The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why I Don't Like String Theory  (Read 2113 times)

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why I Don't Like String Theory
« on: 21/09/2009 04:04:47 »
I am going to make an arguement on the validity of string theory. I just wondered what you thought of it.

It seems that in quantum physics, the laws themselves seem to predict that possible manifestations in reality that should exist, will (1): This implies strongly to the standards of the big bang. It means that our universe is the way it is, just because it is... and no other manifestation has arisen.

Based on this kind of logic, we find that string theory begins a tiny paradox with how much room we have concerning the compactification of spatial and temporal domains of possible freedom. Why is it that we are to accept a theory which indicates the nature in which all these dimensions are actually there, but compactified at some very early stage of the universe (some speculate due to branes floating in a multidimensional pool called Hyperspace.)

Why is such a theory contended, when the more simpler version seems more asthetic and pleasing to our own experience of what seems plausible? Might it be that string theory was certainly a solution for quantum mechanics - depending however quite massively that particles are not zero-dimensional, but in fact claiming it was more like a string?

According to the philosophical insight, it is actually true that it seems that the universe is the way it is because of no other solution; the solution has been quite obvious to us for a while. We only exist in a limited amount of 3 dimensions, and 1 possible temporal dimension, but we cannot find any others, as of yet. Why would we even want to make a spacetime so complicated, as let's say, the Bosonic Theory which states there are 26 dimensions in all! I have even read Michio (2) stating that the 26-dimensional theories seem most plausible.

If anything, why according to the philisophical yet scientific stance when concerning the manifestation of the dimensions themselves why they should have ever expanded at all? It seems much more simpler for a ground state universe to arrange itself (or its own frequency) to least principle of action. It would seem that dimensions appearing only to disappear again suggests that four was ever suffice, especially for anthropically-based physics, which Michio Kaku in his book recited explains quite a lot about with some remarkable detail. If anything it would be more consistent for a ground state universe to use up the least amount of movements. If the universe can be stable now, then it seems more than plausible that the universe could exist with four dimensions at any time during the universe. In fact, we can even apply physics up a point called the Planck Space, then here we cannot do more, but usually there remains some kind of singularity - an ''obsolete-value making mechanism''.

I see no reason as to why these dimensions needed to expand in the first place; in fact, i'm quite sure that this has not even been properly addressed. So i think string theory has a problem when trying to answer why these dimensions expanded at all alongside the existing dimensions today, when it seems that four dimensions suffice alone for quite a stable universe?

Maybe their answer would the exchange of gravitons, but that's only a consequence. That doesn't explain why it should be needed at all. In fact, we should try and keep things as simple as possible (3).



1 - G. W. F. Hegel (The philosophy
of history, New York: Dover, 249, 1956) ..." there is no essential
existence which does not manifest itself." 

2 - Dr Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds

3 - Albert Einstein qoute; ''Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler''.
« Last Edit: 21/09/2009 04:07:05 by Mr. Scientist »


 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Why I Don't Like String Theory
« Reply #1 on: 21/09/2009 17:13:42 »
I must admit I also don't like the idea of string theory for the same reason. Its an abstract concept created by mathematicians that needs extra dimensions to make it work and is far from simple. I think quote number 3 is about right.

Many things can be predicted in quantum physics but that does not mean that they will all necessarily be correct, just that they are possiblities. String theory predicts magnetic monopoles, QM predicts Gravitons and singularities but again they are just other examples of possibilities that MAY exist.


Correction. I forgot about the old simpler concept of strings (ropes or threads) that dates back to c1885 and was primarily written as an exercise in Karma.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Why I Don't Like String Theory
« Reply #2 on: 22/09/2009 09:41:39 »
I have at last got round to this one!..  I both like and dislike string theory at the same time.

Firstly the positive.  I do not believe that mathematical singularities can make any sense in physical terms and an attempt to increase the dimensionality of the fundamental space is very sensible.  Maybe an arbitrary initial approach is a good idea but this has lead to an explosion of mathematical possibilities without seemingly ever trying to come back to a physical reality and try to think how such string like structures could originate.

As to the dimensions of space and time, it has I believe been adequately proved that the three of space and one of time that we see is the only sensible number that leads to a long lived universe.  However we still have the fundamental problem that gravity causes our universe always to collapse and eventually form black holes.  The only thing that prevents this is angular momentum in various guises  this is the process that gives our universe its extended life.

I feel,that looking at the physics and trying to understand the detailed effects of angular momentum conservation during extreme gravitational collapse is a far more sensible way to go. 

Looking at gravity working in the largest scales in the universe we see condensations in the form of galaxies (particles) and string like structures in the extension of clusters of galaxies so gravitational collapse in the large forms "strings"  why should it not do so in the small.

This returns me to state my fundamental belief of he way the universe is built.  This is something that I have held since I was a child.  Because matter and energy are convertible it is obvious that they are essentially the same thing and therefore everything is essentially bits of curled up space time and we need to study ways in which space time can be curled up.
« Last Edit: 22/09/2009 09:43:14 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why I Don't Like String Theory
« Reply #3 on: 22/09/2009 19:20:57 »
I have at last got round to this one!..  I both like and dislike string theory at the same time.

Firstly the positive.  I do not believe that mathematical singularities can make any sense in physical terms and an attempt to increase the dimensionality of the fundamental space is very sensible.  Maybe an arbitrary initial approach is a good idea but this has lead to an explosion of mathematical possibilities without seemingly ever trying to come back to a physical reality and try to think how such string like structures could originate.

As to the dimensions of space and time, it has I believe been adequately proved that the three of space and one of time that we see is the only sensible number that leads to a long lived universe.  However we still have the fundamental problem that gravity causes our universe always to collapse and eventually form black holes.  The only thing that prevents this is angular momentum in various guises  this is the process that gives our universe its extended life.

I feel,that looking at the physics and trying to understand the detailed effects of angular momentum conservation during extreme gravitational collapse is a far more sensible way to go. 

Looking at gravity working in the largest scales in the universe we see condensations in the form of galaxies (particles) and string like structures in the extension of clusters of galaxies so gravitational collapse in the large forms "strings"  why should it not do so in the small.

This returns me to state my fundamental belief of he way the universe is built.  This is something that I have held since I was a child.  Because matter and energy are convertible it is obvious that they are essentially the same thing and therefore everything is essentially bits of curled up space time and we need to study ways in which space time can be curled up.

Certainly singular regions of spacetime do lead to perhaps inconsistencies, or perhaps one can go as far to say that singular mathematics may actually be an indication itself that the theory has broken down, because they are completely obsolete regions that cannot be dealt with consistently.

 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Why I Don't Like String Theory
« Reply #3 on: 22/09/2009 19:20:57 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums