How to explain the benefits of string theory to my grandmother

[Fra]

3) I'm just asking your opinion (for placing the percentages) --not to be etched in stone

I figured that, but the above was my version of the answer :) But to give numbers how about

logic (reasoning)= 95% / logic (math)= 5%, during the early phase where the theory is nothing but a speculation on a fuzzy question, because in this early stage I think more effort should be spent on trying to understand what we are doing and what options we have...

...but suppose in the future IF this theory is largely supported by more experiment and finally ends upp accepted as a working TOOL, then most of the fuzzy is resolved already, and hopefully transladed into computational schemes... so in this later - mature state, I think perhaps one can axiomatize it and then perhaps logic (reasoning)= 5% / logic (math)= 95% seems more reasoanble.

As for right now, at least I've got a feeling that the early part has been rushed over, in eager to dig into juicy math. So I would personally like to see more reasoning, than what is typically seen.

/Fredrik

 

[rewebster]

Now, there's something 'metaphysical/paranormal'---the last few posts of this thread disappeared

---------oops different thread--never mind

 

[rewebster]

and by the way, I'm more and more inclined to believe that the key lies in our understanding of the vacuum.
This is just a crackpot hypothesis, I know, but maybe one day someone will come up with a model for the vacuum which will explain the "zoo", the uncertainty principle, and the foundations of GR.
And I bet it will be some form of deterministic system and will entail dimension reduction, not augmentation.

Just a bet, who wants to take it ?

In that line, there's one paper I love from G. 't Hooft

gr-qc/9903084 "quantum gravity as a dissipative deterministic system"

BTW, the latest paper by E. Witten (see other thread by Ensabah 6) seems that more people are looking in what happens when one simplifies GR and looks at it in 2+1 dimensions.

The question will of course be, if something comes out of this, how to derive from this a model for the real world (3+1). But let's wait and see, I'm inclined to think that it is a new direction, and certainly opposite to the old ST multiplication of solutions.

Define the BET a little more (since you initiated it)---and what the 'prize' for winning will be


--------------------------------------

Most ideas from theories, even relativity, can be usually 'translated' into a layman's language with 'illustrations' and 'analogies'. They may not be prefect in 'translation' , but even when Green 'tried' to animate strings in 'El.. Uni..', it (string) seemed like all the best they could do was similar to a piece of spaghetti bouncing around on a trampoline.

(I kept looking around for the fork to appear)