String Theory, Various comments stareted by fattysmo

Aside from String Theory, most models have a bottom-up approach to constructing their theorems.

Perhaps a top-down approach might work better if String Theory wasn't trying so hard to find within the models provided for by GR?

Maybe the best solution would be to create your foundation by making an assumption about the nature of the Universe as a whole, then working down towards building a more complete picture that still encompasses the experimental results.

Can you explain what you mean by that? String theory isn't about finding a particle model within general relativity (that's more like Loop Quantum Gravity). String theory is about finding a particle physics model which produces general relativity as a 'side effect'. That is something it has been proven to do. String theory begins as a quantum field theory and it shows that general relativity is a result of such a model.

Again, that's what ST does. Start with the general claims :

A quantum field theory explains the universe
The quantum objects are extended objects
Both bosonic and fermionic particles exist

From such general assumptions about the nature of the universe, you get string theory's prediction of general relativity and other things. Now the problem is finding the right structure which gives particle behaviour seen in experiments. String theory already talks about particles, fields and interactions but they don't match experiment or are too vague.

Such structure should always follow from the theory directly. It shouldn't be a free parameter. The foam structure of AWT is the result of the particle diffusion fluctuations and these particles are formed by condensation of the foam conversely. Quantum theory doesn't explain nothing, it just describes the set of phenomena observed in high magnification.

Richard P. Feynman: "There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics ."

This post has been edited by Zephir on Jan 9 2007, 12:43 AM

But when you don't have the mathematical tools to see where your theory goes, it's kind of hard to see if it follows from the theory directly.

And the relevence is?

The relevance is, the QM cannot explain the Universe, until somebody will explain the quantum mechanic.

Can string theory explain inflation?

A. Linde: "Why would you even try to describe inflation in a theory that cannot describe our universe?"