Who actually thinks string theory represents reality in any way?
395968
string theory by it's very nature can never be observed, proven, or tested (see shadengers cat) thus, I would describe it as a faith, not a theory.
45080
An individual's reality is based primarily on their perception.  \n\nSo, no.  The answer is False.\n\nWhat we, as individuals, see as the 'real world' is based on how we view things - our perception - and those impressions are then filtered through our lives experience thereby lending them a frame of 'reality'.
360519
String theory is the idea that everything in the universe is made out of tiny, vibrating loops of string that are far smaller than the size of an atom.\n\nIn string theory, there are currently believed to be ten dimensions (plus one for time).  A dimension is essentually just a direction:  Left-Right, Up-Down, Forward-Back.  Originally, all the dimensions were very small with little rooom for movement.\n\nAt the time of the Big Bang, the three dimensions I mentioned expanded rapidly to create the enormous universe we see today.  The other seven dimensions are still tiny.  There is not enough room in them for us to detect them directly, but they do influence the behavior of strings on very small scales.\n\nAn example of symmetry is that the rules of physics where you live are exactly the same as the rules of physics where I live.  In other words, the rules of physics are location symmetric.\n\nAnother example is that (by using the rules of general relativity developed by Einstein) the rules are symmetric for all observers, even if they are accelerating in opposite directions.  An interesting result of this symmetry is that gravity warps the fabric of space itself.\n\nSuper-symmetry is another example, like the two I just mentioned.  The details involve more math though, so I won't go into it.  It hasn't really been confirmed by experiment yet, by physicists have been using it to make predictions for years.\n\nCalculations show that the tiny strings of string theory follow the rules of super-symmetry.  That is one reason string theory is widely accepted.  Together, the two ideas predict that all particles we currently know (electrons, muons, quarks, etc.) have a matching super-symmetric particle.\n\nSince none of these have yet been found, they are thought to have much larger masses than the particles who know of.  With the next generation of particle accelerators (such as the Large Hadron Collider scheduled to start operation next year in Europe), it may be possible to test the existence of the matching super-symmetric particles.  That is one of the current ideas for providing evidence for or against string theory.
468986
Ah, the wonders of proving reality to a disbeliever!\nFirst, I want you to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity , and try to teach yourself whatever they're talking about, okay? \nNext, I know this is unprovable, but I have my own distinct thoughts and imaginations and feelings and beliefs, and if nothing else, can assure you that I am, in fact, quite real.\nFind that page yet? Good. Do you understand the math? If so, kudos, go on to the main Special Relativity or General Relativity pages. If not, do you see where I'm heading with this?\nThis world we live in, grass and garbage and math and all, is much too complex for you to dream! The human mind is capable of miraculous things - but it can hardly invent hundreds of thousands of sciences and religions and people, and keep them all straight, and create histories and backgrounds and politics for each.
175717
I've heard of this parallel universe theory..well, it's not a theory really it would be like a conclusion if string theory is someday proved ; there may be infinite universes each with a different law of physics and ours will be just one of many others .\nsounds weird huh? that there are hidden worlds beyond ours, well, that's because there are particles like e- that can stay in more than one place at a time ..so one explanation could be that this particles don't exist just in our universe but in an infinite number of them ( parallel universes)..reality is even more amazing than fiction sometimes :P
26254
first of all 4 dimentions is true because there are 3 spacial dimentions and the 4th is time.\n\nand we dont know if superstring theory is true, it's still just an idea, and hasn't been proven, nor has any evidence been shown for it, we just like it because it can be used to explain certain things if it were true.  in string theory, there are 11 dimentions, its not crap, why dont you read "the elegant universe" by brian greene, or at least do some type of reading on it before you call it crap.  the dimentions are interwoven in our own universe, just like the 4 that are already proven.
408267
Quantum theory accurately describes the way things in the universe behave on small scales.  General relativity does the same for large scales.  However, combining the two theories to find equations that work for things like black holes doesn't really work.\n\nString theory is an attempt to find something that accurately describes interactions on both large and small scales.  Another idea is loop quantum gravity.  Neither idea has really been proven yet, although useful insights have been gleaned from both.\n\nThe hope is that future research at places like the Large Hadron Collider that is scheduled to begin operation soon in Europe will eventually prove string theory correct.  Even if that does happen though, the equations for string theory are actually still too complex for mathematicians to accurately solve them.  Currently, physicists use estimates instead of the true equations.  There will need to be a lot of work done in that area as well before string theory will really replace quantum theory.
