It's one of the most brilliant, controversial and unproven ideas in all of physics: string theory. At the heart of string theory is the thread of an idea that's run through physics for centuries, that at some fundamental level, all the different forces, particles, interactions and manifestations of reality are tied together as part of the same framework. Instead of four independent fundamental forces -- strong, electromagnetic, weak and gravitational -- there's one unified theory that encompasses all of them. In many regards, string theory is the best contender for a quantum theory of gravitation, which just happens to unify at the highest-energy scales. Although there's no experimental evidence for it, there are compelling theoretical reasons to think it might be true. A year ago, the top living string theorist, Ed Witten, wrote a piece on what every physicist should know about string theory. Here's what that means, translated for non-physicists.
(Score: 4, Informative) by coolgopher on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:09AM
Both links leads to sites that don't load the actual text without JavaScript. They might be interesting reads, but I'm not going to find out.
(Score: 4, Informative) by maxwell demon on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:41AM
The first link has a PDF with the text. That one works ven if JavaScript is disabled.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Demena on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:25AM
The last link is site that requires whitelisting it ads. We all know that it would permit all sorts of malware. Yet without that last link the article is almost without value. I will grant you Hanlon's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) in this case but it is not something to be proud of.
Why did you post it? I am curious.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:12AM
I note that last link is to Forbes. IIRC, Forbes is a magazine catering to people obsessed with the acquisition of money.
My take is that a database full of people whose lives center around money and who are not yet privy to privacy concerns will be quite a valuable item.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:49AM
Which raises the question: How does string theory help with the acquisition of money?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:15AM
It's untestable yet sells books.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday December 06 2016, @02:15PM
It's untestable yet sells books.
Not bad AC but I'll see your sarc and raise you "they believe in technical analysis".
There's a pretty strong irrational streak in rich people. A lot of them are into nonsense like astrology or technical analysis or Keynesian economic theory. Its all unscientific numerology with no connection to reality. Some of it is smart people ripping off rich people using math, which is a pretty old game, but some is self delusional on the part of the rich guys.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:00PM
You should write a book about it.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:36PM
Forbes is an Apple fan site from what I've seen lately.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:34AM
String theory:
It's an unproven theory that just seems to work out OK, but doesn't really make any useful predictions. In other words, it doesn't change everything. In fact, it doesn't change anything. It's a lot like the marketing department where you work.
Speaking of which, get back to work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:34AM
uhm, no.
string theory works perfectly.
its only problem is that it's so general, it's (for the moment) practically impossible to get anything useful out of it.
using string theory to describe the universe is like using quantum mechanics to describe a lion stalking and then attacking a zebra.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:30AM
If you cannot use string theory to describe the universe, it does not work as a physical theory. It is no more useful than the theory that the universe behaves how it does because god told the universe to behave as it does.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:41AM
there is a difference.
the fact that right now we cannot make effective use of string theory does not mean that it will forever be useless (unlike the god theory).
I'm not advocating for piling on the funding for string theorists.
but I certainly think it should receive some funding, certainly more than is given to the high frequency trading crooks.
by the way.
I taught a math class to people who wanted to work on WallStreet.
I know why I call them crooks.
(Score: 2) by dlb on Tuesday December 06 2016, @02:00PM
the fact that right now we cannot make effective use of string theory does not mean that it will forever be useless (unlike the god theory).
Agreed. It took a bit before Einstein's theories showed their practical side.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday December 06 2016, @03:30PM
His theories were always testable, it's just that in many cases the technology to actually test them had to come along after the fact. But, much of the really important stuff was tested during his lifetime and quickly enough that people knew there was merit to it in reality.
It's been how many decades now without any meaningful progress along those lines with string theory? The testing is what tells us that something is science, right now all it is is a set of fancy math formulas that may or may not ever come to anything, but we don't know, because they still aren't being tested with any sort of regularity. Even the incredibly complicated and difficult area of quantum mechanics had made far more progress in the first few decades of its existence.
