Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WildMan
Emotional reactions to theories - other than perhaps perplexity or wonder - continue to amuse me. Why would we desire to supplant a theory that holds so much promise despite it's absence in experimental science?
|
Do you have an attention span of over two minutes?
If so, then why don't you take a looksie at that link
I recommended in post# 14?
If you read it you will see it uses a review of books
by two expert opponents as the framework for extended
criticsm of String Theory. Although they may not
use the word, I think it is safe to say the two experts
"hate" the theory.
I am guessing part of the reason for the emotional
content of their view is the same as mine: aversion
to a final Natural Law which they consider ugly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WildMan
I guess beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Granted, to visually behold more than 3 dimensions + time is a challenge with our eyes and senses limited in the 3D + time world. However with some well used and readily understood mathematics (for those who care to wander that path) we can in a fashion extend our senses and draw 2D models (or build 3D models) of the higher dimensions However with some well used and readily understood mathematics (for those who care to wander that path) we can in a fashion extend our senses and draw 2D models (or build 3D models) of the higher dimensions. These models appear visually complex and unreachable from our braneworld - but the math behind them is not.
|
We cannot "visually behold" 3D plus time geometrically.
You are stuck with the three spacial dimensions unless you
mean the word "visual" in a figurative sense. Drawing a
clock in the middle of a box won't do because the picture
of the clock is itself part of the three spacial dimensions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WildMan
Now, the development of new math to further extend the string theories can be left to the likes of Witten, and I think that this is what he refers to when lamenting complexity.
|
Even his opponents surely recognize Witten's genius. Part of
my dislike of the ST is that someone as smart as he is can
spend his entire life on something and still admit the answer
is nowhere in sight.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WildMan
Besides 50 years is not that long. 2400 years or so ago Democritus postulated the atom. Aristotle and others rejected it and it took another 2000 years for Dalton to pick it up and try again - this time with the advantage of accurate quantitative measurements when combining chemicals (Lavoisier). It then took another 50 years for the theory to be generally accepted. I'd say we are comfortably ahead of schedule
|
I have always been the impatient type, and that is
another reason why I hate ST.
I would hate it even more if I thought it might 2000
years to reach fruition!
It took only 11 years to get from Special Relativity
to General Relativity and another three years or so
to extend GR to cosmology, all of which are subject
to experiment and observation.
It took only 25 years to get from Quantum Theory
to Quantum Mechanics. I am aware that QM is an
ongoing area of discovery (ST being a QM theory),
but the significant discoveries since 1925 have all
been fully buttressed by observation, while ST remains
without known hope of such to date.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WildMan
if we are to accept Witten's 50 year wait plus the 90 years (emphasis added-USV) since the first postulation of string theory.
|
Inaccurate.
ST has not been around for 90 years. The "String"
insight was first attained in the mid to late 1960s.
It was the antecedent of the theory which goes back
about 90 years to I think a 5-dimensional theory by
Kaluga (sp?) and perhaps others.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WildMan
Interestingly string theory also, like Democritus' atoms, underwent a falling out of favour and revival.
|
String theory has been on the front burner pretty much
from the word go.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WildMan
GUT - may be observable from proton decay.
|
This statement carries with it the implication that proton
decay is predicted by ST.
Inaccurate.
ST does not predict proton decay.
An early GUT which did predict proton decay was BTW
co-authored (with Georgi) by Nobel Laureate and Harvard
Department Chair Sheldon Glashow, who has been one of
ST's most vociferous critics for decades.
He famously likens it to "medieval scholasticism".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WildMan
The now repaired in 2006 Super-K III may find it.
|
Unfortuately for this theory, no evidence has been found
for 20-30 years for proton decay, which I am not sure is
amenable to detection by colliders.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WildMan
Supersymmetry - observations possible with current technology in 5-10 years. This may also yield clues to the nature of multidimensional space.
|
Sounds interesting.
Please elaborate, making sure you have your facts down
more pat than you did with the GUT-proton decay comments.