Slashdot Mirror
String Theory in Two Minutes
An anonymous reader writes "Most of us have heard of string theory, many of us know what it is and some of us may even be experts in the field. But could you explain it in two minutes? Discover Magazine recently had a contest to do precisely that: create a two minute or less video of everything you need to know about string theory. You can view some of the best entries (video) as well as the winning video: String Ducky!"
The winning video is "The Problem with Math.", according to the site. "Ducky" placed fourth.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Most of us have heard of string theory, many of us know what it is and some of us may even be experts in the field. But could you explain it in two minutes?
I can't, but MC Hawking can. And he can get the bitches at the same time.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Stretched analogy
of beauteous harmony,
thou art String Theory.
http://xkcd.com/171/ So true!
I could explain it in two minutes, but I would need A LOT of silly string...
Something that should belong in Philosophy or Religion but is in Science as that's where all the grant money is.
I hope they going into such topics as Cup & Saucer, Eiffel Tower, and Jacobs Ladder. I could never figure out that darned ladder!
string theory in less than a paragraph. strings "vibrate" in higher dimensional space. [specifically M-theory suggests 11 dimensions] energy states are quantised, including mass at some level. String theory's ultimate goal is to eliminate infinities and non-sensical probabilities that result from the current standard model. Also, at some level the forces merge into a single force, this force splits at lower energies which may cause some very interesting phenomenae [spatial expansion for one] one of the major hurdles to string theory is gravity. why is it as weak as it is? what are the consequences of higher dimensions to its relative strength etc. [even some theoretical work suggests gravitons leak between dimensions] very little of it is testable at the moment, one major prediction that could in principle be tested is that of varying velocities of photons according to energy/wavelength. the models suggest that a lag of around a minute or less over a distance of several billion light years while this isn't unique to string theory.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I'm a string theory expert now. not really, but I found the video informative.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
...we need someone to explain string theory in TFS. Or, better yet, in the title.
I dont get it! What the hell has this got to do with porn?
That, that really grinds my gears!
that couldn't get position in the mathematics department. Alternatively: masturbation for physicists that couldn't get funding for experiments. Finally: The funniest mistakes of the 20th century for Harvard and Columbia. "They spent two decades on what?" -Future students.
I can easily explain string theory in less than two minutes, but the explanation can only be heard in 6 tiny dimensions that nothing larger than a small flea can fit into. And the fleas didn't seem all that interested.
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
...I'm a physicist and frankly I don't see the reason why should somebody waste time explaining a theory to the vast public that hasn't been proved right for over than 30 years now. It's quite beautiful (from the seminars I have attended) but... not verified by experiement...so... let's create some hype for the masses to consume and maybe publish a book or two and some opeds with the NYT!
Scientific value vs. politics = 0 - 1 this morning...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
Columbia University physicist Brian Greene recently chose the winner of the String Theory in Two Minutes of Less user-generated video contest Two minutes of less? Have dumbass blogging typos become suddenly acceptable on mainstream intertubes websites?
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
String "theory" is not a theory at all, it is merely a hypothesis. It will not become a "theory" unless and until it can be tested by experiment! Come on, people! I am not nitpicking: the scientific among you know the difference. Do not accept the name "string theory" at face value. That is just String Propaganda.
And if that were not bad enough, there are other hypotheses, such as MoND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) that explains most if not all what is explained by the string hypothesis, without having to imagine all those other dimensions. In fact, it is so much simpler than the string hypothesis that Occam's Razor is practically screaming, "No! Over here, you idiots!"
Yes, there are problems with MoND, but there are very big problems with strings as well. The fact that an idea is popular in the media or has been around longer is not evidence that it is true, any more than the others.
Anything that can be learnt in less than two minutes isn't worth knowing.
The 3 hours video of The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene also explains String Theory pretty well. Although the video is quite old, it was the first video that made me feel so interested and excited about String Theory.
I've never been able to see any of videos posted using the shitty brightcove player. (Using Fedora Core 6 with Firefox 2.0.0.5 and Flash 9)
Am I the only one?
Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
Cosmological theories are currently not much better than intelligent design - you just have to take them on faith. Different versions of the string theory can not even agree on the number of physical dimensions that exists. They are basically just playing with numbers to try to match the observed strength of gravity. This seems like a pretty callous thing to do when there is no experimental evidence for even one extra dimension. Not to mention that our existing physics only explains 10% of gravity in the universe. Talk all you want about dark matter, but this leaves the possibility of pretty dramatic flaws in our current theories.
The biggest flaw in current cosmology is why we are not trapped in a singularity of a universe-mass black hole. Certainly for long time after big bang the universe was inside its own Schwarzschild Radius. Why didn't it just collapse right back after the big bang? After all, it would take an infinite force to escape the event horizon. Oh right, something caused "space" to mysteriously expand, just like now some unspecified dark matter keeps stuff from expanding. It sounds like we need more work to get to the standard of scientific theories.
You're the one!
You make Math-time,
Oh, so fun!
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
In addition to quirky physics videos (seventh one down on the list) we do thrown and pirate flag relocation, have the blow shit up, cheapest tuition / worst food, and wicked rock climbing routes.
We also have girls^H^H^H^H^H a girl.
(PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE come to our school if you are a girl. Naked Sam (per video) is usually kept indoors.)
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
In my experience, a major obstacle to a proper "relationship" to fundamental physics is the idea that somehow it can be understood in a visual or sensory way. Mathematics can model things that just don't make any sense. Our sensory organs are not equipped to experience fundamental reality. Possibly after studying mathematics long enough, the brain grows a sensitivity to the math. But trying to visualize this stuff is ultimately an exercise in frustration. What happens is that you risk taking that flawed visual model seriously, and trying to extrapolate. Which gets in the way of learning the math necessary to solve the problems.
Be heard || Be herd
Bullshit.
Or I could do it in three words: Religion for Physicists.
But if they really want a little more, I guess I could say the following:
A idea which cannot be tested in any known scientific manner at the moment and has yet to demonstrate anything new and relevant. It is an interpolation of existing data into an exceedingly and overly complicated mess of mathematics. The only good that has come out of string theory thus far is that it has generated some interesting maths. Peter Woit's description (quoting Wolfgang Pauli) is perhaps the most apt: not even wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
Have a nice day.
One thing that is a huge theme throughout the Bible is the worship of God through music. God created music. He likes it. He thinks it's beautiful. Like God (since we're made in His image) we like music too. Yet from a materialist perspective, I can find biological reasons for many senses we have. Women look good because of an innate imperative to procreate. Food tastes good because we need it to build our bodies and for energy. Smell's attraction can be good to motivate us toward mates and food. The sense of touch can be exhilarating for many obvious biological reasons too. But sound is unusual in the context of music. Why do rhythmically and harmonically organized vibrations of air sound good? What biological imperative is fulfilled by music? Then I got to thinking about this. String theory. The entire existence of everything in the universe is explained the best (so far) by a scientific theory known as string theory. Is music the hint that God gave us to how He did it all? Consider, only string theory so far can explain the 4 dimensions we can conceive (length, width, height and time) but also the electromagnetic force, gravity, the weak sub atomic force, the strong sub atomic force in addition to the 4 dimensions. It postulates that the difference in protons, neutrons, electrons and all other sub-atomic particles can be explained as being different vibrating little strings. This theory can explain other things like dimensions beyond our 4. It postulates other dimensions as many as 6 though 26! It can explain things like black holes, wormholes, parallel universes and other cosmic anomalies. In other words, everything can be explained by the way little strings vibrate. Is it a Grand Unifying Theory (in physics known as a GUT) of everything? You can break a longer string that is a neutron down to a shorter strings that are combinations of quarks. Quarks are particles even smaller than our basic hadrons (neutrons, protons and electrons). They're explained as the constituents of these larger particles. They're tinier strings in theory. The very fabric of the universe can be explained as an analogy of music? Is it all organized vibrations in harmonies and rhythms? Maybe. Worship music certainly must transcend the vibrations of air molecules in heaven. Sound here is limited to a wave propagating through air at 769 mph at sea level atmospheric pressure and at an ambient temperature of 70 degrees F. It has to be beyond that in eternity. That's a crude physical limitation. Then does music point to its originator? Is this the hint He gives us on how it's all held together? Is it the key that points to the beauty of God Himself? Is it that simple? I think so and it maybe. I see a pattern emerging. This is just one little gray wet bag of warm protoplasm trying to makes sense of it all. Now, how 'bout them Dodgers? http://discovermagazine.com/twominutesorless?bcpid=716091875&bclid=686943766&bctid=687029421 Rudeman
Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
Click here or here.
