I don't think strings are dead. They're a neat idea. I personally like them, although I have precisely zero confidence that they are real.
The real issue is that after a couple of decades of attack by very smart people, there are no predictions. Indeed, the best they've been able to do is to make approximate solutions of approximate equations. Because of this, people are taking a breath, backing off, and thinking about alternatives. It is, after all, frustrating to work for so long and make only minimal progress.
So, I wouldn't call them dead. They're just no longer the darling of the theoretical world that they once were.
Lincoln wrote:... I could dig up the many posts where you said that the best and the brightest were going elsewhere. ....
Louis_B wrote:Is the LHC going to be able to shine any more light on the subject do you think?
Lincoln wrote:Yeah, but the difference is that science provides answers with substance. Regarding questions of this nature, philosophy's time has past. Philosophy has its place for other things, but it is the alchemy of questions of reality.
Lincoln wrote:I don't think science has all the answers either. Nor do I think that all questions even >>have<< answers.
However, within the topic of this thread...string theory and how it relates to describing reality...I'm quite confident that philosophy doesn't have >>any<< useful answer.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests