Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

122 submissions , 103 unreviewed
3,497 questions , 1,172 unanswered
4,548 answers , 19,352 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
409 active unimported users
More ...

What Observations could undeniably support string theory?

+ 1 like - 0 dislike
19 views

What experiments could provide observable "stringy" effects.

All valid experiments are acceptable (also theoretical experiments).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:29 (UCT), posted by SE-user Argus
asked Jul 12, 2012 in Experimental Physics by Argus (40 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Mar 24, 2014 by dimension10
Most voted comments show all comments
There is a basic mistake in your thought outline: A theory can never be proven. It can only be disproved by just one contrary datum. A theory is a mathematical proposition and stands or falls on its agreement with all known experimental data. Experiments continually try to validate or invalidate the current theories.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:29 (UCT), posted by SE-user anna v
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/9337/2451

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:29 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
This question is a little poorly phrased. The relevant thought experiments are those that establish the holographic principle, since string theory is basically a mathematically precise realization of holography. Experimental evidence should be separated from thought experiments, because while one thinks one knows the answer to thought experiments, there are sometimes surprises.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:29 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
A good scientific theory makes predictions which can be tested. If the predictions are confirmed then that does not prove the theory. It simply means the theory has not been falsified. Unfortunately in the case of String theory it makes no predictions that can tested uniquely for it. It is always lagging behind the observations and alternative explanations.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:29 (UCT), posted by SE-user Omar
I think Argus is asking for possible experiments which would clearly show a stringy effect. If you had a particle collider operating at the GUT scale, maybe you'd see excited string states. But in my opinion the best hope for proving string theory is for people to figure out the right vacuum (e.g. right shape of the extra dimensions) and show that it predicts the particle masses and mixing angles.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:29 (UCT), posted by SE-user Mitchell Porter
Most recent comments show all comments
...so thanks for not closing @dmckee :-)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:29 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
@dmckee: good advice I will not make that mistake again I appreciate the edit.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:29 (UCT), posted by SE-user Argus

2 Answers

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

I will once again state that string theory, any theory, cannot be proven right by any experiment. The experiment might validate the theory, i.e. come as a result of a prediction from the theory.

At the moment there does not exist one string theory in the manner that there exists one General Relativity theory.There are many models based on string theory, though.

Why such an interest? Because at the moment string theories are the only theories that can accommodate the Standard Model of particle physics and at the same time allow for the quantization of gravity, which has been the holy grail of theoriticians the past fifty years. That is they promise a "Theory of Everything, TOE).

What might disprove the usefulness of string theories for a TOE would be if supesymmetry were falsified at the LHC, for example. If nothing is seen other than the Higgs at the LHC, SS would seem as a nice try but bad luck. Then the usefulness of strings becomes doubtful. If SS is seen in the LHC and studied as well as the SM in the International Linear Collider to be built in the future, then strings will be good as candidates of a TOE.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:29 (UCT), posted by SE-user anna v
answered Jul 12, 2012 by anna v (1,710 points) [ no revision ]
I thought SUSY does not HAVE to be broken at an energy scale reachable for the LHC and therefore even if it would not be seen up to 14TeV would not mean that ST is useless ... See for example this question

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:29 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
@Dilaton It does not "have to" but it becomes very much removed from reality and will give ammunition to alternate theories. Personally I think we will find it the LHC :). After all it was first developed as a theory of nuclear physics ground states :).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:29 (UCT), posted by SE-user anna v
+ 2 like - 0 dislike

since theoretical "experiments" are included, a proof that any consistent theory of quantum gravity has to be a special case of M-theory will do.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:29 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jabba
answered Jul 12, 2012 by Jabba (20 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...