Debate about string theory. Please state logical reasons rather than simply, "STRING THEORY IS A PILE OF CRAP!" or from the other side, "UR STUPID LAWL!" If you really want to get in deep and think you have a good logical explanation why it is a pile of crap than contact physicist Brian Green and give him your evidence. But for the other side of the argument I can't think of anyone to contact...

Debate about string theory.
Please state logical reasons rather than simply, "STRING THEORY IS A PILE OF CRAP!" or from the other side, "UR STUPID LAWL!"
If you really want to get in deep and think you have a good logical explanation why it is a pile of crap than contact physicist Brian Green and give him your evidence. But for the other side of the argument I can't think of anyone to contact...

String theory essentially restates what we already know, afaik it doesn't have any testable implications, and is just an abstraction that tries to make calculations easier. I find the E8 hypothesis more interesting, mainly because it is simpler and makes testable predictions.

String theory essentially restates what we already know, afaik it doesn't have any testable implications, and is just an abstraction that tries to make calculations easier. I find the E8 hypothesis more interesting, mainly because it is simpler and makes testable predictions.

Hmm, first time I've heard of the E8 Hypothesis, I'm looking forward to reading up on it.

Hmm, first time I've heard of the E8 Hypothesis, I'm looking forward to reading up on it.

E8 [i]is[/i] string theory. It's one of the possible explanations to string theory, among many. It's integrated into the M-theory, which is the (currently?) suggested version of string theory.

E8 is string theory. It's one of the possible explanations to string theory, among many. It's integrated into the M-theory, which is the (currently?) suggested version of string theory.

M-Theory is just a combination of 6 or so different string theories. :P

M-Theory is just a combination of 6 or so different string theories.

[quote=AntiSleep]String theory essentially restates what we already know, afaik it doesn't have any testable implications, and is just an abstraction that tries to make calculations easier. I find the E8 hypothesis more interesting, mainly because it is simpler and makes testable predictions.[/quote] [URL=http://xkcd.com/171/]YA RLY[/URL] It does predict the disappearing gravitron, according to the Nova documentary I watched.

Quote from AntiSleep

String theory essentially restates what we already know, afaik it doesn't have any testable implications, and is just an abstraction that tries to make calculations easier. I find the E8 hypothesis more interesting, mainly because it is simpler and makes testable predictions.

YA RLY
It does predict the disappearing gravitron, according to the Nova documentary I watched.

[quote=Akar]Debate about string theory. Please state logical reasons rather than simply, "STRING THEORY IS A PILE OF CRAP!" or from the other side, "UR STUPID LAWL!" If you really want to get in deep and think you have a good logical explanation why it is a pile of crap than contact physicist Brian Green and give him your evidence. But for the other side of the argument I can't think of anyone to contact...[/quote] I hate it when people like you start topics asking other people to talk about something for you. You usually would start it off with "Well I believe string theory to condtradict itself because..." It's stupid to ask people to debate about string theory when the person asking knows nothing about it. In would have been more honest if you opened with "Everyone is starting to talk about string theory, but I don't know anythign about it. If the intellectual side of sen would so kind as to enlighten me in this topic, I would appreciate it."

Quote from Akar

Debate about string theory.
Please state logical reasons rather than simply, "STRING THEORY IS A PILE OF CRAP!" or from the other side, "UR STUPID LAWL!"
If you really want to get in deep and think you have a good logical explanation why it is a pile of crap than contact physicist Brian Green and give him your evidence. But for the other side of the argument I can't think of anyone to contact...

I hate it when people like you start topics asking other people to talk about something for you.
You usually would start it off with "Well I believe string theory to condtradict itself because..."
It's stupid to ask people to debate about string theory when the person asking knows nothing about it.
In would have been more honest if you opened with "Everyone is starting to talk about string theory, but I don't know anythign about it. If the intellectual side of sen would so kind as to enlighten me in this topic, I would appreciate it."

[QUOTE=ClansAreForGays]I hate it when people like you start topics asking other people to talk about something for you.[/QUOTE] And I'm sure we all love the people who simply complain in a thread without posting anything relevant to the topic. For the time being, string theory works, but it has inherent flaws (the same with all physical theories) and there is a more exact answer. I'm not quite sure what were debating here... I like the holographic paradigm more, because we can ignore all the details of intra-particle curiosities. The theory says that we can learn things about what goes on inside a region by simply looking at the surface area of that region. Surface area is 2-dimensional, describing a 3 dimensional interior, so the hologram analogy kinda works. I relate the concept to Gauss' Law though, because the analogy fits better. It states basically that if you create an imaginary sphere around a charge, the force felt on the surface of the sphere will equal the amount of charge inside. So for this theory, people are drawing imaginary spheres around particles, and can determine what the particles are like due to their actions immediately outside of the particle's volume. The [B]theory[/B] has been taken way to seriously though, and the conclusion that the entire universe is a hologram is a sham. At any rate, the idea is an experimental technique rather than a theory of everything.

Quote from ClansAreForGays

I hate it when people like you start topics asking other people to talk about something for you.

And I'm sure we all love the people who simply complain in a thread without posting anything relevant to the topic.

For the time being, string theory works, but it has inherent flaws (the same with all physical theories) and there is a more exact answer.
I'm not quite sure what were debating here...

I like the holographic paradigm more, because we can ignore all the details of intra-particle curiosities. The theory says that we can learn things about what goes on inside a region by simply looking at the surface area of that region. Surface area is 2-dimensional, describing a 3 dimensional interior, so the hologram analogy kinda works. I relate the concept to Gauss' Law though, because the analogy fits better. It states basically that if you create an imaginary sphere around a charge, the force felt on the surface of the sphere will equal the amount of charge inside. So for this theory, people are drawing imaginary spheres around particles, and can determine what the particles are like due to their actions immediately outside of the particle's volume. The theory has been taken way to seriously though, and the conclusion that the entire universe is a hologram is a sham. At any rate, the idea is an experimental technique rather than a theory of everything.

[quote=ClansAreForGays][quote=Akar]Debate about string theory. Please state logical reasons rather than simply, "STRING THEORY IS A PILE OF CRAP!" or from the other side, "UR STUPID LAWL!" If you really want to get in deep and think you have a good logical explanation why it is a pile of crap than contact physicist Brian Green and give him your evidence. But for the other side of the argument I can't think of anyone to contact...[/quote] I hate it when people like you start topics asking other people to talk about something for you. You usually would start it off with "Well I believe string theory to condtradict itself because..." It's stupid to ask people to debate about string theory when the person asking knows nothing about it. In would have been more honest if you opened with "Everyone is starting to talk about string theory, but I don't know anything about it. If the intellectual side of sen would so kind as to enlighten me in this topic, I would appreciate it."[/quote] I didn't start this topic so that I could learn about string theory. I'm aware of what string theory is. It just so happens there was debate in another topic about it in a place it does not belong. So I brought it here. I'm simply attempting to keep things organized and spam-free. If you have anything else to say please PM me about it, please don't post things irrelevant to this topic. Still haven't looked at the E8 Hypothesis. My thoughts towards string theory: I feel it is a fairly good theory. Acceptable in my eyes. I'm not zealous about it though.

Quote from ClansAreForGays

Quote from Akar

Debate about string theory.
Please state logical reasons rather than simply, "STRING THEORY IS A PILE OF CRAP!" or from the other side, "UR STUPID LAWL!"
If you really want to get in deep and think you have a good logical explanation why it is a pile of crap than contact physicist Brian Green and give him your evidence. But for the other side of the argument I can't think of anyone to contact...

I hate it when people like you start topics asking other people to talk about something for you.
You usually would start it off with "Well I believe string theory to condtradict itself because..."
It's stupid to ask people to debate about string theory when the person asking knows nothing about it.
In would have been more honest if you opened with "Everyone is starting to talk about string theory, but I don't know anything about it. If the intellectual side of sen would so kind as to enlighten me in this topic, I would appreciate it."

