NationStates Jolt Archive

This topic is intriguing and extremely revolutionary. The theory states that all of the most basic particles, such as electrons, quarks, and the rest, are made of vibrating loops of energy, and they are differentiated by the shape and frequency of the vibrations.

Anybody else have any ideas on it?

P.S. If you are interested, there is an amazing book by Brian Greene by the name of "The Elegant Universe" that explains the whole deal in laymen's terms and makes it easy to understand.

I'm afraid I really know nothing beyond what you mentioned in your post, but I might check out that book you mentioned. Thanks for the heads up.

String string string string,
Everybody loves string,
String string string, string,
Everybody loves string,
Hold up your pants,
Put on your vest,
Everyone knows that string is best,
String string string string,
Everybody loves string.

Interesting...Never thought of it that way.

I've seen Brian Greene's "Elegant Universe" 3 hour show about five times and I think that string theory is the closest thing we will come to unifying physics. It still doesn't explain how the Big Bang started--it does, but it requires even more universes before that--but it is pretty hard to go from nothing into something.

you can watch all 3 hours here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html). The third hour is the craziest, but makes sense if you approach it with an open mind.

I read the Elegant Universe, and I like string theory. But that's just it, isn't it? It's an appealing notion, and that alone is one of it's attractions: beauty. As Michio Kaku said in his book, Hyperspace, and as "Elegant" a universe it would make if correct. Unifying the laws of physics and being the potential grand daddy of all physics theory only helps incourage that notion.

But I have to admit that a theory is necessarily true on the basis of beauty alone, and that while it makes some vague sense (to my non-physicist thinking) I don't know enough of the mathematical, conceptual or physical details and methods to adequately criticize it or accept it now.

String theory is hard to understand. Toooo hard. I refuse to believe it!

Isn't another aspect of the string theory the multiple dimentions of reality? For instance we exist on the third dimention.

I'm not touching it until the theorists use it to make a prediction

I read the Elegant Universe, and I like string theory. But that's just it, isn't it? It's an appealing notion, and that alone is one of it's attractions: beauty. As Michio Kaku said in his book, Hyperspace, and as "Elegant" a universe it would make if correct. Unifying the laws of physics and being the potential grand daddy of all physics theory only helps incourage that notion.

But I have to admit that a theory is necessarily true on the basis of beauty alone, and that while it makes some vague sense (to my non-physicist thinking) I don't know enough of the mathematical, conceptual or physical details and methods to adequately criticize it or accept it now.

Indeed. Its fun to consider, and it has a certain appeal to it...but right now its impossible ot know if its at all factual.

Indeed. Its fun to consider, and it has a certain appeal to it...but right now its impossible ot know if its at all factual.

Questions: I'm as ignorant as most about string theory but I'd like to know: have any predictions been made based on string theory? If so, have they been tested or not? And finally were the findings conclusive?

Questions: I'm as ignorant as most about string theory but I'd like to know: have any predictions been made based on string theory? If so, have they been tested or not? And finally were the findings conclusive?

I'm afraid I'm just as ignorant as you; I haven't heard anything in the last year or so about it. I haven't seen any new research, but I haven't kept my ear to the ground very much. Anyone else know if anything has been done with String Theory lately? Or is everyone still working on it?

I'm not touching it until the theorists use it to make a prediction

Well there's the thing about subatomic-sized black holes, right? Those would work at low(er) energies only if the universe had extra dimensions that gravity was escaping into at short distances. The string theorists (actually, anyone claiming extra dimensions exist) predict that we should see micro-holes at the energies that the LHC at CERN will reach. So I suppose that's something of an experiment to prove at least one of the premises of string theory, if not the whole package.

I'm not to well versed in String theory, but I have come to understand M-theory which explains how the big bang possibly happened.

I have to say that THAT theory is something that is very appealing in design.

I've heard that asian-american scientist (I can never remember his name -- I'm shit with names :() speak on it. It's a very interesting idea, but I haven't had time to do much reading on it. Someday soon, hopefully.

I'm not to well versed in String theory, but I have come to understand M-theory which explains how the big bang possibly happened.

I have to say that THAT theory is something that is very appealing in design.

Um, M-theory is the combination of the five string theory variations with 11-D Supergravity. So you actually do get string theory.

