Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I don't undersrtand quantum mechanics and string theory

  1. Dec 27, 2012 #1
    I find both quantum mechanics and string theory to be a bit iffy. Mabey it's just because I don't understand it but I think the best way to understand the iffy stuff is to post it on here. Mentors might see this as a debate or going against mainstream physics but how are you able to make new discoveries without thinking of new ideas? Mabey I'll make that my signature.

    1) D-0 branes don't exist yet they have infinite mass and energy.

    2) strings also are 1 dimensional which means they don't exist relative to a 3 dimensional observer yet they hold energy and mass as well.

    3) These 1 dimensional strings yet a mathematical impossibility can stretch without breaking.

    4) In quantum mechanics it states that something may or may not exist until you look at it but aren't we indirectly observing everything in our "light cone" for example standing on a tight rope the tight rope "may or may not exist behind us until we look at it" but it does exist because if it didn't then it wouldn't be quantum mechanics anymore it would just be classical mechanics, haha get it!

    P.S. I won't be able to respond for a while because I'm going somewhere but hopefully in the mean time someone will be able to shed som light on these contradictions.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 27, 2012 #2


    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    New discoveries need new ideas, but they need even more knowledge in the field.
    Random collections of physical concepts (dimensions, mass, strings, ...) in a new order are not new ideas, and do not help.
  4. Dec 27, 2012 #3
    maybey I wasn't clear I'm not making new ideas in this thread, I'm simply asking why do scientists create these seemingly impossible ideas into theories. And I do have knowledge on the subject @mfb for example argument number 4, the double slit experiment supports this idea but there are other explanations than the act of observing makes things happen differently. One explanation is the way we measure a particle influences it to act differently and my tightrope example is plausible it follows the same princible as Schrodinger's cat.
  5. Dec 27, 2012 #4
    All I'm asking people to do is to take my arguments and disprove them escpecially argument number 3.
  6. Dec 27, 2012 #5


    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    There are no impossible ideas. Just ideas which can appear counterintuitive.

    Ok, let's look at 4:
  7. Dec 27, 2012 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Thread closed for Moderation...

    EDIT -- thread will remain closed. We do not allow this type of non-mainstream speculation here on the PF.

    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook