Let's talk about Strings!

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:41 pm

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010418.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010418.html

ta152h0 · Post by **ta152h0** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:23 am

what is your question ?

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:23 pm

Well, the theory seems to be gaining wide spread acceptance so I just wondered what were some thoughts here in the Asterisk*

orin stepanek · Post by **orin stepanek** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:49 pm

Well the BBT seems to be questioned more and more so maybe some of the other theories need to be looked at and considered.

Orin

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:09 am

I don't think String Theories rule out a Biga Bada Bang but I have more to read. With that said you have a good point orin.

ta152h0 · Post by **ta152h0** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:59 am

this was discussed in a recent NOVA segment describing strings as a form of energy that supports multiple Universes. But it was also mentioned this cannot be proven physically, making it a philosophers science with no proof requirements, such as quantum physics requires. just because more people watch NOVA and comment on it, does not bring the alleged demise of the Big Bang theory any closer to reality. Human nature, such as it is , will believe anything that is repeated enough times. Pass the ice cold one, please,

W

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:35 am

Hello All

For those that are locked into the Big Bang, get more info.

The question is why are hundreds of cosmologists looking at other theories and dropping the BBT.

As for multi-universes.

They are multi-units within the UNIVERSE being only one.

As in the movie

"There can only be one" Highlander

If you bring in fantasy land and magic than you can bring in multi dimensions and la la land.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:03 pm

ta152h0 -That may be true for the majority but I am in the minority when it comes to human ignorance.

Remember - just because it is not falsifiable now does not mean that it will always remain this way. String theory might hold the key to unifying the four forces of nature.

What I really wanted to accomplish from this post was -Harry's comment. Like a worm on a fishing line a naive fish took a bite. -lol

"Although it is by no means obvious, this simple replacement of point-particle material constituents with strings resolves the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity (which, as currently formulated, cannot be both right). String theory thereby unravels the central Gordian knot of contemporary theoretical physics. This is a tremendous achievement, but it is only part of the reason string theory has generated such excitement."

"A sizeable part of the physics and mathematics community is becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide the answer. From one principle—that everything at its most microscopic level consists of combinations of vibrating strands—string theory provides a single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces and all matter."

Harry- what are your thoughts on quantum mechanics

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:15 pm

Hey Martin,
I'm not very educated in string theory but I am curious about it. Do you think that if it were possible to change the vibration of the string that you could alter the element that it comprises?

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:23 pm

Yes -according to the theory.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:27 pm

Part 2 on the subject airs Tuesday (tomorrow) in my state on PBS Nova.

Here's the link. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

ta152h0 · Post by **ta152h0** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:47 pm

Strings were presented as a form of pure energy. First the bigger brains than me must determine the frequency of these vibrations and help the mere mortals here to accept this as science. Secondly, if there are multiple universes, you must be able to define the boundaries of these beasts. Gravity is a form of pure energy ( I can't buy a kilogram of gravity ) How do you quantify these different forms of pure energy ?

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:09 pm

Good question

kovil · Post by **kovil** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:27 am

<<change the vibration of the string that you could alter the element that it comprises? >> or composes ! , same difference

I concur; in that matter is composed of a vibration of energy, in the way that the amplitudes rise up at the intersection of where the waves are interferencing. And that location is where matter appears, yet the waves are still moving thru the universe, kind of like the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory as the Mechanism for Radiation.

Change the combination of waves arising and the matter takes on different charactistics, as its interaction function is altered, and thus it behaves, or interferences differently with any thing it interfers with. Now what gives it stability ?? That is the question to me. ! How can a bunch of interferencing waves have stability, the kind of stability that matter exhibits?

I suspect there is a higher dimension that provides a regulating modicum of some kind. A containment field until a certain something is triggered and allows matter to change in some fashion. I'm not talking about chemical changes, like when molecules form chains and groupings of atoms, but when protons and neutrons change into a different state of equilibrium, like when neutron stars and white dwarfs and gravity wells form. When the neutron escapes the neucleus and then goes back to a proton and electron, that is a change of 'mode' and something is allowing and disallowing that 'bundle' change.

I'm getting out of my depth here in this moment of thinking as I've been on holiday for a while and not thought about all this, much, on this level.

my 2 vibes !

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:37 pm

Interesting

I have often wondered about the micro universe and how infinitely micro it may be. If we are to assume based on observations and calculations that the macro universe is endless then would it be safe to consider the same is true for the micro universe -could it be eternally infinite as well

Wadsworth · Post by **Wadsworth** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:37 pm

I saw the two Nova segments.. Interesting indeed.
However I don't think they inferred that String Theory disproves the Big Bang Theory. Alternatively in the second piece, it went in to depth about String proposed ‘brains’, and how the point collision of any two ‘brains’ could be the source of our Big Bang.

