String Theory reduces the composition of anything and everything to its ultimate smallness, and may or may not be the final "bricks" making up matter. Don't forget the "mortar" that holds the bricks together in order to become all the things that matter is. Perhaps the Black Hole is made of 'strings,' where gravity has reduced matter, light, plasma, etc., down to something we haven't the slightest comprehension about, other than a concentration of gravity itself.

For atoms and subatomic particles to exhibit the forces, magnetism, and electromagnetic radiation that they do, they must themselves be exhibiting four and five dimensional properties.  We may ourselves be made of the very dimensions we seek on the grand scale of the universe yet we retain the 3Dish "physicality" that we do merely because we are made up of 4D and 5D objects not part of them.  Electricity and gravity are not three-dimensional properties.  There may indeed be still grander dimensions that our universe itself is contain in/by, but who is to say how small the smallest possible piece of 3D space is?  We ourselves may be INFINITELY larger than the smallest possible hint of some 3D fabric which indeed has been ‘contained’ or expanded by the additional forces we call dimensions.  

Just because our physical senses are rudimentary, does not mean this isn’t more in the middle of some cosmic scale of dimensions as opposed to just being near the start of it.  Indeed we do have intuition and indeed we are told that people can feel a ‘mysterious’ interconnectedness between all things, which hint at something much more dynamic.  

Going back to the most basic definition of the shadow of a hypercube in 3D space, we are told that in 4D all such angles would be right angles and that all sides would be of equal length. But isn’t that pretty much exactly what we have when we set two 3D cubes next to each other? How could the first primordial instance of 3D space be divided into separate objects? What would be the space between them? Only by adding another dimension are you able to broaden it out. The second 3D cube IS like taking the first and carrying it though another dimension with that added dimension also having all sides of equal lengths and all angles right angles!!!!!

Maybe gravity is literally the physical “effect” of the FIRST physical dimension? It is the base state which everything is trying to return to.

I see time only as the perpetual motion of some infinitesimally small wisp of 3D space that is being extruded or carried forward into the fourth physical dimension.

String theory is ultimately untestable for a very simple reason--it can be used to explain any possible result.  The equations of M-theory alone, if we ignore the other variants, have 10^500 solutions; that's googol to the fifth power!  If we had our own private black hole to test at energies close to the Big Bang, and tested for longer than the current age of the universe, it would still be a statistical impossibility to arrive at information that would produce contradictions in string theory.  It is, at best, mathematical art--beautiful equations that put people with the equipment to recognize it in a state of aesthetic ecstasy.  

But does it actually describe anything?  No, it's utterly absurd.  There was never any basis for it in the first place; some math-heavy theorists who were looking for the new edge experimented with string equations and found they had beautiful, extremely rich, and extremely large structure, and so they just kept extending their work in the field.  It wasn't even based on a thought experiment like Einstein's development of relativity, it was just "Whoa, this looks cool.  Let's explore."  And because it was so rich, there was just more and more to explore, so people kept working on it even though it never produced any form of real insight.  Strings play a  siren song that's taken years of money and thought away from genuine basic research; the entire field of physics has been utterly captivated with it, and yet gone absolutely nowhere as a result.  I fear an entire generation of promising researchers will spend their days chasing phantoms across mathematical dreamworlds while the frontiers of the real universe are neglected.

String theorists cannot make any serious, nontrivial, and testable predictions.  They can only predict what other theories also predict, and rely for the rest on retroactively "finding" the result in their virtual infinity of solutions.  Only if they can come up with a prediction that isn't an element of other significant theories, and find a way to test it will it ever become credible, but there's no evidence string "theory" is even capable of doing this.  Its adherents have simply put too much work into it already to admit that it's just philosophy, and won't abandon it unless something else that doesn't share its weaknesses becomes the new standard.  

The whole idea is disturbing, because these people are supposed to be scientists, but they've been doing years, in some cases decades, of research entirely on the basis of what looks good.  While that's a great way to go about mathematics, there's no connection between the fundamental physical universe and human aesthetics.  The idea that emotions which evolved to favor an infinitesimally small set of patterns would be useful in divining underlying structure is preposterous, especially in the virtual absence of any empirical road signs.  Once we have something that's nontrivially test-supported, and it becomes widely adopted, THEN look for elegant ways of expressing it, don't look for elegance first.  Strings are just a resurrection of Pythagoreanism.

One must consider that the the search for dark matter and dark energy may ultimately be resolved as unattached strings and string harmonics. Theoretically, if a string is considered the basic brick of matter then its mass would be very small. However, a very large number (10α-1) of these “bricks” would themselves create a measurable mass.

The same holds true for the dark energy. The harmonics of one string would be almost undetectable, but again, a sufficient quantity would create detectable energy.

And where, would you ask, did these “unattached string” and string harmonics originate? From what is popularly know as the “Big Bang” or as I define it as the “Original Singularity”.

Kabalists were talking about a 5th dimension centuries ago as a dimension of good and evil - a place of elemental unity. It's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between science and religion.

Some physicists fear that the theory can never be put to the acid test - which would place it in the realm of philosophy rather than science.

How would this be different than trying to prove the AXIOMS on which the most basic tenets of our mathematics (and by extension our science) is based on? Using the above reasoning, our current science is really nothing more than philosophy since its most basic supporting structure cannot be proven.

You believe or you don't until you can offer some kind of proof that supports or denies the hypothesis.

Why is it that every explanation offered through string theory seems to depend on the creation of added dimensions? If your explanation doesn't match observation, just add a dimension to your equations. If that doesn't work, add another one. It smacks of the use of epicycles in Ptolemaic Astronomy. String theorists will be remembered as the crack pots of our day.

Contrary to popular belief, there are theories with significant expert following that don't involve string theory's massive number of untested (and perhaps untestable) assumptions.  Although they (e.g., LQG) also involve some arbitrariness, the string movement takes it to a whole other level of piling guesswork upon guesswork, and ought to be viewed as scandalous.

Furthermore, strings' popularity seems to have a direct relationship to its inscrutability, which should warn a skeptical mind about where all the hype is coming from: People who aren't directly involved in it being afraid to sound uninformed by failing to be persuaded.  Given the unmotivated vastness of the theory, and its ability to describe (as Krauss notes) practically anything, it would seem to be the antithesis of Occam's Razor.

It seems all very interesting, but when all is said and done, what will we learn? Is it going to make life better for anyone? Will it help feed the world? Will it explain the natural selection of all species? I don't get it.There are much more pressing maters that this money could be spent on, don'e you think?

In answer to Chris from PA, you are probably right, most physicists would agree that there are probably extra dimensions, but it's not a certainty yet. Loop Quantum Gravity explains our universe quite nicely without the use of invisible dimensions, so extra dimensions are far from a proven fact. Also, quantum physics does define the smallest volume of space as a Planck space. There can be no smaller unit of space.

The fact is, there have been so many blind alleys and mathematical patches in the construction of string theory it's more like a philosophical construction than science at this point. At last count, we needed 11 dimensions to provide the necessary degrees of freedom to explain our universe, and with that much flexibility, one can explain any and all possible universes, so it's really no achievement at all.

Thanks Phil!  I think part of the problem is that we are trying to think of extra dimensions as having some type of 'size' (a very 3D construct) when in reality, such dimensions may be as different to us as 'time' is to a 3D office desk.  If you carry a 3D planck into a fourth dimension, it would seem you'd give it the same ‘reactive’ and ‘interactive’ properties that we see in magnetic and other such forces, which seemingly defy a 3D explanation.  To your knowledge, does it seem that parts of the string theory would support a more basic level of added dimensions at this level?

Much like when we observe a tied electron how the other is affected ‘instantaneous’ somehow behind the scenes (and the laws) of ‘our’ dimension, the dimension above that of the 3D plancks is what allows these much more numerous and highly refined plancks to “freely flow” past and through each other despite being part of the same fabric.  This is what I think creates flow in the fabric of space much like electricty and photons.  It makes sense that if electricity is indeed in a lower dimension than us, than tied electrons could appear to be moving instantaneously through a much more basic fabric despite the fact that we can’t see it or replicate it.  Our dimension (6th?) is too complex and intermixed for motion like that.  The fabric at this point is too frayed to see the common thread which is the illusion of instantaneous motion.

Alan, I was in such a rush to add the above post (and certainly not my best effort to be sure), that I neglected to thank you for pointing out the reference to the 5th dimension at the subatomic level as what may be dampening the predicted effect.  Sorry for the repeat info BTW…  

"Never Any Basis for It in the First Place" 

 Some people may have forgotten that the contradictions between Quantum Theory and Relativity Theory have not been resolved by any currently accepted theory (string theory seems to provide a resolution, but is not currently an accepted theory). There are many other unresolved mysteries in Physics and these provide the "basis" for new probings, such as string theory. String Theory may never be scientifically shown to be wrong or right, but it seems best to not say it "never" had "any basis in the first place" when some string theorists set about considering it based on ideas that it might lead to the solution of existing problems and unanswered quesrtions (e.g. the value of the ratio of charge to mass for an electron) with currently accepted physics. Physicists are still searching for T.O.E. (Theory Of Everything) with some "basis" (it certainly doesn't seem without "any basis") and some of those those trying string theory as a possible T.O.E. may very well have the same "basis" given to T.O.E. attempts. Physics does not have all the answers yet (if ever) and that is the "basis" for future research and fun. It does seem that some string theorists find the fun that might be involved an adequate "basis" for begining and continuing their search.  

