String Theory

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />What type of energy would the strings in string theory be made of? </font><br /><br />Trick question huh? The answer from the Elegant Universe p. 41: "Strings are truly fundamental, uncuttable constituants, the absolute smallest constituant of anything, and everything. Even though strings have spatial extent, the question of their composition is without content. Were strings to be made of something smaller, they would not be fundamental. Questioning their composition has no meaning." <br /><br />In a nutshell, it's just a vibrating and occilating string within a quark or electron. Because they're theorized at the singularity of black holes, I believe that they're a form of gravitational energy, unlike the silly hypothesized "Graviton" particle.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[weeman]

That's where the confusion usually comes into play. If they are truly the smallest of all particles and existence, how could they be made up of nothing else? <br /><br />Gravitational energy you say? Let me ask you this: If gravity comes from mass, what mass causes this gravitational energy? <br /><br />Gravity arises from a mass bending the spacetime around it. If we have gravitational energy, wouldn't it take mass to create this energy? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[ajna]

Mass is simply inertia of an energetic thing that creates its own timezone, thereby disturbing the 'time' of 'space' in its vicinity. Energies resist time changes in one direction but not another, giving rise to appearance of mass. This would describe a string I'm sure.<br />The energy 'of' a string though must be something deeper, and may be the base 'life energy' of the universal 'stuff'.

 

[ajna]

What a great question MrCurious.<br /><br />We will be able to appreciate your question when we finally realise that we live in a multi-dimensional universe that, taken as a whole, will describe a interdependent system of energy. <br /><br />Will we discover a layer beneath that, a 'one-energy' that never changes except when it is part of the multi-dimensional system? The 'one-stuff' of our universe?<br /><br />Thence begs the question, what causes the energy to manifest as it does. I am not convinced it is due to totally physical properties.

 

[mrcurious]

<font color="yellow"> The answer from the Elegant Universe p. 41: "Strings are truly fundamental, uncuttable constituants, the absolute smallest constituant of anything, and everything. Even though strings have spatial extent, the question of their composition is without content. </font><br /><br />Was the book different from the documentary? Because the documentary states that a string is a vibrating strand of energy......which got me thinking, "well how is that possible because energy can't be created or destroyed or the first law of thermodynamics." <br /><br />String theory is great, but hard to accept because we are so far away from experimental testing. That's not to say that anyone is wrong, but for string theory to be untestable for many many years......(I say this because, we can't see down to the size of a string, we can't detect extra dimensions, nor can we detect the graviton to mediate gravity and there's the parallel universes). Hopefully the LHC will find the particle that mediates gravity, but who knows. Finding a particle to mediate gravity would really mind-blowing because that means string theory is on the right path. I'm not convinced yet, but I like the possiblities that it brings to the table.<br /><br />Could uniting the 4 fundamental forces into one force at the microscopic level create a string? Then string vibrates it releases a particles. Granted the 4 forces are different by themselves, unifying them would change their dynamics creating a new form of energy, a string? I don't know my brain hurts just thinking about the subject. At the end of the day its all speculative even if mathmatics help us describe it.<br /><br />

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Gravitational energy you say? Let me ask you this: If gravity comes from mass, what mass causes this gravitational energy? </font><br /><br />Gravity comes from mass (which contains 1 string for each quark and electron within that particular mass). Your problem, is that you're still thinking to BIG. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><font color="yellow"><br />Gravity arises from a mass bending the spacetime around it. If we have gravitational energy, wouldn't it take mass to create this energy? </font><br /><br />Not necessarily, concentrated energy can also be a form of gravity. Remember E=MC^2<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Was the book different from the documentary? Because the documentary states that a string is a vibrating strand of energy</font><br /><br />On this specific topic, their about the same. However, in the book he covers all aspects of the strings, from the mathematics, to dimensions, winding modes, etc.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />Could uniting the 4 fundamental forces into one force at the microscopic level create a string? Then string vibrates it releases a particles. Granted the 4 forces are different by themselves, unifying them would change their dynamics creating a new form of energy, a string?</font><br /><br />Yes, what you described was a cosmic string. Strings don't have to be infintestably small. It's theorized that at the BB, strings were created on astronomical scales of say, a light year or so, in length. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[weeman]

I've also heard that to be true about the nature of strings at the time of the big bang. They could have gone form their usual size (infinitely small) to millions or billions of miles long. <br /><br />So, if the vibrations of these strings are what construct our entire universe, how is it that everything is so organized? Simply from these tiny vibrations, we have entirely constructed atomic particles that work together to organize everything into one, unifying universe!<br /><br />If strings are real, they are quite astounding <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

