String Theory

[Michael Hill]

What do you guys know about string theory?

[Suneet]

Well, the details really don't matter if you don't have some background. String theory is an outgrowth of the long quest in physics to unify the forces of nature (and as you should know, there are four of them). Unifying forces means to write down a single model that describes two or more forces, thus showing that forces which we thought were different from one another are actually parts of a single, unified force. For example, the force of Electromagnetism and the Weak Force are unified in Electroweak Theory, which was written down in the 1960s (I think). So the deal is that we can unify three of the forces : E.M., Weak, and Strong Forces. But unifying Gravitaion in to this structure is difficult. String theory is an attempt to do that. So far, we don't have enough of the theory to make any experimental tests.

For more, I suggest "The Universe in a Nutshell" By Hawking and "The Elegant Universe" By B. Greene

My math prof. last semester specialized in Topology, so now he's a string theorist. He'd drop comments and such in class all the time, but I've not quite progressed to unified field theories yet...

[AIBob]

I know that its about how tiny little string are what compose the world.
I also know that it tries to combine Modern Physics of big objects and physics on a molecular scale.
It also requires many many dimensions in order to work.
And if you actually look at it, it is really a bunch of garbage.

[Kel D]

Try checking your library or movie store to see if they have PBS's The Elegant Universe. It's hosted by Brian Greene who wrote the book and it's really very interesting and has probably just the right amount of detail that one could still comprehend. I've watched it twice already, I highly recommend it.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by Kel D

Try checking your library or movie store to see if they have PBS's The Elegant Universe. It's hosted by Brian Greene who wrote the book and it's really very interesting and has probably just the right amount of detail that one could still comprehend. I've watched it twice already, I highly recommend it.

Is that one of those Nova films?

[Adam Y.]

Try checking your library or movie store to see if they have PBS's The Elegant Universe. It's hosted by Brian Greene who wrote the book and it's really very interesting and has probably just the right amount of detail that one could still comprehend. I've watched it twice already, I highly recommend it.

The actual show is online here.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

And if you actually look at it, it is really a bunch of garbage.

Not necessarily. It might be true. It might not be true. That is the mystery of string theory. There is no way of testing it.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

The actual show is online here.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

Not necessarily. It might be true. It might not be true. That is the mystery of string theory. There is no way of testing it.

Thus lies the problem, science is based upon and DEPENDENT on constant trials and tests to prove something is right. If you cannot test something, and just believe in it using reasoning skills, you now have philosophy not physics. Thus, it shouldn't be called a theory. Theory is a set of statements that are devised to explain a group of facts or phenomenons, and those that have been tested (from dictionary.com).

NOW, I DO believe in string theory, and I love it, but I think we need to take a step back and look at what really classifies as science (gravity & evolution) and a theory and what isn't. (i.e. creationism & intelligent design).

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Thus lies the problem, science is based upon and DEPENDENT on constant trials and tests to prove something is right. If you cannot test something, and just believe in it using reasoning skills, you now have philosophy not physics. Thus, it shouldn't be called a theory. Theory is a set of statements that are devised to explain a group of facts or phenomenons, and those that have been tested (from dictionary.com).

We just can't test it, yet. There was a time we thought it would be impossible to discover evidence of black holes and gravitational waves but technology is leading the way taking measurements and observations of these phenomena. Perhaps some day soon, Hawking radiation will also be discovered. Only time will tell (silly drumbeat - indicating a lame pun)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by JosephM

NOW, I DO believe in string theory, and I love it, but I think we need to take a step back and look at what really classifies as science (gravity & evolution) and a theory and what isn't. (i.e. creationism & intelligent design).

In my texbooks, science is defined as what is observable, measurable, recordable, and repeatable. Gravity falls uder this, but evolution, creationism, and intelligent design do not. For those last three, we only observe the effects of whichever one is true. (Have you observed any evolution recently? If so, tell the world. Of course, I haven't actually observed either of the others. Actually, microevolution-change within a species-has been proven. It's called selective breeding. And please don't flame me, but macroevolution-changing from one species to another-is unproven and unlikely.) So far as I know, string theory is not recorded, measured, or observed, so according to the definition of science I am using here, it is not science. It may be science according to another definition, but I don't know what that definition is.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by EricH

So far as I know, string theory is not recorded, measured, or observed,...

The existence of additional tiny curled-up dimensions of space is predicted to have measureable effects at really really short distances. There have already been experimental observations which provide an upper bound on the "size" of those dimensions if they exist. So current string theory is testable, and definitely counts as science.

[Pat Roche]

As discussed before, string theory is based on the unifying of the four fundamental forces of nature (this is through Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics);gravity, electromagnetism, weak force, and strong force. Currently weak force and electromagnetism have been linked. Mathematicians and scientists are currently working to unify the Strong Force and Electroweak Force. My understanding is that they are very close to completing work proving the combonation of the two forces. The biggest challenge lies in the unification of gravity. Gravity has a very small effect on atoms and even smaller the corks that make up atoms. Currently (if what I've read is true), we do not have the technology to make measurements on gravity at such a small size; thus not allowing us to make any physical test for observation. Is this a theory? Yes because nothing is proven but the idea is out there kicking around and not completed. Is it a law of science yet? No, we don't have any proof saying that it's true and completed.

