Is string Theory considered Pseudoscience?
545274
If you have the education to spell a word like pseudoscience, you should be able to fugure out the answer to that one yourself.  My theory is that string is used best when flying a kite.  Maybe you should go fly one too.
18940
Life would remain simpler with no strings attached.  However, string theory deals with a universe with more that the dimensions we know day-to-day.  For example, you can calculate the diagonal of a square or a cube and the result has physical significance you can deal with.  The forth demension is time but what is meant by the diagonal of that figure no longer a plane or a solid?  What do we know of even greater dimensions, especially if they describe the very small that we can never see?  Certain of the equations that have been produced have enoumous numbers of solutions and it is difficult to find the correct solution and how to test it.  And that is only scratching the surface of a subject that has attracted some of the best brainpower on the globe.  Good luck.
511232
Not exactly Quantum theory, rather String Theory which was developed from from quantum mechanics.
117056
String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles) that are the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics. For this reason, string theories are able to avoid problems associated with the presence of pointlike particles in a physical theory. Studies of string theories have revealed that they require not just strings but also higher-dimensional objects.
1016999
Actually string theory is a special case of M-theory (M for membrane). It's not a question of "give everything about it," it's more "how much can you understand." Not all of us are capable of understanding this stuff. This page will give you a non-mathematical taste but if you really want everything, you'll need an advanced degree in mathematics.\nhttp://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3015388/
186938
New ideas and concepts in science have always been considered moving toward "psudo-science" until the ability to prove the new theory was achieved.  Finding a way to prove string theory, or anything else on the quantum level will be man's biggest challange, and we won't get there without philosophy.
812292
You have gotten some great answers up to this point.  I'd like to add yet another one...the pre big bang scenario re string/M theory.\n\nOne spin off of string/M theory is that parallel null universes are feasible.  Brian Greene pictures them as slices of bread in a cosmic, N-dimensional loaf of bread. [See source.]\n\nThese are "null" universes because, as far as we are concerned, from our myopic four dimensional world (the metric, observable universe one answerer talked about), these universes exist only in higher dimensions and cannot be observed in 4D.\n\nAccording to one hypothesis, based on string/M theory, two of these slices of bread collided.  That collision point is called the singularity where the big bang originated.  The energy such a collision could generate is one way to account for all the mass-energy postulated for our own known universe.\n\nOf course, as pointed out by other answerers, time and other physics phenomena in null universes may not exist as we know them in metric space.  Null universes are beyond our ken to understand and explain...now.  But who knows, with people like Hawkings, Witten, and others attacking the cosmos and its mysteries, we might just yet unlock the nature and existence of null universes and our own.\n\nPS:  Not all explosions are chemical explosions requiring air (oxygen) to work.  The atomic bomb, for example, does a really nice explosion by simply splitting atoms.   The sun makes spectacular explosions by fusing (putting them together) atoms.  Bottom line, the big bang is not a chemical explosion requiring oxygen.
808380
I agree that including a section under science called "alternative" lends a legitimacy to the pseudosciences (crystal healing, psychism, pixies, etc.)--by implying that they are, in fact, another science. The fact that such pseudosciences don't follow the Scientific Method doesn't seem to matter to the persons who put this topic here. My guess ... they weren't scientists.
566127
There are many branches of physics.  It depends on exactly what branch you are interested in.  For a very comprehensive guide, check out Wikipedia:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics#Major_fields_of_physics\n\nI am personally interested in theoretical astrophysics and particle physics.  These two are extremely hot right now in the physics world, with enourmous academic resources being devoted to the study of String Theory.  This is because String Theory purports to unify two branches of physics that are widely accepted as true, and yet conflict with each other.  These conflicting branches of physics are:\n\n1.  Quantum Physics\nThis is the study of the very small (molecules / atoms / quarks etc.), and it has been experimentally verified and widely accepted.  But it only accurately describes things on very small scales.\n\n2.  General Relativity\nThis is the study of the very large (planets, stars, galaxies), and it too has been repeatedly verified.  But it only describes things on non-microscopic scales.\n\nWhy should nature be divided between two totally different theories of matter?  This seems to indicate a problem, that our knowledge of the world is still far from complete.  A single "unified" theory should be found which unites the two, and this Unified Field Theory has been the "holy grail" of physicists ever since Einstein began the search years ago.  One leading theory is widely believed to meet this challenge:  String Theory.  It unifies the theories of the very large and the very small, mathematically anyway.  Its only weakness is that it lacks direct experimental confirmation.  But there are indirect observations, such as the distribution of stars throughout space being an interpretation of quantum processes (the theory being that all matter everywhere was once compacted into a microscopic region and then expanded during the Big Bang, retaining in some way at least some of the properties it had when it was extremely small).\n\nThe most influential physicists can be found here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index\n\n..."influential" meaning that their research is extensively cited in academic papers and journals.\n\nIf you want to get a head start, you should start reading books targeted for common people (as opposed to mathematical professionals).  There are many, many books like this.  But I would point you to the following ones to get you started:\n\n1.  The Fabric of the Cosmos (by Brian Greene)\n2.  The Elegant Universe (by Brian Greene)\n3.  A Brief History of Time (by Stephen Hawking)\n4.  Six Easy Pieces (by Richard Feynman)\n5.  Parallel Worlds (by Michio Kaku)\n\nI recommend that you start with #1 above, if theoretical particle and astro physics are your thing.  Greene has a keen ability to explain complex subjects to non-physics majors in a way that most people can understand.\n\nA search on Amazon.com for any of the above titles will allow you to buy the book (new or used); also, you will likely find Hawking's and Feynman's books in any library, where you can read it for free.\n\nOne thing to remember is that the above books do not need to be read or understood in their entirety.  If you feel like you do not understand something, skip past it until you get to something you do understand.  There is a wealth of fascinating information that will blow your mind if you just invest the time, so don't get intimidated from reading if you run into a road block.\n\nGood luck!  And don't give up until your mind is dizzy with amazement about the nature of the universe around you -- it must have that effect, or you haven't gotten it yet.
