[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 12 KB, 250x245, 1267569472139.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1666035 No.1666035 [Reply] [Original]

Do proponents of string theory take what people today would consider the instant of creation like the big bang to the quanta-dimensional level of say

"the first vibration", being the first vibration of the first string which led to the propagation of the infinite multiverse

or is there an inherent understanding that strings are a universal constant and represent a quanta-dimensional state of matter, since energy and matter are essentially the same thing strings cannot be created or destroyed.

I know very little about string theory my work is primarily in eng sci.

>> No.1666122
File: 14 KB, 322x316, tumblr_ktut6pAHW41qathuro1_400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1666122

/sci/ ?

........../sci/ ?

>> No.1666125

They haven't gotten to that point yet.

>> No.1666127

yes

>> No.1666131

String theory isn't a theory, it's a geuss.
Therefore, not gonna talk about nothin'

>> No.1666139

>>1666131

special relativity is still a theory too bro

but here we are using computers, lasers, satellites, etc....

being a theory is only a comment on the stringent nature of absolute scientific proof, but that's not to say applications can't be developed out of theory.

>> No.1666144
File: 56 KB, 350x427, 1276260000803.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1666144

>>1666131

Just like evolution

>> No.1666175

>>1666139
Special relativity actually has data supporting it
>GPS sattelites move pretty quickly so their clocks have to be slightly quicker to compensate for time dilation
>clocks on board rockets also experience the same effect

String theory isn't a theory because it has no evidence backing it up, it's more like a geuss to how the universe works, but people decided to call it a theory anyway.
Besides, I believe it's been overtaken by another actual theory of the universe, can't remember it though.

>> No.1666201

>>1666139
>being a theory is only a comment on the stringent nature of absolute scientific proof,
gb2 /tv/

>> No.1666204
File: 90 KB, 855x704, 1282849199211.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1666204

>>1666175

same thing could be said for a foundational Newtonian understanding of Special Relativity, without the inherent connection being bridged, where energy as e=mv^2; no idea of the capabilities of that very equation.

What you want to understand the universe in an hour ?

>> No.1666220

>>1666175
>String theory isn't a theory because it has no evidence backing it up, it's more like a geuss
Hypothesis is the word you're looking for. That or Conjecture. If there's a framework for testing it, which is debatable, it should be called a hypothesis rather than a conjecture.

>> No.1666266

>>1666175
>people decided to call it a theory anyway
Because saying "String thingy" would strip even Hawking off all plausibility.