Hope this is helpful,

-Pat

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by JosephM

I think we need to take a step back and look at what really classifies as science (gravity & evolution) and a theory and what isn't. (i.e. creationism & intelligent design).

I need to say this as respectfully as possible. I don't believe you can prove nor disprove either evolution or creationism beyond a shadow of a doubt. Neither are fully testable, therefore, you can't call either a theory according to the description of what qualifies as a theory in this discussion.

When you make statements like this in a public forum, you are guaranteed to offend several people. May I suggest that you carefully consider your statements. Posting your opinion is fine, but be ready to prove it.

One example of proving a point:
Let's consider the clotting mechanism of the blood. What triggers it? What prevents it from triggering all the time? What tells it when to stop?

Evolution says this process had to develop over time. If that were true, no forms of warm blooded creatures could survive. Once the first cut occurred, the creature would bleed out. Modifying this behavior, over time would not work, all creatures with blood would die. But, suppose clotting did develop, without the ability to stop the process, the entire bloodstream would clot. Again, the creature dies. and no further progress is made on the clotting process. Lastly, the trigger mechanism shouldn't work unless needed otherwise the same result would occur, death. One failure in any of these steps would have the same result. All three processes need to develop simultaneously and completely without failure. I just don't see evolution supporting this process.

Intelligent Design on the other hand.............

I'm not trying to flame you Joseph. I'm just expressing my opinion, and I believe there are more facts to support (I didn't say prove) my point of view than yours. This is just one. Nothing personal.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by billbo911

I need to say this as respectfully as possible. I don't believe you can prove nor disprove either evolution or creationism beyond a shadow of a doubt. Neither are fully testable, therefore, you can't call either a theory according to the description of what qualifies as a theory in this discussion.

When you make statements like this in a public forum, you are guaranteed to offend several people. May I suggest that you carefully consider your statements. Posting your opinion is fine, but be ready to prove it.

One example of proving a point:
Let's consider the clotting mechanism of the blood. What triggers it? What prevents it from triggering all the time? What tells it when to stop?

Evolution says this process had to develop over time. If that were true, no forms of warm blooded creatures could survive. Once the first cut occurred, the creature would bleed out. Modifying this behavior, over time would not work, all creatures with blood would die. But, suppose clotting did develop, without the ability to stop the process, the entire bloodstream would clot. Again, the creature dies. and no further progress is made on the clotting process. Lastly, the trigger mechanism shouldn't work unless needed otherwise the same result would occur, death. One failure in any of these steps would have the same result. All three processes need to develop simultaneously and completely without failure. I just don't see evolution supporting this process.

Intelligent Design on the other hand.............

I'm not trying to flame you Joseph. I'm just expressing my opinion, and I believe there are more facts to support (I didn't say prove) my point of view than yours. This is just one. Nothing personal.

Oh, don't worry, water off the back man. But here's something to ponder, did I post it purely out of the fact it's my opinion? Or was there some sort of other motive? Here's another thing to ponder too, if God (or whoever created life, alienes if it be your thing) hand his hand in the gene pool in creating life through intellegent design, then why do we have so many flaws? Do these flaws say God is flawed? Or did he create us with flaws? But then why did he create us with flaws?

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Oh, don't worry, water off the back man. But here's something to ponder, did I post it purely out of the fact it's my opinion? Or was there some sort of other motive? Here's another thing to ponder too, if God (or whoever created life, alienes if it be your thing) hand his hand in the gene pool in creating life through intellegent design, then why do we have so many flaws? Do these flaws say God is flawed? Or did he create us with flaws? But then why did he create us with flaws?

Awesome questions!!!!
If you want, I'll get into the fallen nature of man, you know, the Adam, Eve and sin thing. In a nut shell, we were created perfect! But though choosing to sin, Adam began a downward spiral for all mankind. As an example, look at the lifespans of Adam, then his children, then grandchildren, then.... You will see a gradual shortening all along the way. That continued until very recent history when man discovered and learned a lot more about how we are (sorry for this) created and function. Now our medical treatment, technology and abilities are far greater than they have been throughout history. That being said, we still know so little about life it's self. Gettin' heavy here.....

One of the greatest abilities God gave us was the ability to choose. Ultimately, those choices lead to where we are now. So you ask "Why would God give it to us?" Because you can't be forced to love something, you can only choose to.

[Dave.Norton]

Originally Posted by billbo911

Evolution says this process had to develop over time. If that were true, no forms of warm blooded creatures could survive. Once the first cut occurred, the creature would bleed out. Modifying this behavior, over time would not work, all creatures with blood would die. But, suppose clotting did develop, without the ability to stop the process, the entire bloodstream would clot. Again, the creature dies. and no further progress is made on the clotting process. Lastly, the trigger mechanism shouldn't work unless needed otherwise the same result would occur, death. One failure in any of these steps would have the same result. All three processes need to develop simultaneously and completely without failure. I just don't see evolution supporting this process.

Alas, I see a hole in your argument; you are looking at the current state of a mechanism, removing a feature and seeing that it fails, then proposing that the mechanism couldn't have developed. I think all that you have demonstrated is that it didn't follow that specific path. Along this same line watching the news of late I find I have more in common genetically with a male chimp than I do with the lady working down the hall, how is that for irony? I suspect she might agree... Anyway, let’s go back to string theory, it may not be enough of an explanation to really qualify as a theory yet, but it is interesting.