Timeline for What experiment would prove string theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 31, 2014 at 19:29 | comment | added | Terry Bollinger | @annav, so AdS/QCD is the non-controversial body of real experimental evidence for string-like behaviors? I'm assuming it's the same particle work that led to the first string analogies back in what, the 1970s? Thanks, I'll look it up. Wouldn't that be nifty if it could be, er, "resonated" back to a deeper level? Or shown not to? (Aside: I hope Ron Maimon is doing well, whatever he's up to these days.) | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 19:19 | comment | added | Terry Bollinger | @dmckee I think I've heard that before about strings and group theory, but I'd be very curious to hear whether pure mathematicians in group theory have ever looked at and concurred with that assertion. After all, as with the physics "postdictions" you mentioned, if you create a very broad formal framework that included all of group theory as a given... | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 18:48 | comment | added | anna v | @TerryBollinger It has been done, have a look at my question and Ron Maimon's reply here physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27671/… | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 17:25 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | @TerryBollinger "Where is the proof that a theory based on strings is the only complex formulation capable of encompassing known physics?" I don't think there is one at this point, but as I understand it the string guys have shown that any theory based on the group structures of the existing symmetries must be homomorphic with string theory which I guess says that as long as we're sticking with groups we may as well use their work. | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 17:21 | comment | added | Terry Bollinger | @dmckee, "postdictions" nicely captures my initial reaction to the converse question. While its answer was excellent and detailed, my reaction in reading it was that I was reading a recitation of all the known, pre-string physics that necessarily went into the givens that strings must accomplish. I just don't see how that approach logically moves us any closer to establishing why the string formulation must be the one that ties those threads together. For example: Where is the proof that a theory based on strings is the only complex formulation capable of encompassing known physics? | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 16:59 | comment | added | Terry Bollinger | Wow, @annav, that's probably the most experimentally specific suggestion for testing strings meaningfully that I've seen... well, maybe ever? Do you know of any papers or literature on your idea? | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 4:12 | comment | added | anna v | I have been thinking if we could look at HEP data again in the framework of Regge trajectory exchanges we could get another handle on checking strings. It was fairly successful in describing resonances and the data arising from them. This would be another test then. | |
| Aug 16, 2014 at 16:31 | history | answered | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | CC BY-SA 3.0 |