4 ms·

If you disregard aesthetics, what are the questions we're trying to answer in physics, particularly those that involve observable phenomena? I get that string t

If you disregard aesthetics, what are the questions we're trying to answer in physics, particularly those that involve observable phenomena? I get that string theory replicates the predictions of the theories that preceded it, the critique I'd infer is that it doesn't offer any practical advantages over the previous theories, it doesn't predict anything new that we can observe, and it does not make any problems more tractable (I think the opposite? Ie most problems are far more intractable using string theory) It seems like there's some lack of imagination here, like physics is "done", there's nothing more to answer, it's all just up to other sciences to answer the rest of the (many) questions about why the world is what it is and how it works. A reset of approaches is interesting, but it still needs to be in service of something, doesn't it?

burke 10y ago
> what are the questions we're trying to answer in physics, particularly those that involve observable phenomena? (disclaimer: I am not a physicist, etc.) Between GR and QM, we can explain most observable phenomena, but it's intuitively obvious that both are emergent properties of some deeper law. I don't suspect frontier physics is ever really studied with an eye to application. Those tend to follow, but the bleeding edge of physics is usually advanced just out of intellectual curiosity, to try to understand the universe. In this sense, String Theory is just an attempt the unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. The fact that it's not apparently testable is unfortunate, We can have pedantic arguments about whether that's "Real Science", since science by definition requires testable hypotheses, but at the end of the day, I don't think it's crazy to pursue a model to encompass QM and GR, even if it can't be called "Science".
- ianbicking 10y ago
  > I don't suspect frontier physics is ever really studied with an eye to application. Previously they did have experimental results they were trying to understand. There might be follow up experiments to confirm, but there were already experimental tensions. > I don't think it's crazy to pursue a model to encompass QM and GR, even if it can't be called "Science". I'm not so concerned about whether something is science, it just seems like vanity to pursue unification that provides no insight into the complex world around us.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    If calling it science bothers you, then call it mathematics instead. It's obvious to everyone involved that GM and QM, both the best physically verified theories at their respective energies, are deeply incompatible with one another. Unfortunately, physical situations where we can see them disagreeing are outside of our reach at the moment. You're suggesting the entire physics community just give up theorizing until we can plausibly reach unification energies, even if that's a thousand years from now? > it just seems like vanity to pursue unification that provides no insight into the complex world around us Pure theory has a funny habit of finding applications in the most unexpected places. Anyway, if it's an interesting problem, and people want to spend their time thinking about it, who are we to tell them to stop?
- empath75 10y ago
  Even if it's not 'real science' it's real math and worth studying on that basis alone.
- cLeEOGPw 10y ago
  My problem with string theory is that so far string theory has gotten EVERYTHING wrong. Not a single of their predictions were true. Yes, they adjust the theory once their predictions are proved to be false, but it just turns the theory into constant best fit theory for current observations. In my opinion string theory is a very complex case of interpolation. Yes, it "explains" our current knowledge, but it goes way off just after the last point to which it is interpolated. I like that it exists, as it will surely make history in science a grandiose attempt to unify GR with QM, and it is real science in a sense that the methods used in it might be transferred to other fields, but I don't expect for it to give any insight into our universe. Treat it like a theoretical physicist toy, and when you look at it that way, it isn't that bad at all.
johncolanduoni 10y ago
> I think the opposite? Ie most problems are far more intractable using string theory It's a better framework for some problems as a model of other (comparatively mundane) quantum phenomena. But yes, generally you're far better off sticking with QFT or GR separately for observable physics. In theory, future technology will be able to observe some of the regimes string theory (and other attempts at unification) throw at us. But this of course requires experimenting in places where quantum and specifically general relativistic effects (QFT already incorporates special relativity) are both strong. We don't really have any places where we can observe distinctly GR effects that aren't on some sort of literally astronomical scale (the closest we can go is Earth's orbit with timing for satellites). Since QM likes to stick with the small, this puts us in a real bind until we can do something crazy energy-wise. > It seems like there's some lack of imagination here, like physics is "done", there's nothing more to answer Physics isn't more done than any of the other sciences: there's an incredible breadth of active research that makes up most of the fields of physics (condensed matter, quantum information, atomic/molecular/optic). We might have a formulation of most of the fundamental ground rules, but then so do biologists and chemists by the same token. I think the unofficial motto of condensed matter physics sums up the opportunity for exploration pretty clearly: "More is different".
- empath75 10y ago
  Most biology problems are intractable using particle physics. You use the correct toolset at the correct scale. Unfortunately the scale where string theory is the best available toolset is unreachable to us right now.

