Hier zwei interessante Quellen von absoluten Experten.
******
Ich verfolge seit Jahren die jährlichen String-Konferenzen. 2009 hat David Gross, einer der maßgeblichen Forscher auf dem Gebiet der Stringtheorie, einen Plenarvortrag zu Status und offenen Punkten gehalten. Der Vortrag ist einigermaßen kritisch bzgl. des Forschungsgebietes und für mich ein Meilenstein.
http://strings2009.roma2.infn.it/tal..._Strings09.pdf
http://www.ift.uam.es/strings07/040_...nces/gross.pdf
Die wesentlichen Punkte:
WHAT IS STRING THEORY?
This is a strange question since we clearly know what string theory is to the extent that we can construct the theory and calculate some of its properties. However our construction of the theory has proceeded in an ad hoc fashion, often producing, for apparently mysterious reasons, structures that appear miraculous. It is evident that we are far from fully understanding the deep symmetries and physical principles that must underlie these theories. It is hoped that the recent efforts to construct covariant second quantized string field theories will shed light on this crucial question.
We still do not understand what string theory is.
We do not have a formulation of the dynamical principle behind ST. All we have is a vast array of dual formulations, most of which are defined by methods for constructing consistent semiclassical (perturbative) expansions about a given background (classical solution).
What is the fundamental formulation of string theory?
WHAT IS MISSING ?
Perhaps “String theory” is like quantum field theory - a framework and not a definitive theory.
Perhaps we are missing a fundamentally new principle of symmetry, of dynamics, of consistency, .... that leads to a unique solution --- not a “vacuum” but a space-time, a cosmology.
******
Dann gibt es eine sehr empfehlenswerte Webseite von Urs Schreiber, auf der auch kritische Aussagen zum ggw. Status zu finden sind.
http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/string+...akePredictions
Die wesentlichen Kritikpunkte:
While the string perturbation series is a well-defined expression analogous to the Feynman perturbation series, by itself it lacks a conceptual property of the latter: the Feynman perturbation series is known, in principle, to be the approximation to "something", namely to the corresponding complete hence non-perturbative quantum field theory. The idea is that the string perturbation series is similarly the approximation to something, to something which would then be called non-perturbative string theory, but that something has not been identified.
...
Therefore if the qualification “perturbative”/“non-perturbative” is suppressed, then the term “string theory” is quite ambiguous and has frequently led to misunderstanding. Perturbative string theory is a well defined and formally suggestive variant of established perturbation theory in QFT. Non-Perturbative string theory on the other hand is a hypothetical refinement of this perturbative theory of which there are maybe some hints, but which by and large remains mysterious, if it exists at all.
...
There are various hints ... that all perturbative superstring theories ... have a joint strong coupling non-perturbative limit whose low energy effective field theory description is 11-dimensional supergravity and which reduces to the various string theories by Kaluza-Klein compactification on an orientifold torus bundle, followed by various string dualities. Since the string itself is thought to arise from a membrane/M2-brane in 11-dimensions after double dimensional reduction this hypothetical theory has been called “M-theory” short for “membrane theory”; e.g. in Hořava-Witten 95:
"As it has been proposed that the eleven-dimensional theory is a supermembrane theory but there are some reasons to doubt that interpretation, we will non-committally call it the M-theory, leaving to the future the relation of M to membranes."
The “reasons to doubt” that interpretation is that the M2-brane certainly does not support a perturbation theory the way that the superstring does. This is part of the reason why the actual nature of “M-theory” remains mysterious.
...
As mentioned before, there is the idea that perturbative string theory is indeed the perturbative approximation to an as-yet unknown non-perturbative string theory. To the extent that this is true, the dependence of the string perturbation series on the choice of “background” should be of the same superficial nature as it is for traditional perturbative QFT. But this remains a conjecture.
(Hervorhebungen von mir)
******
Im Folgenden einige Stichpunkte zu meinem ggw. Verständnis der Theorie
Kritik:
- hintergrundabhängig (*)
- nicht für beliebige (insbs. dynamische) Raumzeiten formulierbar
- ggw. nicht fundamental und umfassend formulierbar
- fundamentale Freiheitsgrade nicht bekannt (es gibt nicht "den String")
- evtl. handelt es sich um keine fundamentale sondern eine "effektive" Theorie
(*) siehe jedoch AdS/CFT; jedoch nicht vollumfänglich, sondern nur in Spezial- / Grenzfällen; insbs. nicht für dS und andere Geometrien
Erkenntnis:
- keine einzelne Theorie, sondern ein Konstruktionsprinzip bzw. Meta-Theorie
- enthält die Gravitation
- statt eines Zoos von Theorien folgt eher ein Zoo von Lösungen (Landscape **)
(**) evtl. wie verschiedene Lösungen des Standardmodells