![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, over at Chad's space, they're having a big row over String theory and how it's either this hopeless morass of bad science and a dead end or it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I feel the need to add my two cents, despite being totally unqualified to even think about holding an opinion. But hey, saying stupid shit about topics you're totally clueless on is the American Way, yah?
String theory comes to us after decades of chasing our own tails in the name of Einstein's grand unified theory as best as I can tell. It wants to be the single theory from which all others can be derived, and sum up the universe in one handy little equation in the same way E=mc^2 looks like a simple and inviting little equation explaining how matter and energy relate (and it's a fucking iceberg kids, that equation only looks simple, to really be useful you have to expand it out to it's component parts, which are large and complex).
Now, when I think of matter, thanks to Einstein's little iceberg above, I think of it in terms of states of potential energy. I think of those energy states using the states of matter itself as a metaphor. It's not perfect, but I originally come from a chemistry background, so it works for me as a concept I can relate to.
So, to get to a sort of point, matter is merely energy locked up in solid form, light (Look, up in the sky! It's a particle! It's a wave! It's Triangle Man!) is this sort of in between liquid state, and and the really weird subatomic quantum shit kind of falls under gaseous state.
Now, when we talk about matter, we have different equations for dealing with it in it's various states (I know they're related, but for a long time, we didn't know that). Currently, physics lives in that same space...solid state, optical, and quantum folks all have their own areas, and they use their own little bits of logic to work on their subset of the problem space.
Now, relating the states of matter and figuring out the commonalities required a long time and a whole lot of research (along with the industrial revolution and a huge jump in technology) to figure all these bits out (and of course, there's still plenty to learn there), and learning the underlying subsystem is what really brought that about. I'm being vague here because I'm working from damn near 20 year old memory which doesn't see normal use and it's fuzzy in my head, so bear with me.
The big thing is gravity. We haven't the slightest fucking clue how or why gravity works, when it comes down to it. We know mass attracts, and that the greater the mass, the greater the attraction, we even have a nifty equation and a constant (G) to describe the attraction, but WHY does matter attract? De Nada. Zip. Zero. We don't know.
Gravity is cool though. It affects light, matter, and even shows it's hand at the subatomic level. It's effects are ALWAYS there. Perhaps we're not thinking about the problem space with the correct frame of mind? Maybe gravity is just another level of EM interaction between energy states. Then again, maybe I'm just a moron.
So I just have to wonder, are we looking in the right place? Maybe the answer is right in front of us. Of course, people far more intelligent and better educated than I am have been banging their heads on this particular brick wall for decades, so what do I know?
String theory comes to us after decades of chasing our own tails in the name of Einstein's grand unified theory as best as I can tell. It wants to be the single theory from which all others can be derived, and sum up the universe in one handy little equation in the same way E=mc^2 looks like a simple and inviting little equation explaining how matter and energy relate (and it's a fucking iceberg kids, that equation only looks simple, to really be useful you have to expand it out to it's component parts, which are large and complex).
Now, when I think of matter, thanks to Einstein's little iceberg above, I think of it in terms of states of potential energy. I think of those energy states using the states of matter itself as a metaphor. It's not perfect, but I originally come from a chemistry background, so it works for me as a concept I can relate to.
So, to get to a sort of point, matter is merely energy locked up in solid form, light (Look, up in the sky! It's a particle! It's a wave! It's Triangle Man!) is this sort of in between liquid state, and and the really weird subatomic quantum shit kind of falls under gaseous state.
Now, when we talk about matter, we have different equations for dealing with it in it's various states (I know they're related, but for a long time, we didn't know that). Currently, physics lives in that same space...solid state, optical, and quantum folks all have their own areas, and they use their own little bits of logic to work on their subset of the problem space.
Now, relating the states of matter and figuring out the commonalities required a long time and a whole lot of research (along with the industrial revolution and a huge jump in technology) to figure all these bits out (and of course, there's still plenty to learn there), and learning the underlying subsystem is what really brought that about. I'm being vague here because I'm working from damn near 20 year old memory which doesn't see normal use and it's fuzzy in my head, so bear with me.
The big thing is gravity. We haven't the slightest fucking clue how or why gravity works, when it comes down to it. We know mass attracts, and that the greater the mass, the greater the attraction, we even have a nifty equation and a constant (G) to describe the attraction, but WHY does matter attract? De Nada. Zip. Zero. We don't know.
Gravity is cool though. It affects light, matter, and even shows it's hand at the subatomic level. It's effects are ALWAYS there. Perhaps we're not thinking about the problem space with the correct frame of mind? Maybe gravity is just another level of EM interaction between energy states. Then again, maybe I'm just a moron.
So I just have to wonder, are we looking in the right place? Maybe the answer is right in front of us. Of course, people far more intelligent and better educated than I am have been banging their heads on this particular brick wall for decades, so what do I know?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Even if the formula for figuring out the pull of gravity is correct, why on earth would matter exert this kind of force? Does all energy exhibit this behavior? If so, does the commonly accepted formula work on the gravitational pull of light (which should be measurable in the future)? Even better, does gravity work in dimensions outside of our little 3?
There's a point in all the logical disciplines (math, science, philosophy) where our level of understanding hits a wall and we start making shit up. String theory is that point in both math and science, I think. Post-modernism and its non-sensical hellspawn are that point in philosophy. Soon someone will figure out how to link them. Perhaps then the universe will implode... That'd be nice.
From:
no subject
And contrary to evidence that the equation is broken, all the recent knformation I have about gravitational measurements is that every experimental advance in metrology, yielding greater precision or the ability to measure at smaller distances (though not yet quantum distances) tells us that the equations work just fine. They're getting close to being able to rule out some of the weirder theories where there might be extra spatial dimensions which manifest only at sub-millimenter or sub-micron lengths.
What makes you say there is evidence that the equation is broken?