ok guys, I'm not sure if someone has read about this, but it is really interesting, not only because this could be one of the most important discoveries in this century , but because this will change a lot what we "think" of the Universe. Has anyone ready about this theory or the so called "M-theory"?, If there is someone who knows something about it, I would be glad and really happy to discuss this....
By the way go to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html, there is agreat online show of it, watch the 3-hours online program and you will be amazed with the 11 dimensions 
| Quote: |
| The page you requested is not available. If you typed the Web address yourself, make sure you typed it exactly right. If you got here by following a link on one of our pages, use the form below to let us know. |
Is that the one that combines them all?
uggh. string theory. it's interesting i guess, but not scientifically testable! does that even make it science at all?
The strings theory claims to unite Einstein’s relativity theory and the quantum mechanics. The unmatchable of those two proven theories has intrigued physicians ever since the quantum mechanics were developed. A possible solution is the strings theory, but it's an 'ad-hoc' solution: it is constructed as a sort of instrument to match them, not as an explanation for their being unmatchable. As said it cannot be proven or tested, neither can it be proven false; so the strings theory could be the right solution, but could just as well be wrong.
String theories were developed by several different groups. Eventually there were 5 different theories that each required 10 dimensions, but it was found that they had many features in common. By adding one more dimension, "M-Theory", it was found that the 5 theories can be considered different limiting cases of M-Theory.
There's a lot of consternation between people with different opinions about whether string theory is actually science or just a mathematical exercise. Just because the theory hasn't made any measurable predictions yet doesn't mean that it can't; however, it seems that much more progress has been made over the past few decades by moving to smaller dimensions (higher energies) step by step. The Standard Model of high-energy physics is a good description of most physics, but the few places where it doesn't quite work can be fixed up using Supersymmetric or other extensions. There is a lot of distance between the length scale where the Standard Model works and the length where string theory is supposed to work, so it is probably not possible to extrapolate.
Yeah I read very interesting book about string theory....Elegant Universe written by the Brian Green - the same guy you see in the BBC series. The book is much more detailed than the BBC series so try it. But if you really want to know something interesting about this theory just try to study physics. It's full of wonderfull surprizes and one day maybe you will be the one who take the science to next frontier.
| the1991 wrote: |
| uggh. string theory. it's interesting i guess, but not scientifically testable! does that even make it science at all? |
IMHO it's not a science. Just like (large scale) economics. If you can't test it it's not science.We can test certain aspects of it and soon we will be able to test more. It is most definitely a science.
I saw a lecture by Lisa Randall a while back. She has some resources on her site and has written a book.
http://physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/randall.html
It is all very interesting; you just have to remember not to try imagining the new dimensions. Ouch! though this could be one of the most important discoveries in this century , but if we look historically 'science' has put down several important theories which were found not compling with the laws of nature on testing.But the damn thing abt string theory is that it is too difficult to test.Now a largger science community has rejected the idea
I saw a movie on Nova about string theory, you should really check it out if you want to learn more about it.
I think it's going to be very hard to prove string theory since you can't use the particle accelators that we have currently to find what's required. The idea of there being 12 dimentions is very confusing to me and still can't imagine how they all exist.
| linexpert wrote: |
I saw a movie on Nova about string theory, you should really check it out if you want to learn more about it.
I think it's going to be very hard to prove string theory since you can't use the particle accelators that we have currently to find what's required. The idea of there being 12 dimentions is very confusing to me and still can't imagine how they all exist. |
Update to this posting :-
The video in question can be watched here :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Cheers
ChrisWell, I'm sorry to say that I don't know much about string theory. I did however watch most of that pbs show, that was a great show. For not knowing much about it when it started, I certainly felt like I could atleast explain what it was by the end. Keep putting up links guys, they are most certainly enjoyed from this reader, thanks.
