NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you beleive string theory? For those that don't know what it is, it is the theory that quarks, are made up of "strings" strings make quarks, quarks make the protons neutrons and electrons in atoms. We cannot prove string theory correct or incorrect, but to beleive it you have to beleive in a 10 demensional universe. So do you beleive strings exist, or not? :confused:

So do you beleive strings exist, or not?

string (http://www.yefchak.com/reed/string.jpg)

yep. string exists.


(sorry, couldnt resist.)

i'm a HUGE fan of string theory. its a pity it can't be proven though. perhaps the LHC at CERN in 2007...

I believe that the Universe is made up of infinitely large and infinitely small objects. We are just steps in an Infinite stairway.

string (http://www.yefchak.com/reed/string.jpg)

yep. string exists.


(sorry, couldnt resist.)

But you can only know how strong it is, or how long it is, but never both at the same time. :D

There's a lady who's sure
All that glitters is gold
And she's buying a stairway
To heaven...

lol, infinte stairway eh?

i like string theory, but I learned last night that it can't be proven. In response to that, I wish to become a physicist and disprove that statement. I'll find a gateway to higher dimensions - I know it!

Or i'll just do a hostile takeover :mp5: of the world and make them all believe me...

But you can only know how strong it is, or how long it is, but never both at the same time. :D
Ah, the famous "String Uncertainty Principle". Do you know of Schrodinger's String, as well? :)

But you can only know how strong it is, or how long it is, but never both at the same time. :D

damn science.

string (http://www.yefchak.com/reed/string.jpg)

yep. string exists.


(sorry, couldnt resist.)
Technically, that's thread. *Ducks*

Technically, that's thread. *Ducks*

oh....


...so does string exist?

Ah, thread theory. One o' my old college buddies invented that. Says that all people are made of billions of threads holding us together, and that if you could find the end of the thread, you could kill yourself by unraveling it.

of course, it's absolute crap. That friend is over there contemplating the takeover of the toy store's murderer. "Over there" happens to be the asylum.

...but to beleive it you have to beleive in a 10 demensional universe. So do you beleive strings exist, or not? :confused:

Only 10? :confused:

Only 10? :confused:
Well, 11 if you count oranges, but most people don't. Don't ask me why :D

This discussion makes as much sense as actual super string theory!

Wasn't SST theory invented to describe the 'hidden variable' problem for physicists that crawl under the bed and cry when confronted with the statistical nature of the universe?

Don't know about string theory (to believe it or not) but I do believe in multidimensional (=more than 4) universe and antimateria.

Surely the most important question here is:

How long is a piece of string?

Don't know about string theory (to believe it or not) but I do believe in multidimensional (=more than 4) universe and antimateria.

antimateria or antimatter?

Surely the most important question here is:

How long is a piece of string?

no, the most important question when dealing with the string theory is "whaaaa?"

nah, string theory is easy, everything is made up of string. but how long is that string?

Answer: it is as long as twice the distance from one end to the centre.

If I remember correctly, the number of dimensions for that theory was 27. But I could be wrong.

As for belief... hey, I've never seen an atom either, and I believe in it. Nobody's ever seen a quark, and people believe in it. Usually when the scientists say something, it turns out to be right. Except sometimes it doesn't, but someone will figure that out soon enough. That's the beautiful thing about science - nobody will write it in a big book and kill anyone who claims to have evidence to the contrary.

nah, string theory is easy, everything is made up of string. but how long is that string?

Answer: it is as long as twice the distance from one end to the centre.

ah, well see, i have never actually looked into the string theory, but it sure as hell sounded smart.

:)

Well, I may not be smart, but it's nice if I sound it! :D

All I know about science is that everything you've ever been taught is pretty much wrong.

:)

Well, I may not be smart, but it's nice if I sound it! :D

All I know about science is that everything you've ever been taught is pretty much wrong.

my excuse for not knowing anything.

"its all wrong anyway, why learn it"

Yup!