I am not in any way a physicist, though I am logic-minded (to a fault).  However, I must submit that there could be a reason string theory can apply to anything: it's a universally viable theory.  It is entirely possible that it /is/ the theory of everything, and thus anything we throw at it can be solved with it.

Also, if probability is to be believed, then there is a completely alternate reason that string could be true: anything that could happen does happen, and string just happens to be mathematically how the universe expresses that.  However, we exist on this particular probability path, and have zero view into the other paths of probability.  Thus, we cannot readily verify string or probability theory.  Perhaps someone better versed in the above theories could explain better than that and perhaps I am viewing the theories incorrectly.  After all, I have not given them exhaustive study.

The main reason I have never liked the 'alternate universe' theory, that is, if anything could happen it has happened, is the same reason I don't go for time travel. Basically, the theory calls for an infinity of universes being called into existence every nanosecond or so. Where's the energy? Of course, in one of those universes, no energy would be required, while in a second universe there would be an infinite amount of energy required, precluding the theory itself.

LJ,

While strings have a virtual infinity of solutions, there's no reason to suspect they're unique in that respect, so there isn't even a basis for thinking this property suggests a connection to reality.  There is an infinity of solutions to x + y = 1, and you could conceivably turn it into an attempted "Theory of Everything" by just adding progressively more complexity and abstraction to that basic structure, but there would still be no reason to believe x + y = 1 has any underlying physical meaning.

Strings come about because of one simple, and utterly arbitrary, assumption--that particles are lines rather than points.  What awesome complexity would arise if we assumed they were planes rather than lines, or spheres, or tetrahedrons, etc etc?  It just seems like someone tweaked a random axiom, found a broad and aesthetically appealing structure, and just kept going on the assumption that structure = meaning.  We don't know there isn't some other random tweak that wouldn't produce even more expansive results, or that mathematicians wouldn't find more elegant.  I'm not an expert in that particular field, but as far as I know there are no intrinsic limits to mathematics that would prevent an infinity of different "theories" such as strings, all with varying degrees of what the experts would consider elegance.  And that's why scientists shouldn't set out to look for beauty, they should set out to find the right answer and only rely on aesthetics when the scent is caught.  

Personally, from the way I look at it, the most likely result will be that the universe has 4 dimensions, that the Standard Model is an incomplete but largely accurate understanding, and that strings will evaporate into a pure math curiosity.  As exciting as it would be to discover an entirely new realm of physics, the story of string theory's genesis argues strongly against the likelihood of it representing anything let alone everything.

Speaking of snipes and strings, did they ever find the ether?

speaking of string theory this quote:Randall and Sundrum speculate that the space we inhabit and see all around us may have made a transition from a more overtly extradimensional state early on — perhaps as part of the process of cosmic inflation. brings up the question of why we have not compared history and myth's to the; transition from a more overtly extradimensional state early on, to see if anything pans out?

Why the vitriol towards the theory?

I can see the point several people are trying to make, but so many of the arguments seemed based on emotion.

I agree that science is better served not chasing beauty, but other than that what is primary argument against 11 dimensions?

The greeks couldn't observe atoms, but they still imagined them...

Strings? Super-symmetry? M-theory, etc.? Everyone knows that it's turtles all the way down!!

I agree with MS.

Some question why we even want or need to know if string theory is true, or what the real T.O.E. is.  the answer is very simple: mankind has always wanted to know why we are here, where we came from, if we have a purpose.  a theory of everything may not even answer those questions, but we keep trying.  do you think we'll go through our time as a species being content with the way things are, and not wondering WHY they are the way they are?

furthermore, if and when we ever do find an experimentally provable theory it will open up so many doors.  with that kind of knowledge and mastery of the universe we will be able to manipulate it to our desire and really flourish as a species, much the same way we used the advances of quantum mechanics to power the latter half of the 1900's.  we still don't even know all there is to know about quantum mechanics, and look how far it has gotten us.

this is all assuming, of course, that humanity doesn't annihilate itself before we can draw the correct conclusions.

for me, as someone with only a small background in physics, i say why not?  not many people liked einstein's ideas when he first published them, but they have been proven to be true experimentally time and time again.  string theory really is ahead of its time...we really can't prove it one way or another, and may never be able to.

but for me, as a layperson, it makes sense because of einstein's most popular equation, E=MC^2.  of course, this means that we can calculate the amount of pure energy we can get from a piece of matter.  doesn't it make sense, that for this to be possible, the fundamental building block is not matter, but energy itself?  when it comes to science i am an optimist, and this is too beautiful to not be true.

I was looking for a reference to an article that was published in the last 4-5 months that talked about how scientists are beginning to downplay the Super String Theory as it has not produced any measurable success/theory in the past 20 years, which is a long enough time to produce some evidence that it is real. Has anyone else seen this article? I believe that it was published in a major market newspaper, like USA Today or something like that. Thanks.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):