FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

String theory

   Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science
 


angel_of_death
hav you people heard of the string theory? do you kno wht it is abt? and how many of you actually agree tht the thoery is correct?

do u believe in open/closed strings??

c'mon guys. answer!
Bikerman
angel_of_death wrote:
hav you people heard of the string theory? do you kno wht it is abt? and how many of you actually agree tht the thoery is correct?

do u believe in open/closed strings??

c'mon guys. answer!

It is still currently in the 'hypothesis' stage - not yet firm theory.
Yes, I have heard of it but it is not something which can be discussed without math at a high level, since it is a multi-dimensional theory and has no sensible analogies in natural language. The only way to understand and talk sensible about the theory is to do it in math. That will get difficult and boring very quickly since the boards are not setup for math formulae (no symbols for the basics like calculus, sets etc.

The best I can do for you is give you some references to a couple of sites which you may find useful.

Here's a good text based site with the theory in as much depth as you can take.(at least as much as I can take at one go. http://superstringtheory.com/

Here's a site with about 4 hrs of video on the theory and it's background/development
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Regards
Chris
Assiez
Interestingly enough, I just wrote an essay about string theory for college apps.

And yeah, it isn't a firm theory yet, however the possibilities that it offers are amazing. If you're interested in string theory, I would also recommend learning about quantum mechanics. Crazy stuff.

The elegant universe is an amazing show, there's a link in the post above. I watched it in chemistry last year and it provided a stunning visual representation of a lot of abstract stuff. Definitely watch it if you have time.
ravenbsp
I agree, Brian Greene's book is an excellent resource. My biggest proble with the theory, is that there is no way to test it. Not even a conceivable way to test it.

Additionally, there are many different models of string theory. All of them are mathematically valid, which is not encouraging.

I do think that it is an elegant theory though...
newolder
ravenbsp wrote:
I agree, Brian Greene's book is an excellent resource. My biggest proble with the theory, is that there is no way to test it. Not even a conceivable way to test it.

Additionally, there are many different models of string theory. All of them are mathematically valid, which is not encouraging.

I do think that it is an elegant theory though...


http://www.physorg.com/news88786651.html

ed. Cool
Bikerman
newolder wrote:
ravenbsp wrote:
I agree, Brian Greene's book is an excellent resource. My biggest proble with the theory, is that there is no way to test it. Not even a conceivable way to test it.

Additionally, there are many different models of string theory. All of them are mathematically valid, which is not encouraging.

I do think that it is an elegant theory though...


http://www.physorg.com/news88786651.html

ed. Cool


Howdy matey...nice to see you here...and, as I would expect, straight in with the useful stuff Smile
newolder
Bikerman wrote:
newolder wrote:
ravenbsp wrote:
I agree, Brian Greene's book is an excellent resource. My biggest proble with the theory, is that there is no way to test it. Not even a conceivable way to test it.

Additionally, there are many different models of string theory. All of them are mathematically valid, which is not encouraging.

I do think that it is an elegant theory though...


http://www.physorg.com/news88786651.html

ed. Cool


Howdy matey...nice to see you here...and, as I would expect, straight in with the useful stuff Smile


http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1169759222/15

links to the middle of a similar stringy thread over at Sciencefile.org where poster Dr Dave S includes a link to the pdf behind the news report...

Interesting times. What's your bet on the Higgs boson mass, 100 >= m >= 200 GeV?

Given these limits (that are tightened daily, it seems), the Tevatron may well have already won the 'race to be first' - just have to wait for the image analysis to catch up...

Cheers Chris, ed. Very Happy
Bikerman
newolder wrote:

Interesting times. What's your bet on the Higgs boson mass, 100 >= m >= 200 GeV?

Given these limits (that are tightened daily, it seems), the Tevatron may well have already won the 'race to be first' - just have to wait for the image analysis to catch up...

Yep - they have it down to 100-114GeV by some theorists:


I'm betting it is light and I'll have a side bet on 112GeV
newolder
Bikerman wrote:
newolder wrote:

Interesting times. What's your bet on the Higgs boson mass, 100 >= m >= 200 GeV?

Given these limits (that are tightened daily, it seems), the Tevatron may well have already won the 'race to be first' - just have to wait for the image analysis to catch up...

Yep - they have it down to 100-114GeV by some theorists:

http://www.particlephysics.ac.uk/study/games-and-magazines/higgs-boson_collision.jpg

I'm betting it is light and I'll have a side bet on 112GeV


'Simulated Higgs collision' lots more @ http://images.google.com/images?q=higgs&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&sa=N&tab=ni



I'll have a pint o' Robinsons that it turns out to be heavier than 112 but picking a value, hmmm... I've done no sums on this so it's lottery time - 158.7 GeV, for me. Cheers! ed.
Bikerman
newolder wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
newolder wrote:

Interesting times. What's your bet on the Higgs boson mass, 100 >= m >= 200 GeV?

Given these limits (that are tightened daily, it seems), the Tevatron may well have already won the 'race to be first' - just have to wait for the image analysis to catch up...

Yep - they have it down to 100-114GeV by some theorists:

http://www.particlephysics.ac.uk/study/games-and-magazines/higgs-boson_collision.jpg

I'm betting it is light and I'll have a side bet on 112GeV


'Simulated Higgs collision' lots more @ http://images.google.com/images?q=higgs&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&sa=N&tab=ni



I'll have a pint o' Robinsons that it turns out to be heavier than 112 but picking a value, hmmm... I've done no sums on this so it's lottery time - 158.7 GeV, for me. Cheers! ed.


Done no sums? I hope you don't think my guess is based on sums..I can't even write the terms yet , never mind crunch the numbers Smile
Physicist
I am a fan of stringtheory. I only read the articles and books like-Elegent Universe by brian greene ,which r without mathematics.Bcoz i hav not reached on that level.My aim is to research on this.
String can be both open and closed looped.U will get this in article 'so what is string theory and then?'at
www.Superstringtheory.Com
U can read the book 'Cosmic Landscape' by Leonard Susskind.I hav not read yet.Its almost new than others.It should good.Bcoz the author is the father of String theory!
newolder
Physicist wrote:
...the book 'Cosmic Landscape' by Leonard Susskind...


Professors Susskind and Lee Smolin (Loop Quantum Gravity theorist) have argued extensively over theoretical limits, e.g. at http://edge.org

There is much fantasy in some of those thoughts.

The upcoming observations at Fermilab and CERN will direct future work along the correct road.

Prof. Penrose will talk at the Brookhaven National Labs on Long Island this coming week (Tuesday?). Can't wait to hear his next word&picture symphony. Cool

ed.
Bikerman
newolder wrote:


Prof. Penrose will talk at the Brookhaven National Labs on Long Island this coming week (Tuesday?). Can't wait to hear his next word&picture symphony. Cool

ed.


Me too....I have been an avid follower of his current 'world tour' Smile
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.