(Score: 2) by dlb on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:46PM
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday December 06 2016, @03:27PM
The fact that we can't use it now doesn't make it useless. What makes it useless is that we're decades into this and there is still a distinct lack of testable hypotheses. I can't think of any other area of study that's been less productive in recent times. Sure, we've got some fancy math out of it, but that's not science.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:45AM
If you cannot use string theory to describe the universe, it does not work as a physical theory. It is no more useful than the theory that the universe behaves how it does because god told the universe to behave as it does.
So let me get this straight: string theory is how God told the universe, but string theorists, being those that understand God, can change the parameters so that we do not need God. God damn, in more ways than one.
But, yeah, not predictable experimental outcomes, and it is all dark matter from there on out. And of course this is the universe, since god would only have created the most perfectly perfect universe that was perfect. ( Spinoza channeled through Leibniz here) Thus, this is the most perfect universe, and everything in it is a vibrating string! (OK, original quote, from F. H. Bradley, everything is a necessary evil, close enough?)
(Score: 1) by Ramze on Tuesday December 06 2016, @03:52PM
Well... String theory, M theory, and p-brane theory (yeah, they actually named it that. lol) are all frameworks for possible realities. No one has yet discovered which derivation of the theory actually fits our universe best, so it can't make proper predictions about unknowns.
Quantum mechanics makes predictions, and string theory basically uses particle physics discoveries and quantum mechanics predictions to narrow down which formulas describe our universe in string theory. String theory itself isn't actually useful for anything yet other than parroting quantum mechanics. It may never be. Or, maybe we'll get lucky and figure out which parameters for string theory correspond with our universe (if any) and literally discover everything.
String theory is short for superstring theory... which itself is short for super-symmetric string theory. We don't even know if super-symmetry exists, and if it doesn't, at least our explanation of it collapses. It's possible the whole thing is hogwash as it was constructed to make the quantum mechanical math more elegant, but hasn't really shown much otherwise.
Well... I take that back -- the Higgs Boson was predicted long before string theory, but the Higgs field is what allowed string theory to look so elegant to begin with -- by separating out the mass terms to make a lot of the equations more unified. In a sense, the Higgs verified string theory was on the right track. It could still be wrong, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @04:54AM
Armchair physicist here.
I've always been confused by popular accounts of "string theory". Specifically, I believe the original string theory, and even other variants are not necessarily supersymmetric, and yet I see popular accounts saying string theory means superstring theory means supersymmetric string theory. The first part of that seems invalid if string theory is not synonymous with supersymmetric string theory.
Not quite sure what I'm missing here. What would a non-SUSY string theory be called in the literature, and are there reasons it's not really viable?
Thanks
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:23PM
No. String theory work fine at describing the universe. It just has so many places where it requires empirically derived values that it isn't useful as a general theory. It can describe a number of universes so large as to make the EWG multiverse look small. I don't know if it could match the theory used in Heinlein's "Number of the Beast", but it's not far short of that. (That theory was, basically, anything anyone can thing of it out there somewhere.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:40PM
using string theory to describe the universe is like using quantum mechanics to describe a lion stalking and then attacking a zebra.
You mean doing many pages of calculations and then still not know if the zebra is alive, dead or both?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gringer on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:40AM
There's a book on string theory called "Not Even Wrong", written by Professor Peter Woit of Columbia University's mathematics department:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?page_id=4338 [columbia.edu]
His argument is that string theory is so vacuous that it can explain anything (and therefore also nothing). The problems section on rationalwiki [rationalwiki.org] sums it up:
To date, the LHC has found no supersymmetric particles, and without those, everything stated above probably doesn't work. Superstring theory is short on falsifiable predictions, except for the prediction of supersymmetry at low energies. Given the energy levels necessary to resolve phenomena near 1 Plank length, experiments capable of making those measurements remain purely theoretical. Nevertheless, string theories are considered promising enough to have all but monopolized decently-funded theoretical high-energy physics. This is itself considered a problem by many (proper, non-crank) physicists who think thirty years is quite long enough for string theory to have come up with a verified falsifiable prediction, and who have problems getting funding for research that isn't string theory. These factors make string theory a potential modern protoscience, which may eventually go the way of Luminiferous aether.
