Thread: Strings

I alway ask this as my first question at new forums; "What are your thoughts on String Theory?".

Mainly because in Physics I think that is our way ahead towards the Grand Unification Theory, also while we're on the topic what are your thoughts on the Ekpyrotic Model?

Great, now your going to force me to become more knowledgeable on this theory That's kind of what I like about the forum. It makes one investigate things they would not normally have done.

Well there's alot to learn but I think that's it's the best prt to learn about in the context of science, it is so abstract and that's what I like about physics. So what do you want to know? There's probally more people around here with a broader knowledge that can answer your question better than me .

For a start maybe you could have a read on wikipedia:

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

Have a nice read.

I hope I am not insulting your intelligance I don't know how much you know

Your Thoughts?

Quantum

I find string theory quite fascinating. It really puts a new spin on the way our entire universe behaves and makes you look at it in a new light. I am very interested in gravity and string theory is providing the most insight (whether it proves to be true or not) into the way gravity behaves in our universe and its effects on distorting space-time. String theory is still in its infant stages and I'm sure it will take much more time until we have even a decent understanding of what truly goes on in this universe.

I am not that familiar with the ekpyrotic model, however I do know the basics of it. What I like most about it is that there is not an instant of creation, as in the big bang, but rather the universe is created from the collision of two universe's, much like new galaxies forming from colllisions. This also gives more strenght to cyclic theories, which I am a big fan of.

Sorry to butt in, i'm just a layman at science, and have a different perspective regarding String Theory.
Im not being a know-it-all or anything, but science seem's to miss out vital information of 'How' Einstien came about String Theory, and maybe this is why it's still a theory!
Einstein did the same as practically every inquisitive child does in the world today, play with the muscle's of the eye's to capture the rainbow of perspective, and i bet some of you can remember as a child sitting in the sun, or board stiff in the classroom, pocking or stretching the 6 muscle's of each eye, maybe even with the end of a pencil to achieve the same rainbow effect in the visual field, and this is only possible from about 3-12 year's of age, simply because both hemisphere's of the brain are duel polarity active from the birth-spin pineal ignition, or the crowning magnetic polarity effect during child birth. As we get older, we tend to lose the right hemisphere polarity, and become left hemisphere dominant, but some female's retain this polarity ability throughout their live's, and is increasingly known scientifically as Syneasthesia, and exceptionally rare for a male, but re-named Sacred geomety, although the same thing, originally, the birth-spin!

If you look at Einstein's childhood habit's, then you might see from his perspective. it's the same principle for Da Vinci and his perspective in The Last Supper, each person on both side's of the table represent's each muscle of each eye, 6 either side, and Debire "between the eye's of the Lord", now you can see the Inn, as in, in ourselve's!

RD,

Im not being a know-it-all or anything, but science seem's to miss out vital information of 'How' Einstien came about String Theory, and maybe this is why it's still a theory!

I am a know-it-all and have no doubt that string theory was not proposed by the late Albert. He was seeking a GUF of everything, died thinking that Quantum Physics with its wave/particle has been stymied by a challenge put forward to Nils Bohr, and although he was dissatisfied with the GT of Relativity, this was last accepted concept of this scale that he proposed. Strings were built upon the GTof R, but not by Einstein.

That maybe so, but Einstein's string theory began the debate of the Neutrino, unless comprehensive education in the UK has been using reverse psychology on the lower classes for the past 50 odd year's?