Until now hearing "string theory" made me think of infinitely long, parallel strings that run through the entire cosmos. Then, since that seemed to reduce our 3 dimensions to 2, I thought every string had an infinite "resolution" as well, holding different particles/energies at different parts of it. I *think* A Brief History of Time used a similar explanation, but more probably I'm remembering it wrong. :)
What the videos told me:
"Protons are made up of something smaller, which doesn't look like a ball, but like a vibrating loop of string. This may mean the world is 11-dimensional."
I was quite off the beat, then
Click here or here.
This is the kind of thing which makes the audience of talk shows think their psychic knows more about physics than physicists. It's a dumbed down abstraction, nothing more, nothing less. It's cool on that level, but saying that one understand string theory after watching it is like a kid thinking they understand gravity because they saw something fall to the ground.
Everything will be taken away from you.
I can understand string theory but what I don't understand is why we need string theory and what it actually tells us about the universe. Vibrating "strings"... please. I think a lot of people have either smoked way too much weed and think this is actually plausible or they have over active minds from not watching enough TV.
- EHT (Extended Heim Theory) allows to easily calculate particle masses using only some physical constants. You can check this Heim Mass Calculator: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/HeimCalculator
- Succesful prediction of masses of neutrinos.
- Prediction of Heim-Lorentz force which most likely is being observed in ESA experiments performed by Dr. Martin Tajmar.
During these experiments artificial gravity is being created.
- ESA news about Tajmar experiments http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html and some other news.
- M.Tajmar recent papper which references EHT (Droscher&Hausner): http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806
- Theoretical explanation of Tajmar Gravito-Magnetic experiments by Droscher&Hausner: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/LauncherSymPaper2007-0-42JHCorrected22April.pdf
- Reasonable explanation why CMB Cold Spot appears to be cold without mumbling about Dark Matter/Dark Energy, thanks to Heim's corrected gravitional law.
- EHT explains why it appears that there is not enough mass observable in the Universe without using Dark Matter concept.
- EHT most likely explains weird effects measured during Gravity Probe B experiment, see: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/FieldPropulsion.pdf.
- Droscher&Hausner paper about space propulsion based on Heim theory http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf was awarded by AIAA in 2004.
Now, I would like to ask a question.This paper also contains proposal of modified experiment which will allow to verify if EHT is true and also allow to build very effective propulsion engine for spaceships. See this article: http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200
These effects are in agreement with Martin Tajmar findings, see: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806
Are there any similar achievemets of Strings Theory?
If you want to know more about EHT please refer to wiki page and this huge discussion thread.
/Z
In science a theory is a falsifiable claim. Hawking put it pretty well in that a theory "must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." So until the string concept can make testable statements, or future predictions, or however you want to talk about it, it's not a theory.
Don't confuse math with science. They are related, but not the same. Math is, as it has been said "rules without a game." It is simply discovering relationships in numbers. That's great, and it is a wonderful pursuit since you can prove things deductively, and since it turns out that often the relationships have real world applications. However just because you find a mathematical relationship, doesn't mean it applies to the real world. That's a separate question.
For example all the rules relating to triangles are true, independent of the existence of real triangles. Even if there were no triangles in the actual world, the rules for how they work in math are true. Ok, fine. Now then we believe we see objects in the real world that are triangles. So we theorize that these are in fact triangles and that the mathematical rules apply to them. Testing shows that is the case. We have inductively proven, or more accurately repeatedly failed to falsify, the theory that the triangles we see in the world follow the same rules as mathematical triangles.
But that doesn't mean that any field of math has application in the real world. Take for example Mersenne primes. Those are prime numbers in the form of 2^P-1. They are interesting, and there's a program to search for them (that also happens to be good at stressing FPUs, hence why I'm aware of this). However there's no real world application, at this point. That these numbers exist and that we know what they are isn't useful in the real world. It doesn't predict anything, model anything, show anything. It's just number games at this point.