Which, by the way, is orgasmic.

Read "The Elegant Universe." It's absolutely revolutionary. I'm not saying it's true or anything - not that stupid - but I will say it's very "promising."

And they've predicted plenty, mostly in the way of subatomic particles. What they haven't done is *prove* anything.

Physics confuses me. At least the more complicated stuff does.

Questions: I'm as ignorant as most about string theory but I'd like to know: have any predictions been made based on string theory? If so, have they been tested or not? And finally were the findings conclusive?

It hasn't predicted anything I don't think. The unification of Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic forces has predicted the existance of Sparticles (the boson equivilent of the fermions) and String theory has said that they definately exist. We haven't yet found any sparticles but the Superconducting Super-Collider (or Desetron) will hopefully find them once it's built and that would show that String theory is at least on the right track.

It hasn't predicted anything I don't think. The unification of Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic forces has predicted the existance of Sparticles (the boson equivilent of the fermions) and String theory has said that they definately exist. We haven't yet found any sparticles but the Superconducting Super-Collider (or Desetron) will hopefully find them once it's built and that would show that String theory is at least on the right track.

Bah?

Bah?

What's Bah?

I'm just waiting for them to start being able to predict more 'unpredictable' events.

While it's entirely possible for chaos to exist at some level, I find it hard to think we've already found that level. I think people just like saying "It's impossible!" just because they can't figure it out.

I'm also waiting for them to finally reduce things to 'change' and 'being', and then find their link.

Which will probably be way after I'm dead, because it took way too long for people to figure out that there's only one anything, and that the destinctions of matter, energy, et cetera are merely phases, forms, shapes, and directions.

It's all in the spin, baby.

It hasn't predicted anything I don't think. The unification of Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic forces has predicted the existance of Sparticles (the boson equivilent of the fermions) and String theory has said that they definately exist. We haven't yet found any sparticles but the Superconducting Super-Collider (or Desetron) will hopefully find them once it's built and that would show that String theory is at least on the right track.
You believe in communism, catholicism and string theory? Oh dear.

String theory looks like it is good when dealing with tiny particles, but it still needs to be modified so that it can be applied to larger objects.

As of yet it hasnt been prooved in practice but many scientists beleive it is the closest thing to providing a unified theory of everything.

I heard that after they get the massive 27km long particle accelerator in switzerland (sp?) going (I dont think its going, and cant remember its name) that they think that they should be able to learn significatly more about the make up of the atom (what the smallest particles are, how the act etc.).

I personally dont beleive in a unified theory but some scientists do, Albert Einstein dedicated 30 years of his life to it, and many other great physicists have spend their lives trying to figure it out. Its very interesting but you have to spend alot of time reading it very closely to comprehend it.

You believe in communism, catholicism and string theory? Oh dear.

I just pretend to. Deep down I'm a facist, agnostic, steady state theorist.

Isn't another aspect of the string theory the multiple dimentions of reality? For instance we exist on the third dimention.

We also exist on the forth....

According to scientific thinking The first four dimensions are the ones we all know and love: Three dimensions for space and one dimension for time.

The other 6 are called 'internal degrees of freedom' and are related to the number of fundamental symmetries present in the physical world at the quantum scale.

The equations that physicists work with require these additional dimensions so that new symmetries can be defined that allow physicists to understand physical relationships between the various particle families. They think these are actual, real dimensions to the physical world, only that they are now 'compact' and have finite sizes unlike our 4 dimensions of space and time which seem almost to be infinite in size.

Each point in 4 dimensional space-time has another 6 dimensions attached to it which 'particles and forces' can use as extra degrees of freedom to define themselves and how they will interact with each other.

Do not confuse them with 'hyperspace' because the particles do not actually 'move' along these other dimensions. They are not 'spatial' dimensions, but are as unlike space and time as time is unlike space!

Questions: I'm as ignorant as most about string theory but I'd like to know: have any predictions been made based on string theory? If so, have they been tested or not? And finally were the findings conclusive?

They managed to derive Einstine's relativity equations from it..and other equations too!!! And those equations are 'scientifically-proven' by experimentation. String Theory is all about the maths of strings....the equations speaks of the notes and the tune which the strings are playing..

String theory looks like it is good when dealing with tiny particles,
That's a matter of opinion.

but it still needs to be modified so that it can be applied to larger objects.

