What are scientists problems with String Theory?

[edro]

My understanding is that it is so small and such high energy that it is untestable.
Relate it to people in the 1800s. They didn't know about germs because they were too small.
Once they did, it changed civilization forever.
Same goes for atoms, neutrinos, bosons, etc.
But somewhere along the line (strings for example), it is so small, it doesn't matter to life or science.

Still, for science's sake, it would be good to have a final theory and know the fundamental particle, as it COULD be used for our benefit, although unlikely.

 

[edro]

Anyways we live in the electric domain of the universe. All the fields we interact with directly for the most part are electric. So for example when you press on a wall and the wall presses back with equal and opposite force this is because you are ever so slightly compressing the electron cloud. An atom is about 99.99% empty space and all of our interactions are with the electron cloud. Pushing electrons through a wire is like the shiznit as far as us electric domain people go and "technology" for us is largely always going to be based on electronics/electrons/chemistry/photons. etc.

Trying to tap into nuclear /nano tech is really outside our domain (smaller, too concentrated, actually) and thus on a scale that is barely usable. The same goes for anything having to do with gravity other than keeping you tied to the earth. Its way beyond our scale.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[agent00f]

So, I love reading these science books. What I understand is that String Theory actually provides a "theory of everything" that combines gravity with the other forces (strong, weak, and electromagnetic), and that works at the ultra-small (quantum mechanics) and ultra-large (relativity) levels. And it makes what appears to be correct calculations/conclusions in all cases so far as we call tell.

So then why the hesitation to call it *THE* "theory of everything"? I've read that it hasn't made any new predictions that can be tested that can't also be predicted and tested in respect of other, less complete theories, but who cares? Results match string theory predictions on everything we can test, ultra small to ultra large, so why isn't it the proper theory of everything (at least until it is shown to not correctly predict something)?

This is really more a linguistic/philosophical question of what you choose to call "theory". By some definition of the term, only models which justify their complexity by making novel (and presumably correct) empirical predictions are "theories", while looser definitions can include any math that produces the right answer. That's all, though generally speaking science theories have historically been subject to empirical justification, but OTOH the human activity of "science" is done via justification through grants committees.

 

[Rubycon]

A World without String is chaos. 😉

 

[MongGrel]

A World without String is chaos. 😉

*runs off in search of dark matter*

 

[skull]

My theory is that everything in our reality is nothing more than a plate of nachos and that we're too covered with melted cheese to be able to see that.

My theory has produced the same amount of testable results that string theory has and some of the greatest minds in the world have been working on theirs for 40 years and I've been working on mine for 40 seconds. And that's the problem with string theory. It could be 100% correct or it could be completely batshit insane and we're not any closer to knowing which. Yes, the math works if you invent 11 or 23 or 167 invisible dimensions. Well the math on mine works if you invent 219 invisible dimensions that are filled with sour cream and guacamole.

I always knew the solar system was an atom and we were part of something bigger. I just couldn't figure out what our atom made up, a plate of nachos, of course.

 

[skull]

I wonder how time works out. You think we got an eternity while these parallel universe people let our plate of nachos cool off or soon enough we'll be a turd?

 

[zinfamous]

Personally I'm a fan of the Strong Nuclear Force. I use it everyday.

Without it imagine all life as you know it stoping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

Isn't that a line from ghostbusters?

 

[Paratus]

Isn't that a line from ghostbusters?

Did my picture of Egon give it away? 😉

(Although if the strong nuclear force was to disappear suddenly then atomic nuclei would all fly apart so I thought it was an apt description)

 

[zinfamous]

Did my picture of Egon give it away? 😉

I hadn't scrolled down that far before posting that reply. I thought that I would just leave my comment as is, looking like the fool, rather than update after you had made that plain. ...I'm humble like that. 😀

 

[DeathReborn]

Simple answer "I didn't think of it", complex answer... it's bull.