Thread: Can anyone tell me what ....

String theory is, i've heard of it but I need one of you experts to tell me what it is. Thanks

hopefully this will give you the basics, good old wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

I looked on that before and i didnt understand it i was hoping someone would explain it more understandably.

It's just some mumbo jumbo. Basically they claim that particles act like rings that vibrate, instead of introducing particles from other dimensions that collide with our particles. Atleast that's what I get out of it. In that way, the space can be empty and particles in empty space can still move by themselves. Cause they are rings and collide/react with themselves.

Sound right?

Captain

The string theory uses some current science from the basic forces, but I consider their interpretations as fiction.

The electroMagnetic forces are the only real forces in existence IMHO

The electric forces are point sources, but are surrounded by 'fields' that extend to infinity. These forces are omni-directional and set at fixed magnitudes.
The magnetic components are 'bipolar' loops that vary from zero to a maximum value depending on the motions of the 'charged particle forces'.
The greater their velocities, the greater the strength of the MF's.

This is the basics of physics that you need to know. From this point on, you interpret data that applies to these basics.

The material components of physics are the electron (negative charge) and the proton (positive charge). These are the basic components of the material universe. There is nothing smaller and these particles apply to the Conservation Laws. So they always existed. There is NO beginning or end to these particles.

So the Conservation Laws also make the 'big bang' fiction.

NS

I also had that idea once Mike NS. But I don't think it is 100% right.

Originally Posted by slippy88

String theory is, i've heard of it but I need one of you experts to tell me what it is. Thanks

Would love to tell you what string theory is, problem is that firstly there is not one string theory and secondly the holy grail of the whole scheme is as mysterious as you can get for something in physics.

In short, string theory treats the basic components of particle physics as small vibrating strings under ridiculous tensions. The different modes of vibration correspond to different types of particles that particle physicists bump into during their experiments. As soon as you try to get deeper then that the water gets really murky and you start talking about open (like guitar strings) and closed (think of vibrating loops) strings, branes, supersymmetry, compatifications, Calabi-Yau spaces and a whole host of other scary things

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

I also had that idea once Mike NS. But I don't think it is 100% right.

By adhering to those principles I mentioned above. it has:

Allowed me to replace the BBU with the SSU.
Solve the mystery of the 'dark matter'.
Correct the cause of the 'solar flares'.
Refute the 'black holes' with 'separated electric charges'
Solve the cause of the cosmological redshifts.
Solve Arp's redshift 'anamoly'.
Refuted Einsteins mass/energy formula.
Refuted Einsteins GR with the Zwicky gravity (mysterious dark matter)
that shows no 'space warp'.
And?

I would say that is about 100% regarding the major science problems in our Universe.

NS

Show me all the equations.

Let me explain in a very simple & lucid manner.Well,what happens when u break a matter?U get on to divide a and particle until u reach thae atoms,(say)can u break the atoms...?Yes...theorotical physics offer u no barries (until a speed breaker called contradiction creeps in!)so u gonna reach quarks and all it's flavoures..dont stop now...go on breaking...how long do u expect that the tiny of the tiniest particle u'll reach?Scientists have concluded that we will ultimately arrive to a form of energy-"the string" this string is just "ENERGY"

And so ....now we know that these tiny beads of energy are the most fundamental units of matter formation.the strings have a particular characteristic-they vibrate.The different ways in which the strings vibrate gives distinctive properties to the atoms that they form.If u go on breaking a gold atom,u'll reach to the string that would vibrate quite differently as compared to when u start with any other atom say aluminium.

Originally Posted by prabhat

Let me explain in a very simple & lucid manner.Well,what happens when u break a matter?U get on to divide a and particle until u reach thae atoms,(say)can u break the atoms...?Yes...theorotical physics offer u no barries (until a speed breaker called contradiction creeps in!)so u gonna reach quarks and all it's flavoures..dont stop now...go on breaking...how long do u expect that the tiny of the tiniest particle u'll reach?Scientists have concluded that we will ultimately arrive to a form of energy-"the string" this string is just "ENERGY"

And so ....now we know that these tiny beads of energy are the most fundamental units of matter formation.the strings have a particular characteristic-they vibrate.The different ways in which the strings vibrate gives distinctive properties to the atoms that they form.If u go on breaking a gold atom,u'll reach to the string that would vibrate quite differently as compared to when u start with any other atom say aluminium.

um no, string theory does not say that the vibrational modes of the strings that make up a quark in a proton in a gold nucleus are different to the strings that make up a quark in a proton in a aluminium nucleus. Different vibrational modes correspond to different subatomic particles - not different atoms.

Leaving

Math is a byproduct of research and observations. It is used to make predictions. It is not the final word.

If Newtons math can be replaced by Einsteins math that has no research or observational sources for their existence, than how can you give any credibility to math?
Newton was the greatest mathematician of the modern era. And to have his math replaced by Einsteins tiny corrections is ludicrous.
Incidentally, Newtons math was a derivitive of Keplers math who was also a great mathematician.