Why? If it applies to small particles it applies to everything that's made of small particles, which would be everything. At large distances (greater than a few hundredths the size of a proton, say) it should give standard quantum field theory as an approximation.

As of yet it hasnt been prooved in practice but many scientists beleive it is the closest thing to providing a unified theory of everything.
Many scientists think that it is nonsense. Like this scientist, for instance.

I heard that after they get the massive 27km long particle accelerator in switzerland (sp?) going (I dont think its going, and cant remember its name) that they think that they should be able to learn significatly more about the make up of the atom (what the smallest particles are, how the act etc.).
Large Hadron Collider, LHC. Starts in 2007, I think, and should start getting results by 2010 or so. It's main job is to probe the origin of electro-weak symmetry breaking, for those who know about such things. They'll finally find the Higgs particle. Or not. Possibly supersymmetric particles (sparticles) too. Or not. I hope they don't. Supersymmetry is ugly and messy and if they find it I'll have to learn it properly and the standard model Higgs particle is an ugly lump bolted onto the side of the theory to make it work. Nature wouldn't be so tasteless. I expect something much more elegant to be true.

I personally dont beleive in a unified theory but some scientists do, Albert Einstein dedicated 30 years of his life to it, and many other great physicists have spend their lives trying to figure it out. Its very interesting but you have to spend alot of time reading it very closely to comprehend it.
I definitely expect some new theories to explain why there are (at least) 3 families of particles, how they aquire mass, why the particles have electric charges which are all multiples of e/3 and why the electroweak symmetry breaking scale is so much less than the "planck scale". Other things to worry about in the far future are why does nature have the symmetries it does (although this is related to the above questions), the foundations of quantum theory, such as measurement, superposition and entanglement, and how to reconcile general relativity and quantum theory, which are inconsistent with each other.

There's lots of work to be done and string theorists are jumping the gun a bit which is a shame since they are very intelligent physicists who could help solve more some of the other questions if they'd only keep their feet on the ground. I imagine once some of the questions above are solved, hopefully with data from LHC, it'll help suggest ways to tackle quantum gravity. I think the next 50 years will be the most exciting time in physics ever, if that's what you're into.

<snip>

Notice that I said that many scientist believe in it, not all. I have never seen any stats about what proportion of the scientific community do or dont, and I know many who do and many who dont.

String theory has many weaknesses, for example it starts to break down
when you include gravitational force between objects (why it doesnt yet work with large objects).

This is why I said that it still needs to be refined to actually apply to real life at all.

Like i said in my first post, it hasnt actually been tested succesfully in real life applications but its so far one of the best looking theories trying to find a unified theory

Notice that I said that many scientist believe in it, I have never seen any stats about what proportion of the scientific community do or dont, and I know many who do and many who dont.
Sure. I didn't mean to sound like I was disagreeing, pretty much all of what you said made sense. About 1/3 physics theorists does string theory (far too many for such a speculative theory), most of the rest seem to me to think it's bs. Call it 50-50 believers to infidels at a first guess.

String theory has many weaknesses, for example it starts to break down
when you include gravitational force between objects (why it doesnt yet work with large objects).

I thought the whole point of string theory was that it consistently included gravity?

What's Bah?

It's to indicate the fact that I don't understand String Theory (please don't bother explaining it to me)...

You believe in communism, catholicism and string theory? Oh dear.

Actually I believe he's atheist... but I have to share a class with him, feel my pain...

I thought the whole point of string theory was that it consistently included gravity?

They run into some problems with it, I cant remember exactly, Im an electrical engineer, not a physicist so this is kinda out of my field of expertise, just a hobby, will have to read up on it again to refresh myself

It's to indicate the fact that I don't understand String Theory (please don't bother explaining it to me)...

Dont worry, I dont have a spare couple of hours anyway :p

Dont worry, I dont have a spare couple of hours anyway :p

That's most likely a good thing. I get enough religion/physics/mathematics/everything talk at school, mixed in with the forums...

That's most likely a good thing. I get enough religion/physics/mathematics/everything talk at school, mixed in with the forums...

You better not be complaining about that. And mathematics hardly ever comes into our conversations. Today was the first time it happened in weeks!

You better not be complaining about that. And mathematics hardly ever comes into our conversations. Today was the first time it happened in weeks!

