Progress within string theory.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:48 am

Does any body know much about string theory. I am wondering if/how the theorists have settled for a trite number of dimensions. My last reading left me with the belief that there are three to ten new dimensions to explore. Easy to understand are ,spin ,up ,down and three colors, oh yes, and quiver. (I thought oscilating would sound more scientific, and loan itself to measurement. Or perhaps there is something more subtle in the "quiver")

Also can the theorists relate any of the quark measurements to sclae up to universal size yet? Tsh,tsh fancy having to deal with gravity? UUuuurrgghhh.
After all though it is a theory of eveything?

I would love to see the linear equation.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:47 pm

Meh, details.

Interesting details I'll admit, but with the sort of naturalistic view of the universe I have, that's all they are - interesting details.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:33 pm

So, you thought you had best pop in and offer nothing as your form of debate. Thnx but I think that belongs in the "new religions"forum.

Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:04 am

Wow, you really are new here, aren't you.

http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=376

Is that "nothing"? Because I'll bitch and moan for hours about how "nothing" is a logical impossibility.

Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:33 am

No, not at all. That was a "nothing" because it did not arrive with any form of understanding as to the string theory in question.

Or... I wasn`t looking for a debate on naturalism vs. scientific progress, (not that I can see why they don`t walk hand in hand anyway) I was rather looking to expound and/or gain further insight into string theory.

Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:21 pm

So no inteligent progress on string theory then?

I already know that every space is filled with matter (or anti-matter) , I understand black holes and white dwarves.

Parmenides would have been corresct in this instance since the building blocks of everything comes down to a quark. The dimensions (no, I don`t mean volume or mass I mean spatial) are tricky but they are essentialy one.

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:23 am

Okey, I get it ,thnx for for clearing that 4 me.

Like the qoute "synapses are protoplasmic kisses" I might use that one day. ; -}

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:43 am

There's an alternative view to string theory that was published by Milo Wolff.

It's called "Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe".

Wolff's website is at www.quantummatter.com

Apparently Milo had been thinking about the de Broglie wavelength issue for a long time. He then went on to pioneer a wave medium based model of the universe.

Instead of treating quantum waves as imaginary, they are considered as being actual physical waves that form the electron and the other sub-atomic particles.

This ultimately takes the particle/wave duality and concludes that particles are actually spherical standing wave centers existing in the wave medium / ether type substance of space.

It's just an alternative outlook that seems to compete with string theory.

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:34 am

String Theory is at a dead end right now. It doesn't do what they set out for it to do, which is show why the fundamental constants are what they are.

The interesting thing going on now is a new unified theory from A Garrett Lisi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:12 am

Thanks for the link Kmisho.

The whole idea of having the simplest theory of everything through the wave physics has come up from a science philosopher/physicist by the name of Geoff Haselhurst.

It's interesting to note that the alternative theories are shooting for simplicity when approaching a theory of everything.

The wave structure model states that everything that exists, is the wave medium structure of space itself - as all matter is formed out of the actual wave medium.

So the whole theory is being founded on one thing existing - as opposed to two or three. The main claim being made is that the wave based theory is the prefered theory according to the guide lines of Occam's razor.

It's interesting how this guy has merged the history of philosophy right into the physics theory.

www.spaceandmotion.com

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:02 pm

This vid gives a good, clear idea of where string theory came from and where it's going:

Horizons - Parallel Universes - Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:37 am

PantheistWorldView wrote:

Thanks for the link Kmisho.

The whole idea of having the simplest theory of everything through the wave physics has come up from a science philosopher/physicist by the name of Geoff Haselhurst.

It's interesting to note that the alternative theories are shooting for simplicity when approaching a theory of everything.

But that would always normally be the case in science, find the simplest theory that still fits the observations and makes similarly useful predictions. Nothing new there.

Quote:

The wave structure model states that everything that exists, is the wave medium structure of space itself - as all matter is formed out of the actual wave medium.

So the whole theory is being founded on one thing existing - as opposed to two or three. The main claim being made is that the wave based theory is the prefered theory according to the guide lines of Occam's razor.

It's interesting how this guy has merged the history of philosophy right into the physics theory.

www.spaceandmotion.com

The inclusion of philosophy is a problem for me. You don't get truth from philosophy, only opinions. His ideas are are an example, tending to 'force' the issue of simplicity beyond what current evidence suggests.

Resident Joined: Aug 31, 2006 Posts: 315

infidelbilly wrote:

Does any body know much about string theory. I am wondering if/how the theorists have settled for a trite number of dimensions. My last reading left me with the belief that there are three to ten new dimensions to explore. Easy to understand are ,spin ,up ,down and three colors, oh yes, and quiver. (I thought oscilating would sound more scientific, and loan itself to measurement. Or perhaps there is something more subtle in the "quiver")

Also can the theorists relate any of the quark measurements to sclae up to universal size yet? Tsh,tsh fancy having to deal with gravity? UUuuurrgghhh.
After all though it is a theory of eveything?

I would love to see the linear equation.

So far, String theory gives a mass equation, which depends on the virasoro operator N that can take values of 0,1,2,3...

If one calculates the number of particles, and since there is no restriction on N, the number of particles ST yields would be infinite. For N≤2, we get 128 bosons and 128 fermions -- too many particles even if you take into account 6 quarks and 6 leptons, and their anti-particles, that gives us only 24 fermions. Kick in supersymmetry, with doubles that to 48, we are still far from 128. Same problem with bosons.

The other problem is how to reduce an equation in 10-D to our world of 4-D: there are 10^500 ways of doing that, an impossible task as far as we can tell presently.

So naw, no good news in ST...

Just Arrived Joined: Dec 09, 2008 Posts: 2

I actually have Lisi's paper printed out on my desk in front of me. I think it's an interesting mathematical coincidence. Like when you solve a problem the wrong way but get the answer you're looking for. Except important things, such as masses of particles, are missing. It lacks the deep down guts of an honest to goodness physical model of the Universe, like Einstein's general relativity. It's a mathematical structure, but lacks any deeper physical motivation.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore