Strings Link the Ultra-Cold With the Super-Hot 236
gabrlknght writes "Superstring theory claims the power to explain the universe, but critics say it can't be tested by experiment. Lately, though, string math has helped explain a couple of surprising experiments creating 'perfect liquids' at cosmic extremes of hot and cold. 'Both systems can be described as something like a shadow world sitting in a higher dimension. Strongly coupled particles are linked by ripples traveling through the extra dimension, says Steinberg, of Brookhaven. String math describing such ripples stems from an idea called the holographic principle, used by string theorists to describe certain kinds of black holes. A black hole's entropy depends on its surface area — as though all the information in its three-dimensional interior is stored on its two-dimensional surface. (The 'holographic' label is an allusion to ordinary holograms, where 3-D images are coated on a 2-D surface, like an emblem on a credit card.) The holographic principle has value because in some cases the math for a complex 3-D system (neglecting time) can be too hard to solve, but the equivalent 4-D math provides simpler equations to describe the same phenomena.'"
Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Lately, though, string math has helped explain a couple of surprising experiments
Yes, that happens all the time. The problem with string theoy is not that it doesn't predict anything. It's that it predicts everything. At least, one of the innumerable variants will predict anything after it's happened. If anyone could pick out some predictions before they happen then that might be something to get excited about.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Predicts Everything (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the problem is that it is so complicated it predicts everything that can or could happen. So the math is interesting to apply after the fact--but you can't extract the real from the possible results through the math alone.
Having to many points is the same as having none at all. And that's what String Theory in its current form seems to be.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Funny)
Science is not separate from religion; it will merely prove what religion already says is out there and how it got here
Exactly, just like Noah's flood, and how the earth was created around 6000 years ago and how people used to live for hundreds of years. Oh wait....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the only evidence we have on how long "prehistoric peoples" is found in our very limited fossil record. Every really old cave man we seem to find, typically is in his 30's or 40's.
You can't conclusively say that they didn't live for hundreds of years, but given that our life spans have been growing over the past 100 years, and given that our limited fossil record suggests that these people did not live that long, I think you can safely assume based on the best available information that "prehistoric"
Lovely (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another physical phenomenon fits the theory of everything. How about a prediction from string theory for once?
Not even wrong! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But lets not get a head of our selves. We have cracks in the standard model, and who knows what the LHC will throw up.
Re: (Score:2)
But the universe is not required to conform to our desires.
Re:Lovely (Score:5, Funny)
>Yet another physical phenomenon fits the theory of everything. How about a prediction from string theory for once?
You'll find that in String Theory 2: The Search For More Grant Money...
Re: (Score:2)
String theory actually makes plenty of sense, if you read into it.
As we delve into the smaller and smaller, we're going to find out that things that we observe start out in three dimensions. Then they go down to two dimensions. Then one dimension. Who know's what's beyond that.
If you read "Flatland" by Edwin Abbot Abbot, you might understand.
Imagine your drive to the nearest Walmart, in 3d. Now imagine it in 2d. Can you imagine it in 1d? I thought not.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine it in 1d? I thought not.
That's only because they don't do drive through Walmarts (that I know of).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
string analogues (Score:3, Interesting)
"The point is that we have two different kinds of systems capturing the same kind of physics," says string theorist Clifford Johnson
Back in the day it was commonplace to construct analogs of mechanical systems, for instance, using electronic components [vwh.net]. If the differential equations describing the two systems are similar, so will their solutions be.
That the topic is string theory is also reminiscent of how soap works [elmhurst.edu]. Half of a soap molecule is soluble in water, the other half insoluble - thus bridging between wet and oily substances. Very yin and yang.
Re:string analogues (Score:4, Interesting)
Yup (Score:2)
I still don't understand anything about string theory. Thank you /. for once more making me feel stupid.
Re:Yup (Score:5, Funny)
I think you understand it just fine ;)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's ok! Just stop saying that one thing, and start saying.. well.. all kinds of other thing. Use long words and treknobabble, just string it along until everyone glasses over. That's how it was named, you know. String 'em along. Yep.
You read it on the internet, it must be true!
Come back in 10 minutes (Score:5, Funny)
To you, at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you've put Octavarium by Dream Theater on and smoked a fat joint, this will make a lot more sense. To you, at least.