You mis-spelled "minutes" again...

You mis-spelled "minutes" again...

Oh, yeah. Begins with a 'y' doesn't it.

i have to agree with whomever said that it will be an interesting next century when it comes to physics
as for a unified theory it seems to be a maltese falcon type endeavor very noble in its scope but always just out of reach
as an aside has any read the quantum and the lotus or the tao of physics
not to mention the general theme of what the bleep do we know
all seems to point to what i feel is quite obvious the direct correlations between eastern mystic studies and physics
another good one is the dancing wu li masters(?)
in grace
k

i have to agree with whomever said that it will be an interesting next century when it comes to physics
as for a unified theory it seems to be a maltese falcon type endeavor very noble in its scope but always just out of reach
as an aside has any read the quantum and the lotus or the tao of physics
not to mention the general theme of what the bleep do we know
all seems to point to what i feel is quite obvious the direct correlations between eastern mystic studies and physics
another good one is the dancing wu li masters(?)
in grace
k

I tend to believe that the convergence bewtween modern theoretical physics and eastern spiritual philosophy is due to their sharing a common root, rather than any specific insight into the nature of the universe present in the philosophy.

Both these lines of thinking are concerned with what are basically aesthetic matters. In theoretical physics a "theory" is judged as much on the elegance and harmony of its mathematics as it is on its explanatory or predictive powers. As Eastern spiritual philosophy is also based on the aesthetics of balance and harmony, it is not sup´rising in the least that the two converge.

String theory, for me, is simply a means of visualising the mathematical properties that sub nuclear particles seem to have. It is not, as far as I am aware, easily differentiated from quark theory in terms of predictions or even explanation. It just helps our conceptual grasp of the data.

M theory is pure speculation, and just adds another layer of complexity unnecessarily on top of the observable data. That we use a theoretical construct called a manifold, and have used this since at least 1905, in describing the universe does not imply that this is equivalent to any actual existing phenomenon nor that there should exist more than one such manifold.

It does bring into question the whole concept of exist. A mathematical description that is useful does not entail any ontological reality for the object so described.

M theory is pure speculation, and just adds another layer of complexity unnecessarily on top of the observable data.


Agreed

String theory is not as elegant as one might imagine.

One of the un-elegant facts about it is that if you want to describe something, you end up having to write and solve innumerable equations - so many in most cases that it's computationally infeasible.

That's hardly elegant, and one of the reasons that some physicists think there's still something better out there. Something elegant and simple.

String theory is not as elegant as one might imagine.

One of the un-elegant facts about it is that if you want to describe something, you end up having to write and solve innumerable equations - so many in most cases that it's computationally infeasible.

That's hardly elegant, and one of the reasons that some physicists think there's still something better out there. Something elegant and simple.

Depends on which string theory you're talking about. Some of them have simpler maths than others.

Depends on which string theory you're talking about. Some of them have simpler maths than others.

One of the things that makes Einstein's theories "elegant" is that they distill down to very simple equations.

None of the string theories comes close to that simple.

If I have to go down that road, I'd follow these guys:
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~wesson/intro.htm

But what do I know? I'm no physicist.

As good as 'The Elegant Universe' is, it's nowhere near as good as 'The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality', which happens to be by Brian Greene. It's his latest - came out earlier this year.
Get your paws on a copy if you can. Brilliant read.

One of the things that makes Einstein's theories "elegant" is that they distill down to very simple equations.

None of the string theories comes close to that simple.

The geometry of spacetime is simple, yeah. When you're on an atomic level with the uncertainty principal and exchange of messenger particles, things become a lot more difficult to describe mathematically. The equations for string theory are still elegant because they maintain symmetry.

If I have to go down that road, I'd follow these guys:
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~wesson/intro.htm

But what do I know? I'm no physicist.

Something like this has been done before. A polish physisict incorperated a fifth dimension (on a large scale) to describe Electro-magnetism just like Einstein did with gravity. I'd be interested to see how that plays out. Although if it describes matter as a fifth dimension then we'd also need to formulate a new guage field on a quantum level and unify the two anyway, so we'll still need string theory.