Learn maths, maths is nice :) in maths when you go on to the next stage you build on what you learnt, in science you learn that everything you 'knew' is wrong and that 'this is how it really is', then you learn that that is wrong, and so on and so forth until you start babbling on about string.

:cool:

Yup!

Learn maths, maths is nice :) in maths when you go on to the next stage you build on what you learnt, in science you learn that everything you 'knew' is wrong and that 'this is how it really is', then you learn that that is wrong, and so on and so forth until you start babbling on about string.

:cool:

i'll stick to being the being the forum dunce. i dont like work, and that sounds like alot of effort.

Actually, that's true, at least for physics. You go through one year of Phys hons, then one year of Calculus based AP Phys C, and then you are told to forget everything you learned and start over in quantum mechanics. I don't know why AP Phys C is a prerequisite if you can't use anything you learned...

But I'm not taking that until junior year, so I have time to relax. And freshman physics is easy! (At least in my high school)

Actually, that's true, at least for physics. You go through one year of Phys hons, then one year of Calculus based AP Phys C, and then you are told to forget everything you learned and start over in quantum mechanics. I don't know why AP Phys C is a prerequisite if you can't use anything you learned...

But I'm not taking that until junior year, so I have time to relax. And freshman physics is easy! (At least in my high school)

goddamn - that sucks. a huge waste of time, at least it sounds like it.

Well, I'm exxagerating, as I tend to. But basically, the normal physics that apply on a large scale seem to fluctuate and act wierd on a subatomic, or quantum, scale. Quantum physics tends to violate many precepts of physics, such as an instance of faster-than-light communication (though not movement), but it is better to know how things are supposed to work before you focus on the exceptions.

Maybe quantam physics is how it's supposed to work, and 'normal' physics is the exception?

Anyhoo, all I know about quantam physics comes from books like Timeline by Michael Crichton; so don't pay too much attention to what I say :)

Well, I'm exxagerating, as I tend to. But basically, the normal physics that apply on a large scale seem to fluctuate and act wierd on a subatomic, or quantum, scale. Quantum physics tends to violate many precepts of physics, such as an instance of faster-than-light communication (though not movement), but it is better to know how things are supposed to work before you focus on the exceptions.

which makes me glad i dont have to worry about it.

Nah, most of it is fun. Plus, an equally geek-y friend and I pick on the lesser Nerds:

Me: "Light. Energy wave or particle?"
<Insert either answer, it doesn't matter>
Friend: <Whichever the answer wasn't>
Me: <Whichever the answer was>

The right answer is both, and we don't really get how it works, but it confuses the hell out of most people :)

Nah, most of it is fun. Plus, an equally geek-y friend and I pick on the lesser Nerds:

Me: "Light. Energy wave or particle?"
<Insert either answer, it doesn't matter>
Friend: <Whichever the answer wasn't>
Me: <Whichever the answer was>

The right answer is both, and we don't really get how it works, but it confuses the hell out of most people :)

head hurt. need to go bed so brain can think good.

enjoy your lesser nerd harrassing :)

Do you beleive string theory? For those that don't know what it is, it is the theory that quarks, are made up of "strings" strings make quarks, quarks make the protons neutrons and electrons in atoms. We cannot prove string theory correct or incorrect, but to beleive it you have to beleive in a 10 demensional universe. So do you beleive strings exist, or not? :confused:
Actually, M-Theory is better, but that requires that you accept a universe with eleven ( count 'em ... 11 ) dimensions! :eek:

antimateria or antimatter?
doesn't matter

doesn't matter
Does matter? Do 2 matter?

Do you beleive string theory? For those that don't know what it is, it is the theory that quarks, are made up of "strings" strings make quarks, quarks make the protons neutrons and electrons in atoms. We cannot prove string theory correct or incorrect, but to beleive it you have to beleive in a 10 demensional universe. So do you beleive strings exist, or not? :confused:
I thought it was 11 dimensional universe...