String "theory" seems similar and you'll find some heavy hitters in the scientific community (like Neil Tyson) who aren't so happy with all the pushing of it for this reason. It's a wonderful little mathematical model that's internally consistent. Great, but that doesn't mean it has shit to do with reality. That doesn't make it worthless, but really there shouldn't be any pushing of it especially to non-scientists until it can at least start to make some testable predictions.
This is one of the kind of things that helps ID idiots jump on evolution as "just a theory". Theory, in a scientific context, does not mean "shit we though up but haven't tested." However that's basically how it's used for string theory. They came up with a neat idea that they have no idea what the implications are.
Again must have flash... they could fail over to the use of the html tag to stream the .flv movie through the browser video plugin. So the webmaster is crap or is a as*ho** since he would use flash as a DRM system.
The best way to popularize string, apart from having a theory about it, is to have a slogan.. like this selection by the Goodies:
Or of course, the song:
String, string, string, stringEverybody loves string!
String, string, string, string
Everybody needs string!
Pull on your pants
Slip on your vest
Everyone agrees
String is best!
String, string, string, string
Everybody loves string!
The Goodies were ahead of their time... if there is such a thing as time.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
string theory, [...] could you explain it in two minutes?
No.
sudo ergo sum
....What was the bit about the string? :/
God Be Gone
In November 1986, a young 9th grade Junior High student read Discover Magazine's cover article about String Theory, in the school library, and his horizons were expanded by the possibilities and such an impression was made on him that he never forgot it and has since been curious about science. But he did not understand it.
Twenty years later, remembering String Theory from his youth, he read Brian Greene's book on String Theory, thinking that now, after having been college educated and taking science classes and learning a little bit about math, he might understand it. But he did not understand it.
So he went from Brian Greene to David Grene ...
No video has been filmed. The library isn't there anymore, because the school has been reconfigured, so we'd have to build a set based on the student's shaky memories, and there's no budget for that.
Never let physics get in the way of a good story.
(Imagine this as heavy metal that doesn't sound at all like tmbg)
I don't need no
Ten dimensions
Ain't afraid of
Quantum jitter
Cut the strings
'Cause I ain't no puppet
And I'm not gonna dance
To your tune
General relativity
Quantum theory
They've been put to the test
And Isaac Newton has been laid to rest
But you're still not satisfied
'Cause when the two theories collide
All hell breaks loose and you fashion the noose
To tie it all together with string- NO!
Cut the strings
I won't jump through your hoops
I don't believe in your loops
Of string
Cut the strings
Physics doesn't demand
any vibrating band
Of string.
I watched the videos. NONE of them "explain string theory in two minutes". In fact, most of them barely get around to trying to define what string theory even IS let alone why it might be important. Lame.
Perhaps explaining String Theory (or Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or QCD, or etc..) in any amount of time is pointless. It takes longer to explain relativity and quantum mechanics; so explaining any of the theories which try to tie them together will be out of context and not many people learn things when out of context, even if they understand.
:)
My approach would be to explain (as Brian Greene does in T.E.U.) what the fundamental problems are with current theories: primarily is the glaring difference between gravity and the 'other' fundamental force -- the strong/weak-nuclear-electromagnetic force; however you want to call it, electroweak etc... but the other fundamental forces have been united and this leaves gravity by its lonesome. (Inject public interest with the mention that Einstein was trying to do unite gravity and electromagnetism before he died, if you so wish.)
That covers motivation uno and I think most of the public would be able to understand what gravity and EM are; you may be able to get away with saying the strong nuclear force is 'what holds atoms together', but I don't think you would have any way of explaining the weak nuclear force as it isn't relevant to Joe Public's day-to-day activities.
Then you would need to teach them the teeniest bit of science: namely, the point-particle approach. If you could get them to understand this then you may be able to impart that as you get smaller and smaller, the point particle is still infinitely small, and that there is a very clear problem with anything being infinitely small when you get to as small as you can get. String theory thus, instead of treating everything as infinitely minute 'points' _with no dimensions_ (a previously pointed out LIMIT - not flaw - to current models/approximations), takes the next obvious step and says okay, so instead of no dimensions we will have one dimension: a 'string'. Then you can cut to the XKCD comic, which someone linked to above
This is of course a heuristic explanation for the general public and in no way to be used as actual science, which most will not be able to understand due to missing four + years of solidly studying physics. It would be seemingly too hard to explain the Gamma function, super-symmetry, and crazy amounts of dimensions, all of which are academic. Note, I didn't need to explain quantum mechanics or relativity in the two minutes.
