Will Superstring Theory Win a Nobel Prize by 2020?

  • Thread starter Ebe
  • Start date
In summary: The theory has been subjected to a mountain of testing and has yielded some stunning results. But, as Dr. Kaku so eloquently points out, you don't need a Large Hadron Collider to verify string theory. All you need is to look for "echoes" from the 10th and 11th dimensions.However, as Dr. Woit points out, string theory is not only smarter than we are, but it is also more complex than anything we have ever attempted to understand. It may take several more years, perhaps even 20, for us to figure out how to solve this theory. In the meantime, it might be premature to proclaim it the "theory of everything."
  • #1
Ebe
14
0
The debate:
"By 2020, no one will have won a Nobel Prize for work on superstring theory, membrane theory, or some other unified theory describing all the forces of nature."

View the Argument here > Kaku is the Challenger and $1000 bucks is at stake!

John Horgan
author, The End of Science and The Undiscovered Mind
SEEMS TO AGREE and puts $1000.00 ON THE TABLE

Dr. Kaku > The Almighty Challenger seems to DISAGREE
Lets read his statement on why he he disagrees:

"It is often forgotten that physics is mainly done indirectly. Thus, we know that the sun is made of hydrogen gas, yet no one has ever visited the sun. We know that black holes exist in space, yet they are invisible by definition. We know that the Big Bang took place approximately 15 billion years ago, yet no one was there to witness it. We know these things, because we have indirect evidence or "echoes", such as sunlight and characteristic radiation from black holes and Creation. Likewise, you do not need to build an atom smasher the size of the galaxy to prove string theory or M-theory (the leading and, in fact, only candidate for a "theory of everything). Instead, we need to look for echoes from the 10th and 11th dimensions as follows: a) Within a few years, the Large Hadron Collider, the largest atom smasher on earth, will be turned on outside Geneva, Switzerland. It might be able to find "sparticles" or super particles, i.e. higher vibrations or octaves of the superstring. b) Invisible dark matter, which makes up 90% of the matter in the universe, might be shown to consist of sparticles like the photino. This might also verify string theory. c) In this decade, gravity wave detectors should be able to record shock waves from colliding black holes, which might reveal the first quantum corrrection to Einstein's original theory of 1915. These quantum corrections can be compared to those predicted by string theory. d) Within 20 years, NASA plans to send three gravity wave detectors into outer space. They should be sensitive enough to pick up the shock waves from the Big Bang itself created a fraction of a second after the instant of creation. This should be able to prove or disprove string theory. Personally, I feel no need to prove the theory experimentally, since I believe it can be proven using pure mathematics. A theory of everything is also a theory of everyday energies, where we find familar electrons, protons, and atoms. If we can solve the theory mathematically, then we should be able to calculate the properties of electrons, protons, and atoms from pure mathematics. If the results disagree with known data, then string theory will be shown to be a "theory of nothing." However, if the numbers agree, then it will be heralded as the greatest achievement of the human mind. We will have "read the mind of God." So what prevents us from simply solving the theory and comparing the results with nature? The problem is that the theory is smarter than we are. No one on this planet is smart enough to solve this theory. The smartest people on Earth are working on this problem, and have so far failed. (This is because the theory was discovered purely by accident in 1968. We were never supposed to see this theory in the 20th century. The mathematics necessary to solve the theory have not yet been discovered.) Because string theory has near-miraculous breakthroughs every 8 to 10 years, we can expect 2 more breakthroughs in the theory before 2020, and hence might be able to solve this theory by then. Perhaps someone reading this bet will be inspired to mathematically solve this theory completely. Maybe that person will then receive a telephone call from Sweden."

Nicely done.
Im with Kaku on this one!

All

Michael Phillips (Ebe)
Hyperspace Productions, Inc.
www.mkaku.org
mphillips@mkaku.org
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Very interesting discussion there of the bet and the possibilities. I noticed Peter Woit was there with his point of view. This seems to be the year everybody hits on string physics, and my personal take is that neither side has well-based arguments. It's like arguments for and against Hegel's dialectic. Maybe both sides are wrong!
 
  • #3
Someone will win the Nobel Prize for Unified Field Theory, but not string theory

So, if the bet includes any winning in any kind Unified Field Theory? But string theory will fail. Then how could one vote in this condition?
Anyway, it's interesting.
 
  • #4
Is String Theory Even Wrong?

Just wanted to post some of the comments of Peter Woit in regards to stringtheory

For nearly 18 years now, most advanced mathematical work in theoretical particle physics has centered on something known as string theory. This theory is built on the idea that elementary particles are not pointlike objects but are the vibration modes of one-dimensional "stringlike" entities. This formulation hopes to do away with certain lingering problems in fundamental particle physics and to offer the possibility of soon explaining all physical phenomenaýeverything from neutrinos to black holesýwith a single theory. Fifteen years ago Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study made the widely quoted claim that "string theory is a part of 21st-century physics that fell by chance into the 20th century," so perhaps it is now time to begin judging the success or failure of this new way of thinking about particle physics.

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@229.6J0hbiB0Nyf.0@.1dde6988/18
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
In 2020?

9. Did quarks turn out to be elementary or composite? If composite, did the candidates for their constituents turn out to be elementary or composite? Or do you have a better way of looking at these phenomena? What, indeed, is the lifetime of the nucleus of the hydrogen atom?

If string theory is already a better way of looking at these phenomena, the question may be partly answered. Maybe a better way to phrase it is this: What energy scales have you been able to reach, and have you observed new structure all along the way, or have things finally started to simplify, as people once innocently expected that they would?


http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-2/p11.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
String theory sounds a little too much like repackaged "wavicle" theory to me... but what do I know?

How can anything, point or not, pass for an absolute... if there's more than one of them?

An absolute IS what we're looking for... right?
 

What is "The Debate: HORGAN VS. KAKU" about?

"The Debate: HORGAN VS. KAKU" is a debate between two prominent scientists, John Horgan and Michio Kaku, about the future of science and technology. The debate covers topics such as the feasibility of time travel, the potential dangers of artificial intelligence, and the role of scientists in society.

Who are John Horgan and Michio Kaku?

John Horgan is a science journalist and author, known for his criticism of scientific claims and his skepticism towards certain fields of science. Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist and popular science communicator, known for his work in string theory and his discussions on the future of science and technology.

What are the main arguments presented by Horgan and Kaku in the debate?

Horgan argues that there are limits to what science and technology can achieve, and that scientists should be more cautious and responsible in their pursuits. Kaku argues that science and technology will continue to advance and will shape the future of humanity in a positive way, but also acknowledges the potential risks and challenges that come with it.

Why is "The Debate: HORGAN VS. KAKU" important?

The debate is important because it brings to light different perspectives on the future of science and technology, and raises important questions about the role of scientists in society. It also encourages critical thinking and discussion about the potential impact of scientific advancements on humanity.

What can we learn from "The Debate: HORGAN VS. KAKU"?

We can learn that there are diverse opinions and beliefs within the scientific community, and that it is important to consider the potential consequences of scientific advancements before pursuing them. The debate also highlights the need for responsible and ethical decision-making in the field of science and technology.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
743
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
2
Views
261
Replies
6
Views
918
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
506
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
9
Views
495
Back
Top