A String Theory Theory

[arc]

I totally disagree with this proposition, think about it what came first the Expert or the Subject. eg a bicycle maker started maned flight, simplest example.

 

The distinction you need to understand by the example that you have provided is that even though only one of the Wright brothers completed high school they successfully accomplished their goal of powered flight only through their strict adherence to the scientific process.

 

The development of flight, that is the scientific discovery of the characteristics of flight, was systematically revealed over several years through careful experimentation.

 

They first invented, through that careful experimentation, the instruments to study flight. They built the first wind tunnel that would later test over 200 scale wing configurations, one of which actually flew at Kitty hawk Dec. 17 1903.

 

It was their discipline to the scientific process that enabled their success.

 

To discover human flight and not be killed while doing it was a direct consequence of the control that a diligent and thorough scientific study can produce. They flew their Wright glider one year earlier and accomplished their goals for tethered flights and returned home to Ohio. They carefully went over their data and returned the next year for their first powered flight.

Careful, systematic accumulation of knowledge allowed human flight.

While the Wrights diligently experimented some of their fellow seekers of flight died or were crippled by ill conceived notions of wing design based on nothing more than assumptions. Sometimes simply copying the shapes and even feathers of bird's wings or even the distinct shape of a bat's in some instances.

​ So, do you feel you have done due diligence to the scientific process in developing your idea? Or, like those other hopeful flyers, have you just made some rather ill conceived notions about similarities between two completely different and unrelated aspects of physics and biology?

 

Will your idea soar like the Wright flyer or will it plunge to the ground like some guy's feathered bird suit?

 

Ideas are a dime a dozen, they are just the raw unfinished form of something that could take years of scientific rigor to finish into a valuable contribution. But most important, they must be based on a viable concept to begin with.

Edited December 13, 2014 by arc

[Bluemercury]

 

The distinction you need to understand by the example that you have provided is that even though only one of the Wright brothers completed high school they successfully accomplished their goal of powered flight only through their strict adherence to the scientific process.

 

The development of flight, that is the scientific discovery of the characteristics of flight, was systematically revealed over several years through careful experimentation.

 

They first invented, through that careful experimentation, the instruments to study flight. They built the first wind tunnel that would later test over 200 scale wing configurations, one of which actually flew at Kitty hawk Dec. 17 1903.

 

It was their discipline to the scientific process that enabled their success.

 

To discover human flight and not be killed while doing it was a direct consequence of the control that a diligent and thorough scientific study can produce. They flew their Wright glider one year earlier and accomplished their goals for tethered flights and returned home to Ohio. They carefully went over their data and returned the next year for their first powered flight.

Careful, systematic accumulation of knowledge allowed human flight.

While the Wrights diligently experimented some of their fellow seekers of flight died or were crippled by ill conceived notions of wing design based on nothing more than assumptions. Sometimes simply copying the shapes and even feathers of bird's wings or even the distinct shape of a bat's in some instances.

​ So, do you feel you have done due diligence to the scientific process in developing your idea? Or, like those other hopeful flyers, have you just made some rather ill conceived notions about similarities between two completely different and unrelated aspects of physics and biology?

 

Will your idea soar like the Wright flyer or will it plunge to the ground like some guys feathered bird suit?

 

Ideas are a dime a dozen, they are just the raw unfinished form of something that could take years of scientific rigor to finish into a valuable contribution. But most important, they must be based on a viable concept to begin with.

More trial and error than math. but more importantly it was all started by imagination. not science, as there was no science of aerodynamics when they started.

 

Everything you have stated is true and i thank you for your thoughts.

[AndresKiani]

More trial and error than math. but more importantly it was all started by imagination. not science, as there was no science of aerodynamics when they started.

 

Everything you have stated is true and i thank you for your thoughts.

 

In physics my friend, we make small predictions and establish small footsteps before making large leaps. This seems to have worked best for us in physics.

Bluemercury, I'm in Genetics right now, though I'm a physics major by heart lol. There is no favorable comparison between strings in string theory and DNA. It's worse than comparing apples and oranges because apples and oranges are both fruits even though they are not the same type of fruit.

[Bluemercury]

That is fair, i am flawed by my impatience and for that i am sorry, but i refuse to stop thinking as some would have me do.

 

My idea of the perfect mind is a fine balance between imagination and logic, otherwise we may as well just focus on computers as they are capable of evolving 1000 times faster than we humans. think about what makes us different enough to offset that fact.

 

Thanks.

 

I am also concerned that at a certain level a type of elitism creeps in which is not helpful to our continued evolution.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Bluemercury

[arc]

More trial and error than math

 

They did so to the best of their abilities and their discipline to the scientific process. These are their calculations on their propellers.

 

http://www.wright-brothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_Facts/Engines_&_Props/Wright_Engine_&_Props_images/1903-Wright-Propeller-notebook-&-calculations.jpg

 

"In early 1903, before designing their airplane propellers, the Wrights first conducted wind tunnel experiments to determine how propellers worked. These are some of the notes from their tests."

"They were also remarkably efficient, converting 66 percent of the mechanical energy from the motor into thrust."

 

but more importantly it was all started by imagination. not science, as there was no science of aerodynamics when they started.

 

The Wright's work began on a foundation of previous work by many scientists including that of George Cayley, (27 December 1773 – 15 December 1857) an English engineer and one of the most influential people in aeronautical history. Believed by many to be the farther of aeronautical sciences and the underlying principles of flight. And also Samuel Langley the American astrophysicist and astronomer who built and flew steam powered model airplanes. One of which flew 1.2 kilometers in 1891.

