Re: USS Greenling (SSN-614) Scratchbuild
I can remember back in the mid 1980's when the physicists at Rockefeller University (where I was on the faculty) were all fired up about the early versions of String Theory. It has apparently evolved into a mathematically consistent theory, but deals with items (one dimensional objects called strings) at the Planck scale. A particle accelerator as big as the galaxy (literally) would still not have remotely enough energy to reach that scale to test the theory.
Prior physics predicted the Higgs boson back in the 1960's, and the LHC has the energy range to confirm its existence (just as the W and Z bosons of the weak force were predicted earlier and observed in the 1980's). String Theory has absolutely no hope of ever achieving anything even remotely near the energies necessary to observe the strings. So, my understanding is it all hangs together from the math standpoint (and there is the latest variant, M Theory). It has led to new explorations and discoveries in exotic mathematics, but the theory cannot be tested experimentally, not now or any time in the future. So, as you suggested, take it on faith.... Of course you have Brian Green writing books and appearing on PBS Specials extolling it as a theory, and to some extent, representing its predictions as a "done deal" as to how the universe operates. The late Richard Feynman, Roger Penrose, and Glashow have all criticized string theory for not providing novel experimental predictions at energy scales that can ever be attained.
(Just another day on the SubCommittee Bulletin Board discussing String Theory....) "Say, Bill, do you have to compensate for the total mass of strings that make up the quarks that make up the nuclei of the atoms of your carbon resin fiber when trying to adjust the buoyancy of your boat?"
I can remember back in the mid 1980's when the physicists at Rockefeller University (where I was on the faculty) were all fired up about the early versions of String Theory. It has apparently evolved into a mathematically consistent theory, but deals with items (one dimensional objects called strings) at the Planck scale. A particle accelerator as big as the galaxy (literally) would still not have remotely enough energy to reach that scale to test the theory.
Prior physics predicted the Higgs boson back in the 1960's, and the LHC has the energy range to confirm its existence (just as the W and Z bosons of the weak force were predicted earlier and observed in the 1980's). String Theory has absolutely no hope of ever achieving anything even remotely near the energies necessary to observe the strings. So, my understanding is it all hangs together from the math standpoint (and there is the latest variant, M Theory). It has led to new explorations and discoveries in exotic mathematics, but the theory cannot be tested experimentally, not now or any time in the future. So, as you suggested, take it on faith.... Of course you have Brian Green writing books and appearing on PBS Specials extolling it as a theory, and to some extent, representing its predictions as a "done deal" as to how the universe operates. The late Richard Feynman, Roger Penrose, and Glashow have all criticized string theory for not providing novel experimental predictions at energy scales that can ever be attained.
(Just another day on the SubCommittee Bulletin Board discussing String Theory....) "Say, Bill, do you have to compensate for the total mass of strings that make up the quarks that make up the nuclei of the atoms of your carbon resin fiber when trying to adjust the buoyancy of your boat?"
Comment