PBS series on string theory

[gib65]

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!!!

[CanadaAotS]

I saw that, about the qualitive properties we see and such, its the frequency of the string thats supposed to be what governs this...

[bascule]

I'd suggest reading The Elegant Universe and Fabric of the Cosmos if you'd really like to get a good layman's grasp of these things. The NOVA special seemed like a big excuse to do a bunch of fancy CG. Some of the interviews were cool but the overall majority of the information presented in the book was lost in the translation to TV. It's really hard to compress a 500 page novel into a 3 hour TV series.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I'd suggest reading The Elegant Universe and Fabric of the Cosmos if you'd really like to get a good layman's grasp of these things. The NOVA special seemed like a big excuse to do a bunch of fancy CG[/b']. Some of the interviews were cool but the overall majority of the information presented in the book was lost in the translation to TV. It's really hard to compress a 500 page novel into a 3 hour TV series.

 

Coast Guard? Center of gravity? Common ground? Creative garbage?

[bascule]

computer graphics...

[gib65]

The NOVA special seemed like a big excuse to do a bunch of fancy CG.

 

HA!!! You could be right.

[gib65]

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?

[Phi for All]

I think Theory of Everything is unification or the four forces, EM, GR, strong and weak nuclear. If all matter and energy is made up of the same basic stuff, it could be that the four forces are just manifestations of a single force.

 

I'm not sure about ToE explaining consciousness, though.

[RyanJ]

If your looking for a good explination and answers to your questions read a book called "The fabric of the cosmos", its a brilliant book and covers just about all my questions and answers them and links them to things I would never have thought possible!

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Xyph]

There's no need to turn to String Theory for an explanation of consciousness. It can be explained, for the most part, by what we know now.

 

Or, at least, it could, if people weren't so collectively insistent on placing themselves somehow 'above' everything else.

[RyanJ]

Or' date=' at least, it [i']could[/i], if people weren't so collectively insistent on placing themselves somehow 'above' everything else.

 

Well said. Why not put it upto an effect of a sufficiently complex system and leave it at that... science is not even shure what consciousness is so how cna it be explained though a theory anyway?

 

Leave it as it is - it fits in somewhere

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[bascule]

Consciousness is made out of this awesome crazy stuff called neurons

[EvoN1020v]

I have never heard of the PBS series, "String Theory" for a significant reason: I don't have the PBS network on my TV!! Just lonesome Global. (I'm still satisfy to have 1 channel as it broadcasts plenty of good shows during the evenings). Anyway back to the point. As gib65 wanted to discuss the mystery of the string theory, I'd be more happy to join too, as I have some knowledge of string theory.

 

If the universe is really 11 dimensional, what is a dimension? How did they come to exist?

 

First of all, I don't think the string theory applies as 11 dimensional. Instead the subatomic world are thought to vibrate in 10 dimensions. Second of all, It's a "theory". Not everybody actually believe the remarkable claim as it don't have a remarkable proof. "Advocates say vibrating strings underlie every particle and every force in the universe. But will anyone every be able to prove that?"

 

One of the most remarkable claims made in modern times comes from string theory, which holds that everything in the universe is composed of tiny vibrating strings of energy. In this view, every particle in your body, every speck of light that lets you read these words, and every packet of gravity that pushes you into your chair is just a variant of this one fundamental entity.

 

So I'm saying that for the past 3 decades, physicists have been hammering away at its equations every day, trying to make the different parts of the theory hang together. To be brutally honest, there is no proof whatsoever that string theory is correct.

 

Give me some of your thoughts, and if you still want more infomation about string theory, no problem. I can input more information to some extent of what I know.

[gib65]

There's no need to turn to String Theory for an explanation of consciousness. It can be explained' date=' for the most part, by what we know now.

 

Or, at least, it [i']could[/i], if people weren't so collectively insistent on placing themselves somehow 'above' everything else.

 

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.

 

I have never heard of the PBS series, "String Theory" for a significant reason: I don't have the PBS network on my TV!! Just lonesome Global. (I'm still satisfy to have 1 channel as it broadcasts plenty of good shows during the evenings). Anyway back to the point. As gib65[/b'] wanted to discuss the mystery of the string theory, I'd be more happy to join too, as I have some knowledge of string theory.

 

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?

[john5746]

The Theory of Everything just refers to being able to explain how the universe works from the atomic to the cosmological scale with the same set of equations - I think. It won't tell you how your brain works or how a tornado works and many, many other things.

 

The basic idea sounds good - vibrating strings of energy, but many of the other ideas just seem to be fitting to the math. And as they themselves keep bringing up, it isn't observable and makes no predictions, so it can't be regarded as a scientific theory can it? I think they are looking for G-particles and S-particles, but haven't found any yet.

[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.