Sooo.....The Answer Lies Within.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hang on (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hang on (Score:5, Insightful)
[Burning Karma]
The problem is that String Theory (or M-theory or Brane Theory, whatever) is a bunch of mathematical models that are cool if you have 11 dimensions, so you have to hand wave about where those 7 dimensions went.
And yet after 20 years of mathematical masturbation, I've yet to see any single prediction from the mathematical models that can be tested.
Not one.
That's not Science folks, that's theoretical mathematics. Which is a perfectly valid academic field, just don't call it physics.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
[Burning Karma] = Please mod me up?
Re:Hang on (Score:5, Informative)
Dimensions can have all sorts of zany topologies going out to infinity.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite.
Instead you have to imagine that the PVC pipe has holes, which are actually tori in a lower dimensional realm(Think of the dark realm in a Link to the Past, or Soul Reaver). Across the dimensional planes, these tori and intersect the pipe (and each other!) to form a condensed PVC hyperpipe, the net result of which is akin to the creation of time before the big bang. If you now simply allow time to exponentially decay in directions perpendicular to its normal flow, you obtain what we understand to
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hang on (Score:5, Informative)
I was under the impression a dimension was like a mathematical axis, i.e. infinite in two directions...?
There's no such animal outside theory. In the real universe, spacetime is curved, more or less depending upon local conditions, but definitely never geometric line straight. If it appears that way it's because either the curve is too slow, you are similarly curved, or both. At the most extreme, the theoretical 'closed' universe curves back on itself as if you lived on the inside surface of a balloon.
Taking the lead from this Einsteinian view, string theory says the other dimensions are curved also, but to the extreme -- like to the Planck length or less (the smallest possible "grain" of the universe). The difference is not quality, only in quantity. That balloon you live in? Make it the so small that in size it is to an atom as an atom is to the Earth.
Once you've bent your head around that, consider that due to the Planck stuff, and things like Hawking's idea that near a singluarity (such as a Planck scale phenomenon) time and space fold into each other, no dimension no matter how straight, is an exact integer at all scales. This is true of the usual 4, and almost certainly of the other hypothesized 7. These other than integer dimensions are said to be "fractional". From fractional dimensions comes the word "fractal". And here you thought fractals were just good for producing CGIs of clouds, mountains, explosions and so forth. They are, but it's because they also produce the appearance of the real things.
probably meant (Score:2)
...math for a complex 3-D system ...
was probably meant to be "complicated". "Complex 3d" means C^3... or (R+iR)^3 if you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps they meant complex 3d, which is why it's easier to solve in 4d?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Blah... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope someone invents superstring cheese. That bosonic mozzarella they using for the normal stuff tastes like ass.
My advice to string theory (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to be taken seriously, avoid descriptions like "a shadow world sitting in a higher dimension." It's a meaningless analogy that only serves to make your field sound like pseudoscience BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is: What's with cases, where reality sounds even worse than pseudoscience BS?
I think -- irrespective to the usefulness of experience-based prejudice -- there's something wrong, when you judge a theory by how it sounds.
Re:My advice to string theory (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to pick on you because I appreciate your attempt to explain this, but, if you think about it, a shadow does not exist.
That is more sophistry than scientific argumentation. You're simply discarding projection as a (valid) means of examining an object.
It is an inappropriately named VOID
To continue your sophistry, how can something be a void?
Light is blocked by something else, to create what we incorrectly refer to as a thing (shadow)
... which is still a valid way of examining that "something else", since we have no way to observe it or measure it directly.
String Theory is the new Astrology (Score:2)
If it isn't testable it has no place in science.
Study it if it makes you feel good, but understand that you're not practicing anything scientific.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically you'd cancel all research into future theories? Real nice.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true.
As long as it is "faliable' then it has a place in science.
If the theories advanced by the JudeoChristian tradition had been verified by empirical evidence then the bible would be valuable as a scientific tool.
Similarly if there were wizards and witches harry potter would be a useful tool.
String Hypothes--eerrm--theory is perfectly valid in science. Just so long as we recognize that it's speculation. Speculation is valuable. Speculation that becomes dogma. That's a problem. After all the
String theory is not a theory! (Score:2, Troll)
Mathematical mental masturbation does not constitute a scientific theory. I need to see hypotheses and tests before I will even consider giving these models the honor of being called a theory.
And you wonder why so many people believe ID proponents when they say that Darwinian evolution is "only" a theory.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to mathematical physical masturbation? Like using a slide rule?