I thought it was 11 dimensional universe...
That's M-Theory. See my earlier post above. :)

Ahh, yes, but what is the string made up of??? :D

Ahh, yes, but what is the string made up of??? :D
jiz

That's M-Theory. See my earlier post above. :)

Its either 11 or 27, both resolve the equations in sting theory. I don't think anybody knows which it is.

I only have a tenuous grasp of this theory but the idea of a 10 or 11-dimensioned universe was interesting. Just because we cannot perceive them does not mean that they do not exist.

I only have a tenuous grasp of this theory but the idea of a 10 or 11-dimensioned universe was interesting. Just because we cannot perceive them does not mean that they do not exist.
Perzactly! Read a bit more and learn about branes ( including P-branes! ) and allow yourself a treat: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

P- Branes, hypothetical dimensions/alternate universes(think of them as two sheets of paper, one on top of another, but seperated) that move away from eachother till hitting(?) (this is where i'm confused) another brane, causing the two original branes to come into contact again and repeating the whole process. Now, if one of those peices of paper were our universe, when we came into the bump with the other universe(other paper), it would cause a catostrophic explosion................i'm guessing on the scale of a "Big Bang". :eek:

Does anyone else get the feeling that this whole "unprovable" batch of competing theories concerning the underlying nature of the matter of the universe is just another form of religion?
If it is unprovable, and it is, if it can not affect us, and it can't, then what has it got to do with science as a practical enterprise.

If you remove the practicality from science, then science is just one more set of unproven beliefs. What makes science more respected than tales about little purple spotted unicorns pushing everything around, is that it is practically useful. Science gives us technology, allows us to predict outcomes of events, enables us to control rather than to be controlled. If you remove these factors it is just another fairy tale.

So string theory, M-brane, p-brane etc. Nice mythologies guys, and fun for the mathematicians. But leave it to them to play with. They are never going to provide anything usefl and we are never going to be able to prove or disprove them. Mathematcal works of art, beautiful to look at, maybe inspiring, but not science.

Actually proper String Theory is 6 dimensions.
The theory is that if stretched out a piece of string and twanged it you could count 6 different 'spaces' it could. But when they did the calculations there was always something missing, so theorists came up a 7th Dimension which involves a lot of floating 'cheesecloth' like worlds each accounting for every single choice in history, so an imposssible number to imagine. When two worlds collide the parallel universes could inter-mingle hence ghosts and apparitions. I find the idea rather cute. Of course once you suggest more than 6 people start building on top with 10-D, 12-D or even 20-Dimensional worlds.

Does anyone else get the feeling that this whole "unprovable" batch of competing theories concerning the underlying nature of the matter of the universe is just another form of religion?
If it is unprovable, and it is, if it can not affect us, and it can't, then what has it got to do with science as a practical enterprise.

If you remove the practicality from science, then science is just one more set of unproven beliefs. What makes science more respected than tales about little purple spotted unicorns pushing everything around, is that it is practically useful. Science gives us technology, allows us to predict outcomes of events, enables us to control rather than to be controlled. If you remove these factors it is just another fairy tale.

So string theory, M-brane, p-brane etc. Nice mythologies guys, and fun for the mathematicians. But leave it to them to play with. They are never going to provide anything usefl and we are never going to be able to prove or disprove them. Mathematcal works of art, beautiful to look at, maybe inspiring, but not science.


Nah, no mythology here. It's just so beyond the realm of normal perception, it's tough to grasp. For instance, time is a dimension, and not at all like the time we use every day. This was unknown up until Einstein. So the idea of extra dimensions shouldn't be cast aside, all it really needs is more time to flourish. And it will, math doesn't lie and "god doesn't play dice".

Nah, no mythology here. It's just so beyond the realm of normal perception, it's tough to grasp. For instance, time is a dimension, and not at all like the time we use every day. This was unknown up until Einstein. So the idea of extra dimensions shouldn't be cast aside, all it really needs is more time to flourish. And it will, math doesn't lie and "god doesn't play dice".

