coming next Tuesday(?) on your PBS station: PBS WGBH NOVA The Elegant Universe ---> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ This is based largely on Brian Greene and his book, no doubt. ST, or rather SST, is coming up to something of an anniversary (35 years), I reckon. The original idea was hoisted in the 1970s, got cooking in the 1980s (string revolution #1) and got kicked upstairs in the 1990s (string revolution #2). Frankly, I've always been disappointed that no one ever shows a graphic of the vibration modes for an electron, up quark and photon (not even a rough cartoon version). Nevertheless, happy anniversary, you strung-out sweeties! A Brief History of String Theory ---> http://superstringtheory.com/history/history4.html (unfortunately, Pat Schwartz's multimedia history movie is gone)
Ramanujan, Ouspensky, & Kaku A Mystical View on Analogies...... Kaku's light switch(?) in regards to the guitar strings was quite interesting revelation, but when you thnk of the Pythagroeans and the weighted gourds, it is not to hard to undertand how tension could have been transferred to weight and vibration of the string:) Just thought you should know. Thanks for keeping update. Also check out the Quantum Harmonic Oscillator. What is zero point, when a string never really comes to rest and we have identified the string(particle)? Also in studing Fermat's Last theorem (Andrew Wiles information)and the pinching effect and we see today how a problem has now brought perspective to other realizations? pg 273(tearing the fabric of Space, in Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe) Sol
i saw this just a couple of minuits ago it was very educational and tought me the basic of the string now i feal that i understand the string theroy
Getiing a good prediction of ordinary particles is one of the hardest thing superstring theory, or any of the theories beyond the standard model, including LQG, can try to do. This is the low energy limit problem that is currently occupying a lot of very good minds in all the theories. each of the theories has its candidate models, and I believe it's fair to say that each of the candidates has something wrong with it. This is not the time to give up on advanced theories - any of them. This is the most exciting time, when we're almost on top of it, but not, quite, yet.
I hope your right, but I don't think so. However I am optimistic that one by one the other prospective QG research programs will either bite the dust or be absorbed by M-theory.
Hope Springs Eternal... Thiemann emailed me he was very optimistic about his program for low limit physics (based on canonical QG). I suppose if you're a worker in the vineyards, it's a professional characteristic to be optimistic about next year's vintage.
Could it be that all of the Calabi-Yau manifolds suggested by the SSTs are different manifestations of a single, underlying manifold (possibly in 7 dimensions)? btw: Before answering, please look @ David Bohm's 'hidden variables' interpretation of QM.
I think your right, on the way in which we must now see. Graphs are leading to understanding probability and in soliton and bec configurations in three dimensional graphs. We know with certainty that a certain energy can be mapped to location or what the heck has gravity come to mean in unification? Sol
When the math has run out......you turn to philosophy. Smolin and others when they go to develope the new math, understood this. And if you didn't undertsand what he did in "three roads" these statements would n't make much sense. He amalgamated different perspectives and maths to come up with Topos theory. It is a process. Sol
"every point in space" ? The suggestion in the Nova show was that the "extra six" dimensions are clustered about every point in space. This was no doubt some sort of simplification - could anyone shed some light? First of all, does this assume points occur discretely? And for 2 points, would there be 12 dimensions? I don't think so. Also, the ant on a wire analogy is helpful, but of course the ant and the wire are actually in 3 space, and positions along and around the wire are not actually independent of 3 space.
Re: "every point in space" ? To understand the logic of interpretations you have to watch the chapter where the transition from General Relativity enters Quantum Mechanics. The chapter starts of by introducing some crazy idea's (some people have acknowledged this to be a personal in-fight between two opposing views, Einsteins and Bohrs) the main idea which caused the shift into mordern understanding, and eventually will be the downfall of String-M-theory, is UNCERTAINTY! Listen carefully to the closing remarks of one such scientist who states religeously which ends up quite laughable: Quantum Mechanics is Fantastically ACCURATE..there has never been a prediction that has been contradicted by an observation! Now this statement appears to be a continuation of the roaring nineteen twenties? You can see the spokesman bursting with confidence, not realizing that as his lips most eloquently recite his admiration of a theory of which he is trying to convey, is actually so far from reality that it ends up being laughable. How can Quantum Mechanics be so "Fantastically Accurate" if the foundation it is based upon never allows no such precision? I cannot help thinking that the understanding of the Laws of physics by such scientists , installs in them a defiant cry of self egotistical worthyness, that they do not understand themselves and their surrounding enviroments, let along what is happenning in the realms of hidden-unseen enviroments. Turning a blind eye seems quite apt and it is ironic that Quantum Mechanics have spawned a mentality that is a limit on our perception as observers of the un-observable! And then we have scientists who are actually telling everyone who does not suscribe to this maddning viewpoint, that they should seek medical help?
