| Subject: | Re: What's really wrong with string theory? |
|---|---|
| From: | Bob Kolker |
| Date: | Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:24:41 -0500 |
| Newsgroups: | sci.math, sci.physics, sci.philosophy.tech, sci.physics.particle, sci.physics.relativity |
Igor wrote: Unfortunately, no. And it gets even better. This deep quagmire of terminology and seemingly empty mathematics still offers nary a single physical prediction after all these years. And that is precisely the problem with (string, brane, M) theory. The theory had become a source for some interesting mathematics, but is it physics? Bob Kolker |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: An uncountable countable set, Virgil |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | help: talyor series, functional extrema, jamespmonaco |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: What's really wrong with string theory?, Bob Kolker |
| Next by Thread: | re: What's really wrong with string theory?, Jack Sarfatti |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |