gib65

What about the relation between a string's vibrational frequency and the properties we observe in fundamental particles. The theory says that the properties we see in particles such as charge, mass, spin, etc. are based on the specific frequency with which the particle, as a string, vibrates. That's fair to say. But do string theorists purport to know how vibrations give rise to these properties? It seems to me that they are only describing a correlative relation here, but not a causal one.

So, you mean, 'above' as in something more than mere matter and energy? Well, you bring up an interesting point. I forgot that string theory purports itself to be a "scientific" discipline, which means that it only adheres to scientific explanations. You're right, Xyph, if you mean that consciousness can be explained by materialism, but this is sticking strictly to a scientific definition of consciousness which demands that it be put in terms of something empirical. But if you take consciousness to be something metaphysical, it falls outside the realm of science all together, and this means you can't even affirm its existence. String theory, therefore, wouldn't even bother with it. It would say that everything can be explained by strings, everything "real" anyhow. Whether the proper definition of consciousness is a material one or a metaphysical one is debatable. I take the metaphysical side, but I don't want to digress into that topic. The PBS series is online. I provided a link to it in my first post, and here it is again. Thanks for your enthusiasm. I guess if String Theory isn't really a theory of everything, it need not explain what dimension are. Still, they are strange things, eh?

So what's going on? Does nobody care about String Theory? Ah, fooey!!! Anyway, I'd still like to use this thread as my own personal space for asking all the questions the BPS series made me think of. I just hope there's someone out there with some answers. Again, my first question was: What do string theorists mean by a "theory of everything"? Let's be more specific: Do string theorists think strings can somehow explain consciousness? If so, how?

HA!!! You could be right.

I'm starting this thread as a discussion space for the PBS series on string theory that can be found here. The general topic is String Theory, so anything related can go here, but it is more specifically intended for those who have watched this series and have questions/comments about it. I have tons of questions myself, and this is my primary motive in starting this thread. I hope there's some more knowledgeable people out there who can answer them. I intend to change the topic to other questions (as I scratch them off my list ) when I feel the discussion is getting old or dwindling down, but anyone can feel free to lead the discussion in any direction they want with their own questions so long as it's string theory related. So my first question: Is String Theory really a theory of everything? If all fundamental particles can be reduced to vibrating strings of energy, what is this energy? If the universe is really 11 dimensional, what is a dimension? How did they come to exist? How are specific vibrations of strings enough to explain the qualitative properties we see in fundamental particles? Can strings even explain things like consciousness? Even after watching the PBS series and understanding it (as much as I can in any case), I still have these questions. So, for me, I question how valid it is to generalize string theory as a "theory of everything". Now discuss!!!

Thanks everyone. I'll try these solutions out.

Help!!! My wife and I have fruit flies infesting our house! I've been told they like fruit left out on the counter and empty fruit or pop cans that have not been washed. We're now rinsing our cans when we're done and throwing them into the recycle in the closet. As for fruit, we only leave bananas out (is this enough?). Even if this is helping, how do we get rid of them?

I like that idea. It leads me to wonder what would become of the universe after all the sub-universes collided with each other. The universe would become a giant asteroid field. There is one problem with this, however, that I see. If the edges of our universe are being pulled by the gravitational force of other nearby universes, then the light from those nearby universes should also have reached the edge of our universe (since gravity tarvels at the same speed as light). And since the light from the edge of our universe at the very time when it was being pulled has arrived here (lest we couldn't make such observations), so should the light from the nearby universes. In other words, we should be able to see our neighboring universes.

What I mean is... take the equation y = 1/x that you mentioned. The asymptote for this is at x=0. What would the equation look like if the asymptote was at x=1? At this point, I can answer my own question: in order for the denominator to be 0 and x be 1, the equation would have to be y = 1/(x-1). Thank you.

I have a couple questions about plotting a curve with assymptotic limits. 1) Suppose you had the equation y = x^2. The domain for x is [-infinity, +infinity]. Therefore, there is no vertical assymptote. How would you have to modify the equation such that there is an vertical asymptote? Would it have to be a totally different equation? Obviously, it needs to be an exponentially increasing/decreasing curve (let's stick with increasing though). 2) Supposing you did modify the equation such that there was a vertical asymptote. What would you have to do to adjust where along the x-axis this asymptote intersected?

That's not what Swansont said. He said that c as a speed limit is the conclusion, but c as a constant is a postulate.

Good questions.

Hey, that's a good point. So I guess the question should be stated "What would the scale read as you heat an object up above the Earth's atmosphere where there is no bouyancy force?"

