String Theory

[neutron_star6]

If in fact everything is basically made up of small strings similar to that of a guitar string, then wouldnt the strings in fact have to made up something? It just seems logical that the strings themselves would have to be made up of something as well.

 

[kmarinas86]

agreed in all ways. I am diametrically opposed, to the notion of basic "building" blocks of the universe - supposedly. It's probably the entanglement (harmonization/disharmonization) among every particle in the universe, and the variation of these relations that gives the universe a fractal order - as I have explained somewhere else.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...wouldnt the strings in fact have to made up something?"</font><br /><br />The strings are one-dimensional*. They have length but no width and so, no volume. No volume means they are not made of any physical substance. Only energy is involved. The interactions of countless strings build up the "optical illusion" we see as the physical world.<br /><br />P.S. I'm really not a metaphysical nut. It's just that sometimes it's hard to keep from sounding like one when speculating about the ultimate nature of exitence! <br /><br /><br />*I goofed and wrote "two-dimensional" at first. But actually It's funny, me calling the strings one-dimensional, when string theory requires at least 10 dimensions! But I think the analogy of a one-dimensional object is useful in understanding how a string has no volume that needs to be filled with something. Anyway, that's my own addled attempt at understanding. <br /><br />Here's a link to the "Official String Theory" website for those who are interested: http://superstringtheory.com/index.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[heyo]

I think the best way to answer the question, using human language, would be that they are made of energy.<br /><br />Ultimately, all mater is probably just energy existing in a highly localized and specified form, hence the ability to convert mass to energy and vice versa. The quark may be made of a string which is just a localized "piece" of energy or some disturbance to local spacetime. That's another way one could think about it, that an elementary particle (quark, string, gluon, etc) isn't an "object" per se, but rather a localized anomaly in spacetime itself. Energy may be thought of this way, as well. I am trying to think of analogy, but it escapes me. This is still inside the edge of what we'd called "science", IMO, but begins to skirt the edge of what we'd call "philosophy".<br /><br />Heyo

 

[vogon13]

Xylem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[frobozz]

I have a question about String Theory, mainly it utility. I had gone a short seminar about the mathematics behind attempts at the Theory of Everything (not an advanced one, more of an overview for those that may be interested) it began with a quick survey of the number of recent research papers published in each of the competing areas that believe they have the so-called correct approach. Most of it focused on the fact that string theory is apparently not very good mathematics or good physics. Beyond a few good quotes and the prof's opinion, little other evidence was given in this regard. As asking this prof for more information generally leaves on more confused then one begins, I figured I'd do my own "survey" here. So the question is simple - is string theory in fact bad math and not physics (many physicists appear to think so and many mathematicians insist it's not math so their appears to be some reason to believe this ) or, despite having not yet achieved anything that can be confirmed experiementally that was not already known to be true, does it stand a chance of comming up with anything actually useful? <br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

i was waiting for a thread like this.<br /><br />it is ironic how the premise for the Theory of Everything excludes lots of things, not in any way including everything. it is a theory of everything as long as it excludes certain models that do not fit within politically correct mainstream models that constitute the Theory of Everything. <br /><br />not even the demi-god stephen hawking believes it anymore.

 

[frobozz]

I am not quite sure what you are getting at here. The Theory of Everything as it is called, is so named because it would unify all the known forces of nature into one complete system. String Theory is one such attempt to acheive this goal, but like the others, it has not achieved it. What string theory has achieved is a lot of bizzare conclusions which cannot yet be checked experimentally to my knowledge.

 

[bonzelite]

"String Theory is one such attempt to acheive this goal, but like the others, it has not achieved it. What string theory has achieved is a lot of bizzare conclusions which cannot yet be checked experimentally to my knowledge."<br /><br />mathematical &%$#@!ion will not explain everything.

 

[kmarinas86]

A thesis is modeled to imply the facts.<br />The facts imply the correlations.<br /><br />CIRCULAR REASONING<br />The correlation implies the thesis. False.<br />SCIENTIFIC REASONING<br />The thesis is modeled to imply the correlation. True.<br /><br />A conjecture is a thesis which implies a correlation which has NOT been observed.<br />A theory is a thesis which implies a correlation which has SO been observed.<br /><br />There are cases when a thesis is both a conjecture and a theory.<br /><br />All popular controversial scientific theories are also conjectures, for NOT ALL of their implications have been observed. Some theories will always be conjectures FOREVER, for they come with implications which cannot EVER be observed in principle.