I think that this is science. I think that some of the world's biggest theories at first were deemed to be "unprovable", but if there is a will there is a way. For example, for a long time there was no proof of a black hole, but the idea existed. The math worked out, everything worked out, but still no proof. Eventually proof was found.
| ClanDestine wrote: |
I think that this is science. I think that some of the world's biggest theories at first were deemed to be "unprovable", but if there is a will there is a way. For example, for a long time there was no proof of a black hole, but the idea existed. The math worked out, everything worked out, but still no proof. Eventually proof was found. |
At this point I'd probably side with the 'not science' side. That is not to decry or belittle it in any way, merely to stick to the 'gold standard' of science which is important in these times more than ever. Experimental or observational evidence is still unavailable. I regard Ed Witten as a hugely important scientist of our times and if anyone can make science out of this I think he is probably the one....time will tell.
One side issue that may be relevant. I recently read an extract on expansion and quantum scaling, the gist of it being that cosmological expansion might stretch the planck 'distance' to a level where it becomes possible to have a shufty........hmmmm
Christhe thing about string theory is that it seems to me too much just a worked-up theory to deal with inconsistencies or problems when moving between existing accepted theories. Rather than much calculation or evidence it seems sometimes too much a 'fix' for other problems
| sir.paul.chaplin wrote: |
| the thing about string theory is that it seems to me too much just a worked-up theory to deal with inconsistencies or problems when moving between existing accepted theories. Rather than much calculation or evidence it seems sometimes too much a 'fix' for other problems |
Possibly a fair point, but any new theory in deep physics is likely to be on these lines isn't it ? That, in a real sense, is how the subject progresses - by trying to reconcile inconsistencies in existing theory by formulating new and more inclusive/applicable theories with larger scope.Also regarding this string theory, I was wondering, in the movie it said that they were trying to prove this theory by smashing atoms, and if any mass particle has "vanished" It could mean that it went to another dimension.... However this mass particles "Gravitons", it is not a fact that they do exist....
| ClanDestine wrote: |
At this point I'd probably side with the 'not science' side. That is not to decry or belittle it in any way, merely to stick to the 'gold standard' of science which is important in these times more than ever. Experimental or observational evidence is still unavailable. |
A string theorist would reply that string theory is an experimentally valid theory, just like quantum mechanics or relativity, in that it correctly predicts all currently observable physical phenomena to which it applies. Therefore one can rightly claim that it is scientific. Of course, the problem is that a stronger type of evidence is required for new theories i.e. we ideally want them to also predict some hiterto unobserved phenomenon which is subsequently verified experimentally. Therein lies the current problem with it.
I side with the 'science side'.
Flynn | Flynn wrote: |
| ClanDestine wrote: |
At this point I'd probably side with the 'not science' side. That is not to decry or belittle it in any way, merely to stick to the 'gold standard' of science which is important in these times more than ever. Experimental or observational evidence is still unavailable. |
A string theorist would reply that string theory is an experimentally valid theory, just like quantum mechanics or relativity, in that it correctly predicts all currently observable physical phenomena to which it applies. Therefore one can rightly claim that it is scientific. Of course, the problem is that a stronger type of evidence is required for new theories i.e. we ideally want them to also predict some hiterto unobserved phenomenon which is subsequently verified experimentally. Therein lies the current problem with it.
I side with the 'science side'.
Flynn |
(dofs cap respectfully). Yep, true and valid. I'm sticking on the sceptic bench for the moment though I must say, though, my limited readings and viewings of Ed Witten have impressed me mightily. I think we have a genuine no-nonsense genius on our hands in Mr W.
ChrisYou guys might like to consider quantum loop gravity as well...
| nopaniers wrote: |
| You guys might like to consider quantum loop gravity as well... |
Funny you should say that...I have a friend from another forum who is feeding me info on that field. I'm just reading some interesting stuff in the field. I've had to spend the last few months getting my math up to understanding the concepts but I'm getting there slowly..
#Regards
Chris
