The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: String theory  (Read 9042 times)

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
String theory
« on: 10/12/2006 00:20:00 »
The most successful theories of everything that are around are based on superstrings.  They depend on the existence of fundamental, short, tensioned strings or loops that can oscillate in various modes to create the particles and force fields that we experience in our universe. 

These strings have clearly defined properties (size tension dimensionality etc)but these are just taken as given and not explained in any way.

I would like to suggest that a tiny space time vortex may have these properties.  Consider a vortex in water Or a tornado the rotational energy creates a tensioned single dimension stringlike structure that could have many of the properties required and it should be possible to model vortexes like this using current fluid dynamic knowledge (extended a bit into at least four or five dimensions)

Another important point is that the basic quantum of quantum mechanics is essentially a quantum of angular momentum that describes rotation or a vortex so this could be a good starting point for a quantised real theory of everything

how do others feel about this?


 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: String theory
« Reply #1 on: 10/12/2006 13:32:48 »
Now I begin to understand why you have always been curious about a rotating black hole behaviour.
It's a fascinating theory.
 

Offline science_guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
  • I'm right there... inside neilep's head!
    • View Profile
Re: String theory
« Reply #2 on: 11/12/2006 17:41:30 »
I agree.
 

Dr. Praetoria

  • Guest
Re: String theory
« Reply #3 on: 11/12/2006 22:22:47 »
I think you got a good idea. :o  I found a related article--..."We study the low-energy quantum dynamics of vortex strings in the Higgs phase of N=2 supersymmetric QCD. The exact BPS spectrum of the stretched string is shown to coincide with the BPS spectrum of the four-dimensional parent gauge theory. Perturbative string excitations correspond to bound W-bosons and quarks while the monopoles appear as kinks on the vortex string. This provides a physical explanation for an observation by N. Dorey relating the quantum spectra of theories in two and four dimensions.
Comment: 23 pages, 1 figure. v2: Two extra appendices included: one on the brane construction, the other describing the potential on the vortex moduli space. Two figures added. Typos corrected and references added. v3: BPS nature of quarks corrected..."  GOTO--http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Ahep-th%2F0403158

DocN

GROUCHO MARX (to an unnamed host) "I've had a wonderful evening, but this wasn't it".
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: String theory
« Reply #4 on: 12/12/2006 01:11:44 »
That is a very Interesting article  and is the first one I have seen that appears to be thinking in this direction.  I must admit that I am not fully familiar with some of the terminology and maths presented though.
 

Dr. Praetoria

  • Guest
Re: String theory
« Reply #5 on: 12/12/2006 21:08:26 »
Not too many people are, either!
 

jolly

  • Guest
String theory
« Reply #6 on: 23/02/2007 23:49:07 »
deleted as inapproprate
« Last Edit: 06/03/2007 00:41:38 by jolly »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
String theory
« Reply #7 on: 24/02/2007 16:10:25 »
Life is a complicated thing jolly.  Having a complete knowledge of all the physical laws does not finish the job of knowing how things evolve over time it just allows us to understand what will happen next with a good degree of accuracy.  You must remember that the laws of physics that totally govern your body and its interactions with the world have been fully and accurately understood for more than one hundred years.

Absolutely everything that you experience or is involved with the operation of your body is basically electromagnetic plus of course the gravitational attraction of the earth.  Maxwells equations and basic quantum theory explain these with incredible precision.

It is of course true that the strong and weak nuclear forces hold the nuclei of the atoms together but apart from a tiny bit of the background radiation that creates a few rogue ions here and there that your body has evolved to cope with they have no significant effect.

