Is “Strings” a Dud Theory?

I am amazed in the manner in which the so called brilliant scientist are so closed minded to say things like `` So in their opinion, string theory is not scientific in the usual Popperian sense because it cannot be falsified.``
Now come on bright boys why is it so hard to believe or even look to the possibility that the string that binds us into assuming that string theory cannot be falsified is naive...why not the possibility that that our first step to understanding this lies in the first sentence of the new theory of everything by dimitri nanopoulos where he states, ``the key point was when we realized that strings dont have the specific representation-oh jesus.`` thus the point is that we are being deceived because we dont understand the specific represention of strings, but when we do that will open the door, per se, the key point...of that which we assume cannot be given to us unless it is real...are lies not as powerful as truths? Read ``string theory reveals the sin and the paradox,`` which will be published this year and then you will see the reason the scientist havent found the answer is because they are only looking in the lab and strings are everywhere...right...but those strings are connected to actions and or contracts....wake up guys...it ain`t about your credentials or where you teach if you speak so negatively when you admit you dont have the answer...so say I dont k know but the answer may be in the near future...so sad to be so negative when the answers are right before all our eyes....you will see that specific representation in the near future....this is one of those hear me now believe me later things...get out of the lab and look around you in this great big vacuum we are living in...dont want to give to much away just read ``string theory reveals the sin and the paradox.`` then your eyes will be opened :o)

Hallo - enjoyed this! Yes... string theory is NOT dead... yes, it is alive and jumping!

-zensufi-

Well,,,

Interesting discussion going on ... but unfortunately my PC could not bear my ideas and so gone out of order. Now I have found access to NET for just limited time, so cannot come up with detailed replies.

Anyway... as I found some time for `thinking`, so I evaluated the possiblity of ``n-dimensions``. I cannot write on this issue in details now. But let me accept the possiblity of ``n-dimensions`` in ``non-spatial`` sense. It means that up till now I am not ready to accept the possibility that the ``space`` in which we physically live, can have more basic dimensions than to (i)Length, (ii)Height and; (iii) width.

The possibility of n-dimensions which I can understand, and which I am ready to accept is non-spatial in nature. For example we can subjectively or arbitrarily choose more than three dimensions for the progresss of a country. Lets say those dimensions are (i)Health Services, (ii) Level of Education, (iii) Sports and Entertainment Activities and; (iV) Social Order or law and Order etc.

Now these are non-spatial four dimensions. Without going into details, I am ready to accept that it is possible to evalute these matters in some form of geometric n-dimensional vectors.

And as i had access to internet for just limited time, so I cud share only this.

And let me also accept that oppossing arguments of other members to my criticism also important and possess weight. If I openly disagree on board then it does not mean that I do not try to positively evaluate opposing opinions when I am not on board.

Thanks & Regards!

Someone tried to introduced me to myself that Nanga is promoting sufism. What a dungroller brain. Nanga is neither sufi nor promotes sufisim. But knows well that the CIA is on its way to pin sufism against whabiism. That is is different talk. As far as religion is concerned, Nanga is superspirtitual. Now back to string theory. Can we test it?
First is that all these experiments that are conducted by accelerating particles are not the true expression of particles anyway. When we bunch electrons or other charged particles with electromagentics in a microwave cavity before injecting them into accelerator we modify them for our own convience. We essentially change them. It is similar that we can figure out the distance between two peeks on mountain ridges by using inverse square law but we do not know what is in between two peeks i.e., is it a deep gorge, river, lake, valley, etc. Or take it another way even twin brothers who conceived just seconds aprart from each others have different personalities. More than 99.9% theoritical physicists do not understand quantum science and the rest who do is like teenagers who claim they had sex but did not know how good. It may lead to pregnancy. And there are Gul Munds who read quantum books written for layman. Just grab one at train station and you are in it. That is how it gets confused and confusion grows.
Can we measure the string effects. Yes it will be. If we have huge detector like human body and string entangled like homoeopathic remedy then we will be able to see the effects. But it needs a lot more imagination, thinknig and working.

Nanga Pir

Khuram,

With reference to your #88,

You are one of the most intelligent non- scientists I have encountered.
Your reasoning and logic is unconventional but does not lack depth.
I read all your interacts once again. This time they made more sense.
Do not give up thinking. Do express yourself. My suggestion would be to
add some qualifiers. This would prevent knee-jerk reactions from conventional ``scientists``.

Have fun......

I am a bit confused by this digression into interpretations of quantum mechanics. The various explanations seem to raise more questions than they answer. First of all the `parallel universe` theory mentioned by Mr Gill is a minority view and not the definitive interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are issues with it that merit a whole article.

