Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - the String Theory
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

the String Theory

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Poll Question: What do you think of the theory.
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
10 [66.67%]
1 [6.67%]
1 [6.67%]
1 [6.67%]
2 [13.33%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2013 at 09:40
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Just curious......has there been any actual testing of this theory on a practical level via colliders or the like that show there's any merit to the theory..?
 
 
No, this is one of the problems, string theory is not testable with our current technology, and not just by a small margin but by orders of magnitude. It is highly unlikely that we can ever achieve the energies required to probe strings processes. Scientists have been trying to find ways in which it could be possible to get some indirect testing of the theory at lower energies but so far have not found any viable experiment.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15423
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2013 at 11:50
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

My research is technically in string theory, so I guess I should say I find it interesting? I'm reluctant to say I do if we're considering it as a physical theory because I have low expectations that it will prove to be viable. 
That's interesting. I also think it more to be a mathematics theory than a physics one, but that's also fine, many interesting progresses have started by a theoretical mathematics discovery and only later found application in real fields of science.


Yes, of course. I doubt our prospects to test the hypothesis anytime in the near future though, and it makes me question that strategy to channel an overwhelming majority of funding into string theory at the loss of alternative unification theories when such an ability is lacking.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2013 at 13:00
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


Yes, of course. I doubt our prospects to test the hypothesis anytime in the near future though, and it makes me question that strategy to channel an overwhelming majority of funding into string theory at the loss of alternative unification theories when such an ability is lacking.
Fully agree, have you read the book by Peter Woit 'Not Even Wrong'? if you work in string theory I'd say it's a must read.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15423
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2013 at 14:06
I have not. I did read Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. Does it add anything to the argument made there?

It's a bit ingenuous to say I work in string theory. I'm a pure mathematician whose research happens to be related to string theory / high energy physics.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2013 at 14:48
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I have not. I did read Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. Does it add anything to the argument made there?

It's a bit ingenuous to say I work in string theory. I'm a pure mathematician whose research happens to be related to string theory / high energy physics.
I have read 'The Trouble With Physics' too, nice one, I like Lee Smolin, I just ordered his 'Time Reborn' and I look forward to reading it.
I really recommend you 'Not Even Wrong', it's a kind of reaction to the popular science books about string theory such as Brian Greene's 'The Fabric Of The Cosmos' and such. It's maybe a bit over to the opposite side (against string theory) but very worth the reading if you are smart enough to use the reading to form your own opinion. 
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15423
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2013 at 16:12
I'll add it to the inexhaustible To Read list. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 1285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HackettFan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 31 2013 at 00:01
I voted for 'yes, it's interesting', although no I don't really like it. There's been a long time tug of war between whether a unified field theory will look more like relativity or more like quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has been winning out more often than not, though it still fails to seal the deal. Personally I think particles are particles not strings. They exist in space that is curved and wavy. The particles take on properties of waves because they travel through wavy space. Finally, I expect that a unified field theory will be more like relativity than quantum mechanics in the end. I'm not a physicist.
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 31 2013 at 02:28
Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

I voted for 'yes, it's interesting', although no I don't really like it. There's been a long time tug of war between whether a unified field theory will look more like relativity or more like quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has been winning out more often than not, though it still fails to seal the deal. Personally I think particles are particles not strings. They exist in space that is curved and wavy. The particles take on properties of waves because they travel through wavy space. Finally, I expect that a unified field theory will be more like relativity than quantum mechanics in the end. I'm not a physicist.
Everything points the other way around though, most physicists believe that General Relativity needs to be quantized. GR does not only describe spacetime but also matter and the way both of them interact, in GR both spacetime and matter / energy are classical (continuous). It is known that matter / energy is quantized, so from this point of view GR is already incorrect. There are some approaches where quantized matter / energy interacts with continuous spacetime but they also present difficulties. Quantum field theory by itself is not devoid of problems either, it is based on a rigid background geometry (that of Special Relativity) when we know that the background geometry is not rigid.
So none of both look like real winners, the solution probably needs to be something else altogether.
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 1285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HackettFan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 31 2013 at 19:18
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

