So, strings are simply small waves of energy?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Could the members here please peacefully discuss this topic including the good and bad parts of it.


So, strings are simply small waves of energy? Is there something more to this?

 

[vanesch]

A good non-technical intro by one of the leaders in the field can be found here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=90676&postcount=1

 

[PRodQuanta]

Could the members here please peacefully discuss this topic including the good and bad parts of it.


So, strings are simply small waves of energy? Is there something more to this?

I posted in another post on how being able to understand something physically really helps one to do well in physics class. I also said that that concept only works until you get to quantum theory. String theory is way past quantum theory. I feel that it is best if one doesn't try to visualize String Theory, rather understand its implications and its reasons for existing.

As for the pros and cons of string theory, I would advise reading a book by Brian Greene on the subject, or Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin. They are very fascinating books that will give you way more information and will save way more time rather then wasting time on a forum. Maybe once you've had some background you will still have some questions that you would like to be answered.

My $.02

Paden Roder

 

[vanesch]

I posted in another post on how being able to understand something physically really helps one to do well in physics class. I also said that that concept only works until you get to quantum theory.

With the risk of getting this thread off topic, I'd object to this, you know. One can get a "physical intuition" for quantum theory as well as for classical theory. It just takes more time to get used to, and the will to accept very weird ideas. It is just that when you first hear about quantum theory, you've had 20+ years or so of "classical experience" which started when you were a few months old and you dropped - at your parent's dismay - all kinds of objects because it's fun to see them fall.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

A good non-technical intro by one of the leaders in the field can be found here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=90676&postcount=1

Integral is one of the leaders of the field? We have some famous people here.

I have already seen that miniseries. That is what got me to start this topic in order to see a discussion between string theorists and anti-string theorists.

 

[vanesch]

Integral is one of the leaders of the field? We have some famous people here.

I have already seen that miniseries. That is what got me to start this topic in order to see a discussion between string theorists and anti-string theorists.

No, please not more political/religious wargoing over "Heil Strings" or "LQG ueber alles" !

It seems that people cannot do anything else but bikering about *how wrong* the others are... Let me have a dream: let me dream that contributors can explain what they think they do *right* themselves, and where they do things *wrong* themselves ; what they have achieved, and what they would have liked to achieve, but where they fail (as of now, or for good).
There's nothing wrong in pinpointing technically visible difficulties in the other guy or gal's approach, but it would even be better if that other guy or gal did that him/herself !

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

So there was already a discussion? Could you direct me to it?

I simply want to understand the advantages and problems within string theory. By the way, is Integral really an important physicist?

 

[vanesch]

By the way, is Integral really an important physicist?

I don't want to comment on Integral's importance but I was of course not referring to him, but to Brian Greene...

Integral just made the post about his talk show being available...