Re: String theory is probably best left to pure mathematicians
- From: "Munir" <cloudgiant@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:23:35 +0000 (UTC)
Physics theories are abstracted, mathematical models of how the world
works. Sometimes theory marches ahead of experiment (e.g. QCD) and
sometimes experiment turns up weird facts that need explanation (e.g.
two-slit experiment). The time to get concerned is when the two camps
aren't talking.
The concern with string theory, from a physics POV, is that there's as
yet no testable prediction. I understand that this may be changing with
the Large Hadron Collider (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider ) coming on-line in
the next couple years. Tests there will look for supersymmetry and also
extra dimensions--two implications of string theories.
>>From a pure math POV, the concern of whether or not string theory will
apply to the universe we inhabit is less important than the new types
of math being developed in the process. Why? Because math is
self-consistent and usually ends up sooner or later having applications
or at least meaningful interconnections. What is developed for one
application (even if it fails to apply) may prove indispensible for
another application elsewhere in math. In the past, great math problems
have fallen (i.e. been solved) after great marches forward in seemingly
unrelated territory (e.g. squaring of the circle and number theory).
If you read string theory research papers (as opposed to popular books
on string theory), then one sees that some people working in the field
are pure math people developing new math. Other researchers are applied
math or theoretical physics people who are more concerned about the
physics concepts and their implications. The two groups interconnect
heavily: often members of a team come from both camps.
How are the pure math people going to know what's important to explore
without the guidance of the theoretical physics people who understand
prior experiment and theory and thus can point which direction to
drill? Also, how are the physicists going to proceed once they get
stuck with some intractable math situations or lack of methods?
So string theory integrates the camps of the theoretical physics people
with the pure math researchers and gives them a common project to
pursue.
The experimental physics POV is different too: theory needs to stand on
experiment in order to be valid and such evidence has yet to be found
to support string theory. This means that it's too soon to say that the
"jury is out" on string theory: experimental evidence has yet to be
found and presented! Thus the experimentalists have a wait-and-see
attitude towards string theory. They want to understand it well enough
to know how they might test it. But overall they'd rather focus on the
physical phenomena of nature and the experiments that can bring new
information to the table--whether related to string theory or not.
It's tempting to throw out string theory or, alteratively, embrace it
and hold it up as the next, great thing. However, it probably isn't
wise to do either until more evidence arrives. From a math point of
view, the effort is expanding the tools for working with mathematical
objects in higher-dimensional spaces. From a physics point of view, it
is at least trying to explain the particle/wave duality that is
otherwise just accepted and used.
-M
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Hydrogen in Relativistic QM
- Next by Date: Re: What is quantum measurement problem?
- Previous by thread: Re: String theory is probably best left to pure mathematicians
- Next by thread: applications leading to a normal eigenvalue problem
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