Einstein also refuted Plancks Quantum theory that was also a great solution to resolve the nature of light.

Einsteins mass/energy formuls is also erroneous that I refuted here by the nature of the 'fission' bomb. So math is not the final word.

I give complete credibility to experimental research and observations as the most reliable physics to follow rather than just numbers. Numbers are subjective while ER and Ob are real and objective evidence.
Of course, this evidence has to be correctly interpreted.

probhat

Quarks are NOT real particles since the do not exist in a free state.
This includes the neutrons as well since they decay in about 10-15 minutes into their original composition of an E/P pair.
Neutrons must be coupled to a proton/electron combination to exist in a free state such as a deuteron that is the nucleus of the deuterium atom.
There is a small quantity of these nuclei that are stable as matter.

The string theory is just plain theory with no real evidence for its credibility.

NS

There is a really awesome NOVA series on this topic- The Elegant Universe series. It is uploaded on www.youtube.com. Just search for "Nova the elegant universe" and it should come up. It goes from Einstein's relativity to string theory. Interesting stuff

Mike,

How do you account for the perturbations in Mercury's orbit? using Keplar and Newtonian maths, you cannot predict the orbital path of mercury, it is only when you take relativity into account that the maths works.

Einsteins work has to some extent been verified he predicted the small shifts in the perceived positions of stars optically close to the sun...

Whether or not Einstein is generally right, his theory does work out in practice - including being taken into account when plotting spacecraft trajectory and GPS systems.

I agree with you on quarks - I don't think they exist till you smash up atoms, like smashing a pebble into sand, the pebble is not made of sand,
but pebbles can be made into sand. Thus I think the same of many of the hundreds of absurd sub-atomic particles.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Mike,

How do you account for the perturbations in Mercury's orbit? using Keplar and Newtonian maths, you cannot predict the orbital path of mercury, it is only when you take relativity into account that the maths works.

Einsteins work has to some extent been verified he predicted the small shifts in the perceived positions of stars optically close to the sun...

Whether or not Einstein is generally right, his theory does work out in practice - including being taken into account when plotting spacecraft trajectory and GPS systems.

I agree with you on quarks - I don't think they exist till you smash up atoms, like smashing a pebble into sand, the pebble is not made of sand,
but pebbles can be made into sand. Thus I think the same of many of the hundreds of absurd sub-atomic particles.

I also believe in a 'spiritual' force. This may surprise you but from my life experiences, I have seen such influences on the 'physical realm'.
You may pooh, pooh this because most scientists are atheists. So I consider any tiny changes as due to spiritual forces.

Einsteins 'curvature of space' cannot explain the 'dark matter' (Zwicky gravity) that would 'warp' space but has not been seen or detected. So I consider GR to be erroneous.
The bending of starlight by the Sun can be attributed to the gravity of the Sun or even by the Suns weak atmosphere as a refraction.

Since gravity redshifts light, than it can also bend it.

Since I am promoting a SSU with a 'flat' space concept, than I see no need for Einsteins GR.
Besides, his mass/energy formula is erroneous also.

NS

I agree there are a lot of holes in the current theory, that's one of the reasons I decided not to go too far into it, I expect it will all change or be tweaked again, as for creation vs BBT I wouldn't bet on it either way... :wink:

Originally Posted by Megabrain

I agree there are a lot of holes in the current theory, that's one of the reasons I decided not to go too far into it, I expect it will all change or be tweaked again, as for creation vs BBT I wouldn't bet on it either way... :wink:

I think stating that there are holes in String Theory could count as a classic case of meiosis

Originally Posted by river_rat

I think stating that there are holes in String Theory could count as a classic case of meiosis

Meiosis or myopia? (Not that I want to split hairs, or chromosomes.)

I think string theory gives a hint at what might be going on at the level where energy begins to take on the character of matter. The different vibrational frequencies determine the properties of the 'particles' at higher levels. It also helps to explain why gravity is such a weak force.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by river_rat

I think stating that there are holes in String Theory could count as a classic case of meiosis

Meiosis or myopia? (Not that I want to split hairs, or chromosomes.)

Was thinking of the literary meaning of the word, not the biology meaning.

Either way RR it was a good choice, just keep splitting the atom into smaller and smaller parts....

Originally Posted by DarcgreY

I think string theory gives a hint at what might be going on at the level where energy begins to take on the character of matter. The different vibrational frequencies determine the properties of the 'particles' at higher levels. It also helps to explain why gravity is such a weak force.

Do you think the ST creaters were musicions? At least it would seem that way.

Originally Posted by river_rat

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by river_rat

I think stating that there are holes in String Theory could count as a classic case of meiosis

Meiosis or myopia? (Not that I want to split hairs, or chromosomes.)

Was thinking of the literary meaning of the word, not the biology meaning.

A useful piece of trivia. I have never known it as that. I have previously called such usage litotes.