I don't want to start any flame wars; my belief is that there are _too many_ fundamental gaps in knowledge required to understand string theory, even on a qualitative level, for an average person. I argue that to teach one of these gaps would take more than the two minutes allowed.
MOND predicts Galactic Rotation curves very well. That is all there is to it. It is a law not unlike Kepler's laws and must be explained by any gravitational theory, just like Newtonian theory did for Kepler's Laws. It doesn't work very well on larger than galactic scales and the real underlying theory may behave differently at larger scales. There are known problems at Cluster scales.
String theory on the other hand is just a mathematical framework which tries to build reality from a single basic structure 'string'. The Mathematics requires many dimensions (or variables) to become consistent. The real problem with the theory is that there have been no significant successes in relating its results to reality. Some of its predictions like Super Symmetry which looked very appealing have been proved to be false. Recently it has been determined that there are infinite number of string theories, some of which can be used to model bits of reality, but never all by the same theory. This is a big problem. Now String Theorists say that all string theories are part of a superset which they call M-Theory. The real funny thing about M-theory is that nobody knows what it is. And even more interesting is that nobody is working on it. It is expected to reveal itself at some time in the future when the time is right. So String theory is now in a state of working on other problems while waiting for the revelation.
On a positive side String Theory has given some very powerful mathematical tools to physicists for probing the Unified Gravity problem. LQG has benefited a lot from these tools. I wish that String Theory was termed as a mathematical theory instead of a physical one.
We're having enough trouble convincing the public that when we say "evolution is a theory," we really mean "evolution is a set of statements that have each been experimentally verified multiple times." Let's not make it easier for ID nuts to confuse the public about what scientific theories are. A theory must be something that has overwhelming empirical support. Under this definition, string "theory" isn't a theory--it's a set of hypotheses.
Sounds like a job for Yahtzee (see Zero Punctuation reviews on The Escapist
What a the strings made of? What causes the strings to vibrate? What determines the frequency at which they vibrate? Given notions like that of entropy and chaos theory, what accounts for the order? (ie. the strings ultimately seem to work in harmony, typically creating stable atoms. what causes this harmony?)
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
go there? You can't just throw out arcane terminology and move on. Duh.. He was trying to explain it in a paragraph..
Anyway, The way I see it is you cannot technically be in *any* dimension higher than our current 3 (or lower for that matter). Imagine a ruler moving along the surface piece of paper. Its stuck to the 2d nature of the paper, but if the paper curls in 3d space do we say the ruler is moving in three dimensions? No, The ruler's world view is constant in 2 dimensions
You can define what a higher dimension is (and people have, with the hypercube and so on) but its difficult for average people to imagine them, let alone scientists. E.g. If you have equations designed for 3 dimensions and you define the 4th one sufficiently enough its easy to derive formulae that work with the 4th dimension.(some equations have easy rules to move into the next higher dimension: e.g. Distance formula in 2D = sqrt( (x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2 ) for a higher dimension just add the extra Z co-ordinate)
So does that mean that higher dimensions do not exist because you cannot see/feel/imagine them?
Not really explaining anything, just a mini-rant !
For the record, this contest was done by Discover Magazine, which is NOT the same thing as Discovery Channel. One additional note on the DiscoverMagazine.com website that could be of interest to Slashdot readers is that it was built on an open source content management system - Plone.
Anyone got a picture of the narrator of this winning video? Is she a hottie?
Can she read me the box score of the Red Sox game last night?
The precocious kids claim String is only a theory until it is proven. It can't BE a theory until it is proven. Let's not fall into the trap set by the anti-science arch-conservative politicos slandering the term "theory" as anything less than a provable, repeatable, tested, vetted, and accepted model. String is a theory BECAUSE it was proven with math. That we have not developed the technology to test the equations in the natural space does not devalue what the math says.
One string to rule them all, One string to find them, One string to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
If you like mixing your music and science, check out The Guild of Scientific Troubadours: music where science is the muse.