Infinitely small.. It just seams instinctively that this wouldn't hold as much weight as say, infinitely large. Of course if something has a size, volume or mass, it is certainly divisible. What makes up the pure energy of a graviton? What makes up the pure energy of a proposed open ended 'string'? If it is something then its something could be smaller.

The sheer depth of infinity seems impossible to me. Be it large or small.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:47 am

I believe your right Ww (i was going to abbreviate) Harry has been quite absent from this discussion

My instinct tells me that this theory may be more accurate than many people realize. The implications are truly staggering.

Qev · Post by **Qev** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:55 pm

They're actually 'branes', not 'brains', although a lot of brains were involved in coming up with the branes, certainly.

There actually is a minimum size, a 'quantum of space' if you will, at least according to current quantum theories: the Planck length, which is something mind-bogglingly small like 1.6x10^-35 meters. It's the minimum limit for any meaningful measurements, in theory, because you just cannot measure anything smaller.

Things get even stranger in string theory, if I remember correctly, as you get a weird kind of wrap-around effect, where shrinking something smaller than Planck length actually makes it get bigger.... or something like that. I never was all that clear on that part.

String theory, if it can get some experimental support and narrow itself down enough to be useful, would be a great boon to Big Bang theorists, because it would give them a framework where they can get rid of those obnoxious singularities that occur in black holes, and the Big Bang itself.

Dr. Skeptic · Post by **Dr. Skeptic** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:59 pm

The most credible observational evidence supports the BB theory. Any theory pertaining to pre-BB is total speculation.

The BB created space/time; the is NO evidence how, of what, or what besides space/time was created or lost.

Infinity resides as a concept only in this universe, a black hole can be explained, in theory, without the concept of a singularities.

Qev · Post by **Qev** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:35 am

Dr. Skeptic wrote:Infinity resides as a concept only in this universe, a black hole can be explained, in theory, without the concept of a singularities.

They can? I was under the impression that black holes were an example of one of those places where our theories break down. They were predicted directly from General Relativity, which 'fails' when it gives us an infinity (aka a singularity) at the point where the mass collapses to infinite density. Quantum mechanics fails to describe them correctly because it has no framework for dealing with gravity.

Note that I'm not talking about the event horizon that defines the boundary of a black hole, but rather the fate of the matter that falls beyond this into gravitational collapse.

Dr. Skeptic · Post by **Dr. Skeptic** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:51 am

You are absolutely right, known mathematical representations do not/cannot elucidate what lies veiled beneath an EH. The concept of a singularity was conjured up by Hawkins' imagination, which does not make it factual. I'd put my money on a semi-homogenous slurry of subatomic "stuff" where the gravitational force and atomic force attain equilibrium.

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:21 am

Hello Dr Skeptic

I agree,,,,,,,,,and so do many cosmologists when they try to explain the process from a

dense sun core

to a neutron core

to a quark core

to a preon core

to a partical that makes up preons.

and so on.

As for a singularity, for all matter to be compacted into one infinite point is not logical.

A black hole is just an ultra dense plasma matter that is so dense that it prevents light from escaping. This can be explained by current knowledge within the sciences.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:04 pm

Ultra dense plasma material (sounds as vague as dark matter)

I suspect that our intellectual abilities may be so inhibited, to the extent that some observations or calculations will appear to us as events that contradict everything else. But I think this is due to the fact that our understanding of our universe and any one event is limited to our intellectual capacity and current point of view.

Dr. Skeptic · Post by **Dr. Skeptic** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:47 pm

It wasn't I that called it a "plasma", that is a poor use of that term. Plasma is atoms stripped of electrons with the nucleus still intact. The "Slurry" I referred to would be a nondescript form of matter.

The subatomic "Strong Force" is 10^36 stronger than the gravitational force within the confines of an atom, The strong force will always increase exponentially faster than the force of gravity preventing a "Singularity" from occurring.

toejam · Post by **toejam** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:02 pm

To all:

Many thanks. I understood things. Especial thanks to Martin for the Mtheory link with no maths!!! Keep it up guys though I suspect if you continue you will show me how little of it, if any of it at all, I actually understood. TJ

Starship Asterisk*

Let's talk about Strings!

Let's talk about Strings!

strings

string theory

strings were presented

combinations and permutations of frequency bundles

M theory etc