Difference between revisions of "171: String Theory"
(→Explanation: Some more details, I know what I'm talking about. But maybe my English does need some fix.) |
(→Explanation: Grammar) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
The {{w|String theory}} is a theory in theoretical physics for explaining how the universe works. A theory trying to explain everything belonging to our universe. | The {{w|String theory}} is a theory in theoretical physics for explaining how the universe works. A theory trying to explain everything belonging to our universe. | ||
| − | When a new theory is thought up, the theorists will usually supply some predictions, measurable by experimental physicists. But in fact this theory still does not have any | + | When a new theory is thought up, the theorists will usually supply some predictions, measurable by experimental physicists. But in fact this theory still does not have any proof. |
[[Randall]] is unimpressed with string theorists. The string theory did not provide any ''useful'' new knowledge to engineering science as the quantum physics has, and lacks the imagination-stirring philosophical implications, that the general population associates with other fields — for example, quantum scientists have many proved predictions like the tunnel effect, used by modern electronic devices, and relativity is relevant to modern systems like {{w|GPS}} navigation, but string theory hasn't reached that stage yet. | [[Randall]] is unimpressed with string theorists. The string theory did not provide any ''useful'' new knowledge to engineering science as the quantum physics has, and lacks the imagination-stirring philosophical implications, that the general population associates with other fields — for example, quantum scientists have many proved predictions like the tunnel effect, used by modern electronic devices, and relativity is relevant to modern systems like {{w|GPS}} navigation, but string theory hasn't reached that stage yet. | ||
Revision as of 18:03, 31 July 2013
| String Theory |
 Title text: This works on pretty much every level. |
Explanation
The String theory is a theory in theoretical physics for explaining how the universe works. A theory trying to explain everything belonging to our universe.
When a new theory is thought up, the theorists will usually supply some predictions, measurable by experimental physicists. But in fact this theory still does not have any proof.
Randall is unimpressed with string theorists. The string theory did not provide any useful new knowledge to engineering science as the quantum physics has, and lacks the imagination-stirring philosophical implications, that the general population associates with other fields — for example, quantum scientists have many proved predictions like the tunnel effect, used by modern electronic devices, and relativity is relevant to modern systems like GPS navigation, but string theory hasn't reached that stage yet.
At the title text Randall resumes, you can claim anything, and you always get people following you.
Transcript
- String Theory summarized:
- Cueball: I just had an awesome idea. Suppose all matter and energy is made of tiny, vibrating "strings".
- Friend: Okay. What would that imply?
- Cueball: I dunno.
Add comment 
Create topic (use sparingly) 
Refresh Discussion
It should be noted that positive predictions are not sound scientific methodology. "If X, then Y will happen" doesn't prove X, because W and Q may also cause Y. You need falsifiability, the ability to disprove your model if it's wrong, in order to produce even a sound theory. Because of this, not only is string hypothesis not really sound science, but neither is a lot of Quantum Mechanics, which successfully predicts in sync with observations in a way that doesn't exclude other causes for the same outcomes. The geocentric model had a slightly better positive prediction success rate than quantum mechanics does...and they were wrong. Like the geocentric model, QM mostly made bad predictions at first, but its failures are constantly propped up with epicycles and deferents. Positivism and instrumentalism are bad science, and generally will lead knowledge in the wrong direction. — Kazvorpal (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The above comment makes a subtle mistake, which I hope to correct in an enlightening manner. 1. Theories are frameworks to predict, not truths of the world. Theories are math designed to produce the same results as reality. 2. Frameworks can't be proven, just disproven. What matters is whether they are useful. For example, Newtonian mechanics is still taught because it is still useful (it is only very slightly wrong at low speeds and gravities, with much simpler math than SR or GR). Quantum mechanics is very useful; its math well encapsulates the behavior of things on small scales, and this has been used to great effect (lasers, computer hardware design, advanced chemistry, etc.)
--172.68.35.114 05:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC) Add comment
