String Theory

Its important to understand the implications of string theory, to reference what is apparently an already beaten horse, Hawking recently claimed God need not create the Universe, I don't mean to start another discussion on that, as much as I'd like to on the merits of string theory, and or why it maybe supported by such an incredible amount of scientist. Its interesting to me, that scientist, like say Hawking, are willing to state as an absolute "God need not create the universe" all the while forgetting to mention the fact that, well this is my theory, built off of string theory, that in and of itself actually has no evidence, no testability, and no viable predictions, and hasn't, for over 20 years.

But the implications of string theory don't only get wrapped up in a recent claim by Hawking, string theory in a sense could also imply or debuff (ha!) many other philosophical arguments, namely so the anthropic principle for theist. As well as create a Universe that is wholey deterministic, (no free will).

I mean to put "theory" in quotes on the subject title. As it posses none of the things listed above (testability, predictions, and zero evidence) it is thus not really a theory, nor even a hypothesis, or even really science, as much as a philosophical hopeful.

Im not too informed on this string theory

I dont really want to look it up but do you mind giving a simple explanation on what it is?

Simple explanation... And string theory... Don't belong anywhere near each other.

im googling now -.- XD

brb, wikipedia

Its basically a Theory of everything.

From Wiki:

String theory posits that the electrons and quarks within an atom are not 0-dimensional objects, but 1-dimensional strings. These strings can move and vibrate, giving the observed particles their flavor, charge, mass and spin.


String Theory

brb, killing myself.

That was a long but good read. Now I know things I will never use or discuss lol.

I just read it on wiki too lol

ok im almost sure im wrong(wtf) but does that theory pretty much explain how if I hit a baseball with a bat they are actually not touching each other just the force of electrons from each object push the ball?

Im just confused now :P

I love when you talk science <3

But, I also agree (And not just cause we're married >.>) Its one of the first explanations of everything, so people are going to veer towards it because its an answer. I'm sure we'll be able to test it in time (maybe not in our lifetime, but someday) and then we'll be able to see whether or not there's some truth to it or not.


Or we can just believe in the flying spaghetti monster. That works too.

OP just discovered the cure for insomnia.

oh noez the Flying Spaghetti Monster is back to get us, hide everyone and fear him wrath.

so very true

The main criticism to string theory is that it really isn't testable. I don't know how "sure" you can be about the ability to test the existence of 1-2 dozen undetectable and allegedly incredibly small dimensions.

Anyone interested in string theory or wanting to kill some time should read The Elegant Universe. It's a pretty good read.

The main problem I see with string theory is that it attempt to explain everything. The problem with a "Theory of Everything" is that the only one sure thing that everything has in common with each other is that it had the potential to never exist.

Once existed, even though it no longer exists, it did at once point exist. Thus had some kind of interaction with the universe. Whereas if something still does not exist it has no interaction with the universe.

This is definitely a more philosophical view, but the only way you can possibly have a "Theory of Everything" is to have a "Theory of Nothing."

In more scientific terms the problem as I see it is we need a new branch of mathematics that is unlike any math done now. The problem with math as it exists now is the fact that nothing address the issue that no 2 existing entities are exactly alike.

So you can make the most elaborate and complicated equations you want, but plugging in the same number for the same variable always yields the same result.

The problem I always had in lab experiments was the fact they teach you to "fit the equation" so to speak. That is on a graph you plot results than make an equation to fit this plots. Then the fact that only a hand full of points at best actually fit the equation is attributed to factors such as human error, lab equipment, environmental factors, etc. Then you are told in a perfect setup with no outside interference that the experiment's results would fit the equation perfectly.

I always had a problem with that, because the universe is not a perfect setup. Even the notion of a perfect vacuum doesn't exist, because of gravity.

That's one thing that always bothered me about science, "under ideal conditions" or "if it was in a vacuum...", because the entire universe is chaotic. There does not exist perfect conditions or an absolute vacuum.

Anyone interested in string theory should studdy Mathematics for years.

Anyone trying to "simplify it", propably heard all about the theory on fox news.

"Nothing" is 100% predictable.

"Nothing" never does anything illogically.

"Nothing" is the only constant.

"Nothing" is the only thing that is truly balanced.

"Nothing" is perfect.

"Nothing" can never exist.

The universe is constantly expanding. Expanding out of nothing until one day the universe collapses into itself. Thus heading towards nothing. But ultimately will reach one point away from nothing, but can't truly be nothing, so the process repeats once again.

Here's a nice carton clip that shows what I am talking about:

God damn you FOX.

Btw, a great movie worth watching for this philosophy/theory:

What the Bleep Do We Know?


Mind = Blown, every time.

Just as much as this (thread) could argue on the merits of string theory, it can also argue that scientist gleam a big one over the general public (that small part that has an interest at least) people hear Stephen Hawking say there doesn't need be a creator for example, without mentioning the minor detail that there is no evidence, experiment, predictions or way to even plausibly confirm the theory he rests his claim on. And on cable I saw a special on the Universe on the discovery channel, and there they are, scientist, claiming they know how on the singularity vie string theory, and talking as if we know its true and the strings do exist. O and those other universes.

Ironically this is part of the problem. The reason it can't be simplified is because the strings come in package deals, like buying a car, pretend you want a moon roof, and a manual transmission, and a good sound system, but then you find that the manual transmission car doesn't have a moon roof, and the one that has the moon roof doesn't have a good sound system.

This is how scientist operate within string theory, we take one version of it, and we have problems, we then pick up the version that doesn't have that problem, but other ones the other theory didnt, and on and on.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/no_strings_attached/

problem is: the deeper you look into this theory the more the laws of physics get ignored. and that is simply mind drizzling.

edit: not about strings but about the expanding universe and other stuff.
http://www.streaming-madness.net/watch-online/documentary/how-the-universe-works-big-bang-2010/