841755
Firstly, in honour of the late C E M Joad, it may depend on what exactly you mean by the various terms you use.\nThat's not a trivial opening for miscommunication.\n\nIs an ethereal plane a given, capable of definition, or is that a hypothetical construct too?\n\nTaking reality and non-reality in a popular sense, the nature of reality will be a question for anyone delving into philosophy and the mind.  Simple visual illusions are all that are required to distinguish between "perception" and "reality".\nThere is discussion that self-awareness may only be an illusion of identity (following Libets' and others' experiments on brain potential and subjective experience) \n\nAnd a url is given for the discussion that an individual's subjective existence is more likely to be a computer simulation than "real life", which may be closer to what you had in mind.
336869
They can't be explained. That's why the aforementioned string theory hasn't met a wide acceptance. There are other difficulties with string theory, but they would take a while to explain.
913586
the parallel universe theory, just like string theory, and bubble universe theory, are simply elaborate "what ifs". but none of these are based off of any empirical data, and are completely unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. in fact, this theory actually came from scientists who decided to disregard a generally better established explination of the of von Neumann's quantum collapse postulate.\n\njust in the same sense that, if i lock all my doors and windows, and christmas presents get under my tree, it doesnt mean that santa put them there.\n\nthere is too much quantum mechanics for me to explain, but i have a fellow lab student who is doing quantum computing who agrees with me on this point. and this is the general consensus of the scientific community.
409964
All (good) science is based on theoretical notions thought up by someone carefully observing the universe around them, proposing an explanation, and then testing to see if it can be used to predict a likely outcome.  If it predicts the likely outcome all the time, it becomes a Law.  In physics, Gravity is already a Law, but String Theory is still a theory.  A theory is not pseudoscience unless most thoughtful people can see holes in it.  Theoretical thought, even "on the margins of science" is essential for progress.\n\nDoubtless there were many sensible folk who thought the Wright brothers were lunatics, but they had the math & mechanical skills to prove their theoretical notion that a machine could make a man able to fly.\n\nNow go to your workshop and think!
1143512
We have entered the age of HYPERREALITY. The 'real' is now only simulated by signs...\nThe sign (in our capitalist world is MONEY), starts off as a reflection of our basic reality...\nThen it masks and perverts reality...\nThen it makrs the absence of reality...\nFinally, it bears no relation to reality whatsoever; it is a pure simulacrum.\n\nSimulacra can still dictate our existence, but the existence they create is meaningless and inexplicable.
8671
M Theory attempts to go beyond superstring theory and purport that the multiverse is made up of 11 dimensions. \n\nM Theory is based on mathematical calculations and not empirical data. However, M Theory does successfully account for every issue of all superstring theories (classical, quantum physics, etc) and mathematically postulates the number to be at 11. \n\nFor more information:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_theory
193940
Your question indicates that you have a very active imagination! Virtual reality is something humans have come up with during the last blink of cosmic time. Actual, physical reality is much more astounding. Actually, it isn't necessary to postulate a virtual reality in order to understand this amazing universe. The real - not virtual - universe is so vast and so strange that it's hard to comprehend what's going on and our relation to it. The realities being steadily revealed by scientists boggle the mind. Fascinating stuff! It takes a lot of inquisiiveness, open mindedness and courage to face up to what all of it means. Are you up for it?
1135752
Bertrand Russell  and G.E Moore posed a similar issue many years ago when one of them suggested something like the following: Suppose you were created 5 minutes ago, complete with memories.  How would you prove what was real?\nThis has, of course, given way to many explanations and many theories of epistemology.  How do we know anything at all? Is it handed out by a great and powerful God or did matter just gel together and create mankind?\nI cannot pretend to be able to answer the question but I will suggest food for thought; in any human endeavor, we believe in something first and discover its efficacy later.  That is, we think we see something before our eyes, say as a child, and then we figure out how to reach out and grab it.  In this way, babies discover that they can reach their rattles and blankets and Mommy, but they cannot reach the window, the sky or the ceiling fan.  As adults, we learn to use the keyboard by pressing buttons and testing the results.  However if you wish to suggest that there might not be any keyboards in existence, I would give you a funny look and ask what you meant.\nHence I am suggesting that your question is turned upside down:  we do, in fact, each of us, believe that matter exists and has existed for some time.  While some believe in God as the prime cause, others believe in some sort of eternal material goo which somehow, and somewhat embarrassingly, developed a spiritual nature that ended up as mankind.  In both cases, what gives us comfort in our lives often leads us to our conclusions about beginnings rather than the reverse.\nLastly, when we are angry with the actions of others, we usually take it out on ourselves.  As Montaigne suggested, more blood has been spilled in the name of God than by any other cause.  Frankly, I don't see how we could blame God for that any more than we can blame him for not giving us the answers we demand.  I think His purpose might have been to teach us how ridiculous we are when we act in an immoral way, but judging by the present state of things, perhaps that isn't working all that well.  The state of the world today is better explained by the primoridial goo theory and the spirit of human beings? Maybe it's just a terminal case of a bad design flaw.  Of course it could just be bad personal behavior and unending greed, but lots of people would have trouble with an absolute morality.  By this time, maybe God does too!\nThink of this, the next time you get the urge to wonder about something: an atheist is, by definition, someone who denies the existence of something which doesn't exist.