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to mathematical physical masturbation? Like using a slide rule?
Must....resist..maiking joke....about calculating.....logs.
In response to the article are dozens of posts... (Score:5, Interesting)
...all claiming that String theory is not testable.
To these people, I'd like to point out that:
1] Not being testable with current technology is not the same as not making any testable predictions. Technology advances, after all, and there are predictions that were made by Einstein that are still being tested today.
2] It's flat out wrong [blorge.com] to say there is no work being done to test String theory. The LHC will begin to unlock a number of answers in this regard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the issue with the testability of String Theory is as follows:
In a theory, there are generally variables. For example, in General Relativity, there are "constants" (called such because they are measured via experimental science) that emerge from the theory. These "constants" are actually variables in General Relativity (if you were to set them to different values you would have a different "universe"). However the important thing is that "variables" that we had yet to measure which the theory pred
Re:In response to the article are dozens of posts. (Score:4, Insightful)
As a rule, if you cannot test something today, and you don't have a working blueprint for a machine that, once built, can test your theory, then you don't really have a testable theory.
Re: (Score:2)
You take take something obviously false like ghosts and attempt to compare it to whatever you'd like to cast disrepute on. Classy. Second, to have a ghost detector, you're required to first know that ghosts exist (otherwise then your ghost detector isn't really a ghost detector).
Also, you don't seem to recognize the long history of advances in science which were purely mathematical to begin with. For example: Black holes were first predicted mathematically, without any observations to back it up. Did s
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot appears to have cut off a sizable chunk of my post, so allow me to continue with a 2nd post...
Yes, direct evidence is unlikely, but we've got enough indirect evidence to prove black holes & neutron stars exist, so it's not unreasonable to assume that we could find sufficiently convincing indirect evidence for string theory.
Lastly, the use of the world theory here is arguably legit. Not in a scientific context, but rather in a mathematical context. Ever heard of Set theory, game theory and cha
Re:In response to the article are dozens of posts. (Score:2)
Name one prediction of string theory that could be tested with any technology. In other words, name one prediction of string theory that if found false (in any way) would disprove string theory. I'll give you a better one: name one prediction of string theory.
And just to cut short one level of string-theory silliness: "there might be 11 dimensions, but if there's not then we can still make the theory work with four" is not a prediction.
Because of theoretical advances and other sources of investigation, most
Re:In response to the article are dozens of posts. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, most physicists believe the LHC will fail to find the Higgs and in doing so give some hints as to why the Standard Model is broken.
Most physicists are optimistic like that.
Re:In response to the article are dozens of posts. (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a thought - the right to an opinion isn't a requirement that you have one.
Holography not holographic! (Score:5, Informative)
The article dorks up the notion of holography by associating it with 3-d holograms. The concept is that you don't need to know whats in the middle if you can draw a border around it and measure the surface of that border with sufficient resolution.
In "near field measurements" you are too close to the source to treat it as a simple point source, or a point source with directionality to its output. Normally you would have to be in the far field (at least several wavelengths of the frequency you're measuring or several times the physical size of the source) to be able to measure it using point receivers. Being in the near field you can't simply scale your measurement to farther distances using the normal spreading formula involving r^2 or r^3.
As an example, sticking a mic 4 inches away from a loudspeaker can't tell you what the sound level will be 100 feet away. Amusingly, the typical 1-meter you normally on stated SPL levels is too close for larger woofers.
Holographic measuring is the concept of putting an array of sensors in the near field surrounding the object and being able to extrapolate far field measurements. There are criteria for the number of required measurement points and spacing based on the distance and frequency you're trying to measure. From those measurements you can determine the far field measurements and make some calculations about whats inside the boundary. One technique is to take all those new measurements, amplitude and phase, and substitute those as individual point sources in calculating the far field sound levels.
'Theory' is really the wrong word (Score:3, Informative)
Status Quo Change? Bzzzzzt. Not. (Score:2)
Okay, I get that string theory is much more elegant and being merely and engineer, mathematically well over my head, but this is getting a little ridiculous. I'm having a difficult time recognizing string theory as science.
Has string theory truly helped us understand anything better? If it has improved our understanding, what predictions of physical phenomena have come of this increased understanding of the physical universe? If your theory can only explain, not predict, aka No Predictive Power, then it
String theory usefulness (Score:2)
I'm not a physicist, so my understanding is very limited, but the answer to you question is "probably yes".
