Talk:String theory/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Fun[edit]

Mayhaps this should be a "Fun: String Theory" article? User:Mithearon

Or perhaps it could also have info on what ST actually is added to it? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:36, 16 February 2009 (EST)
I think you both are right. Create an article about actual string theory, and then link it to this one for humor. Don't ask me to do it, however, because string theory makes little to no sense to me, and I usually fair well in math and science. Talk about a bunch of gibberish!The Goonie 1 09:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
From what I know of string theory, the article is a fairly accurate description without getting into ridiculous levels of maths. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 09:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ace will help[edit]

Ace knows a little about String Theory so Ace will help when he gets some free time tomorrow. Oh and Ace enjoys talking about himself in the third person. Ace McWickedi9 10:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, Ace. Btw, I talk about myself in the third person, too, sometimes. Like on my userpage.The Goonie 1 00:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ace will help, just a little......unfocused right now. Ace McWickedi9 00:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

String Theory Makes Accurate Predictions[edit]

For anyone who is interested, ST is making the math of hot-state superconductors and quark plasma alot less of a headache. Facets of the theory generally thought to be weird, combined with ideas in the holographic principle had made some interesting (if small) advances. Since CP hates ST due to it's "God did't do it" stance, if anyone has the motivation to put something up in the loony bin, I can forward you the relevant papers via my talk page. That being said, look into Hot-tc superconductors, which are really amazing things where quantum concepts are easily recorded. Go Science!--DylanB 00:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

MemBrane theory - dies this conflict or support strings[edit]

Does the "Brane" theory support or conflict with strings ? Are strings a subset of Branes or something entirely different ?

M-Theory is a unified string theory. While Sting Theory supports 5 dimensions they consist of a higher Membrane which "floats" in 11 dimensions. Acei9 00:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

theory vs theory[edit]

I always thought string theory was a theory in the mathematical sense rather than the scientific. - π 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from my limited understanding of it, it is scientific, but revolves mostly around complex mathematical equations as its proof. But, again, my understanding is limited. The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You are quite right Pi. It is used more to explain mathematically the relationship between quantum states and our "real" state however as a proof or "theory" it has no physical scientific underpinning....I think, its been awhile... Acei9 03:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The biggest problem with it as a scientific theory is that it explains everything we know, but has given us nothing new to test, e.g, it has made no predictions that couldn't have been made with the standard model. A mathematical theory is a collection of theorems that have the same set of axioms as their base, e.g, probability theory, set theory. String theory is definitely a theory in that sense and has produced some very impressive mathematics. - π 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I dunno.... Like I said, my understanding of string theory is extremely limited. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Physicists I know who know MUCH more maths than me say that string theory hasn't come up with a whole lot of falsifiable hypotheses. But that it nevertheless looks good enough that hard-nosed funding bodies keep paying people to sit and think about it - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the stark raving lunatics?[edit]

I note that string theory has both proponents and opponents that are, to put it mildly, batshit bugfuck crazy, some of whom go so far as to politicize their opposition. What's the deal with that? Some history in this article might be good. EVDebs (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is so complex, very few understand it, but the words it uses make lots of stupid people think it says what they want it to. I know that doesn't help much, sorry. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)