I come here for the love
In science a theory is a falsifiable claim. Hawking put it pretty well in that a theory "must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." So until the string concept can make testable statements, or future predictions, or however you want to talk about it, it's not a theory.
By that argument, wouldn't Evolution disqualify as a scientific theory ? After all there is nothing that the theory of Evolution can predict vis-a-vis biology nor even the future of a species. Not that I disagree with Hawkings statement, but it would seem that predictability is not always the heart of a scientific theory - scientific usually refers to the method of predicting, not the result predicted.
String theory could thus be 'scientific theory' that explains (through scientific methods) a certain observable order - it's lack of predicting something doesn't necessarily imply that it is unscientific. Especially since we treat the theory of Evolution as scientific when it also has failed to produce anything resembling a prediction of observable phenomena.
Though one could argue that Evolution is not a scientific theory on the basis that it is also a non falsifiable claim as it is non-predictive, more of a set of constructs and fundamental ideas (axioms) like string theory rather than a descriptive representation of reality.
i can do it in two minutes ... but we're going to need a really fast spaceship. and maybe a wormhole.
Lots of scientists have been working on the theory for 30 years, as you say. It might be useful to explain to the scientifically inclined nonexperts just what all those eggheads are doing. The duck video gives a clear and intriguing introduction to the theory. It might be the trigger to get some young student to realize how much there is still to be discovered about physics, and maybe encourage him/her to become a scientist.
Visualizing All 10 Dimensions
And yes, you will have to click through my personal blog to get to it. Nyah nyah. But it's also quite worth it, and is by far the biggest outgoing link from my blog, with 10,000+ people viewing the site simply because *I* talked about it.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
These videos don't really help me much. They say that different particles are defined by their strings (or the frequency of said strings, or something like that), then go on to mention some interesting implications like extra dimensions. The thing I'm interested in in the first place is WHY the strings define the particles and WHY it implies extra dimensions. Granted, that's way too much, I'm sure, to answer in a two-minute video, but that WAS the goal of the contest. In other words, I think everyone lost.
Property is theft.
But why don't use use larger dimensions so you'd only need 10?
Ours goes up to 11 !
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Honestly, its reads better than anything I've seen Michio Kaku write about string theory.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHI-foSNccA
These are the same people that cannot understand why Bush won over Gore, even though more people voted for Gore. The popular vote is not the same of the officiated vote.
Click here or here.
http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash.php
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
YOU are annoying and bland, karma-whore (I'm a link-whore, not a karma-whore). :)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
"A idea which cannot be tested in any known scientific manner at the moment "
Einsteins theories couldn't be tested 'at the moment' either.
That fact in no was discredits the theory.
In fact a predictions from string theory has come true. Yes it's only 1 data point.
Test for string theory have be proposed, but those kinds of tests take a lot of time to set up. Many years.
As for Peter Woit:
"First, string theory predicts that the world has 10 space-time dimensions, in serious disagreement with all the evidence of one's senses. "
Seriously, one of his complaints is that he can not physically see other dimensions, or that we would, as a species, have some need to sense them. I can't see infra red, but it exists.
AS for quoting Wolfgang pauli, that's just bad form in that context.
There are many well established, very smart people who claimed Einstein was wrong. There have been some changes, and many indications about string theory since 1958, so maybe he would have a different view?
I use Einstein as an example to help people understand that none of these naysayers have anything that disproves it, they just don't want to believe it. Hopefully some tests will be done in the next few years that will either:
A) Show some predictions in a repeatable test or
B) The prediction will fail, and we can close the book.
In the mean time, both sides of this discussion need to watch out for the 'Argument from authority ' logical fallacy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
600 people visit every day to read something, and I have sent 10,000+ links to various sites that would not have gotten them otherwise. Oh, and I've had reporters contact me to incorporate some of my material in legitimate newspapers. I'm getting 50,000 views every 2 months now. So, others disagree with your assessment!
