While various Theories of Everything are being proposed, a lot of them are not based on observation. They are just complex mathematical magic created to explain reality. It's like someone saying the earth is suspended in space on the back of a big turtle which is suspended on the back of another turtle, ad. infinitum. For a human who doesn't have any means of verification, the turtle theory can explain things as well as gravity. Similarly, there are currently no means to verify string theory. It is about as good as the turtle theory until then.
Once quantum computing becomes a reality, would we be able to emulate some of the conditions certain experiments? I know an emulation is not the same as the real thing, but it would still be something,no?
Michio Kaku is a very brilliant man, he was on Big Thinkers and made a very interesting arguement about the String theory.
There is also a very interesting book called Elegant Universe. I really haven't seen anything that compared to it.
forget it.
It seems to me that all the desperate anti-anthropic people are frightened, at some deep existential level, by the undoubted, rational reality of there being no omnipotent Sky God watching over them. So ever-expanding universes, or universes where sudden phase changes in the structure of the dark energy destroy existing life, or universes with life-hostile substructural "laws" all make them feel too small, unloved, and insignificant against the vastness. Get used to it, we are cosmic dust. The simplest explanation is that there is no design, no Sky God, no plan, and no ordering. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Da Blog
It should be pointed out that Einstein in addition to helping at the start of QM (the photoelectric effect and brownian motion) also did some major work in QM later on. Most of that work was to try and poke holes in the theory. Wherever he was able to the QM folks were able to patch them back up.
I will admit to not understaning much of the term of QM I had to take in my physics major
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Has anyone ever stopped to think that there is no TOE? And not just that, that there is no valid description of possible universes either? Theoretical physicists are playing mathematical games to find the TOE, but are having lots of trouble. The TOE should produce all the physical constants from its principles, right? What if the TOE has constants? Worse, what if someone proved a Godel or Turing like theorem that says something to the effect of "There is no theory that can describe everything, because there will be at least one (universe|force|particle|whatever) that does exist, but cannot be described." This is the most likely outcome I think.
At best I think that if we find a TOE it will have extremely poor predictive value because it will be so generic that it tells us not too much more about our universe than we already know, and simply give physicists new universes to wank around in. Not to say we shouldn't research this... ya never know where you might find useful stuff.
Leading us to another great misquote, "those who are not shocked when they first come across
quantum mechanics cannot possibly have understood it," Niels Bohr, which gets turned into something like, anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics doesn't, which is really a totally different statement. It's not that you can't "understand" it - it's that the implications of the theory are simply shocking.
Both your statements about Einstein are perfectly true though. The Brownian motion work tends to be overshadowed by the relativity, but its actually elegant and significant science that was later backed up with some baroque and inventive experiments. And no, he could never accept the quantum mechanics entirely - not its reliance on probabilities and not the world where things could have no precise position and momentum. But as you note, he was never able to build a case against it that had any traction.
I don't know if anyone but the true math-heads really understands quantum mechanics. I took a fair amount with physical chemistry, and while I could grasp what was presented to me by the teacher, it was pretty damn clear that I wouldn't ever be coming up with stuff like that on my own. I remember very clearly being taught the proof for Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It was so elegant and undeniable - either this is the way it is or else our most fundamental definitions of matter and energy have to be scrapped. But I never would have figured it out on my own, and I can't really remember it now - it would be hours of unpleasant work with the calc book and scratch paper to take myself through the proof on my own. Ah well. Quantum nostalgia (o particle in a box, we hardly knew you!)
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
But Dr. Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said, "I think this grand dream is basically dying."
Along with BSD, trinity and internet.....
BSD has been dying for over 10 years.
Trinity died even before reloaded could hit the screen.
Internet has been dying for sometime now.
Actually, string theory was originally formulated as a theory of the strong nuclear force. It fell out of favor once quantum chromodynamics was invented.
You cannot build a theory of gravity from "straight up quantum field theory", at least in the perturbative QFT framework that applies to the other forces. (Nonperturbative canonical quantization might work.)
As far as I know, string theory hasn't predicted any observables
Now that's silly. String theory has a lot more direct connections to physics than number theory. I agree with your basic point that string theory is overhyped and tenuously connected with reality, but this kind of hyperbole does not help your case.