 

[bonzelite]

excellent thesis statement: "Some theories will always be conjectures FOREVER, for they come with implications which cannot EVER be observed in principle."<br /><br />agreed --like the big bang, black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, worm holes, 11th dimension. the major tenents of the accepted models and constraints thereof, basically. they are all conjecture and untestable and are the pillars of modern cosmology. <br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

11th dimension BS. They will be lucky to have a ANTI anything when I am finished with them. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[jorraxx]

Bonzie buddy, you seem to have little more to do with your time than post drivel in this forum. Anybody can back up their ideas with simplistic thought problems, as you have done repeatedly and in complete disregard of any serious thought. Your persistent efforts to downplay the BB are pointless especially when the posting you reply to starts off linking to a site that provides detailed and well cited information saying the same thing. If only you put half as much effort into coming up with an original idea. If you must go to so much effort to debunk what you don't believe in then at least provide some useful details to back them up. Provide links to sites, books to read, and mathmatical formulas that verify you are not just some idiot with a keyboard. I find it amazing that you can even see your computer monitor with all the hot air you have put posting to this site.

 

[jatslo]

You will never know what the universe is, because the universe is infinite; You will never, ever, ever know. It is a waste of time to speculate in this BB arena. You are the one making wild speculation claims, so you prove BB. Can't do it, can you? You never will.

 

[thermionic]

<br />Well, the background 2.7degK radiation must something. In your opinion, what?

 

[jatslo]

Something that is visible, and that is all that it means.<br /><br />Something familar associated with that number.

 

[jorraxx]

Sorry to mislead you. I don't believe in the BB theory. I like what djmspace had to say and I thank him for this link. <br /><br />http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp<br /><br />I do still have some interest in black holes.

 

[jorraxx]

An infinite universe best supports background radiation. If you could see forever then no matter where you pointed your telescope you would see the source of that radiation. That does not include radation generated or reflected off of random debris in the universe.

 

[bonzelite]

i have given my own takes on things repeatedly. you don't seem to like any challenges to the current models which are basis for all subsequent cosmological theories. and your are switching this around to me personally, as if i were a lunatic and you are among the safe, proven, majority --as that alone automatically makes something more valid for you. <br /><br />i didn't post anything here linking anyone to any site. so i don't understand that part. <br /><br />the "hot air" is simple, easy to understand things, often using the established models, to point out that "if this is said, then this can follow." <br /><br />for example, if black holes are now the lap of creation, as they now are confidently evidenced to create strings of giant stars from giant accretion disks, then within that model, i can add that solar systems, too could evolve around black holes, right? so how is that hot air? --it is simply adding to the model using it's own principles of accretion.<br /><br />so if stars can form from accretion this way, around black holes, then certainly lowly planets could too, right? especially if they were far enough away from the Schwartzchild radius. yes? just like these alleged accretion disks must be, yes? it is pretty simple because why does it need to be anything else? occam's razor anybody? <br /><br />i post lots of things like this. and you say it is hot air. yet they are useful for thought, and plausible, and within the realm of science. and i don't exert any more or less effort to support my beliefs than do you, or anyone. often, i devote far less effort to point out possible pitfalls to the models than to eloquently claw at thin ice to keep them no matter what. <br /><br />you must have little more to do with your time than to post drivel in this forum, such as childish, immature, last ditch tactless personal attacks that you seem to resort to when you bust at the seams --you seem stunted in this regard, bringing into question other areas of your judgement. <br />

 

[thermionic]

>>Something familiar with that number.<br /><br />Right! That's the metatransphasonic factor of the kyrglion, which is the only weightless charged particle known to physics! Good catch, Jat!

 

[jorraxx]

Einstein predicted many things with his theory that were never proven within his lifetime. It took nearly a century to prove some of those predictions. String theory makes some bold claims that I have difficulty accepting. However there are many facts about quantum theory that I have difficultly accepting as well but until something that explains them better comes along then that is all there. The most amazing thing about quantum physics is the idea that there are muon pairs which can be separated from each other and yet show some connection despite any distances measured between them.

 

[jorraxx]

I apologize. I assumed you could read. Obviously you cannot. Since you insist on owning this site I will leave you to it.

 

[thermionic]

<br />Yeah, you'd see photons coming in from every direction, that is true. But what is making these super low energy photons? It's different than very dim starlight.

 

[bonzelite]

apology accepted. <br /><br />but it is hardly me who owns the site.

 

[frobozz]

Perhaps and perhaps not. However, your statement shows a serious misunderstanding of what the discussion is about. TOE (Theory of Everything) is the name given to a theory that would like two mathematical theories (1) Quantum Theory and (2) General Relativity, which do explain their respective domains very well. By default the Theory of Everything, if found is a quest in mathematical physics. Hence, attempts to attack the usefullness of mathematical models is of no use here. <br /><br />I do have a question however, exactly what is it about the use of higher mathematics that you seem to object so much to?