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:00PM
"Theory" is the highest attainment in Science.
It means that lots of knowledgeable folks have examined your idea and nobody has yet found a way to shoot giant holes through it; that it's the most reliable explanation for a phenomenon.
This does not apply to String "Theory".
The correct word for this notion would be "hypothesis".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @04:47AM
Theory, as it is currently used in physics has taken on a different meaning. Essentially, it means a complete system/framework of thought, whether it has been verified or not. They are often based on a hypothetical new mechanisms, but in order to understand the phenomenology, the full system dynamics often needs to be worked out to make predictions.
This is obviously a problem when it comes to communication with the public, who take theory to mean well-tested. They are often well-tested in their compatible predictions, but testing of new hypotheses is usually weak or non-existent.
There really need to be two definitions these days to reflect the idiomatic usage of physicists.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RamiK on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:40AM
It's non-empirical math. And seeing how there's infinite theoretical solutions to the problem with our current math base on current observations, it holds no relevance to the layperson.
That's to say, you know how you can run infinite straight lines through a single point but only one through two points? String theory is one of the single point lines. And until someone figures out how to find the other point, it's as useful as memorizing possible lines.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @10:21AM
I disagree with your title, because there is something every layperson should know about string theory. Namely:
But that's all the layperson needs to know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @11:44AM
But then you would have to teach the layperson what non-emperical math is or mean. It's better if they just don't know nothing about this whole string theory thingy ... It's not like it going to change their life or anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:43AM
Non-empirical math? That must be the math for me. I used to like math, but then the teachers went high up on their pedestals like they were guarding the ancient tablets from the empire. Then I learned to hate it! Sounds like I'd love non-empirical math though!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:06AM
On the list of What Every Layperson Should Know, the String Theory item is probably not in the Top 10. I'd put it maybe between rethreading your violin and manually editing your iptables.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @10:37AM
I disagree. As layman, both rethreading your violin and manually editing your iptables are still higher in the list than string theory. And I say that as a physicist who could neither rethread a violin nor manually edit his iptables, and who certainly considers knowing something minimal about string theory to be worthwhile for physicists, and moreover knowing something about physics to be worthwhile for laymen.
Of course if you are a layman interested in string theory, by all means, read something about it. But if you are not interested, there's nothing wrong with completely ignoring it.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:38PM
Insofar as the layperson should have knowledge of physics, he should get acquainted with quantum field theory instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKSpZPByD0 [youtube.com]
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:42PM
Many suggest that ST is so complicated (lots of layers) it's almost like a Turing Machine that can emulate/model just about any observation. Another analogy is polynomial regression (PR): you can fit just about any curve (observation) with it, YET polynomial regression is not intended to mirror the mechanisms of the phenomenon(s) itself. Just because you can use PR to model (match) observations doesn't mean PR *is* the mechanism of the phenomena. String theory is perhaps like PR in this regard.
A third analogy is epicycles. If you have enough nested circles (including "offset circles") in the epicycle model, then it can match the movement of the planets. But that doesn't necessarily mean the solar system is built out of circles. It was (or could be) a sufficient predictive model, but made a poor mechanism model. ST throws dimensions at the problem like epicycles did circles. Thus, "but it matches observations" is NOT good enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @04:40AM
Well said.
(Score: 1) by ilsa on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:26PM
I could have sworn I read somewhere that, after long last, String Theory had finally come up with some kind of testable prediction, and it ended up failing.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Kymation on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:01PM
There was a prepub paper that claimed that string theory was falsifiable. The current version of that paper no longer makes that claim, so we're back to an untestable theory. Discussion here [columbia.edu].