Anyway, like i said, i'm no scientist, my real interest is the link's between mythology, paranormal experience, and the age of scientific language. For instance, what the ancient Egyptian's called the Aten, in scientific term's today would be the brain stem, and Alchemical projection is related to the process of remote viewing, or out of body experience, and the Dwat is related to a neutrino, and the colour and tone of the string within it, or what the Ancient Egyptian's knew as the serpent of their own life force in an egg naked to the human eye. It's these type's of link's that i'm looking for, and your the expert's with the scientific language to help me to connect those link's. The science we know today has alway's been here from the beginning of time, it's just the language's of quantum physic's that's lost the link's over that vast space of thousand's of year's.
So now you know the angle of where i'm coming from, would you be able to use your expert knowledge in relation to ancient knowledge if you can find the link's, especially if you to know that the process'es that the ancient's used were the same as the quantum physic's that we use today but just a different language, and creating a Dwat has the same eliment's as a neutrino, with the same active's in magnetic field's surrounding the earth today, then you can see why the ancient's believed the Dwat was an eternal life force containing a conscious aspect of the self and time, and what we know today about the indistructable neutrino, and the string tone, or time tone it contain's.
So how did the ancient's see neutrino's containing string's without today's scientific equipment, and how did they find the key's to access the magnetic spectrum?
As you know, the ancient's were far advanced in astrology and the process of alchemy, that even today, the Cosmos and the process of alchemy isn't realy fully understood in the search for the elixer of eternal life, so really it's just our scientific language today that is detatched to it's ancient origin's of physic's. So you can go on about who did what, who or discovered such n' such for centuries, it's not this type of thing i want to debate about, it's linking the ancient physic's with our physic's today. So if Einstein's theory of GUF had a common link in everything, then how come the ancient's saw the same thing?

I thought m-brane theory was the current avenue of choice.

Except string theory can't derive the basic physical constants. Pretty lame.

If it can't even derive the speed of light ...

I think that String Theory is a fascinating issue, but, I'm sorry to say, the jury is still out on it. I've read a lot of bokks, articles etc. on string theory, and the one major thing I've realized is that it is still just a theory.

It's threatening to pull out of the almost-science category and into main-stream science, but there is no evidence that little tiny vibrating strings are the most basic building blocks of matter/energy. It's a really good guess, and it would answer a lot of questions if it does, in fact, turn out to be the true, but, fact of the matter is, we are nowhere NEAR being able to produce the amount of energy it would take to be able to detect strings. (We're talking about something that, if they do exist, are on a scale that makes the planck level look gargantuan in comparison.

We can't even at this point actually SEE atoms, we can only infer their presence by crashing them into things at enormous speeds and measuring the stuff that flies out of the collision. And atoms are HUGE compared to planck-sized matter. And strings would be incredibly small compared to THEM.

By all means, let's debate string theory. I would love to hear what you folks think. But as I said, there is no evidence (yet) that tiny vibrating strings is what things are made of.

It is interesting... in an open minded sense, the major issue for me is why strings? or even membranes? because you can apply mathmatical equations to them? because thats what it seems like.. when people talk about trying to understand more fundemental aspects of reality they often think of vibration i guess, like a musical note.. like a 'string' on an instrument?

The problem is obvious their applying mathmatic's to imaginary models that have no real grounding outside of assumption, surely its great fun , but is it accurate? I wouldnt think so, it seems like an impatient grasp at a unified theory without the validation of practical evidence.

Originally Posted by Clarky

The problem is obvious their applying mathmatic's to imaginary models that have no real grounding outside of assumption, surely its great fun , but is it accurate? I wouldnt think so, it seems like an impatient grasp at a unified theory without the validation of practical evidence.

assumptions <-> postulates. What do you think all physics theories are based on? Experimental evidence is used to support or refute a theory - but the development of theory, new or old, is based on postulates.

Just pointing out the obvious. Im just saying without backing it up with something proveable, they can calculate new dimensions till their fingers fall off to try and explain the theory, but applying physical attributes to a realm that is holistic and doesnt really consist of any physically observable attributes atall essentially seems a bit off when mainstream science is still essentially at a loss for explaining gravity and a whole heap of other inbetween stuff thats needed to create a better picture.

Originally Posted by Clarky

Just pointing out the obvious. Im just saying without backing it up with something proveable, they can calculate new dimensions till their fingers fall off to try and explain the theory,

I agree - string theorists really are in a world all their own.

Clarky: Theorists come up with the theories. Experimentalists do experiments in the attempt to prove or disprove the theories. A theoretical scientist examines possiblities - attempts to determine, according to the known laws of physics, what is improbable and what is more probable. No scientist states that theory is fact. By definition, it's still a 'maybe". When Professors Hoyle, Bondi and Gold formulated their Steady State Theory, that's exactly what it was intended to be - a theory. It's now been superceded by the much more probable Big Bang Theory. Although even that's being modified as the years pass. What we're blessed with in this modern world, though, is scientists who are not constrained by conventional thinking, or fear of being burned at the stake.