mattd

I totally agree. I've always thought this whole thing shared too many qualities with I.D.

Yeah, this is in the wrong forum. I guess it depends on the point of view of whomever you're talking about.

true

I don't think anyone has ever seen a string, but the idea of something 1D existing is fascinating (hell, I'd settle for 2D). Of course, I'm talking about things that don't have 4D qualities like you or I are accustomed to. I guess what I meant by my statement above was concerning the ideas that flow through to the general public. I go by book stores or magazine racks, and in all the science sections, it seems superstrings dominates the subject matter. It just appears there are a lot of people who are working on this. I would like to see alternative viewpoints.

as i've read more and more about the whole thing, the less i like it. i don't like how it's pushed as a theory of everything and how so much of it is untestable, yet so many physicists seem to waste a lot of their time on it. it kinda reminds me of intelligent design in that aspect.

i guess my confusion is centered around how a 1D object could exist in a 3D universe (on a spatial level). but, i've got to keep in mind that space at that microscopic level is theoretically "foamy", so a lot of strange things are supposed to be happening.

actually, it's a line. a zero dimensional object is a point.

thanks for answering that. i'm still confused on the whole idea of them being one dimensional. i wish there was more written about all this.

when talking about dimensions higher than time, there are theories that these non visible dimensions are ultra small (sub atomic) and tightly coiled up. keep in mind these are only theories. the idea is that the components of all subatomic particles interact in some form with each of these dimensions, just as everything we see has 4 dimensional qualities. we never encounter any form of matter that has less.

i keep reading that strings are 1 dimensional. if all they have is length, then wouldn't they also exist in time, making them 2 dimensional at least? they vibrate, so wouldn't that infer they exist in time, or am i completely missing something?

this forum rules

i am really confused about the whole notion that the dimensions above the fourth are "really small". i find it a very third dimensional way of looking at it. plus, the idea that the fourth dimension of time isn't a spatial dimension depends upon how you look at it. we only perceive time the way it is because our consciousness travels along it in one direction. cubes become hypercubes from one frame to another. it's just a different way of looking at things instead of how we are used to. is there any resources on the web concerning this topic? i've searched and found very little that explains this well.

okay, i see your point

I see your point about not getting worked up by all this, but I still see it as a theory. But it's a theory that needs to be tested in some form for it to have any validity, as with any theory.

This is all very confusing.