669660
its actualy String-theory that proposes the existance of many other universes. the theory proposes a so called "Landscape of probabilities" with probabilities of as many as 10 to power of 500 universes, and with that many probabilities it is very likely that some of them will be similar to or just like our own universe.\n\nif you would like to know more about this facsinating subject, i would suggest this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316155799/104-3626905-5554311?v=glance&n=283155\nits a great and easy to understand book.
614330
It sounds like you are talking about an area of science known as quantum mechanics, though you might be referencing subatomic particle theory.  Yes, the math can be a bit much and the conceptualizations a bit forced.  But not knowing you I am hestitant to say no way.  Maybe you could should start out with little thermodynamics.\n\nThe first site below is one called HyperPhysics.  The link will send you straight to the grid on thermodynmics.  Try tapping the buttons, read and little and see if it makes sense.  I suggest you start with kinetics.  If HyperPhysics doesn't do it for you, try Wikipedia.  If you want to leap in head first the last reference is about string theory, tachyons and all that good stuff.  Good luck and heppy learning.
489410
String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles) that are the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics. For this reason, string theories are able to avoid problems associated with the presence of pointlike particles in a physical theory. Studies of string theories have revealed that they require not just strings, but also higher-dimensional objects.
66351
There are two main kinds of strings: cosmic  strings, and then strings that are postulated to be building blocks of matter. \n\nCosmic strings are attempts to explain the irregularity of matter in the cosmos. \n\nThe other string theory postulates that matter is not built out of zero dimensional objects (particles) but out of one dimensional objects (strings).  These are very small and they vibrate to produce various effects. There are different varieties of these building block type string theories, which you can read about below.
469686
Like so many things in physics, string theory came about by accident, and was not entirely unrelated to the fact that physicists don't get laid often enough.\n\nGaspard LaRoche was a physicist in Bonne in 1948. He was experimenting with particle deceleration, on the basis that by selectively weakening electrochemical bonds within steel molecules, you could essentially make "stretchy bridges" - bridges that wouldn't break but would only use about a third of the raw steel to make - you'd basically just have to stretch them out long enough.\n\nIt wasn't going well.\n\nGaspard made his own lunch, because like many physicists, he was a truly lonely, blinkered individual. He traditionally made himself cheese sandwiches, and ate them, miserably, in the lab.\n\nThe rest is history - the result of boredom and that dark curiosity that makes physicists wonder 'what will happen if I press this button'. Gaspard zapped his sandwich with a stream of decelerated protons, threw in a handful of deconstructed proteins just for show, and voila - cheese sandwiches that could be bounced, stretched, split and strung across the lab as a party piece.\n\nSadly, Gaspard died alone, uncelebrated for his single contribution to the world outside the laboratory. His stretchy bridges never came to anything, and it wasn't until two years after his death that string cheese was reinvented as a childhood food.\n\nIncidentally, all this pre-dated the string theory of the universe by some years. The scientists behind the theory have always fought shy of acknowledging Gaspard's work as being their inspiration...but we know the truth.
1120091
String theory is a physical model whose fundamental building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles) that were the basis of most earlier physics. For this reason, string theories are able to avoid problems associated with the presence of pointlike particles in a physical theory.\n\nM-theory: M-theory is a cutting-edge theory of physics that deals with the extension of superstring theory. It is somewhat contentious in the physics community, in the absence of experimental backup. If ever experimentally verified, M-theory and string theory would represent remarkable advances in science.
1139045
They are not pseudo scientists. It was the Michelson/Morley experiment's result. \n\nSince Ether theory was scientifically accepted at the time, The object of the experiment was to measure the speed of light with the assumption that light travels through a medium called ether.\n\nWhen the experiment failed, Michelson and Morley thought that the equipment they built was not sensitive enough to see the phase change of the reflected light that can be used to calculate the speed.\n\nThey were not aware that their experiment was a big discovery in science that disprove the presence of ether in space.
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.