If string theory flips your imagination try the idea that the universe itself is a <i>string-net liquid</i> and that electrons, at the very least, are not fundamental;<br /><br />Link....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>><br />The first hint that a new type of matter may exist came in 1982. "Twenty five years ago we thought we understood everything about how matter changes phase," says Wen. "Then along came an experiment that opened up a whole new world."<br /><br />In the experiment, electrons moving in the interface between two semiconductors behaved as though they were made up of particles with only a fraction of the electron's charge. This so-called fractional quantum hall effect (FQHE) suggested that electrons may not be elementary particles after all. However, it soon became clear that electrons under certain conditions can congregate in a way that gives them the illusion of having fractional charge - an explanation that earned Laughlin, Horst Störmer and Daniel Tsui the Nobel prize (New Scientist, 31 January 1998, p 36).<br /> /><br />It is as if the electrons are entangled. Today, physicists use the term to describe a property in quantum mechanics in which particles can be linked despite being separated by great distances. Wen speculated that FQHE systems represented a state of matter in which entanglement was an intrinsic property, with particles tied to each other in a complicated manner across the entire material.<br /><br /><b>This led Wen and Levin to the idea that there may be a different way of thinking about matter. What if electrons were not really elementary, but were formed at the ends of long "strings" of other, fundamental particles? They formulated a model in which such strings are free to move "like noodles in a soup" and weave together into huge "string-nets".<br /> /><br /><font color="yellow">The pair</font></b></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrcurious]

Great article....sounds like a model of a open ended string. If you look at the design of the first string posed, when Susskind stumbled upon the Gamma Function equation the string looked like a squigly line with two fat end points.....the first thing I thought when I saw it was a particle at each end with a string attached to it. I'm gonna look more into this! Also I like the idea of the vaccum of space being a key piece to the cosmic puzzle. I keep thinking that whatever the vaccum of space is plays a major role in the creation of matter in the universe. Fascinating article!

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />If strings are real, they are quite astounding </font><br /><br />Wadaya mean, if they're real? They gotta be real. Something fundamental has to exist with in each electron and quark! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mrcurious]

<font color="yellow">Wadaya mean, if they're real? They gotta be real.</font><br /><br />Well, we don't have any experimental evidence that strings exist, just mathmatical theory and I'm not fully sold on the theory. Its predicts too much without room for experimentation. So to say they "have" to be "real," is too strong of a statement. When we move to M-theory, the cosmic string turn into membranes, where did they come from and what are they made of?<br /><br />Remember string theory is about unifying general relativity & quantum mechanics. Which will allow us to explain gravity at planck length. Which then lets us better understand black holes, the big bang, dark matter & energy(probably) as well as the weakness of gravity.<br /><br />On the subject of gravity's weakness & the apparent absence of detecting gravity at planck length, could these 2 problems be related? Could gravity be so weak that at the quantum level its not present? or could it exist as time does as another dimension of space? M-theory talks about gravity particles leaking from another membrane(universe) to our universe, which is why gravity is so weak. Why does it need to come from a parallel universe....would it be simpler to make gravity the 5th dimension of space. What prevents us from taking that approach?<br /><br /><br />Some links to ponder on:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2005-05/dlnl-dbh050505.php<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[kyle_baron]

I don't have all the answers to your questions, but this guy does:<br /><br />Actually, there is a "before the big splash" as string theory with my modifications can explain the entire universe from before its beginning until after its end. <br /><br />I know string theory's on the rails now, as skeptical physicists say "but where's the proof?" Well, it's on its way, and it could be sooner than you think. String theory does have its problems, but they'll soon be corrected. <br /><br />M-theory was a brilliant expansion of string theory by Ed Witten which consolidated the 5 previous string theories into one comprehensive theory which now included membranes. However, because it relies on closed loop strings to explain gravity (which can escape our brane accounting for gravity's weakness) it relies on parallel branes in awkward positions "leaking" gravity to us in order to work properly which is not very intellectually satisfying. <br /><br />Being an astronomer in a wheelchair with lots of time to think, I spent many thousands of hours running simulations on my "mental model" of the universe I had been developing since age 8. After incorporating M-theory into this model, I was able to explain our universe from before start to finish. <br /><br />Some of those simulations included colliding membranes together in order to create new universes. During those simulations, I realized that dark matter could be explained by the vibrations imparted to each brane from the collision itself. Like two bubbles that bounce into each other (filled with a very thin brane fluid, similar to water in zero-g ), the branes would send shockwaves vibrating throughout each other, creating a spider's web network of dark matter throughout each brane after the collision. Where the branes vibrate the most, it would compress spacetime, as gravity is simply the curvature of spacetime. <br /><br />However, this would mean that the brane itself is what transmits the gravitational force, not the closed loop stri <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[ajna]

"The higher the frequency of an open string of matter, the more tightly it would pull its ends together, curving our brane and creating gravity."<br />Right on baron, but what about time? I reckon the higher frequency is because the string is in a 'faster' time, which necessarily lengthens the metrics around it to compensate. That's what mass is about, time inertia.

