String Theory

[frobozz]

Woot, an actuall response to my question. I agree Quantum theory is a bit hard to swallow, but their is atleast some experimental evidence which validates it. If you read Einsteins papers ( I recommend you read them if you haven't, Einstein explains things extremely well in his own words ) he in fact had some observable predictions that were new and chekable against reality. String Theory's only observable predictions so far are things we already know, in essence, other than being a nice mathematical theory, it's not really added any real physics yet. ( Unless I am mistaken, in which case I would like to see a link if you can ).

 

[bonzelite]

i don't object to the use of higher mathematics or find it necessarily untenable. it is a system of abstract tools that can define, neatly, lots of complex things. it is useful and often necessary to solve problems. why would anyone object to that? <br /><br />the biggest problem with higher mathematics, in the context of our little talk, is that it is largely a MODEL. and not reality. of course there are facets of the theories that can be weighed against real things. but overall they cannot be. a mathematical model must be regarded as an abstraction of reality, and not assumed to be "reality" (black holes). --quantum math is a man-made construct that is meant to serve, as a slave. not to reign supreme in creative abstractions that somehow become factual. <br /><br />but today, cosmology has been hijacked by nearly purely mathematical models. and if anyone dare question them, the minions of these models will come out swinging with all of their pseudo-intellectual pomp, belittling others who are not on their "plane." and this is religious and dogmatic. and it is not science. <br /><br />today, the cosmologist makes no distinction between their beautiful math and what may actually be real. for them, math = reality. period. and even if you sit one down and make such a statement, they may deny it, yet they carry on with all of their papers and findings and research as if it were true anyway. and this is what we have today. <br /><br />this is why i put my own take on "theory of everything," in another thread i believe. it was about the whole ludicrous recent article about the "black hole at the center of our galaxy that creates stars." so i simply deconstructed the article, pointing out how it did exactly what i just said: it boldly assumed that everything was unequivocally true, despite that these things are purely theoretical, and broke the news about a newfound accretion disk and ring of stars "around a black hole," as if it were some wonderful new finding and revelation. an

 

[kmarinas86]

STRONG FORCE - <font color="yellow">The strong force between the protons compared to the electrostatic force between the protons is 1,581,000 times stronger. The strong force between the protons compared to gravitational force between the protons is in the order of 10^42 times greater.</font><br /><br />ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE - <font color="yellow">Electromagnetic forces. The electromagnetic force affects only the particles with an electric charge. This includes leptons and quarks, and excludes neutrinos or gravitons. This force is much stronger than gravitation (i.e. the electromagnetic repulsion between two electrons is about 10^42 times stronger than gravitational attraction.</font><br /><br />10^42 is about PROTONS(Strong Attraction/Attraction) is about ELECTRONS(Replusion/Attraction)<br /><br />PROTONS(Strong Attraction/Replusion) is about<br />1,547,634.74 = GFORCE(between Protons/between Electrons) / (phi^phi)<br />calculation

 

[bonzelite]

cool post, kman.

 

[frobozz]

In part then I think we agree on some points. For example my main problem with string theory as a model of the universe is that it very much does appear to predict much that is "fanicful" sounding and invented to make the mathematics work. Part of the problem however, is the way the mathematics is interpreted as well. For example, the mathematical model which predicts that black holes can happen, does not say that they must happen, only that they could.<br /><br />To remove the problem with the model predicting black holes however, does in fact require you do away with GR, which would require an awful lot of experimental evidence to do.<br /><br />One must also note, that if the concepts that underly things like "quantum math" ( I have yet to have anyone define what this quantum math is - doesn't the mathematics of quantum mechanics mostly deal with operator theory and/or partial differential equations (i.e. the wave equation)) are in fact true, it is a requirement that if the mathematics that follows from them is correct then what is predicted is true. Of course when you start predicting wild things, you really need to check validity of the model, which in many cases - conviently for some and not so conviently for others - simply is beyond our current ability.<br /><br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

frobozz, yes. <br /><br />i am not saying that the current models are entirely wrong. i have never meant that. ever. i am not denying the validity STR, or GR. i am questioning whether these are overreaching their propriety. and it is clear that cosmology has evolved, perhaps unchecked, into nearly purely theoretical realms that are forged ahead as facts, and used as the ultimate vantage point for interpreting what is happening. <br /><br />probably the biggest point of contention i have is the use, seemingly willy-nilly, of things, such as black holes or imaginary particles, that cannot be proved, really, but also cannot actually be DISPROVED. so it would be like trying to disprove the existence of invisible unicorns. but in this case they are assumed to be true! and all kinds of special adjustments, coefficients of this and that, are added to make the math work. and then even more things are added, like this exciting and cutting edge "discovery" of the new "ring of stars being born around a black hole"! --adding more jewelry to the clown suit-- and then you have this assemblage of "reality" that is purely contrived and ad hocced. and it is foisted upon the general public, and a state of ignorance is perpetuated for the sake of preserving the political correctness of the accepted model --which is at best an abstraction of reality and incomplete, and, at times, utterly ridiculous. <br /><br />

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Glad someone brought in string theory here. Because we all like to learn more about this strange theory. Here is my dilemma.<br /><br />Anytime I read anything about string theory I come upon terms like 'one dimensional string'. Am I the only one who sees one dimensional string in this universe is not possible. Anything must have at least 2 dimensions, doesn't matter how narrow the 2nd dimension is. If you want to be more accurate, only two dimensions are also not physically possible. I understand in Math, anything, even 0 (zero) dimension is possible.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[neutron_star69]

I agree, I can't see how there can only be a one dimensional object

 

[kmarinas86]

<p>Fractal Dimensions:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />1E+82<br />1E+41<br />1<br />1E-41<br />1E-82<br /></p>

 

[bdewoody]

Last night I watched Nova on PBS where they were trying to explain string theory and why it's important.<br /><br />Well I still don't really comprehend it but I guess I'm not alone as one of the scientists they were interviewing admitted he didn't really have a good grasp on understanding the subject. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

Join the club; I've read Greene's "The Elegant Universe" several times and I'm still at a loss...<br /><br />Here's the NOVA Elagant Universe homepage.