Well Ranyart/Moorglade, you'd have to learn QED to understand _how_ it can be so accurate, given that it is based on the uncertainty principle. But I'll just point out This: just because you can't measure momentum and length at the same time to better than a constant error, doesn't mean that you can't measure momentum OR length, by itself, to whatever degree of accuracy your equipment can deliver, with no quantum roadblock.
Yes, I do actually understand QED, and quite a bit more than I let on(not intended to be egotistical). The apperant understanding is, I think being compremised by such ludricous contradictory statements by the said scientist? Anyone with a brain(within a variable degree of self acurate acknowledgment) would obvious not make such statements, and put it in the mainframe public eye, unless one is prepared to answer any inquirie's to the natural inequalities of QM's. Is it fair to ask, if the certainty of QM is based upon precision? there appears to be a standard rebuttal of all such questions, which I find is at the conveniance of Mathematics.
Re: "every point in space" ? I didn't see the show, but presumably it's following Greene's "hose" analogy. The point is to think of just the two-dimensional surface of the wire as space, not to consider it embedded in anything else. Then our macroscopic space would appear one-dimensional: a line. But if you could zoom closely enough, you would find that every "point" in our macroscopic space is actually a circle, so space is really two-dimensional. That's what they mean when they say there is an extra-dimensional space for each point in our macroscopic space.
Probability Diagrams and Feynmens pathways Position and momentum. If the action of the photon is taking place, it is also reveallling the gravitational consideration as well? Probability in this case would say, it is a simultaneous feature? Like in Penroses diagrams of two spheres. Sorry but I cannot create link to SST and cannot find this plate, so those who understand will know what I mean. Photon consideration here, would have to be specific, especially in terms of mass consideration on the spacetime fabric. In this undertanding, the action taking place in exchange, would effect Feynman's pathway based on the mass/energy calculation? Would these not be the same things.....not only in how we would consider orbitals....but also in how we would understand how gravity is being measured? This question is open to others as well? Sol
I swear there are people posting to this forum who have random word generators write their posts for them! Njorl
Hi Sol, if you look at the Feynman diagram you linked to, the Time axis, and the left Electron?.. when this Electron Emits a Photon, the right hand Electron is behind, in time-terms. The Electron on left emits a Photon before the interaction, its not a result of the interaction, it has 'read the future with respect to an event to come'? in knowing that there will be another Electron there to recieve the emitted Photon. Feynman, in his great wisdom, must have known that if the diagrams were presented with both Elecrons on a par, in a actual time path that was horizontal, ie...if you place your mouse cursor along an imaginary horozontal line to where the first Electron emits the photon(the squiggly line of photon moves in a direction that intercepts the second Electron), but place your cursor linear <___> then you can see that the mouse cursor is at a point in time(future) to where the second Electron is heading. A continuous line straight across in the diagram >---< would mean that the second Electron, would always outrun the photon in the expected exchange frame, and thus would have to stop..wait for photon..and then move away after this event! The travelling back and forth along 'worldlines' was introduced by Feynman to explain his lack of understanding of how Electrons could communicate in a linear 'present-time'. Feynman them made the off-the-cuff-remark, that there was really just one Electron moving backwards and forwards in 'PAST-FUTURE' time worldlines. Predetermination is something that causes problems in many a theory? and there is more, if one adopts a further inquiry into worldlines, the interaction maybe three-fold! ;)
Thank you for the explanation. It is very interesting. Would you understand what I meant if the gravity field was based on different energy values, that in such a consideration how would such a event described in a drawing such as this >~0~< speak to the graviton( I am a little mixed up here and I know some will know what it means) For example information from the early universe, in light coincides with the structural events from the past? So today gravitational waves that have been generated, are directly connected to the event, now? We have talked about Bosa Nova and smoke rings, how did this information get released into the fabric, if we did not consider the signifcance of not only distance, but of what dimension might mean here? The movement is very dynamical as you have suggested. Sol