ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA:
"In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. In string theory, the different types of observed elementary particles arise from the different quantum states of these strings. In addition to the types of particles postulated by the standard model of particle physics, string theory naturally incorporates gravity, and is therefore a candidate for a theory of everything, a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. Aside from this hypothesized role in particle physics, string theory is now widely used as a theoretical tool in physics, and it has shed light on many aspects of quantum field theory and quantum gravity."
Does STRING THEORY have the potential to explain it all---including the mysteries of gravity?
I honestly have been saying all these years that Magick exists, and all it is is what science has yet to be able to explain, which is plenty. I think that quantum science will be the explanation of magick, of energy fields, of levitation, and so on.
I don't know that string theory can explain all that, but I know it's a step closer
There isn't anyone here who understands string theory that could make any kind of valid opinion.
I watched a PBS special on it around 5 years ago, so I consider myself somewhat of an expert.
I think several physicists would disagree with your sense that no one understands String Theory. Among them those scientists who, as of 2010, made clear that it was now possible to test String Theory.
Experiments are being conducted to test what is known as quantum entanglement and to see if String Theory works to predict the behavior of entangled quantum particles.
Among those who understand and support String Theory:
In addition, first steps in the direction of proof of String Theory was reported in 2012.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12 … 69774.html
I think he just meant no one on this forum was skilled enough to comment.
Did you actually read my post? I said there wasn't anyone "here", meaning these forums. Of course, there aren't many who understand string theory due to the complex mathematics.
Why presume that no one here on "Hubpages" understands String Theory or has enough understanding to comment on it?
Because you aren't the first person here to create a thread on string theory.
Btw, there are no experiments being conducted on string theory because no one has figured how to test string theory yet.
I would love to hear your thoughts on it. I like to learn.
All of the subatomic particles of basic physics are just one fundamental thing: a string. Strings can be open or closed. Closed strings might account for the "what it is" of gravity. Open strings for everything else.
And these strings oscillate. And when these strings oscillate in unique ways we get an electon, or photon or a quark. This oscillation makes mathematical sense only when there are multiple---perhaps 11 (or more) dimensions.
What I like about String Theory:
It has the potential to unify Newton and Einstein (some Einstein worked for much of his later life to do);
It enables us to think beyond the visible world and visible/known dimensions of the universe;
It has the potential to help us to understand IF movement in excess of the speed of light is possible...and that has the potential to change everything and make everything possible---including travel over the vast distances of the universe, and perhaps, time.
Not really, it was Einsteins theory of Relativity that showed Newton was wrong, string theory cannot possibly unify them.
But, they have already found that faster than light travel can only be achieved within the realm of General Relativity and not String theory.
If Newton were "wrong" then rockets would not fly. Newton's theories are not wrong, but limited in that they apply only to things with mass.
String Theory suggests a variable speed of light and suggests that particles can faster than the speed of light (which neutrinos can do---though whether consistently or not seems problematic); particles traveling faster than the speed of light negate some (not all) of Einsteins's special theory of relativity.
Traveling faster than the speed of light OR the speed of light being variable violates Einstein's theories.
So if faster than speed of light travel is possible (and it seems possible for neutrinos) and if the speed of light may be variable (which some scientists suggest is the stuff of "dark matter"), then Einstein needs some reconsideration.
Einstein needs reconsideration as did Newton in the advent of Einstein's work.
Not true, Newton was wrong because he thought the speed of light was instantaneous and he thought gravity was a pulling force. The fact that some of his formulas are used to get probes to Saturn does not mean he was correct in his assumptions on how things really worked.
What you're referring to is a model created by a couple of physicists to help explain the horizon problem with inflation. And no, particles that allegedly travel faster than light do not negate relativity anything in relativity
It would if that were that case, but that is not the case at all. Nothing anyone has produced regarding faster than light or variable light speed does not violate relativity.
All of that has obviously been taken into consideration, Relativity still holds.
Seems you don't really know what you're talking about.
Were you a science teaching before you retired?
As I noted: IF x then y. IF something, then something.
NASA researchers are working right now at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas to determine if exceeding the speed of light is possible. Similar research is being conducted by the US Department of Energy.
That said: I remember a time when serious scientists and engineers believed there was something called the "sound barrier"---a belief that nothing could travel faster than the speed of sound.
As for Newton, are you suggesting the his Universal Laws of Motion were wrong and that the equations are wrong and do not work? If yes, what specific changes would you make to these equations?