The thing is the phenomenon string theory help understand and predict is not related to quantum gravity, for which string theory is developed. This thing called Maldacena duality [wikipedia.org] and state that c
Not about string *theory*! (Score:5, Informative)
This article really is not about string theory. The article is really about the math developed as people have explored string theory. It is this math that has been applied in explaining "perfect liquid" experiments.
Is this a fair analogy? (Score:5, Interesting)
My non-technical mother in law is interested in string theory but she has no clue what it's about, except that everything in the universe is made out of tiny "strings" that go into another dimension. She is a retired grade school teacher and knows what atoms and subatomic particles are, and she understands the idea of a line having zero width and a plane having zero thickness. I'm trying to come up with an analogy that will get across the basic idea.
Say the universe is two-dimensional, like the surface of a drum. No thickness, just a plane. Then say somebody outside of the universe pokes a needle through the drum head and pulls a piece of thread through it. The thread is one-dimensional, with no actual thickness, so the place where it goes through is just a point. Nobody who lived in the 2-dimensional surface could see the point because it has no thickness. But what if the thread vibrates like a guitar string... as it moves back and forth, the point where it goes through the drum also moves back and forth. The spot becomes a little line. If the string didn't vibrate exactly back and forth but kind of wandered around in a fuzzy pattern, the point would look like a hazy dot.
Because the string vibrates so fast, the people in the plane of the drumhead would never perceive it as a point, but only as a blurry spot (assuming they could see things that small).
That's what a subatomic particle is in our universe, except in 3 dimensions. Wherever a vibrating cosmic string passes through our universe, it forms a hazy dot-like pattern in space, which to us is a subatomic particle.
I know this is far from exact, but does it give enough of the general idea?
Mmmm... (Score:2)
At least go to the original source... (Score:5, Informative)
XKCD [xkcd.com]
Re:At least go to the original source... (Score:5, Funny)
Linking just an image pretty much fails on every level.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whoever modded me as a troll must have not read the mouseover on that xkcd.
Info on ultracold physics (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a layman article:
A Fermi gas of atoms [physicsworld.com]
Deborah Jin
Physics World, 2002
And the original publication by the Duke group:
Observation of a Strongly Interacting Degenerate Fermi Gas of Atoms [sciencemag.org]
K. M. O'Hara, S. L. Hemmer, M. E. Gehm, S. R. Granade, J. E. Thomas
Science Vol 298, p 2179 - 2182 (2002)
Re:"It's caused by strings" sounds an awful lot li (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, "God did it" doesn't give you any equations or principles. String theory, while it may turn out to be completely wrong, at least gives us something to test.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, "God did it" doesn't give you any equations or principles.
Sure it does! God(0)* = the universe! See? Beautiful, mathematical proof!
*Definition of the God function left as an exercise for the reader.
Re:"It's caused by strings" sounds an awful lot li (Score:5, Insightful)
Yah, that's the problem - every theology ever invented can be summed up with one line of code:
If ($cause == $unknown) { exit("God did it!); }
Of course, they all like to pretty it up by adding comments and redefining meaningless variables, but the end result is the same.
Re:"It's caused by strings" sounds an awful lot li (Score:4, Funny)
Syntax error at ");"
Why +4? and not Wooosh? (Score:2)
The thing is, "God did it" doesn't give you any equations or principles. String theory, while it may turn out to be completely wrong, at least gives us something to test.
Wooooosh? No?
Granted, GP wasn't funny, but he makes a slightly valid point. String theory have not yet given us anything to test, although parent is claiming the opposite.
At the moment there are no falsifiable predictions that is actually possible to carry out. Thus you can make a (though somewhat extreme) comparison to religions.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's caused by forces" sounds an awful lot like "God did it"
"It's caused by atoms" sounds an awful lot like "God did it"
etc etc
Re:More faith than science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More faith than science (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...if it must remain a priory because its assumptions...
a priori
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But that is no different than quite a bit of Math itself, where there is a lot built on certain very difficult unsolved problems. There are quite a few theorems where the only currently developed proof is conditional upon the validity of one of those major unsolved theorems. Perfectly normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More faith than science (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the thing. There are people that understand it, and can explain it. Just because you need a Phd to understand it.
You are right to be skeptical, but don't confuse not being able to understand something with it not being understandable.
