Abstract
Superstring models excite theoretical physicists because they may unite the four fundamental forces. These theories are formulated in a ten-dimensional world of extraordinarily high energies. Recent work indicates how superstrings may nevertheless relate to our four-dimensional world and to laboratory experiments.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 52 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.83 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Green, M. B. Nature 314, 409–414 (1985).
De Rjula, A. Nature 320, 678 (1986).
Llewellyn-Smith, C. H. Nature 312, 588–592 (1984).
Ellis, J. & Peccei, R. (eds) CERN Rep. No. 86-02 (1986).
Ellis, J. Nature 313, 626–627 (1985).
Chamseddine, A. H. Nucl. Phys. B185, 403–415 (1981).
Bergshoeff, F., de Roo, M., de Wit, B. & van Nieuwenhuizen, P. Nucl. Phys. B195, 97–136 (1982).
Chapline, G. & Manton, N. Phys. Lett. 120B, 105–109 (1983).
Green, M. B. & Schwarz, J. H. Phys. Lett. 149B, 117–122 (1984); 151B, 21–25 (1985).
Lovelace, C. Phys. Lett. 34B, 500–506 (1971).
Schwarz, J. H. Nucl. Phys. B46, 61–74 (1972).
Neveu, A. & Scherk, J. Nucl. Phys. B36, 155–161 (1972).
Yoneya, T. Prog. Theor. Phys. 51, 1907–1920 (1974).
Scherk, J., Schwarz, J. H. Nucl. Phys. B81, 118–144 (1974).
Candelas, P., Horowitz, G. T., Strominger, A. & Witten, E. Nucl. Phys. B258, 46–74 (1985).
Calabi, E. in Algebraic Geometry and Topology: a Symposium in Honor of S. Lefschetz 78–89 (Princeton University Press, 1957).
Yau, S. T. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 74, 1798–1799 (1974).
Witten, E. preprint, Princeton Univ. (1985).
Witten, E. Nucl. Phys. B258, 75–100 (1985).
Dine, M., Kaplunovsky, V., Mangano, M., Nappi, C. & Seiberg, N. Nucl. Phys. B259, 549–571 (1985).
Breit, J. D., Ovrut, B. A. & Segr, G. Phys. Lett. 1 158B, 33–39 (1985).
Hosotani, Y. Phys. Lett. 126B, 309–313 (1983).
Strominger, A. & Witten, E. Commun. Math. Phys. 101, 341 (1985).
Ellis, J., Lahanas, A. B., Nanopoulos, D. V. & Tamvakis, K. Phys. Lett. 134B, 429–435 (1984).
Ellis, J., Kounnas, C. & Nanopoulos, D. V. Nucl. Phys. B241, 406–428; B247, 373–395 (1984).
Derendinger, J.-P. Ibaez, L. & Nilles, H.-P. Phys. Lett. 155B, 65 (1985).
Dine, M., Rohm, R., Seiberg, N. & Witten, E. Phys. Lett. 156B, 55–60 (1985).
Cohen, E., Ellis, J., Enqvist, K. & Nanopoulos, D. V. Phys. Lett. 165B, 76–82 (1985).
Barger, V., Deshpande, N. G. & Whisnant, K. Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 30–33 (1986).
Ellis, J., Enqvist, K., Nanopoulos, D. V. & Zwirner, Nucl. Phys. B276, 14–70 (1986); Mod. Phys. Lett. A1, 57–69 (1986).
Durkin, L. S. & Langacker, P. Phys. Lett. 166B, 436–442 (1986).
Ellis, J., Enqvist, K., Nanopoulos, D. V. & Sarkar, S. Phys. Lett. 167B, 457–463 (1986).
Steigman, G. A., Olive, K. A., Schramm, D. N. & Turner, M. S. Phys. Lett. 176B, 33–38 (1986).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ellis, J. The superstring: theory of everything, or of nothing?. Nature 323, 595–598 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1038/323595a0
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/323595a0
This article is cited by
-
Extended harmonic mapping connects the equations in classical, statistical, fluid, quantum physics and general relativity
Scientific Reports (2020)
-
The Gauge-String Duality and Heavy Ion Collisions
Foundations of Physics (2013)
-
Access block and emergency department overcrowding
Critical Care (2011)
-
There's a place for the theory of everything
Nature (2000)
-
Strings in four dimensions
Nature (1987)
Xinhang Shen
Not to mention the Superstring, even Einstein's relativity is totally wrong.
We know that a physics variable can only be defined once and double definitions will either lead to contradictions or become redundant. As time has already been defined by physical clocks, there is no freedom for Einstein to redefine it through Lorentz Transformation. Thus, Lorentz Transformation simply defines a new artificial time, which has completely different from the physical time measured with physical clocks as shown in the following:
Let a series of vertically standing candles as clocks with the same initial height and burning rate move at different constant horizontal velocities relative to an inertial reference frame (x, y, z, t) where x, y, z, t are relativistic positions and relativistic time. Thus, at any moment t of the relativistic time of the reference frame (x, y, z, t), all candles have the same height H relative to the reference frame (x, y, z, t) and the height H represents the physical time of the clocks. Therefore, we have the simultaneous events in terms of both relativistic time t and physical time H relative to the frame (x, y, z, t):
(Candle1, x1, y1, H, t), (candle2, x2, y2, H, t), …, (CandleN, xN, yN, H, t)
When these events are observed on anther horizontally moving inertial reference frame (x', y', z', t'), according to special relativity, these events in the reference frame (x', y', z', t') can be obtained through Lorentz Transformation:
(Candle1, x'1, y'1, H, t'1), (Candle2, x'2, y'2, H, t'2), … , (CandleN, x'N, y'N, H, t'N),
where t'1, t'2, …, and t'N are relativistic times of the events in the frame (x', y', z', t'). It is seen that after Lorentz Transformation, these events in the frame (x', y', z', t') have different relativistic times:
t'1 ≠ t'2 ≠ … ≠ t'N
That is they are no longer simultaneous in terms of relativistic time in the frame (x', y', z', t'), but the heights of the candles remain the same H because the vertical heights here do not experience any Lorentz contraction. As the heights of the candles represent the physical time, these events still have the same physical time, i.e., they are still simultaneous in terms of the physical time H. Therefore, the physical time is Lorentz invariant, absolute, independent of inertial reference frames, which is different from relativistic time. That is, relativistic time is no longer the physical time measured with physical clocks. Based on such a fake time, special relativity is wrong.
Some people argue that atomic clocks won't behave like that. Please note that any atomic clock can use the height of a stick to represent their accurate time without problems and the resulting sticks behave exactly the same as a candle clock. As long as it is a physical clock, its time won't change with the change of reference frame, i.e., Lorentz invariant and absolute. In nature, we can only observe the change of a physical process instead of time such as the angle of the spin of the earth, which is the product of time and changing rate. In special relativity, time on a moving frame becomes shorter but the changing rate becomes faster, the relativistic effects of which cancel each other in the product to make the change Lorentz invariant. That is, we can never see relativistic effects in any physical process in nature. Thus, all so-called experimental proofs of special relativity are misinterpretations of other effects such as the effects of aether wind.
As special relativity, one of the pillars of modern physics theories, is wrong, all modern physics theories are wrong. Before we have established a correct theory for electromagnetism, particles and gravitation, it's just too early to talk able the theory of everything.
https://www.researchgate.ne...