String Theory

What's funny is that about 2 hours after uploading this video I got a notice saying due to copyright restrictions this video can only be viewed by the US. In the line of who owns the rights, it says FOX.
So apparently FOX still owns the rights to Futurama.

Or they just think they do, maybe someone didn't get a memo...

Hawking's quote is more about tacking on a supposition of the creation of the universe where one isn't necessary. He is being philosophical, not scientific.

The universe exists, science has no sound explanation for its origin nor inner workings as of, and we are okay with that. We are looking for these things, there is no reason to jump to any conclusions, be it God or super string theory.

I personally i like super string theory, its a fun toy to think about while you are trying to get to sleep.

As for determinism and "no free will", those two aren't synonymous. Determinism relies on the "illusion" of free will in order to play out properly.

Lakshmi: You beat me to it. I was gonna post this one too. String theory simplified.

Personllay I think the idea holds a little water. The string theory my not be the best thing to explain how things got started. But is sure beats the heck outta, "God created the univerese, and dont talk back".

Simplify dimensions 11-13 now. lol!

11-13 is simple. They don't exist in any form that we know of!

M-Theory is where I start to get lost anyways...

I'm saying we shouldn't make absolute statements (God isn't necessary for the universe) on a theory (not really a theory) that has no proof, evidence, or ability to be tested. Do you disagree with that? On a sidenote it seems like you state I have to offer an alternative before something can be labeled as wrong, but that isnt necessarily so, think of all the whacked out explanations for quantum mechanics odd physicist have written in books, do they have any evidence proof or ability to be tested? No. But we don't regard them as quality until someone provides an alternative. We can debate the merits of if you'd like. Ill make it my next post.

Really? Was this your point the whole time? This is now officially the most round about way of saying: "Since you can't prove god doesn't exist then he must exist."

Dammit I thought this was going to be a legitimate discussion :(

There's plenty of proof and evidence for quantum mechanics. That's why we build large particle colliders. The point of science is that you come up with a theory, and use it to try and predict how things will be in the future. If the theory can't predict how things work, it's useless as a theory. It's mental masturbation.

Quantum theory has a long and rich history. The standard model predicted the existence of every type of quark and antiquark long before we observed them in particle accelerators. The only particle we haven't yet witnessed is the Higgs, which the LHC may help us detect. (By the way, it may also help us detect Hawking's theories about black hole radiation and string theory. The potential creation of microscopic black holes in the LHC is based on the string theory extra-dimensional explanation of gravity.)

That's the point of theories. You don't just toss something out there and say "Meh, it might be this way." You toss it out there, and nobody gives a crap until you're proven right. Just like nobody gave a crap about Einstein's general theory of relativity until we witnessed light bending around the sun during a solar eclipse. Only then did he become a celebrity.

There's a reason that Hawking, as cool as he is, hasn't yet won a Nobel prize. Because nothing he's tossed out has been proven yet. We think they're probably true, but until we have proof (and we're awful close to having it), he's just a Pretty Good physicist in a wheelchair.

I appreciate the effort to create a unified "Theory of Everything" and steps in that direction, whether String Theory or indeed Super String Theory, are welcome attempts at trying to draw heretofore unrelated universal forces (gravitational/electromagnetic/strong force/weak force) into a single conceptual model. However, until such a theory is able to explain the unique affinity cats seem to have for cheeseburgers, I will have to regard them all with skepticism. :/

Indeed, until any of them work on that critical lolcatural level, I can't see them being able to explain "Everything" at all. ;_;

I've been trying to write a good post in this thread for awhile now and this pretty much said everything I wanted to say <_>
Jaerik for president!

I don't doubt quantum mechanics. ?. String theory is not quantum mechanics. I don't get this threads turn...? Alternatives to string theory can be said to be, for example "Quantum Loop theory/gravity. Not a disbelief in quantum mechanics? I was referencing others beliefs on it, and there are a lot.

For the few of you just happy theres a theory out there trying to unify things and all, thats great, but you don't realize this isn't new, string theory isnt new at all, string theory has been around for over 20 years, and in that time it has not given us any evidence, predictability/testability, it did not do good things theories of science do (in the case of building purely mathmatical theories on the subatomic), IE predict things, it hopes to unify and explain everything, it should then help us when we discover something, but this isn't the case, for example string theory did not predict dark matter like a good unifying theory would, and we'd pat ourselves on the back and say good job we're obviously on the right track, but no, rather now, string theorist hope to wrap string theory around dark matter, missing the whole point.

It could still be a discussion on the merits of string theory, me pointing out the disconect between how scientist talk to the general public and amongst themselves doesn't disqualify that from taking place...? And for even one poster, a disbelief in string theory doesn't mean "God did it". What a horrible conclusion, if "string theory is wrong" means "God did it", then string theory is so far from science.... aagghhh...

If anything I thought bringing about this thread would bring that to a discussion (the merits of it), cause I figured if im going to come in here and claim string theory isn't even a scientific theory, people that would discuss the opposing view would also argue against that premise. I was wrong?