Einstein's equation of E = mc^2 says that matter and energy are equivalent. Does this mean that, since matter has mass, the more energy a system has the heavier it is? Take an ordinary object for example, say a sheet of metal. If you heat this sheet of metal up, will it weigh more?

In what order did Einstein conceive of the following principles: c is the universal speed limit. E = mc^2 SR GR I'm wondering because certain sources tell me that c being the universal speed limit was the very first of Einstein's insights, but I always thought this followed from SR. That is, SR says that as one approaches the speed of light (on a spaceship), time on that ship will "halt" as judged by an observer not on the ship. It follows from this that, because time cannot get any slower than "halted", c must be a universal speed limit. If Einstein came up with the universal speed limit idea first, what was his basis for this?

I just tried with a piece of 8 by 11 and I couldn't get passed the 6th fold. I'm sure it would also have to do with the thickness. No matter how big the sheet of paper is doubling of thickness after every fold would be the same amount. After about 6 to 8 folds, it would probably be very hard to get more folds with the same degree of sharpness. I'm sure with a paper that is astronomically big you could get way more than 8 folds out of it so long as you had no limitations on how "sharp" a fold had to be.

Yes, I would say this is a very important point. So how do you conceive of "states". Is it at all like the POV I hear now and then in the phsyics community grape vine that fundamental particals might be more accurately understood as information? Do you have an idea for what this information is? Is it equivalent to conscious experience, or more like an inanimate abstract entity that can be interpretated to mean something by conscious and intellegence beings like ourselves?

You misunderstand me. I don't mean to knock new and imaginative ideas. My criticism is geared towards a style of writing that comes across more as an ideological vomit rather that an elegantly put proposal. Have you ever taken a look at someone's vomit? Can you tell what they ate? How much more easy would it be to tell by looking at their plate before they ate it? It might even look appetizing! That's what these budding geniuses have to do. They have to resist the urge to spew it all out onto the forum in one breath. If it's really worth telling, they have to do it more justice than that. They have to figure out how to articulate their thoughts in such a way that it is easy for the reader to digest. That's all I'm saying. PS - Bascule's theory is a lot more clear to me now. I don't know if I agree or disagree with it, but it's interesting.

In what application? In math, like the example of 2 + 2 = 5 that you gave above, I don't know how it could every be true. But take the example of a movie. All you need to make a movie is a collection of moving light bloches on a screen, but the movie is more than just the sum of these ligh bloches; it is a story as well.

So let me get this straight. Virtual photons are emitted from electrons without necessarily causing the electron to drop in energy level(s), and are only used to repel other particles with negative charge or attract particles with positive charge. Whereas, actual photons are emitted from electrons when they do drop in energy level(s) and does not necessarily constitute an exchange. Instead they simple propogate outwards as EM radiation and can be obsorbed by other electrons which gives them a boost in their enery level(s) (and is gradually converted into heat). Does this dual functionality apply to all force particles?

A mapping onto what? On one timeframe onto another? On one object to another? I don't know what the first law of thermodynamics is, so this may be the problem. Do you feel that someone who is well versed in the laws of thermodynamics would have no problem understanding the above statement? Obviously, it would be inappropriate to write a novel in these forums (it might even pass as abuse), so if it really requires a lengthy exposition to get across, maybe science forums aren't the best place to post them. Have you ever looked into developing your own website? You could do that and then post a link to it here. PS - I know what MEMES are. Was Martin right about this? Is this your idea? Even if it is, I'm guessing this is not the whole story.

Oh yeah! Missed those "of"s. Funny how the brain works. Trickery and sorcery I say!

Well I *sort of* understand this. But does this mean that if electrons have no photons to emit (i.e. they are very cold), neither do they have any electromagnetic force? The way I understand it, electron emit photons when they drop to a lower energy level. So if all the electrons in an object are at their lowest energy level (before they fall into the nucleus), they shouldn't have any energy that can be lost in the form of photons. But then this means that they can't exchange photons with each other, which means that they attract and repel each other, which means that there's no elecromagnetic force. As you can see, I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around this. I've got to be holding on to a misconception somewhere, but where?

So I understand that the photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic force, but what does this mean? Does it mean that photons have a positive or negative charge? And when an electron emits a photon, why doesn't its charge change? I mean, if the emitted photon is carrying an electromagnetic force, I'm assuming it got it from the electron, and so the electron should have less charge after the photon leaves it. But I know electrons always have a charge of -1. So what does it mean for a photon, or any forcing carrying particle, to "carry a force"?

I read at the following site: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-glashow.html that the universe is not only expanding but doing so at an accelerated rate! We're expanding FASTER as time goes on. Is this true? What kind of force is behind this acceleration? What will become of the universe? PS - Scroll down to "Towards a unified field theory" in the link above where this is mentioned.