[bascule]

Yes, they, do, and that as I understand is one of the key differences between String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. String Theory appears to predict all of the various kinds of matter and energy that lie inside spacetime, as well as gravity. As I understand it, in Loop Quantum Gravity these values are just taken from the Standard Model.

[gib65]

Yes, they, do, and that as I understand is one of the key differences between String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. String Theory appears to predict all of the various kinds of matter and energy that lie inside spacetime, as well as gravity. As I understand it, in Loop Quantum Gravity these values are just taken from the Standard Model.

 

Well, how do they do it?

[bascule]

I don't know. You'll have to ask someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

[RyanJ]

Well, how do they do it?

 

Its kind of hard to explain, I'm not the best explainer and I'm no expert on anything anyway but I'll give it my best shot

 

You know any particle can exist as a wave or a particle, the wave-particle duality well forces can also be thought of as particles called carrier particles.

 

So, a specific vibration pattern on a string creates the carrier particle for gravity and thats how it explains gravity and the same applies for all the other forces - the only difference is that they are a different vidration on a string

 

Although I am not shure how they know what frequency donates a type of particle and why there are so many different frequencies and why there seem to be so few particles. there are theories about this and some should be testable by the Large Hadron Collider once it is finished - they hope to create some barge and unusual particles through the collisions.

 

This is a vast topic and I don't have a lot of the answers as I don't know all that much about this topic. I have some links that I have read and have provided some insight into this subject; I'll post them and see if you can make any use of them too

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

http://www.superstringtheory.com/

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/

http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/physics/string.html

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[CanadaAotS]

There was also the prediction that gravitons are actually "closed loop" strings, that weren't attached to our 3-D universe "brane" so could exit to higher dimensional space...

 

This is supposed explain

a) why gravity is so weak

b) dark matter

 

as dark matter is supposed to be gravity escaping into our universe from another. They even propose to test it with the LHC by trying to find gravitons, and to see if they just 'disappear' right after the collision. This would mean they are escaping from our universe and would support String Theory.

[Conceptual]

String theory is a good mathematical correlation but has no experimental proof of the strings. A good correlation does not reality make. A good correlation fits the data but should not be misunderstood as reflecting reality.

 

I like a new theory better called the MDT theory. It only requires three variables that are already well characterized, mass, distance and time. The gist of this theory is that if one looks at special relativity, the only things that change with referecne are mass, distance and time. The laws of physics stay the same in all references but vary between references in mass, distance and time.

 

The way the model works is that every particle including eneryg contains various ratios of mass, distance and time potential. Energy has no mass potential but only distance and time potential (wavelength and frequency). Common matter has more time potential than the matter stemming from particle accelerators (last longer). The latter can have more mass and distance potential but seem to have little time potential. Using the ratio of these three variables one can define any particle state.

 

The forces of nature reflects various parameters changing or lowering potential. The EM force alters the distince and time potential of charged particles to release energy; wavelength/frequnecy (distance and time potential). The nuclear force alters the mass and time potential of particles to create heat with little impact on the distance potential, etc.

 

The electron is mostly distance potential. If we lower its distance potential enough, it will decouple from the magnetic force. It will still have distance potential as charge. If we further lower distance potential it will decouple from charge. These are the electrons fused to protons to make neutrons.

 

What is slick about the theory is that it can do something none of the existing models can do, that is interface directly with chemistry. For example, the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen gases to produce water lowers the time potential and the distance potential of the reactants. The crtical state of water increase the distance potential of water which will alters its chemical properties allowing it to better dissolve or transfer the distance potential to other minerals.

 

 

.

[gib65]

In hour 3, chapter 1 (the movie in the top, right corner), they talk about space ripping and how, according to Einstein, it cannot be done. They give an example of a donut. They say to imagine it is space. Then they say you can morph it and change it into any shape, but you cannot eliminate the hole because that would entail ripping it. My question is, why couldn't we just squish the donut? That would compact the hole and no ripping would be required. In the actual application of this analogy, what would happen to space if it closed in on itself? Can space "join unto itself"?

[RyanJ]

My question is, why couldn't we just squish the donut? That would compact the hole and no ripping would be required. In the actual application of this analogy, what would happen to space if it closed in on itself? Can space "join unto itself"?

 

If you try this you'll find that the hole is not closed by compression. The hole remains although its shape has been changed.

 

Is space folded in on its self I'm not shure what would happen. It would be wierd I'd give you that. In a sence the gravitons could escape from one side to the other and not allow gravity to escape causing a greater gravity maybe?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[gib65]

If you try this you'll find that the hole is not closed by compression. The hole remains although its shape has been changed.

 

So it's more like compressing something rubbery like a tire rather than something doughy like a donut. Is that right? A tire's molecules will not bond together by pressing to parts together, unlike other substances like dough or butter or fluids... am I taking the donut analogy to literally?