It also make predictions.
There are tests, we need a certain collider to come on line...
Re:More faith than science (Score:5, Informative)
Yes there are tests but the tests won't be definitive. One of the problems with string theories is that there are a multitude of them and they very very mutable. The collider will only rule out (likely) or confirm (doubtful) a subset of the possible string theories. However, the remainder of the string theories will be safe from falsifiable experimentation. What is needed but lacking is way to winnow out candidate string theories that a) describe our/the universe, b) solve current quandaries of physics like why certain physical constants have the values that they do, c) make predictions which are practical to confirm, d) are parsimonious as string theories are notorious for introducing several new constants and constructs for every one they explain.
Now I may not be a PhD but I am a taxpayer who is happy to see some of his taxes go to funding basic scientific research. And I agree with those who say that the current fashionability of string theories preclude other approaches from being funded and that string theories are getting a free pass on standards of prediction, observation, and experiment that other branches of science are held to.
Incidentally, a hallmark of all other good theories in physics to date is that all can be represented by fairly simple systems of equations which an Asimov, a Sagan, or for that matter a good HS science teacher can explain to an interested (and research funding...) public. Be they Newtons Law's, Special and General Relativity, or Maxwell's Equations, good theories tend to have a parsimonious tightness to them that practically shout out what experiments one should do next. Now I realize that in the end, that the universe need not conform to such beautiful systems but the fact that to date that it has and string theories most certainly are not give me pause.
The FA at least holds out some hope for winnowing out more implausible string theories (and no the idea that all string theories describe a possible universe cuts zero ice until someone finds a way to observe/test that) at least and maybe showing the way to an actual viable theory that is more than pretty math.
Re: (Score:2)
As an interested layman who counts cosmology as a 'hobby', I keep feeling that the String Theories as well as M-Theory are somehow flawed for the very reason that they are not parsimonious and introduce more questions than they seem to answer. I also keep feeling that at some point some brilliant young cosmologist is going to come up with a theory more elegant and 'simple' by an order of magnitude that renders them obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
Until String Theory (which is definitely a catchy name) produces testable predictions, it will remain at the same level as religion, as it still requires a belief that it explains "everything".
Who says you have to "believe" it in order to study it? I think String Theory is quite interesting and enjoying studying some of the concepts around it (although freely admit that a lot of the maths is beyond me right now). It doesn't mean I believe that the universe actually works that way - it might, it might not. Maybe in the future we'll know for certain, maybe we won't. But regardless, it's still an interesting line of research that MIGHT yield results one day - belief is NOT required (as with any
Science and math (Score:2)
To be pedantic, science does not require belief. That's the point. Anything that qualifies as science is replicable. You're supposed to be able to take the described starting conditions and the described procedure and end up with the described result. If you don't, either you did something wrong or it's not science. Worthwhile science tends to require very careful adherence to the descriptions, and then requires some serious thought to relate the results to the conclusion. It can be difficult to perfo
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
If you've got a GPS, either in your car or on your phone, you're seeing the benefits of our understanding of relativity. Relativity predicts that the clocks on GPS satellites have to be adjusted due to its speed, otherwise the system would be useless. The system works with clock adjustments, therefore, the prediction has been confirmed. How is this any less of a confirmation about its predictive power, thus strength, than working semiconductors?
Incomplete vs wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Yes and no. I read the post and the poster displays an incomplete understanding of the what he's talking about. In some ways, he's wrong, but mostly he's incomplete. I suppose my reply was incomplete for no other reason that I was being a jerk and dismissive.
The first paragraph, nothing inherently wrong there.
The second paragraph about "we think" things have been experimentally verified is where it starts to go off the rails. Relativity and quantum mechanics have both predicted, verified and repeatable results of both experiments and observations.
I'm going to use relativity for a moment here because the OP states that he thinks something is "wrong" with relativity or somehow stands weaker footing than quantum mechanics, specifically because he believes that devices have not been built to explore and demonstrate. No.
Going back to my previous example, relativity predicts that for the velocity and orbit of a GPS satellite, there will be a time dilation amounting to a very small fraction of a second. There MUST be compensation for this discrepancy, otherwise, your GPS unit would be off by about 10kms a DAY. Is this an experiment? No, it's even better. The experimental confirmations took place before. This is an everyday practical application of the Theory of Relativity. We know that in these conditions, what we know holds to be true. There is nothing inherently wrong with either relativity or QM, because in their respective spheres, they work.