burke 10y ago

> what are the questions we're trying to answer in physics, particularly those that involve observable phenomena? (disclaimer: I am not a physicist, etc.) Between GR and QM, we can explain most observable phenomena, but it's intuitively obvious that both are emergent properties of some deeper law. I don't suspect frontier physics is ever really studied with an eye to application. Those tend to follow, but the bleeding edge of physics is usually advanced just out of intellectual curiosity, to try to understand the universe. In this sense, String Theory is just an attempt the unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. The fact that it's not apparently testable is unfortunate, We can have pedantic arguments about whether that's "Real Science", since science by definition requires testable hypotheses, but at the end of the day, I don't think it's crazy to pursue a model to encompass QM and GR, even if it can't be called "Science".

ianbicking 10y ago
> I don't suspect frontier physics is ever really studied with an eye to application. Previously they did have experimental results they were trying to understand. There might be follow up experiments to confirm, but there were already experimental tensions. > I don't think it's crazy to pursue a model to encompass QM and GR, even if it can't be called "Science". I'm not so concerned about whether something is science, it just seems like vanity to pursue unification that provides no insight into the complex world around us.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  If calling it science bothers you, then call it mathematics instead. It's obvious to everyone involved that GM and QM, both the best physically verified theories at their respective energies, are deeply incompatible with one another. Unfortunately, physical situations where we can see them disagreeing are outside of our reach at the moment. You're suggesting the entire physics community just give up theorizing until we can plausibly reach unification energies, even if that's a thousand years from now? > it just seems like vanity to pursue unification that provides no insight into the complex world around us Pure theory has a funny habit of finding applications in the most unexpected places. Anyway, if it's an interesting problem, and people want to spend their time thinking about it, who are we to tell them to stop?
empath75 10y ago
Even if it's not 'real science' it's real math and worth studying on that basis alone.
cLeEOGPw 10y ago
My problem with string theory is that so far string theory has gotten EVERYTHING wrong. Not a single of their predictions were true. Yes, they adjust the theory once their predictions are proved to be false, but it just turns the theory into constant best fit theory for current observations. In my opinion string theory is a very complex case of interpolation. Yes, it "explains" our current knowledge, but it goes way off just after the last point to which it is interpolated. I like that it exists, as it will surely make history in science a grandiose attempt to unify GR with QM, and it is real science in a sense that the methods used in it might be transferred to other fields, but I don't expect for it to give any insight into our universe. Treat it like a theoretical physicist toy, and when you look at it that way, it isn't that bad at all.

johncolanduoni 10y ago

> I think the opposite? Ie most problems are far more intractable using string theory It's a better framework for some problems as a model of other (comparatively mundane) quantum phenomena. But yes, generally you're far better off sticking with QFT or GR separately for observable physics. In theory, future technology will be able to observe some of the regimes string theory (and other attempts at unification) throw at us. But this of course requires experimenting in places where quantum and specifically general relativistic effects (QFT already incorporates special relativity) are both strong. We don't really have any places where we can observe distinctly GR effects that aren't on some sort of literally astronomical scale (the closest we can go is Earth's orbit with timing for satellites). Since QM likes to stick with the small, this puts us in a real bind until we can do something crazy energy-wise. > It seems like there's some lack of imagination here, like physics is "done", there's nothing more to answer Physics isn't more done than any of the other sciences: there's an incredible breadth of active research that makes up most of the fields of physics (condensed matter, quantum information, atomic/molecular/optic). We might have a formulation of most of the fundamental ground rules, but then so do biologists and chemists by the same token. I think the unofficial motto of condensed matter physics sums up the opportunity for exploration pretty clearly: "More is different".

empath75 10y ago
Most biology problems are intractable using particle physics. You use the correct toolset at the correct scale. Unfortunately the scale where string theory is the best available toolset is unreachable to us right now.