Did Einstein not suggest that the speed of light was a constant? And for his ubiquitous equation to work does not the speed of light need to remain constant? How then would one account for a variable speed of light in terms of Einstein? How does one modify THE equation to account for variable speeds of light?
Do you even have a clue what they're working on? Warp drive? Do you know how this technology is supposed to work?
Ah yes, the tired old fallacious argument regarding the sound barrier. Hilarious.
No, I never said that. Try paying attention.
That most certainly is one of the postulates of Special Relativity, which to date, has not been violated.
So far, no one has varied the speed of light in a vacuum, hence there is no need to modify anything.
So suggesting that a 100 year old theory---much of which is not yet proved by observation and/or experimentation (remember, much of Einstein's work is the result of what he called "thought" experiments and not hard science done in a laboratory setting) AND some of which is being challenging by contemporary cosmological observation is an indicator of being clueless?
So, you actually know nothing at all about relativity and all the experimental data supporting it over the past hundred years,hence will dishonestly state falsehoods about it?
Again, the "ad hominem" offered in the word "typical" is not needed.
Like, when you put in the word, "fascinating"?
I see you have been christened into "ATM discussion".
I have tried to tell him personal gibes aren't necessary. He doesn't recognize them as such.
Oh well, your topic is interesting and worth while none the less.
Thank you. I enjoy intelligent and polite conversation.
"The best scientist is open to experience and begins with romance - the idea that anything is possible."
Oh, I see, you are of the view that it's perfectly acceptable for mbuggieh to gibe, but not me?
Interesting conversation. Refreshing, if not a bit surprising, to see the same attitude and demeanor employed by some, even with others within their same religious philosophy. I expected it to be just against those outside of Scientism. This is our first glimpse of this. Very interesting. Perhaps they will unite against the suggestion that they both belong to Scientism.
I thought that was very interesting myself. I think the lesson to be learned here is that you shouldn't disagree with ATM no matter who you are.
I didn't remember that special I watched mentioning that string theory effected gravity. Surely it must have unless that is a new revelation.
Some string theorists think strings may account for gravity.
The "how" of that is, however, the subject of much debate.
Defining gravity---explaining what it is and how it came to be, eludes science at this point just as it eluded Newton and Einstein.
I love that there are still new theories that could come out in this present day and age. It's been 100 years since something like this has emerged in science... I will enjoy watching it unfold.
What would it take for this theory to be proven? What tools do they not have?
Nonsense, Einsteins General Relativity explains gravity very precisely and accurately.
There is strong evidence, observational and mathematical, that the theory is incomplete---particularly in terms of quantum gravity, dark energy, dark matter, and there has (to date) been no detection of gravitational waves and/or fields.
We do not know and Einstein did not explain:
Why gravity pulls, but does not push;
Why gravity is such a weak force;
What role gravity plays in terms of the very specific configuration of the universe;
What role gravity plays in the bio-physics of life;
If it is possible to counter gravity and/or gravitational effect;
If we will ever have a quantum theory of gravitation as quantum gravitation seems entirely counter-intuitive and inconsistent with the "real" world;
And finally, we do not know what gravity is. We know its effect, but not its nature.
Einstein tells us that gravity is geometry in four dimensions, but that has yet to be proved or disproved.
by SparklingJewel8 years ago
on the religion forum I was describing what I thought was quantum physics...that the universe is accelerating and expanding in a spiral. Is that quantum or something else or combination of things...?
by Danny R Hand7 years ago
Does any body besides me see the connection to physical laws and God.
by Mentalist acer6 years ago
I'd like a laymans explanation of String Theory's application to dimensions and if it's these dimensions that make general relativity and quantum mechanics agree with one another or if it's something else???
by effilnuc6 years ago
my name is thomas boyd cunliffe from eastern australia. this is the theory of infinity with the laws from infinity and some of the corresponding ratios.PLEASE FORWARD ON TO RESEARCHERS IN ALL FIELDS AS IT IS CAN...
by saarahkhan7 years ago
I want to know if time traveling is possible?I read an article on BBC site.It said that one may go back in past but can't change anything from the past.Where did this concept come from?
by Beelzedad6 years ago
Firstly, we look at Special Relativity and it's postulates. I would welcome any anti-relativists, (you know who you are) to refute the postulates as they see fit. Please remember to use mathematics where required in...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.