 

[ajna]

Hey Kyle-baron, I love your ideas but are you saying our universe came out of a collision between two others? It is entirely at odds with cosmology's one-point idea.<br />If there were two, then something must have created them. Are you saying there is an external reference to our universe?<br />Thanks

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Hey Kyle-baron, I love your ideas but are you saying our universe came out of a collision between two others? <br /></font><br /><br />I wish they were my ideas, but they're not. They're Slipstring's ideas. You can do a search here at SDC on Slipstring, and get all his ideas:<br />1. Go to Search at the top of the page.<br />2. Go to Search options: By user name.<br />3. Words to search for: Slipstring<br />4. Data Range: All posts<br /><br />Keep in mind, that he hasn't posted here in more than 4 months. I bought the last paper backed book at Amazon.com, but there still are hard copies available for around $25.95+shipping. You also might want to check out his website, which is also very interesting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mrcurious]

Whats so amazing about string theory & the new m-theory are the predictions that have created our universe, which spawned from the study of a strange behavior in hadrons effected by the strong force. To go from the reality of protons & neutrons to the fantastical world of parallel universes, extra dimensions, multi-dimensional membranes, & superstrings is alot to swallow. Especially since none of this is observable. Gotta love science!

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Right on baron, but what about time?</font><br /><br />Slipstring defines:<br />1. Time as the rate at which strings vibrate.<br />2. Space-time as a multidimensional (mathematical) <br /> surface which can be distorted and agitated by small<br /> disturbances, such as quantum noise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />our universe came out of a collision between two others? It is entirely at odds with cosmology's one-point idea. <br />If there were two, then something must have created them. Are you saying there is an external reference to our universe? <br />Thanks </font><br /><br />Slipstring says that the branes were tiny (Planck Length) 4 dimensional bubbles that expanded enormously due to the vaccum around them, and the quantum noise with in them, as they grew. The interesting thing he says, is that time existed before the BB, because the branes required time to grow and gain momentum before they collided. <i>So time must have existed before the universe did.</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[ajna]

Sounds like we agree, that energy and its time properties are two sides of the same coin, probably why they are uncertainty pairs too. ie as the energy grows, the 3D metrics lengthen, which we perceive as different 'rate' of time and gravitational effects. More energy/energetic means more mass, solely due to the time dimension changing space metrics.<br /><br />"Especially since none of this is observable."<br />What if it is, but we don't know it for what it is yet? In that sense it is observable, just as Newtonian physics was observable to anyone before that time.<br /><br />"Space-time as a multidimensional (mathematical)<br />surface which can be distorted and agitated by small<br />disturbances, such as quantum noise"<br />We used to think radio was noise one day, then we learned to modulate it. We can learn to modulate the universal null field for communications and possibly energy too, but we have to understand the universal dimensional structure first, at least in part. It seems that forces and fields are interdimensional, so playing with them, eg interacting active magnetic fields, might change dimensional properties of the null field/spacetime to allow it to be perverted for energy or read for information.

 

[CalliArcale]

On the request of member Ajna, and because I agree that it's the right thing to do, I'm going to split off the offtopic (but fascinating) discussion of the Philadelphia Experiment. Please keep this remaining thread for discussion of string theory. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[majornature]

Ajna:<font color="yellow">Hey Kyle-baron, I love your ideas but are you saying our universe came out of a collision between two others? It is entirely at odds with cosmology's one-point idea. <br />If there were two, then something must have created them. Are you saying there is an external reference to our universe?</font><br /><br />Maybe the universe was a ten dimensional universe which exploded into two universes: a four dimensional which is us and a six dimension which we cannot see because it's too small.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>

 

[docm]

Matches up with M-theory where >1 n-dimensional membranes collided creating our universe. Their irregular "surfaces" caused uneven energy distributions that we now see as the irregularities in the cosmic background radiation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Tell me in simple way wht string theory is.

 

[ajna]

Nice majornature that 'sounds elegant'. Could I suggest two more dimensions?<br />M-theory (the 11 D) (ref docman) describes the unifying structure of the other 10, and the 12th is, zero-D. That hasn't been talked about much.<br />Think about the donut pinching off at a point to become a point itself. That pinching, the 0-D, is the interchange between dimensional configurations IMO.<br />Thus we have 12 dimensions making up what we know.<br />I find it intriguing that we have a base-10 within a base-12 system here. Seemingly incompatible, yet so elegant.<br />What do you think?