868775
Quantum physics seriously challenges our comfortable ideas of what we think is reality, how everything has its time and place, and how it all seems so straightfowardly logical, until you study the results of certain experiments in quantum physics.  The first reaction is always denial, the next is always, "there must be a simple, rational explanation", followed by, "the equations of quantum physics only expresses our ignorance of underlying processes".  After a while, there's the depression and the resignation, something that even Albert Einstein himself had to endure.  Many of the originators of quantum theory, including no less than  Erwin Schrodinger himself, have expressed regret and disgust on how things have turned out.  What may be illusionary, however, are our older concepts of what we take for reality, and what needs to be developed is a conceptual model that's consistent with the well established equations and findings of quantum theory.  Check "Quantum Interpretations", a subject that's been discussed since the early days of quantum physics.
621133
Oh my, have you opened up a can of nightmarish confusion.\n\nYou are referring to String Theory, and it is way too complicated to describe here.  Here is an exerpt from an article on wikipedia of String Theory that describes these extra dimensions:\n\nOne intriguing feature of string theory is that it predicts the number of dimensions which the universe should possess. Nothing in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism or Einstein's theory of relativity makes this kind of prediction; these theories require physicists to insert the number of dimensions "by hand". The first person to add a fifth dimension to Einstein's four was the German mathematician Theodor Kaluza in 1919. The reason for the unobservability of the fifth dimension (its compactness) was suggested by the Swedish physicist Oskar Klein in 1926.\n\nInstead, string theory allows one to compute the number of spacetime dimensions from first principles. Technically, this happens because for a different number of dimensions, the theory has a gauge anomaly. This can be understood by noting that in a consistent theory which includes a photon (technically, a particle carring a force related to an unbroken gauge symmetry), it must be massless. The mass of the photon which is predicted by string theory depends on the energy of the string mode which represents the photon. This energy includes a contribution from Casimir effect, namely from quantum fluctuations in the string. The size of this contribution depends on the number of dimensions since for a larger number of dimensions, there are more possible fluctuations in the string position. Therefor, the photon will be massless - and the theory consistent - only for a particular number of dimensions.\n\nThe only problem is that when the calculation is done, the universe's dimensionality is not four as one may expect (three axes of space and one of time), but twenty-six. More precisely, bosonic string theories are 26-dimensional, while superstring and M-theories turn out to involve 10 or 11 dimensions. In bosonic string theories, the 26 dimensions come from the Polyakov equation (see technical details in the preprint "Quantum Geometry of Bosonic Strings - Revisited"). However, these results appear to contradict the observed four dimensional space-time.\n\n \nCalabi-Yau manifold (3D projection)Two different ways have been proposed to solve this apparent contradiction. The first is to compactify the extra dimensions; i.e., the 6 or 7 extra dimensions are so small as to be undetectable in our phenomenal experience. The 6-dimensional model's resolution is achieved with Calabi-Yau spaces. In 7 dimensions, they are termed G2 manifolds. Essentially these extra dimensions are compactified by causing them to loop back upon themselves.\n\nA standard analogy for this is to consider multidimensional space as a garden hose. If the hose is viewed from a sufficient distance, it appears to have only one dimension, its length. Indeed, think of a ball small enough to enter the hose but not too small. Throwing such a ball inside the hose, the ball would move more or less in one dimension; in any experiment we make by throwing such balls in the hose, the only important movement will be one-dimensional, that is, along the hose. However, as one approaches the hose, one discovers that it contains a second dimension, its circumference. Thus, a ant crawling inside it would move in two dimensions (and a fly flying in it would move in three dimensions). This "extra dimension" is only visible within a relatively close range to the hose, or if one "throws in" small enough objects. Similarly, the extra compact dimensions are only visible at extremely small distances, or by experimenting with particles with extremely small wave lengths (of the order of the compact dimension's radius), which in quantum mechanics means very high energies (see wave-particle duality).\n\nAnother possibility is that we