The majority subscribes to the `Copenhagen` interpretation. The thought experiment with Schrodinger`s Cat is intended to demonstrate an apparent paradox with this interpretation. Consider the case of a particle that has a 50/50 chance of being in state A or state B. When the particle is observed, it will be found to be in state A or B. Over a large number of observations it will appear in each state 50% of the time. But what about the state of the particle BEFORE the observation. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, it is NOT correct to say that the particle is in state A or B but we don`t know which one. We must accept that the particle is in some undefined state that is neither A nor B but some kind of a mathematical superposition of the 2 states. It is the act of observation that `collapses` the superposition into a definite state (A or B).
Schrodinger`s thought experiment imagines a cat in a box. There is some kind of intricate equipment in the box that determines the state (A or B) of a fundamental particle. If the particle is found to be in state A, the mechanism causes poison to be released and kill the cat. Only if we open the box will we find if the cat is alive or dead. So, if the Copenhagen interpretation says that before the observation the particle is in an undefined A-B state, what does it have to say about the cat? Is it in some undefined dead-alive state?

Gill:

L. Román, B. Rumbos: Quantum logic revisited, Found. Phys. 21 (1991) 727-734.

(and the references therein).

Posts # 97,98,99,100:

Let me try to clarify the probability issue in the perspective of quantum mechanics. All probabilities which the theory predicts are realized in ``parallel universes.`` A probability of 0.50 and 0.50 doesn`t mean that half of Schrodinger`s cat is dead and half alive. It simply means that the cat is dead in one universe and alive in another parallel universe. The theory of parallel universes was formulated by Hugh Everett in 1967.

Those of you who want to know more about it and have time and patience, should read ``Parallel Universes by Fred Alan Wolf``. Those who don`t want to spend this effort can read my article ``Cosmological Fantasies,`` which was published at Chowk on November 17, 2004.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 101

Gill:

I do not take ``parallel universes`` literally, though it is fine if one were to think of it that way for one`s own clarity. I have no problems with Hilbert spaces. I shall put up a reference soon.

Thanks.

khuram

# 92 underlines the real issue. In all human-logic based dynamic doctrines (science being one part of this universe) criticism of individual viewpoints is accepted as a natural element of the whole system. And criticism is criticized when it is based on faulty information, faulty logic or faulty motives.

In other systems, why criticism of individual viewpoints should ``cause pain`` is hard to understand. Few of these lack greatly honed traditions of criticism. In reality, far more than criticism has been standard practice.

Re: # 94

``In other systems, why criticism of individual viewpoints should ``cause pain`` is hard to understand``

It is not hard to understand. First of all Mind is abstract distinct from brain, something like a software and pain is kind of a boolean state just as pleasure, with degrees intensity. If we can understand this then pain and pleasure will mean nothing except that it is easier said then achieved.

Can somebody exlpain in easy language what is `Shrodinger`s Cat` problem?( like cat is both dead and alive in box, Something to do with quantum computing I guess)

Re: # 93

khalihawa:

It is known that there is a cat in a closed box which you cannot see or hear and you are not allowed to toch the box etc. etc. You may have past information on the cat. You are asked to predict whether the cat is `alive` or `dead`. According to Schrodinger if you are not able to do so then you simply cannot predict period. In other words Schrodinger claims that a model which predicts that the cat is alive with probability 2/3 and dead with probability 1/3 is not a valid model of nature because the cat cannot be alive and dead at the same time.

But I believe that Schrodinger would have no problem with the following: Take a countably infinite number of cats who were identical in each and every way before being put in individual identical boxes. Then predicting that 2/3 of these boxes would have live cats and 1/3 dead cats is OK! Also, the prediction that a random draw will draw a box with a live cat with probability 2/3 is also OK!

Given that he is dead, I do not know whether he would agree with me or not.

Re: # 96
Thanks GT.

Your explanation leaves me more confused. Why 2/3 and 1/3 probability?Why not half dead and half alive?

Re: # 97 by khalihawa:

You could use probability 1/2, 1/2 if you want. But not 1/2 dead 1/2 alive. The problem with quantum mechanics is not probability per se. It is the fact that the `probability` measures may not add up to one.

Re: # 97:
Quantum Mechanics is a probabilistic theory. Based principally on the Heisenberg`s Uncertainty Principle and Born`s interpretation of the wave function which is the solution of the differential equation derived from the conservation of energy. In other words, the wave function is the specification of the possibilities of reaching energy states for a system if the conservation energy principle is valid.

General theory of relativity, on the other hand, is a deterministic theory which does not approach reality via a methodology of the assumed function. It depends only on the quantities that are measurable - accurately, subject to the instruments of assessment, only.

There is no significance of half dead of a tenth dead.