String Theory: Mysterious Smaller Universes

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Zeke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    String
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around string theory and the concept of smaller universes, exploring the implications of fundamental particles and their nature. Participants engage in a mix of theoretical exploration and conceptual clarification regarding the understanding of string theory and the behavior of subatomic particles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that string theory might imply that everything has its own universe, with each believing it is the only universe.
  • Another participant argues that no one truly understands string theory, emphasizing that if it were fully understood, it would not remain a theory.
  • A claim is made that subatomic particles do not "think" but behave according to their physical properties, challenging the notion that they perceive their existence in a universe.
  • There is a humorous exchange questioning whether eighth graders also "just do" without thinking, paralleling this to the behavior of fundamental particles.
  • Participants note the lack of definitive proof regarding the thoughts or behaviors of fundamental particles, suggesting a need to focus on established knowledge.
  • One participant references Occam's Razor in relation to discussing consciousness and thinking as macroscopic processes, advocating for simplicity in explanations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the understanding of string theory and the nature of subatomic particles. There is no consensus on whether particles can "think" or the implications of string theory regarding universes.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects a mix of humor and serious inquiry, with some statements made in jest that may not contribute to the scientific discourse. The lack of definitive proof regarding the nature of particles and consciousness is acknowledged but remains unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring theoretical physics, particularly string theory, and the philosophical implications of particle behavior and consciousness.

Zeke
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
ok i understand the string theroy but it seems that we just keep finding somthing smaller than what we said before could this be a theroy that every thing has its own universe thinking that they are the only universe
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
First, I can promise you that as an eigth grader, you don't understand string theory, just for the fact that NOBODY understands it. If they did, it would not be a theory, and we would all be excited and talking about how great it is, or we would be mad and talking about how big of a disappointment it was.

Second, subatomic particles don't think, they just do, or behave in it's own nature based on it's physical properties, if you will. So to think that atoms, or yet more fundamental subatomic particles "think they are in their own universe" is wrong.

I'd do a little more reading on the String Theory... :wink:
Paden Roder
 
Last edited:
Isn't it true of Eighth Graders too? Don't they just do and not think? Remember - Innocence is Ignorance and Ignorance is Bliss. Oh, to be young again!

As for fundamental particles ... there is no definitive proof that they don't think.
 
There's no definitive proof either that they don't wear pink tutus and do the Dance of the Hours when we're not looking at them. Let's stick with extending what we do know about them.
 
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
There's no definitive proof either that they don't wear pink tutus and do the Dance of the Hours when we're not looking at them. Let's stick with extending what we do know about them.

He's right. I mean, I could go on about how consciousness and thinking are macroscopic processes, as I've done before, but selfAdjoint's point is good enough. Basically, stick with Occam's Razor.
 
I consider my blatherings hence curtailed.

Thanks for the wake-up call, you guys.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
10K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
12K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K