What's Left of Stringtheory?

[Covenant]

As a thread here stated, it seems that this branch of physics has basically dead-ended. I wasn't aware of that, but it seems to confirm some of the naysaying I've been hearing from the guys at Fermilab.

So my question is, did it come up with anything useful, or is the whole thing going to be set aside as a lovely thought experiment that came up with nothing but clever math?

I'm no expert on this stuff, but I read lots of the books that came out, and enjoyed the idea that we were onto something. It's obviously attractive, but if it's broken, I'd like to dump the illusion. Still, something must have either come from it, broken off of it, or have cropped up in a completely unrelated area in the meantime, right? Or are we still no closer to unification of any sort?

[Starglider]

As a thread here stated, it seems that this branch of physics has basically dead-ended.

You mean that thread about one guy's badly written rant? That's hardly significant evidence.

So my question is, did it come up with anything useful, or is the whole thing going to be set aside as a lovely thought experiment that came up with nothing but clever math?

Some of it is waiting for new experiments to generate data that can discriminate between the competing hypotheses. A lot of it is just unable to make any kind of testable predictions at all at this point, but hopefully new experimental data (e.g. from the Large Hadron Collider) will lock enough things down that more will become testable.

It's obviously attractive, but if it's broken, I'd like to dump the illusion.

It's a case of theory outrunning our ability to do experiments; if it was just broken, that would be progress (eliminating incorrect hypotheses), but unfortunately we don't know enough to confirm or dismiss most of the theories yet.

[Darth Wong]

In a nutshell, string theory is no more broken than it's always been. It's also no more useful than it's always been. And by "useful", I mean the scientific sense, where it isn't really necessitated by any particular observation.

[dragon]

A few things came out of it, mainly in the area of therotical mathamatics. But for pratical stuff very little other than the fact they had to design new machine to try and test for it. But its's no more dead the quantum mecanics. I do know they still teach both of them in the advance physics class.

[Starglider]

But its's no more dead the quantum mecanics.

You are either joking or pathetically ignorant.

I do know they still teach both of them in the advance physics class.

On the contrary you seem to have no idea what a typical physics degree curriculum looks like.

[dragon]

Since I have a minor in physics with a major in math yeah I think I do. My last physics class included both quantum mechanics and string theory. And since several of the leading experts in therotical physics such as Miko Kako, Brian Greene and even Stephen Hawkings all say string theory answers many of the problems that quantum mechanics leave unanswered, than well I say its not dead.

[Starglider]

My last physics class included both quantum mechanics and string theory.

The various theories in quantum mechanics not only make testable predictions (confirmed to an extremely high degree of accuracy in most cases), but have been integral to the design of electronics and a fair amount of chemical engineering since at least the 1960s. String theory has had nothing like this degree of success or utility.

I read your statement as 'QM is just as useless as String Theory', which is clearly incorrect, but the inverse of 'String Theory is just as useful as QM' isn't much better.

[dragon]

Yeah I didn't express myself very clear in my original post, sorry about that I just ment that there is still much research being done into both fields as there is still so much unanswered in both fields and that neither is dead.

My brain tends to take short cuts on me, but what can you expect with all the meds I'm on.