I didn't start this topic so that I could learn about string theory. I'm aware of what string theory is. It just so happens there was debate in another topic about it in a place it does not belong. So I brought it here. I'm simply attempting to keep things organized and spam-free. If you have anything else to say please PM me about it, please don't post things irrelevant to this topic.

Still haven't looked at the E8 Hypothesis. My thoughts towards string theory: I feel it is a fairly good theory. Acceptable in my eyes. I'm not zealous about it though.

String theory: "Hey man, what if everything is made of little strings?" "And?" "AND THEY VIBRATE, MAN!"

String theory:

"Hey man, what if everything is made of little strings?"

"And?"

"AND THEY VIBRATE, MAN!"

Thats the ignorant way of putting it ^^

Thats the ignorant way of putting it

Overly simplified. Lol @ another person misusing ignorant.

Overly simplified. Lol @ another person misusing ignorant.

How is he misusing ignorant? He is saying that that is the sort of thing a person who doesn't really know about string theory would think about it. Makes sense to me.

How is he misusing ignorant?
He is saying that that is the sort of thing a person who doesn't really know about string theory would think about it. Makes sense to me.

Ignorant != dumbed down Oh, the irony!

Ignorant != dumbed down

Oh, the irony!

Not sure who exactly you're trying to insult, but if it's me, that's not what I was saying.

Not sure who exactly you're trying to insult, but if it's me, that's not what I was saying.

...You're dumb and so is your stupid noodle theory. No, seriously, can someone explain the purpose of breaking down all matter into strings and stating they are a membrane to me (and also that there are however many dimensions the theory now requires)? I mean, it seems like a sort of overly-complicated idea without any concrete proof, like saying elves that live inside of the ground come out, hit you in the mouth with a hammer, and cause you teeth to get loose when you're a kid. I know, that's a pretty uneducated statement, but I want a good explanation that's decipherable to someone who's only taken basic physics so-far.

...You're dumb and so is your stupid noodle theory.

No, seriously, can someone explain the purpose of breaking down all matter into strings and stating they are a membrane to me (and also that there are however many dimensions the theory now requires)? I mean, it seems like a sort of overly-complicated idea without any concrete proof, like saying elves that live inside of the ground come out, hit you in the mouth with a hammer, and cause you teeth to get loose when you're a kid.

I know, that's a pretty uneducated statement, but I want a good explanation that's decipherable to someone who's only taken basic physics so-far.

Read [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_Theory]Wikipedia[/URL], or better yet, watch the [URL=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html]Nova documentary on it[/URL].

Read Wikipedia, or better yet, watch the Nova documentary on it.

[quote=frazz]How is he misusing ignorant? He is saying that that is the sort of thing a person who doesn't really know about string theory would think about it. Makes sense to me.[/quote] The way I said it was overly simplified.

Quote from frazz

How is he misusing ignorant?
He is saying that that is the sort of thing a person who doesn't really know about string theory would think about it. Makes sense to me.

The way I said it was overly simplified.

He is still not misusing ignorant. He was making a statement based on the observation of your post, regardless of your true intent (people don't usually try to sound ignorant anyway). [URL=http://xkcd.com/169/]The fact that you are a bad communicator does not make you superior.[/URL]

He is still not misusing ignorant. He was making a statement based on the observation of your post, regardless of your true intent (people don't usually try to sound ignorant anyway). The fact that you are a bad communicator does not make you superior.

This topic was poorly constructed from the start, and has only gotten worse. I was giving it a chance, and it failed. If someone wants to start a REAL topic on string theory, then go ahead. But this one is fucked. Take discussions of ignorance to PM. [I]>>Locked[/I]

This topic was poorly constructed from the start, and has only gotten worse. I was giving it a chance, and it failed. If someone wants to start a REAL topic on string theory, then go ahead. But this one is fucked. Take discussions of ignorance to PM.

>>Locked