 

[bender13]

I saw the show. It was very interesting, the stuff on Einstein, and the history of relativity and quantum mechanics. But when it came to the string theory, they didn't even try to explain it. But if those scientists couldn't really understand it, then I wouldn't have a chance.

 

[kyle_baron]

String Theory tries to combine Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Both are pretty well understood theories that have passed numerous experimental hurdles with flying colors. String Theory is supposed to be the unification of both theories, and strives to become the Theory of Everything (TOE). It uses new mathematical models, and symmetries to do this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[rickstine]

String Theroy is a very complex subject,because we as humans want everything the atom to the sun to follow the same rules.Right now strong nucleur force,weak nucleur force,elecrtomagativity go together,but not gravity.Since string theroy is like five flavors of icecream it can be looked at differently.But it's all the same.The promblem with string Theroy is we don't really know if it's really their or not by looking at least not yet.String Theroy has to explain all of physics into one equation.Since God plays dice we can't pridict a single outcome but we can pridict what the probably is.

 

[nova_explored]

"god does not play dice" is Einstein's quote. the universe follows very sturgent laws but at QM they get fuzzy because we seemingly have countless variables at work (see Feynman's 'Sum over histories') as an explanation to this chaotic state that results in our consistent laws on the macro level of the universe.<br /><br />oh, and i'm with everyone else in not fully understanding string theory...<br /><br />right now it seems like a free energy source creating positive and negative charged particles but somehow finding a constant by which it will not cross and thus maintain an absolute in regards to mass in the universe. <br /><br />and it seems to complex as to be the ultimate answer to everything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rickstine]

I know "god does not play dice" is Einstein's quote, but I said God plays dice.String Theroy is a complex work in progress.<br /><br />The thing I don't understand is how the strings are energy ,but have no mass at a.

 

[bender13]

I thought the strings were supposed to have mass. When I read about it I thought that was one of the main things that seperated this theory from the previous ones of a single point of energy with no mass.

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Both are pretty well understood theories<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />isn't there pretty well agreement among physicists that nobody 'understands' QMs? at least not so long ago that was the case, did I miss something when that changed or maybe we came to the point when all that couldn't be understood was swept under carpet and we pretend there never was any real problem as is the habit with modern 'scientists'?<br /><br />I must say it wouldn't surprise me if string adherents didn't see any mystery in QM considering their own uber mystical theorizing<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[observer7]

<font color="yellow"> I thought the strings were supposed to have mass. </font><br /><br />It's my limited understanding of string theory that mass is a property of strings because they interact with the Higgs field. If this is the case then the LHC is supposed to be close to the energy level needed to detect Higgs particles. This should help to provide some answers on the nature of mass and the effects of mass, inertia, and gravity on the stuff that makes up our universe.<br /><br /><br />See http://hepwww.ph.qmul.ac.uk/epp/higgs1.html<br />or http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae304.cfm<br />-- <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">"Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" </font></em><font size="2">Albert Einstein</font> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />In reply to:<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Both are pretty well understood theories<br /><br /><br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><br />isn't there pretty well agreement among physicists that nobody 'understands' QMs?</font><br /><br />I'm afraid you took my statement out of context. Or I didn't make myself clear. Here's what I said:<br /><font color="black"><br /> Both are pretty well understood theories that have passed numerous experimental hurdles with flying colors<br /></font><br /><br />What I meant was, the QM experiments are well understood. And have been repeated more accuratly over the 70 years, since it was first theorized. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[5billionyearslater]

Does anyone think that Superstring Theory will come to light as the new physics of the universe?<br /><br />If Superstring Theory is proven that would mean that space could hold 10-11 dimensions (as opposed to the 4 we have now). I guess the next question that would come up would be what lies in the other dimensions and in what form are they.<br /><br />This obviously leads to the multiple universe theory. <br /><br />What is everyones view on Superstring Theory and what do you think we will get out of it if it is proven?

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />What is everyones view on Superstring Theory </font><br /><br />IMO, Super String Theory probably won't be proven exclusively. Parts of it will either live or die. Gravitons will die, because I believe they don't exist! On the other hand, Super particles and miniture blackholes might be found in the Large Hadron Collider at Cern.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />what do you think we will get out of it if it is proven?<br /></font><br />More questions, and more headaches. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[lukman]

Grand Unification Theory is a more reasonable and powerful theory . Not to mention other potentially great theories such as M Theory and Supersymmetry. Superstring is more like science fiction at the moment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrcurious]

What type of energy would the strings in string theory be made of?

 

[docm]

The various string theories are now thought to be M-Theory with variations in its parameters and "M" standing for any one of various names; Membrane (AKA "brane"), Magic, Matrix, Mystery or any one of several others including Murky by its detractors. <br /><br />Classical, string or membrane the energies involved come from the quantum field. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>