Evidence for String Theory!!

[BillHoyt]

[edit] Quick question to knowledgeable posters: what exactly is a tr'oll? I'm familiar with 'trolls', but this is a new term for me.

"Tr'oll" = T'ai Chi, aka Whodini, aka Sherlock Holmes. You'll catch onto him in about a dozen or less posts. Very transparent.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence for String Theory!!

Google. "String theory". Or, even better, try the universities. Go to your book store. Library.

I did. I'm looking for actual evidence.

There is a life outside JREF, you know....

You have many more posts than me...

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence for String Theory!!

Most doubtful.

Most doubtful no one has any evidence for it? I agree.

I'd personally bet there is more evidence for anomalous cognition...

 

[CFLarsen]

I did. I'm looking for actual evidence.

Really? Which universities have you contacted? What books have you read? Who are the people who advocate string theory, what do they claim, what evidence do they present?

You have many more posts than me...

I've been here quite a bit longer than you, Einstein.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Really? Which universities have you contacted? What books have you read? Who are the people who advocate string theory, what do they claim, what evidence do they present?

I ate cereal this morning. Want to know what kind, where I bought it, the exact amount I ate, and then claim 'no evidence!' since you didn't get my stomach pumped? Saying I read about string theory is not what any rational person would put into the 'extraordinary claim' group. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the question of 'is there any evidence for string theory', obviously.

I do happen to have experience with real analysis, complex analysis, group theory, calculus, statistics, and the basic physics involved. In addition I've read some of Greene's, Witten's, and Schwarz's works, which consist of journal articles, not books. I've contacted (because I went to them) the universities I was a student at, and looked at their physics books when I first heard of string theory. Sorry, I didn't get this entire process on videotape for you.

I'm skeptical of string theory. I'm skeptical of 10, or 11, or whatever many it is today dimensions. I'm looking for actual evidence. Got anything besides questions for me? Questions to me about what books I've read are not evidence for string theory, you know. (I hope.)

I like your standards Claus, but since they're all of the double variety, I always have to address them twice, hence my repeat of the question of 'Is there actual evidence for string theory?'

I've been here quite a bit longer than you, Einstein.

You simply demonstrated that you are on the bulletin board more than me, yet you imply me of not having a life outside of JREF. Way to go!

 

[CFLarsen]

I ate cereal this morning. Want to know what kind, where I bought it, the exact amount I ate, and then claim 'no evidence!' since you didn't get my stomach pumped? Saying I read about string theory is not what any rational person would put into the 'extraordinary claim' group. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the question of 'is there any evidence for string theory', obviously.

I do happen to have experience with real analysis, complex analysis, group theory, calculus, statistics, and the basic physics involved. In addition I've read some of Greene's, Witten's, and Schwarz's works, which consist of journal articles, not books. I've contacted (because I went to them) the universities I was a student at, and looked at their physics books when I first heard of string theory. Sorry, I didn't get this entire process on videotape for you.

I'm skeptical of string theory. I'm skeptical of 10, or 11, or whatever many it is today dimensions. I'm looking for actual evidence. Got anything besides questions for me? Questions to me about what books I've read are not evidence for string theory, you know. (I hope.)

I like your standards Claus, but since they're all of the double variety, I always have to address them twice, hence my repeat of the question of 'Is there actual evidence for string theory?'

It seems to me that things have to be dragged out of you, that's all. I can understand why you seem a little under pressure.

You simply demonstrated that you are on the bulletin board more than me, yet you imply me of not having a life outside of JREF. Way to go!

Read what I write, T'ai Chi: I said I was here before you, hence my higher number of posts. That does not mean I spend more time here than you.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence for String Theory!!

Most doubtful no one has any evidence for it? I agree.

Ooo, shiver, shiver. A clueless retort, protected by the smilie hex sign. Back away, skeptics! Any challenge will be met with the smilie hex defense Oooo, shiver, shiver.

Freakin' games-playing tr'oll.

 

[The Don]

So, anybody got any?10, 11, or whatever dimensions. Fine, I'll say that 4 exist, so provide us even a shred of evidence (other than making the mathematics work out nice) that any extra ones exist in reality.

I take it that the model fitting to observable phemonena does not count as evidence on the grounds that this would constitute "the mathematics working out nice".

I would argue that it doesn't matter. If the theory is able to reliably predict observable phenomena then it serves its purpose. If however dogmatic adherence to a theory prevents "better" ones from being developed then it probabey does matter.

 

[Brian the Snail]

He has a point. I doubt many of us here can make any authoritative statement about the correctness of "String" or "M" theory. I know I can't.
I read "The Elegant Universe" and understood perhaps 5% of it.

You know, I got that book out of the library, and someone had written comments in the margins on most of the pages like "not proven" or "no evidence." Was it you, T'ai Chi?

I think string theorists are the first to admit that there's no concrete experimental evidence for it in terms of confirmed predictions- the energy scales involved are just too large to see effects directly with present technology. Does that mean it's woo woo? No, it just means that it's a hypothesis, which is interesting in that it's consistent with the present Standard Model and ties up some loose ends theoretically, but still needs to be tested (in this regard, string theory is a misnomer). Nobody's suggesting that it's the theory of everything, just that it's a possible candidate. And it is testable in principle, not just in practice (yet).

