| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« The American Prison Nightmare | Main | up and down »

March 30, 2007

String Theory, With No Holds Barred

From Science:

Greene If Michael Turner had known what he was in for, he might have stayed home. As the moderator of a debate held here last night at the National Museum of Natural History, the University of Chicago cosmologist had the unenviable task of trying to crown a winner in a match-up between Brian Greene and Lawrence Krauss, two physics heavyweights duking it out over the merits--or lack thereof--of the so-called Theory of Everything.

String theory assumes that elementary particles are tiny vibrating strings that exist in multiple dimensions. In trying to unite Einstein's theory of gravity with quantum mechanics, it hopes to answer mysteries about the beginning of the universe and the very nature of matter, energy, and time. The claims are deep, and opponents of the theory say the findings so far have been shallow, even nonexistent. Last night's debate did little to settle the argument, but a packed house of academics, physics geeks, and just-curious laypeople seemed to enjoy themselves nonetheless.

More here.

Posted by Azra Raza at 07:10 AM | Permalink

Comments

I find these debates pointless. Essentially, the anti-strings people think we should give up on string theory, and the pro-string theory people think we should wait and continue working for the blessed day. It has disturbing echoes of pre- and post-millenial debates in Christianity. Someday, string theory might arrive and reign over ten thousand years of peaceful physics research, but this is essentially a theological argument, and it should be beneath practicing physicists to have public debates on theological approaches to physics theories in this manner.

Either produce verifiable predictions or shut up already!

Posted by: Hektor Bim | Mar 30, 2007 11:24:16 AM

I wouldn't call it a theological argument, because it's about something that conceivably *could* be settled by experiments. I would say (although I'm not a physicist, by a long shot) that we should be patient and wait for experimental physics to develop powerful enough machines to do the experiments. It seems that it will take a heck of a lot of power.

Posted by: JonJ | Mar 30, 2007 11:25:07 PM

JonJ,

There is as of yet no testable prediction of string theory that could be settled by experiments. Any experiments that people have come up with to probe the energy scales required would need to be on the scale of the earth or worse the solar system - that is, it won't happen.

String theory at this point is an idea. Having public debates about untestable ideas is nice for spectators, but it is not science and hopefully never will be.

Posted by: Hektor Bim | Apr 2, 2007 11:59:33 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD Politics Prize

Donate to Todd Shea

More info about Todd Shea and his work here on 3QD.

3QD ADVERTISING

3QD on Facebook

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google


Recent Comments

czrpb on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

chris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

odysseus14 on The World's Fastest Animal Takes New York

Daniel on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Robin on The Incomparable Economist

odysseus14 on The Incomparable Economist

Cyrus Hall on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Jane Lenoir on The Humanists: Frederick Wiseman's High School (1968)

Norman Costa on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Norman Costa on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

czrpb on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Daniel on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Elatia Harris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

chris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Carlos on you can't handle the truth

Nick Smyth on you can't handle the truth

eric on you can't handle the truth

Ruchira on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Randolyn Zinn on Shards and Fragments: Eva Hesse Studioworks

Luke Lea on Hollywood gives biologists a helping hand

Chris Schoen on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Rhea on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Chris Schoen on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

J.H. on you can't handle the truth

J.H. on The World's Fastest Animal Takes New York

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes


Logos designed by Vicki Winters

Subscribe to this blog's feed