 

It really is about the scientific discipline.

[Bluemercury]

Deleted by mod; OT, and PM means private message, Not "something I can post in a thread" message.

 

 

 

They did so to the best of their abilities and their discipline to the scientific process. These are their calculations on their propellers.

 

http://www.wright-brothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_Facts/Engines_&_Props/Wright_Engine_&_Props_images/1903-Wright-Propeller-notebook-&-calculations.jpg

1903-Wright-Propeller-notebook-&-calculations.jpg

 

"In early 1903, before designing their airplane propellers, the Wrights first conducted wind tunnel experiments to determine how propellers worked. These are some of the notes from their tests."

"They were also remarkably efficient, converting 66 percent of the mechanical energy from the motor into thrust."

 

 

The Wright's work began on a foundation of previous work by many scientists including that of George Cayley, (27 December 1773 – 15 December 1857) an English engineer and one of the most influential people in aeronautical history. Believed by many to be the farther of aeronautical sciences and the underlying principles of flight. And also Samuel Langley the American astrophysicist and astronomer who built and flew steam powered model airplanes. One of which flew 1.2 kilometers in 1891.

 

It really is about the scientific discipline.

Thank you you have corrected me, the wright brothers were not a good example, in making my point i concede.

Me Scottish.

 

I see your point. You are mistaken. I have demonstrated why you are mistaken. My work here is done.

I can only guess you were wrong and your work here is not done.

Edited December 13, 2014 by swansont

[ajb]

I get your Scottish but fail to understand the relevance of that statement, I'm British although i have spent time on 4 continents that is irreverent. to imagination. I implore you as a fellow thinker a fellow human to keep certain things out of this debate.

I think everyone here saw it as a joke due to the spelling error. I would think no more of it.

 

Anyway, this is getting off topic.

 

So arc has shown that the steps made by the Wright brothers were based on understanding the physics involved and performing experiments as well as calculations.

 

The story is similar with the discovery of string theory. With no details, it was noticed by Gabriele Veneziano in 1968 that the Euler Beta function satisfies the axiomatic properties of an S-matrix (something that describes particle scatterings). The idea at the time was that quantum fields were auxiliary and that all the physics is in the properties of the S-matrix. The so-called dual resonance model of the strong nuclear force was born.

 

It was a little later that it was discovered that the Euler Beta function naturally appears if you model the strong force using a string. Thus string theory was born in 1970 in the work of Yoichiro Nambu, Holger Bech Nielsen, and Leonard Susskind. String theory was quickly shown not to be a good theory of the strong force and QCD quickly replaced it. However, since (closed) string theory necessarily contains the graviton in its spectrum the idea that it could be used as a unification scheme was born.

 

Anyway, the moral of the story is that a scientist did not wake up one day and say 'what happens if I replace points with strings', but rather a strange coincidence was noticed and this was developed into string theory.

 

 

Back to the opening post... there are some formal analogies with strings and DNA in the sense that both 'encode the necessary information', but that is it. You could say that 'Strings are the DNA of particles', fine. But this analogy will not help you really understand either.

Edited December 13, 2014 by ajb

[Bluemercury]

Thank you very much for getting involved, i agree with what you stated above,

 

Anyway, the moral of the story is that a scientist did not wake up one day and say 'what happens if I replace points with strings', but rather a strange coincidence was noticed and this was developed into string theory.

Thanks for this clear statement of fact It puts what im trying to say more clearly thank you. this threads intention was to flush this out and to seek out any other strange coincidences?

 

But it bogged down into a debate on thinking. Off topic i agree.

 

As for the humor i was not expecting humor from that user so i missed it.

 

Thanks and good luck to you all.

[ajb]

Thanks for this clear statement of fact It puts what im trying to say more clearly thank you. this threads intention was to flush this out and to seek out any other strange coincidences?

The example of how string theory originated from S-matrix theory, even if that was not immediately recognised, was based on a precise mathematical statement. Basically the Euler function satisfies what you would expect an S-matrix to satisfy; if I recall one of the standard axioms at the time had to be dropped or weakened I can't fully remember. Anyway, this was not some 'hand-waving' argument that they share some features via loose analogies. Calculations were preformed.

 

This is where you idea of the similarity of DNA and strings fails.

[Bluemercury]

Ill leave it up to the big boys and girls at the LHC, there is no logic in continuing this debate, the goal posts keep moving, but feel free to keep debating amongst yourselves, its safer that way.

 

I have a better understanding now as to what Science is, and what it is not. and for that i thank you.

 

Thanks.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Bluemercury

[ajb]

I have found this nice article on the AMS website that describes the Jones Polynomial and suggests applications the study of DNA. It is written by David Austin, Grand Valley State University.

 

He also mentions that knot theory and in particular the Jones polynomial has some deep connections with operator algebras, statistical physics and quantum field theory. I know that people are using ideas from string theory in knot theory, but I don't know any details.

[Bluemercury]

Thank you i find this very interesting.

 

In my profession we have a similar problem with large amounts of unloomed cables, the key to fixing is to look for loops, and by reversing these loops even an apparently impossible complex mess will be unraveled without any cutting. not sure what the mathematical equivalent would be, this is just a thought.

 

The basic rules where when you feed many loose cables into a confined space knotting will happen. as long as one end of each cable was not in that space UN-looping was always possible.

 

Thanks for the thought.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Bluemercury