Actually, there could be ways of testing some aspects of it, like supersymmetry, in the near future with some of the next generation colliders. And there's plenty of string theorists beavering away trying to come up with other ways to test string theory, so it's certainly recognized as a priority in that community.

 

[iain]

[BI'm skeptical of string theory. I'm skeptical of 10, or 11, or whatever many it is today dimensions. I'm looking for actual evidence. Got anything besides questions for me? Questions to me about what books I've read are not evidence for string theory, you know. (I hope.) [/B]

Not sure what the problem is. So you're sceptical about string theory. Good for you. I'm sceptical about it too. I imagine mosts physicists are sceptical, in the sense that if you asked them whether string theory was true they would answer that we don't know.

Of course, they hope that they aren't building up an edifice which is all going to be knocked down; but right now you, and everyone else, is right to be sceptical.

Was there anything else you had in mind?

 

[BillHoyt]

Was there anything else you had in mind?

Objection. Presumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

We should always be skeptical of things we have no way of experimentally testing.

Incidentally, I'm highly skeptical of the Big Bang Theory. Past evidence demonstrates that our ability to predict natural phenomena on a scale outside of our ability to clearly observe is highly limited. (Which is why the Voyager probes revolutionized our understanding of the outer planets, for example.)

I don't doubt that BB is the best explanation we have at the moment for our observations, but I suspect we'll eventually find it to be lacking.

Admittedly, a lot of extra dimensions does seem improbable, but there's really no reason why it should be impossible. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[RichardR]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence for String Theory!!

Not at all. I just don't see the relevance.

What have you done to find evidence yourself?

To be fair, Claus, this is the Science forum; questions about science are allowed.

 

[RichardR]

I watched that two-part PBS series on string theory, and it was the consensus of physicists that there was no observable evidence at this time.

At present, we have mathmatical models (and I too, am math-challenged) that seem to agree with observed phenomenon.

Some of the "mainstream" physicists interviewed in the PBS segment were quite dismissive of the idea, at least at this point.

That was my memory of the PBS program too. Apparently the math strongly supports it, but at least one of the physicists featured expressed the view that eventually string theorists would have to develop a way to test it, otherwise it would only be philosophy (his word) not science. Of course, they have to be allowed some time to do this, but sooner or later they have to find a way to falsify it.

 

[RichardR]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence for String Theory!!

I'd personally bet there is more evidence for anomalous cognition...

Even if this is true, it would not make the existence of psi any more or less likely.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Hey, I'm one of those whackos that says things like time travel, multiple dimensions, etc. are impossible. Why? I still can't see it with all the theories present. My knowledge on the subject is limited though, so I get trounced on all the time for my rash opinions

It's fun to demand evidence though. I learn more each time I see a thread like this one.

When it comes to evolution though, I have studied it for years and plants and animals and microbes, etc. So I have a clear understanding and know it's true.

So, I'll go out on a limb and say multiple dimensions is a ridiculous concept, but only because my limited knowledge is all I have to fall back on.

I also say the paranormal doesn't exist, but only because I have researched that one as thoroughly as possible as well as the evolution subject.

I look forward to any more information posted on the theories of string theory here. I'm too lazy/don't have time to look it up for the next while.

 

[Chad Noles]

posted by Eos of the Eons
I also say the paranormal doesn't exist, but only because I have researched that one as thoroughly as possible as well as the evolution subject.

I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that your research was sufficient to reach your position.My question is, at what point does one say,"ok,this is enough."How do you determine that the data you'll looked at is sufficient enough to say, something cannot exist?My inquiry is not ment as a flame,I'm just wondering as what point you decided to draw your conclusion.

 

[iain]

I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that your research was sufficient to reach your position.My question is, at what point does one say,"ok,this is enough."How do you determine that the data you'll looked at is sufficient enough to say, something cannot exist?My inquiry is not ment as a flame,I'm just wondering as what point you decided to draw your conclusion.

I don't think you ever get to the stage of saying something cannot exist. For myself, I get to the point when I think I've familiarised myself with the evidence (as far as I can) and the main arguments on both sides. Where there are disagreements, I also like to try and understand why proponents have the views they do - where they're coming from.

In reality, though, I don't want to spend my whole life on stuff like this; so I hit the enough point when I get bored or something better to do comes along (sometimes I even try to pretend I have a life).

 

[Chad Noles]

posted by Iain
I also like to try and understand why proponents have the views they do - where they're coming from.

Exacty the reason for my question.

 

[Dancing David]

I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that your research was sufficient to reach your position.My question is, at what point does one say,"ok,this is enough."How do you determine that the data you'll looked at is sufficient enough to say, something cannot exist?My inquiry is not ment as a flame,I'm just wondering as what point you decided to draw your conclusion.

Well, when you look at the data seriously, there is no evidence for the paranormal, there is a lot of evidence for the human experience but nothing so far that transcends it.