Fluffy bunny theory?

Question

string theory was literally thought up by 3 guys sitting on a bus saying "what if?" it wasnt made from analyzing data, it was just a thought. the 3 guys have admitted this.

so, within the next few years, my new theory will be at the forefront of physics.

elementary particles arent points, nor strings, they are shaped like fluffy bunnies. the amount of fluffiness determines the type of particle. in this new theory, there will be 12 extra dimensions. each dimension is filled completely with tapeoka pudding. except the 7th, because no one likes the 7th dimension. this obviously resolves every problem in physics, because it introduces a new mathematical term: simply "A", for "Absolutely delicious tapeoka pudding filled edible dimensions".

so what do you think, does my theory have as much merit as string theory? i think it does. im pretty sure the fluffy bunny theory will be generally accepted within the next few years. what do you think?

Answer 1

Did you know that the Einstein's relativity theory was also produced without analizing data, but only with a mental experiment started by a "what if?" thought?

Guess what? He was right. That's 'cause his theory was later demonstrated to be right and has several aplications (like the GPS).

Your theory does not try to explain nothing like the string theory, nor to fit obtain a model to the data.

You can create a theory whenever you want, but its final purpose must be to create a model that fits the oberved data, which the string theory already does (in part) but your theory doesn't.

Answer 2

Oh, wow, you stole my theory.  Have you been going through my gabage can?  Please don't let anyone know what else you found there.

Anyway, think theories, based on absolutely no data whatsoever, are not uncommon.  When thinking out of the box, the box is not always apparent.

BTW, it's not tapeoka, it's dulce de latte...mmmm.

Answer 3

Bunnies are white of pink?

Answer 4

I think you're on to something. It would go a long way to explaining Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Fluffy bunnies, of course, multiply like rabbits, which adds mass, and since there are so many of them, although tiny, they'd jostle and push each other away, stretching space.

I can just imagine the looks on the faces of physists at CERN when they crank up the LHC and billions upon billions upon billions of ultra-tiny fluffy bunnies hit the detectors.

There would be one resounding, "WHAT THE h**l????"

Answer 5

The fluffy bunny theory comes up short compared to string theory in two ways.

The first is that it doesn't answer any pressing question in particle physics.  String theory, if it does nothing else whatsoever, is a plausible explanation of why gravity is what it is.

The second is that it is inelegant.  It's not really THAT much of a stretch to imagine that particles have an extra dimension to them or that there could be additional compact dimensions.  Bunnies and tapioca are very complicated things really, and fluffiness is a complex quality to assign to something.  The idea that they are reproduced at the microscopic level is a bit hard to accept.

And you are incorrect that the inventors of string theory were not explaining data.  There was one extremely significant datum--gravity is ridiculously weak compared to the other forces.  Sometimes the best theories are attempts to explain not reams of numbers, but simple facts.  Someone above mentioned relativity.  The special theory arose from the realization that the speed of light is constant.  The general theory arose from the realization that gravity appears equivalent in all ways to an accelerated reference frame.  So even before we had scads of data to support relativity, the theory was a success in that it did what it set out to do in a consistent manner.

Now relativity ended up doing considerably more.  String theory hasn't done that yet and may not ever.  But I wouldn't be QUITE so dismissive in criticizing it.

Cobirch--so you can easily evade point one, but by making even worse your issues with point 2.  There is a quality that theoreticians value highly in a theory that they call "naturalness".   A good theory doesn't have a gajillion parameters that you could easily reset to do anything to make any prediction you want.  The original string theories were very natural.  They don't look like someone tuned the theory to predict gravity--it just falls out in a very beautiful way.  This beauty seduced an entire generation of physicists.

Now recently, some versions of string theory have stretched this more and more to the point where some people have criticized it as a "theory of anything".  But just because it's kind of become an old and ugly theory doesn't mean that it wasn't once young and beautiful.

----

And I wouldn't throw string theory and SUSY in the same boat.  Unlike string theory, SUSY has a lot of predictions for LHC.  Despite having a lot of parameters, it is a fairly constrained theory (if it is to do what it was designed to do) and if no superpartners show up at LHC, it will take a huge hit.  String theory, on the other hand, could pretty much fly through unscathed.

Answer 6

Your fluffy theory doesn't encompass as much aspects of elementary particles as does the string theory.

If you can to imagine particles as vibrating strings of energy that can expand , contract, and wobble side ways - this would explain everything from the fundamental forces and would ultimately create Geons (gravitational entities) that would help us come to a ever closer understanding of gravity as a force.

Listen crack head, all I will say is the that the string theory is pretty elastic compared to your irrational fluffy bunny theory.

And, in what dimensions do these fluffy bunnies interact?