tl;dr not much

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/?no-cache=&page=1

Evidence that the universe is made of strings has been elusive for 30 years, but the theory’s mathematical insights continue to have an alluring pull

Dropbear said:

tl;dr not much

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/?no-cache=&page=1

Evidence that the universe is made of strings has been elusive for 30 years, but the theory’s mathematical insights continue to have an alluring pull

pulling strings eh?

I wonder if we’ll be able to prove it through direct observation or perhaps the proposed strings are too tiny to observe

Cymek said:

I wonder if we’ll be able to prove it through direct observation or perhaps the proposed strings are too tiny to observe

have a read of the article.. it talks about it

Everybody Loves String

furious said:

Everybody Loves String

I was thinking of that song

>Everybody Loves String

string, string, string……

didn’t some three so corrupt minds, with no way back

anyway things to do, the igloo is on fire

Dropbear said:

tl;dr not much

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/?no-cache=&page=1

Evidence that the universe is made of strings has been elusive for 30 years, but the theory’s mathematical insights continue to have an alluring pull

this has always been the biggest issue with ST; that is that the mathematics is simply elegant – but there is simply no conceivable way to test the differences between ST and GR

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

tl;dr not much

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/?no-cache=&page=1

Evidence that the universe is made of strings has been elusive for 30 years, but the theory’s mathematical insights continue to have an alluring pull

this has always been the biggest issue with ST; that is that the mathematics is simply elegant – but there is simply no conceivable way to test the differences between ST and GR

As elegant as the mathematical illustration is with ST I still think there is more credible and tangible material within the holographic universe theory. Strings as a fundamental mechanism seems too elaborate and convoluted.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

tl;dr not much

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/?no-cache=&page=1

Evidence that the universe is made of strings has been elusive for 30 years, but the theory’s mathematical insights continue to have an alluring pull

this has always been the biggest issue with ST; that is that the mathematics is simply elegant – but there is simply no conceivable way to test the differences between ST and GR

As elegant as the mathematical illustration is with ST I still think there is more credible and tangible material within the holographic universe theory. Strings as a fundamental mechanism seems too elaborate and convoluted.

Don’t they think we might be able to observe the holographic universe theory as it may show up fuzzy at the quantum level

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

this has always been the biggest issue with ST; that is that the mathematics is simply elegant – but there is simply no conceivable way to test the differences between ST and GR

As elegant as the mathematical illustration is with ST I still think there is more credible and tangible material within the holographic universe theory. Strings as a fundamental mechanism seems too elaborate and convoluted.

Don’t they think we might be able to observe the holographic universe theory as it may show up fuzzy at the quantum level

There iwill be Fuzzy universes next

just wait

there all ready are fuzzy universes

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

this has always been the biggest issue with ST; that is that the mathematics is simply elegant – but there is simply no conceivable way to test the differences between ST and GR

As elegant as the mathematical illustration is with ST I still think there is more credible and tangible material within the holographic universe theory. Strings as a fundamental mechanism seems too elaborate and convoluted.

Don’t they think we might be able to observe the holographic universe theory as it may show up fuzzy at the quantum level

Something of the sort. I haven’t found particularly complete material on holographic universe theory. It seems to be similar to parralel universe theories in that it is an interesting area with limited application so recieves minimal attention.

The universe doesn’t really care if you think its convoluted

Dropbear said:

The universe doesn’t really care if you think its convoluted

I didn’t say I did. I said strings are a convolution with only mathematical applicability…..

Dropbear said:

The universe doesn’t really care if you think its convoluted

No, I wonder if the more convoluted and complex the structure of the universe is the higher the chances errors occur, could you have a failure in the structure of the universe, if we observed something like that it would give credence to a holographic/simulation

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

The universe doesn’t really care if you think its convoluted

I didn’t say I did. I said strings are a convolution with only mathematical applicability…..

I don’t see any particular reason to believe the basis of the universe is any more complicated than positive and negative charge working in tandem to generate time and space.

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

The universe doesn’t really care if you think its convoluted

No, I wonder if the more convoluted and complex the structure of the universe is the higher the chances errors occur, could you have a failure in the structure of the universe, if we observed something like that it would give credence to a holographic/simulation

I could not say without better understanding of the theory.

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

The universe doesn’t really care if you think its convoluted

I didn’t say I did. I said strings are a convolution with only mathematical applicability…..

but that’s the thing. they are only a model… they are ‘contrived’ by definition

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

The universe doesn’t really care if you think its convoluted

I didn’t say I did. I said strings are a convolution with only mathematical applicability…..

but that’s the thing. they are only a model… they are ‘contrived’ by definition

Perhaps god is the ultimate equation that explains everything from the macro to the micro

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

I didn’t say I did. I said strings are a convolution with only mathematical applicability…..

but that’s the thing. they are only a model… they are ‘contrived’ by definition

Perhaps god is the ultimate equation that explains everything from the macro to the micro

it’s certainly one possibility

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

I didn’t say I did. I said strings are a convolution with only mathematical applicability…..

but that’s the thing. they are only a model… they are ‘contrived’ by definition

Perhaps god is the ultimate equation that explains everything from the macro to the micro

Which God?

Dropbear said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

but that’s the thing. they are only a model… they are ‘contrived’ by definition

Perhaps god is the ultimate equation that explains everything from the macro to the micro

Which God?

None of the petty gods that exist in our religions, it would be more like a god totally removed from the working of the universe, it plays no part after it initiated it, something like the echo of the big bang.

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps god is the ultimate equation that explains everything from the macro to the micro

Which God?

None of the petty gods that exist in our religions, it would be more like a god totally removed from the working of the universe, it plays no part after it initiated it, something like the echo of the big bang.

Oh you mean nature :)

So nature is described by nature

I am just making it up as well.

Dropbear said:

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

Which God?

None of the petty gods that exist in our religions, it would be more like a god totally removed from the working of the universe, it plays no part after it initiated it, something like the echo of the big bang.

Oh you mean nature :)

So nature is described by nature

Something like that, don’t you find the gods in religion very human (obviously as that’s the viewpoint we know) not very original and limit in scope.

Dropbear said:

So nature is described by nature

Or Science. They are the two best known magazines of the genre.

So how long is it?

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

Cymek said:

None of the petty gods that exist in our religions, it would be more like a god totally removed from the working of the universe, it plays no part after it initiated it, something like the echo of the big bang.

Oh you mean nature :)

So nature is described by nature

Something like that, don’t you find the gods in religion very human (obviously as that’s the viewpoint we know) not very original and limit in scope.

That’s because gods are invented by man, not the other way around

Interesting how the second half of the artical reads if you substitute ST with Alchemy and 2000’s with 1600’s.
It really sounds how a mainstream Scientist would have described his training and perplexation after half a life time chasing an elusive answer.

Brett

I refuse to believe in a string theory without supersymmetry. Yes, it is possible to develop a string theory without supersymmetry, but such a theory has all the arbitrariness of the Standard Model, so why not settle for the Standard Model?