I voted for 'yes, it's interesting', although no I don't really like it. There's been a long time tug of war between whether a unified field theory will look more like relativity or more like quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has been winning out more often than not, though it still fails to seal the deal. Personally I think particles are particles not strings. They exist in space that is curved and wavy. The particles take on properties of waves because they travel through wavy space. Finally, I expect that a unified field theory will be more like relativity than quantum mechanics in the end. I'm not a physicist.

Everything points the other way around though, most physicists believe that General Relativity needs to be quantized. GR does not only describe spacetime but also matter and the way both of them interact, in GR both spacetime and matter / energy are classical (continuous). It is known that matter / energy is quantized, so from this point of view GR is already incorrect. There are some approaches where quantized matter / energy interacts with continuous spacetime but they also present difficulties. Quantum field theory by itself is not devoid of problems either, it is based on a rigid background geometry (that of Special Relativity) when we know that the background geometry is not rigid.
So none of both look like real winners, the solution probably needs to be something else altogether.

Yes, relativity needs to be quantized, but quantum mechanics needs to account for gravity. That's exactly the tug of war I was talking about. Physicist tend to learn fundamental things at high energy states, but disagreement occurs as to where high energy states are really found, when things are really large or when they are really small. Quantum mechanics doesn't handle gravity easily, but a lot of physicists are strangely untroubled by this, because they consider it a low energy state. You're probably right that a viable unified field theory will be different from both relativity and quantum mechanics. I, for one, question the the very premise of quantum mechanics though that particles are sometimes particles and sometimes waves (ironically Einstein's own major contribution to quantum mechanics). Particles sometimes have wavelike properties, not because they are waves or wavy strings or whatever, but because they flow through wavy space-time. It's like a ball floating on water. It's motion proceeds in a way that can be graphed or transposed into a wave but it's still a ball. The wave motion is a function of waves occurring in the water not an integral property of the ball. Again, I'm not a physicist, but this makes something rational out of a long standing paradox, which I find incredulous.

Edited by HackettFan - July 31 2013 at 19:20
Back to Top
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 23463
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Icarium Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 04:38
what about these issues

a) gravitons

b) 9 dimensions or 11

c) multiverse,

how can you test gravitation in a lab, 

I know that a punch (boxing punch) straight can mac be 150 to 400 kgs or more) a boxing punch down can be between 700 to 1200 kgs, because of the pull of gravity, its easier to hit hard with the help of gravitational pull then, punching straight out in the air with gravitation breaking you kinetic force 


Edited by aginor - August 01 2013 at 04:38
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 05:04
Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

what about these issues

a) gravitons
A prediction of sting theory and other attempts at TOE's (Theory Of Everything). Extremely difficult to detect experimentally due to their very weak interaction, but I guess that if the theory proved to be consistent and complete, most physicists would be happy to accept them even without direct experimental detection.
If all the other forces can be described as being mediated by force-carrier particles, it's very tempting to expect that gravity should as well have its force carrier particle.

Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

 
b) 9 dimensions or 11
The lastest versions of string theory (M-theory) have 11. 9 was the prediction of earlier versions of string theory.

Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

 
c) multiverse,
there are two different uses of this term. One is in the context of Many Worlds Interpretation (of quantum mechanics) which represent alternate universes, different versions of our universe in which events happen differently.
The other use is in the context of Eternal Inflation, which states that new universes are continuously born, different from each other, usually referred to as "bubble" universes or "child" universes.

Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

 
how can you test gravitation in a lab, 
What do you mean? gravitation is experimentally proven, in lab and out the lab. The Solar system is a big lab.

Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

 
I know that a punch (boxing punch) straight can mac be 150 to 400 kgs or more) a boxing punch down can be between 700 to 1200 kgs, because of the pull of gravity, its easier to hit hard with the help of gravitational pull then, punching straight out in the air with gravitation breaking you kinetic force 
Where did you read that? I believe that's a misunderstanding. The strength of your hit is the same, but of course the gravitational pull on the punching bag itself makes a difference, if you try to lift it up punching from below, it will be harder than if you try to push it down punching from above.
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 05:47
Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

I, for one, question the the very premise of quantum mechanics though that particles are sometimes particles and sometimes waves (ironically Einstein's own major contribution to quantum mechanics). Particles sometimes have wavelike properties, not because they are waves or wavy strings or whatever, but because they flow through wavy space-time. It's like a ball floating on water. It's motion proceeds in a way that can be graphed or transposed into a wave but it's still a ball. The wave motion is a function of waves occurring in the water not an integral property of the ball. Again, I'm not a physicist, but this makes something rational out of a long standing paradox, which I find incredulous.
Possibly the problem comes from trying to describe things in our human everyday language. "Particles" are neither particles nor waves, they are "whatever" and these "whatever" entities depending on the circumstances can display wave-like properties or particle-like properties. They are neither of both, wave or particle are just familiar terms which we can associate with the behaviour we observe from those entities.
Back to Top
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 23463
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Icarium Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 06:46
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

what about these issues

[QUOTE=aginor] 
I know that a punch (boxing punch) straight can mac be 150 to 400 kgs or more) a boxing punch down can be between 700 to 1200 kgs, because of the pull of gravity, its easier to hit hard with the help of gravitational pull then, punching straight out in the air with gravitation breaking you kinetic force 
Where did you read that? I believe that's a misunderstanding. The strength of your hit is the same, but of course the gravitational pull on the punching bag itself makes a difference, if you try to lift it up punching from below, it will be harder than if you try to push it down punching from above.
an episode of fight science about MMA, referring to the force of a punch straight forward and a punch that goes downwards, horizontal punch vs downward punch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMphoz0hNeE 
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 07:05
Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

what about these issues

[QUOTE=aginor] 
I know that a punch (boxing punch) straight can mac be 150 to 400 kgs or more) a boxing punch down can be between 700 to 1200 kgs, because of the pull of gravity, its easier to hit hard with the help of gravitational pull then, punching straight out in the air with gravitation breaking you kinetic force 
Where did you read that? I believe that's a misunderstanding. The strength of your hit is the same, but of course the gravitational pull on the punching bag itself makes a difference, if you try to lift it up punching from below, it will be harder than if you try to push it down punching from above.
an episode of fight science about MMA, referring to the force of a punch straight forward and a punch that goes downwards, horizontal punch vs downward punch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMphoz0hNeE 
Sorry but that doesn't interest me in the least and I'm not going to spend 45 min watching this. If you point me to some precise minute of the doc where they say that I may have a look at it.
Gravity is an extremely weak force and it works noticeably only because of its cummulative property. You routinely overcome the gravitational pull of the whole planet Earth every time you lift a coin from the floor. A simple fridge magnet overcomes easily the gravitational pull of the whole planet.
With objects smaller than a small planet or moon, gravity is rather negligible.
Back to Top
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 23463
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Icarium Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 07:53
I am a martial artist so i am very interested in all aspects of martial arts, and force behind what you do, sorry for not interest you with the science of martial arts which is a very precise yet, the results form measuring the science behind kicks and punches, is able to shock physicist who is measuring the scores, so much they have hard time believe what they are seeing on the data screen and monitors.

Kinetic energy is gravitational force, and it decides the power of the strikes, your base weight, your acceleration, your speed and strike force is all defined by the laws of gravity, etiolation of gravity. there is over 1000 tests and data and feats which confirms that,    
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 08:45
I honestly doubt that in normal conditions gravity has any influence on how hard can you hit something. But I admit I'm not a physicist.
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 1285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HackettFan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 20:45
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Gravity is an extremely weak force and it works noticeably only because of its cummulative property. You routinely overcome the gravitational pull of the whole planet Earth every time you lift a coin from the floor. A simple fridge magnet overcomes easily the gravitational pull of the whole planet.
With objects smaller than a small planet or moon, gravity is rather negligible.