Something like this has been done before. A polish physisict incorperated a fifth dimension (on a large scale) to describe Electro-magnetism just like Einstein did with gravity. I'd be interested to see how that plays out. Although if it describes matter as a fifth dimension then we'd also need to formulate a new guage field on a quantum level and unify the two anyway, so we'll still need string theory.
I find the idea of a "rolled-up" dimension peculiarly unsatisfying. They aren't "rolling up" the 5th, while Kaluza-Klein does (and most of the extra dimensions in other string theories has a variety of "rolled-up" dimensions.

One of the things that makes Einstein's theories "elegant" is that they distill down to very simple equations.

None of the string theories comes close to that simple.

String theory started relatively simple but over the years holes have been identified and more procedures put into place to cover these.

A good analogy is a car carbeurettor (sp?). It sarted as just pouring petrol and air into a cylinder. As time went on they found ways to make it more efficient and controlled by putting multiple inlets, jets and galleries everywhere. Now a carb is an extremely complex piece of machinery and you shouldn't mess with it if you dont know what your doing.

But then someone dicovered the wonder of direct injection that just sprays a jet of petrol straight into the cylinder. What we need is someone to discover the direct injection of quantum physics :D

I find the idea of a "rolled-up" dimension peculiarly unsatisfying. They aren't "rolling up" the 5th, while Kaluza-Klein does (and most of the extra dimensions in other string theories has a variety of "rolled-up" dimensions.

But where is the fifth space dimension? Rolling it up fixes that.

But where is the fifth space dimension? Rolling it up fixes that.
There are plenty of things that I can't see that influence the dimensions that I can see. That doesn't mean those things I can't see are "rolled-up".

There are plenty of things that I can't see that influence the dimensions that I can see. That doesn't mean those things I can't see are "rolled-up".

Influence is something different. An actual space dimension on a grand scale has to be seen.

This topic is intriguing and extremely revolutionary. The theory states that all of the most basic particles, such as electrons, quarks, and the rest, are made of vibrating loops of energy, and they are differentiated by the shape and frequency of the vibrations.

Anybody else have any ideas on it?

P.S. If you are interested, there is an amazing book by Brian Greene by the name of "The Elegant Universe" that explains the whole deal in laymen's terms and makes it easy to understand.
string theory has been around since the 80's

string theory has been around since the 80's
I guess I've been engineering for too long. String theory sounds like a nice thing to write papers on, and it might even have some substance. But, there are so many concepts that are very good in a journal and fall flat when time comes to apply them. H_infinity and Mu Synthesis control theory are two that come to mind immediately. The control industry just hasn't embraced them.

This doesn't mean that university types shouldn't continue research into String theory. It may pay off in practical terms and it may provide a deeper understanding of how things fit together. That'd be great. I just don't expect too much from it too soon.

I guess I've been engineering for too long. String theory sounds like a nice thing to write papers on, and it might even have some substance. But, there are so many concepts that are very good in a journal and fall flat when time comes to apply them. H_infinity and Mu Synthesis control theory are two that come to mind immediately. The control industry just hasn't embraced them.

This doesn't mean that university types shouldn't continue research into String theory. It may pay off in practical terms and it may provide a deeper understanding of how things fit together. That'd be great. I just don't expect too much from it too soon.
Ok wait, explain this to me again, why does string theory not work?

Ok wait, explain this to me again, why does string theory not work?
Read my post again. ... ... ...

Okay, where did I say it doesn't work. I think I just said there are a lot of good theories that don't have practical applications. If I were still at the university, I'd be working on cold fusion, but String theory would be fun. Then I said it might pay off some day and I described how.

Read my post again. ... ... ...
Thats just being stupid. I ment explain it in a different way, give other examples, actually talk about whats wrong with it and why it isnt practical.

Thats just being stupid. I ment explain it in a different way, give other examples, actually talk about whats wrong with it and why it isnt practical.
No, it isn't stupid. What practical use can you put string theory to right now? What's the axe you're trying to grind?

They managed to derive Einstine's relativity equations from it..and other equations too!!! And those equations are 'scientifically-proven' by experimentation. String Theory is all about the maths of strings....the equations speaks of the notes and the tune which the strings are playing..

The problem with that, of course, is that predicting things which have already been predicted is weak science. Now, if they predict something which hasn't been predicted or has experimental evidence to support it, and then find experimental evidence for it, that would be saying something!