Last December ('05) physicists held the 23rd Solvay Conference in Brussels Belgium.
Amongst the lots of topics covered inside the conference was the topic matter of string theory.
This theory combines the apparently irreconcilable domains of quantum physics and relativity.
David Gross a Nobel Laureate produced some startling statements about the state of physics such as "We don't know what we're talking about" whilst referring to string theory too as .
The state of physics right now is like it was when we had been mystified by radioactivity.
The Nobel Laureate is actually a heavyweight in this field having earned a prize for function on the strong nuclear force and he indicated that what's happening now is extremely similar to what happened at the 1911 Solvay meeting.
Back then radioactivity had lately been discovered and mass power conservation was under assault as a result of its discovery.
Quantum theory could be required to solve these issues.
Gross further commented that in 1911 "They were missing some thing absolutely fundamental" at the same time as "we are missing perhaps something as profound as they had been back then."
Coming from a scientist with establishment credentials this really is a damning statement about the state of existing theoretical models and most notably string theory.
This theoretical model is usually a means by which physicists replace the more frequently recognized particles of particle physics with one dimensional objects which are known as strings.
These bizarre objects were 1st detected in 1968 by means of the insight and work of Gabriele Veneziano who was attempting to comprehend the strong nuclear force.
Whilst meditating on the strong nuclear force Veneziano detected a similarity between the Euler Beta Function, named for the famed mathematician Leonhard Euler plus the powerful force.
Applying the aforementioned Beta Function to the strong force he was able to validate a direct correlation between the two.
Interestingly enough nobody knew why Euler's Beta worked so well in mapping the strong nuclear force data.
A proposed answer to this dilemma would follow some years later.
Virtually two years later (1970) the scientists Nambu Nielsen and Susskind provided a mathematical description which described the physical phenomena of why Euler's Beta served as a graphical outline for the powerful nuclear force.
By modeling the powerful nuclear forces as 1 dimensional strings they were able to show why it all seemed to work so properly.
Having said that quite a few troubling inconsistencies had been right away noticed on the horizon.
The new theory had attached to it several implications that were in direct violation of empirical analyses.
In other words, routine experimentation didn't back up the new theory.
Needless to say physicists romantic fascination with string theory ended pretty much as rapidly as it had begun only to be resuscitated a few years later by another 'discovery.'
The worker of the miraculous salvation of the sweet dreams of modern day physicists was recognized as the graviton.
This elementary particle allegedly communicates gravitational forces throughout the universe.
The graviton is naturally a 'hypothetical' particle that appears in what are known as quantum gravity systems.
Sadly the graviton has by no means ever been detected it is as previously indicated a 'mythical' particle that fills the mind of the theorist with dreams of golden Nobel Prizes and maybe his or her name on the periodic table of elements.
But back to the historical record.
In 1974, the scientists Schwarz, Scherk and Yoneya reexamined strings so that the textures or patterns of strings and their related vibrational properties had been connected to the aforementioned 'graviton.'
As a result of these investigations was born what is now called 'bosonic string theory' which will be the 'in vogue' version of this theory.
Having both open and closed strings at the same time as many new critical troubles which gave rise to unforeseen instabilities.
These problematical instabilities leading to lots of new difficulties which render the previous thinking as confused as we were when we started this discussion.
Certainly this all began from undetectable gravitons which arise from other theories equally untenable and inexplicable and so on.
Thus was born string theory which was hoped would supply a total picture of the basic fundamental principles of the universe.
Scientists had believed that when the shortcomings of particle physics had been left behind by the adoption of the exotic string theory that a grand unified theory of everything could be an easily ascertainable goal.
However, what they could not anticipate is that the theory that they hoped would produce a theory of everything would leave them far more confused and frustrated than they were before they departed from particle physics.
The end result of string theory is that we know much less and less and are becoming additional and a lot more confused. Certainly, the argument could possibly be made that further investigations will yield more relevant data whereby we will tweak the model to an eventual perfecting of our understanding of it. Or maybe 'We don't know what we are talking about.'
RSS Feed