The fundamental concept that Areyoukiddingme is misunderstanding is that scientific endeavors are not predicated on the concept that the ideas of the present, and by association the past, are wrong. Newton's ideas as laid in the Principia are as fundamentally sound today as they were during his time. However, at the extremes of mass and speed, it starts to fray at the edges. Does that mean he was wrong? Negative. His understanding was incomplete , which is a very different thing from wrong. As Newton himself was standing on the shoulders of giants, others would build on his theories, all the way up to Einstein and those who followed him.
This is a very important nuance - the elimination of errors in our understanding is a side effect of the purpose of science, which is to increase our understanding. This is a constructive, not a destructive intellectual process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mock religion all the time. I have to hold science and scientists up to the same standard. I'd be a hypocrite to accept unprovable scientific mumbojumbo, interdimensional whatnots and all. at face value while discounting unprovable religious mumbojumbo all the time.
I agree that if something is not testable then it is not science. I also agree that we should not accept things as true without adequate evidence. But, I've noticed a trend of people who seem to just about (if not whole-heartedly) deify science and I guess I don't fully understand why.
What I mean is that if something cannot be proven scientifically it is claimed either (1) it does not exist or (2) should not be accepted unless and until it can be proven scientifically. Since when does science answer ever
Re: (Score:2)
I see, you don't understand it so it must be false? nice~
"
they can produce an actual fucking theory."
they can.
Maybe you should read up?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, you're completely, totally wrong.
String Theory has not, and so far can not, produce a single theory, that can be tested in any way.
That is, so far, all String 'Theory' is, is mathematical masturbation.
Re:String "Theory" is Retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are people modding this up?
A thin hologram can be represented truly as a 2D surface. You can print a thin hologram out using a laser printer and transparencies. You can even display a hologram on a TFT.
The fact that you don't even understand holograms makes me wonder why you are even commenting on string theory.
It's become very popular these days to bash string theory, yet noone has an alternative.
People like sexconker want to remove grant money from research into any new theory until they have a theory that is complete. And yet it can't be completed with people actually working on it.
Re:String "Theory" is Retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that's not true. There are alternatives, including loop quantum gravity. String theory has been kicking around for 20 years, and essentially no progress has been made. Therefore it makes sense to stop dumping funding into it that's wildly out of proportion to its level of promise relative to other avenues of attack.
It's gone for 20 years without making a testable prediction. If it went for 50, would you support cutting off funding? 100? 200?
Re: (Score:2)
> Actually, that's not true. There are alternatives, including loop quantum gravity.
Quantum loop gravity is not an alternative for someone bashing string theory because of its lack of predictions, since quantum loop gravity doesn't make testable predictions either.
> String theory has been kicking around for 20 years, and essentially no progress has been made.
Lol
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you responded. The silence of the String Theory proponents are deafening.
Most of us don't understand high level physics, but we will comment on it because we are interested, and at the very least because it is funded by our tax money - even religious fundies completely opposed to all sciences have the right to comment.
Re: (Score:2)
> After more than two decades, it remains in the state of "not even wrong"
This is not a long time. It's only because it's the time we live in now that it seems a long time. If you look back over the last few thousand years it will make you realised just how quickly 20 years is for a theory.
Even to do a single experiment, the LHC, takes 18 years to build and still another 2 or 3 years to run. When it takes that long to do each experiment, I can't see how 20 years is an unreasonable length of time for t
Re: (Score:2)
> I like how you conveniently forget that you have to buy a highly specialized laser printer and transparencies to accomplish that.
Hmm? No people have done on it a 300DPI printer with bog standard transparencies. You can even download the source code and do it yourself if you want: http://www.corticalcafe.com/prog_CGHmaker.htm [corticalcafe.com]
> And the "display a hologram on a TFT is completely ridiculous. I assume you're talking about this [siggraph.org] A few nvidia supercomputers running 65 projectors into a s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what your saying is if anyone on slashdot asked a super hot model out she would be ultra cold to them? I think I finally understand string theory or is that relativity?
Re: (Score:2)
yet more proof that the super-hot are ultra-cold?
Nah, the just discovered the existence of the Plane of Shadow. Now we just need to figure out how to plane shift to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that where we could find Tiamat?
Re: (Score:2)
But where does Rock Hudson fit into String theory?