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.
Link
In case the site is slow, or you don't have a stinking NYTIMES account, here is a mirror.
Martin Studio Slashdot Policy
This site is maintained by a professor and has a great book on string theory. http://www.mkaku.org/
Just use the StringTokenizer class, and leave the actual implementation to the virtual machine. That way, the best String theory can be used later, when it is derived, and you won't have to change a line of code.
You are correct in stating that we lack the energy to test string theory -- According to Hawking, one estimate of the (theoritcal) grand unification energy would be a thousand million million million GeV. Further, he goes on to say that it would take something the size of a solar system to produce this. So you're right, we can't do it.
BUT, there could very well be places that do have this necessary energy and could be observed to exhibit traits that we can measure and confirm theories with. This has been how most of the more recent unification theories have been confirmed -- either by measuring very small things with very fine equipment or measuring very large things in space.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
My housemate was recently developing a comprehensive theory of the oscillations of short bits of string, even comprising such philosophical points as whether they're inherent or caused by some bored unemployed minor god. Then I bought a laser pointer and now it's all refraction this and speckle that.
Cats are fickle.
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.
..quantum physics probably doesn't exist...
I think that quote (or rather, truncuated paraphrases thereof) is much abused. What Einstein is saying (which is much clearer in a fuller context) is that while the probabalistic equations that comprise much of quantum theory are valuable as descriptive and predictive tools, they do much less to further Einstein's cherished ideals of really understanding the fundamental basis of physical reality. The statement "I am convinced that He does not throw dice" is a statement that while the equations of quantum mechanics might behave like statistics, they did not mean that the underlying reasons for why these equations work were simply artifacts of random, statistical processes - mere throwing of dice. Our ongoing failure to connect all the dots of the various paradigms could indicate that he was on to something...
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Strings are pretty cool. They make clothes (among other things), and when they vibrate, they make music. They're also good for fishing if you tie a hook at the end of it. String it up with two cans and you've got yourself a cool communication network!
I do have a theory on string cheese, though. I think it's a plot to tempt and destroy the lactose intolerant. So cheesy...so convenient...so stringy but oh so dangerous.
If particle man got in a fight with string man who would win? If he's underwater does he get wet or does the water get him instead? (They Might Be Giants)
Maybe god is like some kind of ubercoder, daring us to figure out his implementation.
And like most of them, he doesn't document.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
He hops up on a barstool and says "Bartender gimmee a bourbon on the rocks." The bartender says "We don't serve strings in this bar, git out!" So the string leaves, ties himself at one end and musses up the other. He walks back in and asks for a bourbon again. The bartender says, "Hey, aren't you that piece of string I just threw out of here?" And the pice of string says, "No, I'm a frayed knot."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"God does not play dice with the universe. He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time." (Terry Pratchett, Good Omens)
Two strings walk into a bar.
The first string says to the bartender, "Give me a beer." The bartender turns to the second string and says, "and what about for you?" To which the second string replies, "I would also like a beer#@a9101gb230b81;kajf3#$B89*#(&)*13!$%#@$" and goes on and on spewing gibberish.
The bartender, shocked, asks the first string, "What is your buddy's problem?"
The first string answers, "Oh, you'll have to excuse him, he isn't null terminated."
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
There are several overlooked points in the discussion. Someone above has already pointed out that the Einstein quote about divine gambling is over and misquoted.
String theory was proposed by Lord Kelvin, who started to investigate by developing a theory of knots, which was expanded by Reidmeister, and blossomed in the 20th century.
Einstein's special and general relativity were created to explain observed phenomenon that could not be explained by current theories. For special relativity, this was the constant velocity of the speed of light given by electromagnetism and confirmed by the Michaelson-Morley experiments. General relativity is a result of formulating Newtonian gravity in the field theoretic language used for unified electromagnetism. There were bits of data around indicating its necessity, though, such as errors in the perihelion of Mercury.
Quantum mechanics was similarly developed because of an incredible plethora of data. Thanks to Bell, we now know that (unless theory takes some really extreme turns), before an interaction with a "classical" apparatus, a quantum particle not only has unknown position and momentum, it actually doesn't have either. It's a subtle argument, but it's pretty well tested.
The motivation for string theory was to remove infinities in the fields which result from point-like particles. There is no physical motivation. String theory was not formulated as a theory of gravity or a grand unification theory. Those were bolted on afterwards as people noticed they could have sufficient degrees of freedom: you can build similar theories with straight up quantum field theory, and many people do for their life's work. So far the theory has produced one observable, which we already knew to far higher accuracy from quantum field theory. Pure number theorists get more physics as a by product than do string theorists. Supersymmetry and the Higgs boson are attempts to clean up mathematical holes, but they seem almost well motivated compared to the morass that is string theory.
String theory has driven a wedge between theorists and experimentalists in particle physics, and made it "unfashionable" to do serious theory that actually deals with reality. However, the popular press loves it: you can quote big sounding names and no one can nay-say them. Most areas of particle physics abjectly fail when it comes to explaining what you're doing to the layman.
Thankfully the pendulum seems to be swinging. At Caltech, their one phenomenologist has recently been absolutely swamped with pupils: string theory seems to be dying off at last.
But then Schrodinger's Cat started to play with it.
Now all I have is a mess.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
I know more about string and particle theory than 99% of the population, which means I'm still a comparative dumbass on the subject in relation to people who really know what they're talking about.
However, here's a spiffy chart of the current "standard model" to help people get up to speed. Especially helpful for those who don't normally deal with Mesons and Antibayrons on a regular basis...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
You may also be interested in reading about loop quantum gravity, an alternative theory of everything. I' not expert, better refer to this reference that I looked up.