No, gravity is an extremely strong force dispersed over great distance. It is weak up close but extends much further. If you drop a coin it falls back to the earth a distance so many orders of magnitude greater than what the strong and weak force have any influence over that scientific notation would be needed. If you pick it up you only separate it permanently from the earth only at a distance equal to your reach and by continuously holding it and being immortal like Atlas. And really the coin is still on the earth's surface because we basically still part and parcel of the earth's mass, so it hasn't really been separated from the earth. If you can routinely throw a coin into escape velocity from the surface of the earth that would be a better comparison. Of course, there's no one who can separate a coin from the earth in that more real sense. At large distances we see gravity acquitting itself quite against the strong force throughout the life of a star, and in fact causes the fusion chain reaction to occur in the first place. The idea that gravity is weak is simply a bias many physicist carry with them because they are pre-occupied by a perspective that focuses only on the quantum level as significant. Even if one can't separate themselves from this perspective, consider black holes. Black holes are so "impossibly" small as to have no size (they're a singularity), yet no force can even compete with gravity in that case all the way out to the event horizon.
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 04:05
Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Gravity is an extremely weak force and it works noticeably only because of its cummulative property. You routinely overcome the gravitational pull of the whole planet Earth every time you lift a coin from the floor. A simple fridge magnet overcomes easily the gravitational pull of the whole planet.
With objects smaller than a small planet or moon, gravity is rather negligible.
 
No, gravity is an extremely strong force dispersed over great distance. It is weak up close but extends much further. If you drop a coin it falls back to the earth a distance so many orders of magnitude greater than what the strong and weak force have any influence over that scientific notation would be needed. If you pick it up you only separate it permanently from the earth only at a distance equal to your reach and by continuously holding it and being immortal like Atlas. And really the coin is still on the earth's surface because we basically still part and parcel of the earth's mass, so it hasn't really been separated from the earth. If you can routinely throw a coin into escape velocity from the surface of the earth that would be a better comparison. Of course, there's no one who can separate a coin from the earth in that more real sense. At large distances we see gravity acquitting itself quite against the strong force throughout the life of a star, and in fact causes the fusion chain reaction to occur in the first place. The idea that gravity is weak is simply a bias many physicist carry with them because they are pre-occupied by a perspective that focuses only on the quantum level as significant. Even if one can't separate themselves from this perspective, consider black holes. Black holes are so "impossibly" small as to have no size (they're a singularity), yet no force can even compete with gravity in that case all the way out to the event horizon.
I won't argue about the strength of gravity, it is indeed a "different" sort of strength, weak in unit power but very long-range reaching and cummulative, so large amounts of mass can exert a very strong total force.
Black holes do have size, that determined by the event horizon. We are not sure what goes on inside the event horizon and we are not sure at all if there is a singularity at the center, GR says that there should be one but this is precisely why most physicists believe that GR is wrong, because they assume that singularities are not physical.
The matter which has fallen into a black hole is definitely still in our universe, we know because we still feel its gravity.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15423
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 10:03
Gravity is by far the weakest force. It's ability to span distance has nothing to do with its inherent strength. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 1285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HackettFan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 19:52
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Gravity is by far the weakest force. It's ability to span distance has nothing to do with its inherent strength.á


What is your definition of inherent strength? The nuclear strong and weak forces have no effect whatsoever between planetary bodies. That is very weak. At quantum sizes/distances gravity is very weak. Again, the standard the forces are measured against have not been independent of physicists' more favored paradigm. This tends to be dominated quantum mechanics for many if not most modern physicists.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.105 seconds.