I know enough of the theories involved to grasp the ideas thank you. As I said, nice mathematics, elegant (particularly Witten's considering he is a historian by training). The string theories themselves are explicit in stating that the dimensions above 4 can not be detected, can have no effect on how our experiential world functions. M-brane and p-brane are even more tenuous as they refer to things outside of the possibility of our awareness. Other universes, causaly disconnected from ours.
Einstein's famous "god doesn't play dice" quote was in response to the denial of the existence of a hidden variable in QM. However he was wrong. The Bell inequalities showed theoreticaly and in an empirically verifiable way that hidden variable theory was wrong.
The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe.
source (http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html)

The point I was making is that there are no experiments that can be devised to disprove SST or M-brane theory. They have the same scientific status as religion: unprovable, unverifiable and irrelevant.

I believe in 11 dimensions...Its callen "M" theory....or Membrane theory..Our universe is one grape on a bunch....Alot of String Theorists are jumping the ship to "M" Theory....Theoretical Astrophysics rocks!!!!

Ever read the short story 'The Ifth and Ooth'? I didn't particularly enjoy it, but it's dealing with the possibility of creating a model which represents the 4th and 5th dimensions as a 2d picture represents a 3d object, and what happens afterwards (ie. where you suspend belief).
Of course then there's 'Flatlands' where you have 2d people.

The point I was making is that there are no experiments that can be devised to disprove SST or M-brane theory. They have the same scientific status as religion: unprovable, unverifiable and irrelevant.

I agree with religion being in that category, however science, in my opinion is far beyond religion in asking questions and being able to find logical solutions.

Also, it is my opinion that things yet unproven in science are that way because they have yet to be proven. Not because it can't be. Progress is made everyday, although very slow most of the time. Who knows, in the end, you may be right.

Religion asks what and stops. Science asks what and then why and how, the biggest difference of the two.....................

I know enough of the theories involved to grasp the ideas thank you. As I said, nice mathematics, elegant (particularly Witten's considering he is a historian by training). The string theories themselves are explicit in stating that the dimensions above 4 can not be detected, can have no effect on how our experiential world functions. M-brane and p-brane are even more tenuous as they refer to things outside of the possibility of our awareness. Other universes, causaly disconnected from ours.
Einstein's famous "god doesn't play dice" quote was in response to the denial of the existence of a hidden variable in QM. However he was wrong. The Bell inequalities showed theoreticaly and in an empirically verifiable way that hidden variable theory was wrong.

The point I was making is that there are no experiments that can be devised to disprove SST or M-brane theory. They have the same scientific status as religion: unprovable, unverifiable and irrelevant.

Actually, this is incorrect. It isn't that the spatial dimensions (and I say this with some hesitation...I have a running bet with a buddy that someday they'll tie together the spatial dimensions and the temporal dimension as two dirivetives of the same source) above four cannot interact with our meager three, it's that they're all curled up into complex, multi-dimensional shapes on the planck scale. Should we ever find a way to reach a sufficient energy to uncurl them, we could interact with them at will. However, this energy would currently require a particle accelerator with a diameter in the order of several light-years to even begin to probe.

Of course, the mathematics behind them are quite enough, at least to the point we understand them. Right now, we simply don't have the math to fully understand the theory.

Ever read the short story 'The Ifth and Ooth'? I didn't particularly enjoy it, but it's dealing with the possibility of creating a model which represents the 4th and 5th dimensions as a 2d picture represents a 3d object, and what happens afterwards (ie. where you suspend belief).
Of course then there's 'Flatlands' where you have 2d people.

Actually, this is incorrect. It isn't that the spatial dimensions (and I say this with some hesitation...I have a running bet with a buddy that someday they'll tie together the spatial dimensions and the temporal dimension as two dirivetives of the same source) above four cannot interact with our meager three, it's that they're all curled up into complex, multi-dimensional shapes on the planck scale. Should we ever find a way to reach a sufficient energy to uncurl them, we could interact with them at will. However, this energy would currently require a particle accelerator with a diameter in the order of several light-years to even begin to probe.