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Everything can be modeled as a particle in a box (the particle exists somewhere between here and there). Various disciplines break things down into smaller particles and string theory is the theoretical jump from the smallest particles we have observed and characterized to smaller particles that we haven't observed or characterized. All particles (even superatomic particles, but the math is quite different) can be described by their total energy (which includes directional vectors). Energy(total) = Potential + Kinetic + delta. Energy(total) = mc^2. Kinetic = 1/2 * mv^2. Various models of potential energy characterize entropy and approximate total gravitational force. They differ in their treatent of entropy and, since gravitational forces are usually described using the distance between the two particles or objects, how the gravity is computed if one (or both) of the particle(s) is(are) traveling greater than near light speed. Various methods are used to resolve mc^2 = ( 1/2 * mv^2 ).
In one mathematically sound method a Hamiltonian is created and an Eigenfunction applied, an Eigenvalue computed, and the Schroedinger equation is assembled. The integration of Schroedinger's equation creates a density map which describes the probability that the original particle exists at a particle position in space. This principle is scalable from the subatomic level all the way up to black holes. It is this mathematical derivation which describes Stephen Hawking's acknowledgement that there is no such thing as an event horizon for a black hole--because every particle in a box that would border said event horizon (including the photons which are trying to escape) can only be modeled as a probability of existing on the border of that event horizon. There will always be a probability that the particle exists on the other side, past the event horizon, especially if it gains energy from collision with a neighboring particle in a box.
Everything, even a photon, even the strings of string theory, can be modeled as a particle in a box described as a wave of energy whose area of greatest probability is what we eventually observe as the particle.
The actual example which is most often used is the electron. Most electrical equipment works quite well at measuring the energy of an electron and electrons are easily localized around atoms (for ease of measurement). Due to this we've been able to generate enough data with electrons to plug the proper numbers in the above system and also to verify their accuracy with laboratory experiments. The infrared absorption and emission of a binary salt is an excellent example of being able to both predict the absorption (and emission) lines and observe them experimentally on a calibrated laboratory instrument.
While the method has been most rigorously employed to predict and observe electrons the mathematics involved is not limited to any particular particle, be it a black hole, a baseball, an atom, an electron, a photon, a quark, or a string. The primary difference between quantum chemistry and string theory is the typical range of "m" in the above equations.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Einsteins theories couldn't be tested 'at the moment' either.
That fact in no was discredits the theory.
You are ill-informed. If that had indeed ever been the case, that would indeed have completely discredited the theory. As it happens, he proposed several tests for general relativity, and confirmation started coming in 1919 (summary). No hypothesis that comes without proposed ways of testing it should ever be taken seriously (or at best, a thought-experiment).
Apparently, the key to the universe is the quack.
HomelessInLaJolla, unfortunately, doesn't know what he's talking about, and this kind of intentional, willful misinformation is very dangerous.
Mod Parent Down.
Is there any experience which is not in our head? I don't mean that in the sense of questioning whether reality is real, rather I mean "Can we experience anything at all without our heads?"
How then can we deny any experience "within our heads" without being forced to question reality itself? Or, if what we perceive is not real, what then is real?
The word "explain" normally means that at the end of the explaination the reader should understand it. Sorry, but what you've written is totally unintelliglible to any lay person
can someone explain to me why i need to know string theory in two minutes?
That's Feynman, not Einstein ... the universality of the laws of nature, the relationship of things, without an understanding of mathematics. There is no other way to do it.
<headfullofphysics author="Richard Feynman">
One cannot understand
</headfullof physics>
Be heard || Be herd
This is not a valid excuse for doing that "semantic twisting". That was my point in the first place... somebody is twisting the definition in order to push their pet hypothesis. That is not sufficient reason. It is nothing but propaganda.
This is not a popular media exercise. It does not matter whether "string hypothesis" has the same punch. This is a scientific principle, not a goddamned popularity contest. That was my whole point. It is not appropriate to try to redefine science just to support someone's favorite idea... most especially when we have no data that actually supports that idea over others.
The hypotheses of which I speak are hypotheses. The theories of which I speak are theories. Neither size or scope have anything to do with the issue, and they do not overlap... they are different things!
Quote: "A theory is a big old (mathematical, preferably) framework for explaining how something works."
False. An attempt at explanation is a hypothesis. A theory must predict.
As you mention, string speculation has come up with some ideas that may be testable. If so, more power to it. But it must be remembered that in order for the experiments to actually support the string idea, the results of those tests must not only be accurately predicted, but also predicted better than other competing ideas. Some people seem to have lost sight of the latter point.