Of course, the mathematics behind them are quite enough, at least to the point we understand them. Right now, we simply don't have the math to fully understand the theory.

Not only would it require a particle accelerator with a radius on an interstellar scale, the energy involved would be greater than the total known energy in the universe. Theoretically impossible, which is what I said to start with.
I deliberately referred just to dimensions, not spatial dimensiosn, as the term spatial does not apply to them. Space, is a perceptual field, an internal construction in our minds if you will, this only applies to three dimensions, with time being a fourth dimension interpreted in a different way. The rest are just mathematical dimensions neither spatial not temporal. I think that your bet with your buddy is null and void.
In one way, you are correct. There is no mathematical reason why the curled dimensions can not interact with those we perceive, however theoretically, which is taking the known data into account as well, and not just working in the purely mathematical realm, it is impossible due to the energy limitations of our universe.

The point I was making is that there are no experiments that can be devised to disprove SST or M-brane theory. They have the same scientific status as religion: unprovable, unverifiable and irrelevant.

I agree with religion being in that category, however science, in my opinion is far beyond religion in asking questions and being able to find logical solutions.

Also, it is my opinion that things yet unproven in science are that way because they have yet to be proven. Not because it can't be. Progress is made everyday, although very slow most of the time. Who knows, in the end, you may be right.

Religion asks what and stops. Science asks what and then why and how, the biggest difference of the two.....................

I agree with you in some of this, but not all.
Firstly science never proves anything. You can only have the best current theory that explains the known penomena and predicts future phenomena. This describes, for example QM and General Relativity. We do know, however, that one of these two is wrong as they are incompatible. We just don't know yet which one is wrong.

There are limits to our knowledge. Anything that can not causally affect our perception in some way, however extrememly mediated by technology this may be, can not be known. It can be modelled mathematically, but it is not part of our universe and can never produce phenomena. If the model does not explain and or predict phenomena, it is just that a model. It is not really a scientific theory, although they do tend to be called theories as is evidenced by this thread.

In this way such models can not be said to be true or false. They can only be believed or denied, on the basis of their elegance, their inclusiveness, their fit with the persons existing beliefs etc. This is exactly the same as happens with religious belief. Holding a model, not a theory, to be true is a matter of faith. Holding a theory, not a model, to be true is a matter of evidence.
Science is made up of theories. SST and Branes are not theories in this sense, they are models.

i'm a HUGE fan of string theory. its a pity it can't be proven though. perhaps the LHC at CERN in 2007...

Yes, you like the idea of having to solve innumerable equations just to predict a single event.

Does anyone else get the feeling that this whole "unprovable" batch of competing theories concerning the underlying nature of the matter of the universe is just another form of religion?
If it is unprovable, and it is, if it can not affect us, and it can't, then what has it got to do with science as a practical enterprise.

If you remove the practicality from science, then science is just one more set of unproven beliefs. What makes science more respected than tales about little purple spotted unicorns pushing everything around, is that it is practically useful. Science gives us technology, allows us to predict outcomes of events, enables us to control rather than to be controlled. If you remove these factors it is just another fairy tale.

So string theory, M-brane, p-brane etc. Nice mythologies guys, and fun for the mathematicians. But leave it to them to play with. They are never going to provide anything usefl and we are never going to be able to prove or disprove them. Mathematcal works of art, beautiful to look at, maybe inspiring, but not science.

When disciples of Steven Hawking go on a crusade to kill the disciples of Laurence Krauss, then I'll believe that science is the same as religion.

When disciples of Steven Hawking go on a crusade to kill the disciples of Laurence Krauss, then I'll believe that science is the same as religion.

Laugh while you still can.
No, fair comment. Science does not provoke the same passions as religion, as it does not judge some men to be better than others.
This does not mean, however that all that is touted as scientific, is always based on more than just pure faith. Any model that can not be verified has to be considered as just, at best, a mathematical exercise, not as science.