Modern theories of everything are just covering the extreme cases far removed in time and space from anything that can happen on the earth
« Last Edit: 24/02/2007 16:23:17 by Soul Surfer »
 

jolly

  • Guest
String theory
« Reply #8 on: 25/02/2007 03:07:17 »
deleted as inapproprate
« Last Edit: 06/03/2007 00:42:51 by jolly »
 

Offline Mr Andrew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 206
  • God was primitive man's attempt at Physics.
    • View Profile
String theory
« Reply #9 on: 25/02/2007 04:20:45 »
jolly, judging from your average of 31.5 posts/day, don't you have something better to be doing with your life too?  In case you haven't noticed, this is a science forum; that means that most of the people who post on this site are scientists or are interested in science.  I think for any true scientist, their work is also their hobby.  That means that when they have nothing better to do, they do science.  Why?  For the same reasons that little boys build model airplanes and little girls play with dolls--because they enjoy it.  Science makes them happy and if you really want to get philosophical, isn't the pursuit of happiness one of the three unalienable rights to which we are supposed to be entitled (It's not just reserved for us Americans!)?  You could even argue that life is not life without the pursuit of happiness.  But this is not a philosophy forum, it is a science one.  Maybe if you spent less of your time ridiculing scientists for pursuing science you'd realize that.  If you don't feel that you have anything to say about string theory except that it is a bunch of nonesense then I think we are all agreed that you should keep it to yourself.  It wouldn't be so bad if you actually had some SCIENCE to back it up but you don't.  You have your unfounded opinions.  Maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong; if you think we're a bunch of lunatics professing ca-ca, fine but don't tell us what we should be doing with our lives...you are wasting your time posting on a science forum when you clearly have no interest in science.  Your thread "gravity is not about mass but energy and I can prove it" demonstrates this well enough.  You didn't prove anything, didn't even propose anything with any sort of logical basis and you made a fool out of yourself.  To get technical, what you don't realize in your posts is that mass and energy are one and the same, that energy is the ability to do work, that light is a wave (which has energy) and that heat is the change of temperature through a medium (temperature is the average kinetic energy of a group of molecules).  You clearly don't even have an elementary understanding of basic physics so I think you are unqualified to comment on something such as string theory let alone gravity or any other area of physics.  There is a reason that nobody has replied to your thread and maybe you should ponder this for a while before you post again.  You said that you just want a debate...well, I've got news for you buddy: this is a discussion forum alright but just as in any debate, it's not a good idea to go around telling people what they should do with their lives and making statements that are totally unbacked.  You've gotta play nice and you have to know what you're talking about.  On the matter of your last post in this thread, clearly you did not "see" what Soul Surfer was saying because you proceeded to build on the idea that a "theory of everything" as far as physics is concerned would destroy the world like a super-powerful nuclear warhead.  All that this theory would do would be to unify quantum mechanics and relativity so that things that can't be described by the two theories seperately could be described.  That is exactly what Soul Surfer was saying.  Once again I would ask you to firstly, don't take radical stances on something of which you understand completely nothing, and secondly, don't tell people what to do with their lives; don't tell scientists to go practice something other than science; don't tell people that they shouldn't pursue what makes them happy; don't come to a forum in which you clame to hope to find open-minded people and then shut down their ideas. 
unfortuatly people think they know alot more than they actually do, not only that they are arrogant with it.
  That they are; it's one thing to speculate and theorize but it's another to think that you know what other people should and shouldn't speculate and theorize about.
 

jolly

  • Guest
String theory
« Reply #10 on: 25/02/2007 16:07:42 »
deleted as inapproprate
« Last Edit: 06/03/2007 00:42:28 by jolly »
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
String theory
« Reply #11 on: 25/02/2007 19:08:35 »
I never said you should or should not do anything i meerly stated the reality that a super theory would be a very powerful theory, and that anyone who had it could if they choose to kill everyone. which would mean that the person who had that theory would have to be responsible. because if they were not we could all die. you clearly miss-understood me. I would never under any strech of the imagination, tell anyone how to live there life we are all free to think for ourselves, who are you or i to tell anyone what to do. you have completely mis-understood and been arrogant yourself here. Please, if you can understand what im getting at, try and see that it was never my intencion to tell you or anyone what to do. I only asked that you be slightly conscious of what you are looking to achieve. and what it might mean if you do achieve it. There is a difference. Please if you would, could you re-read what I have written about Gravity, I have ammended it inrelation to what you have said to make it clearer.
As Mr. Andrew already said, the "Theory of Everything" it's not a real theory able to explain everything and so to have an infinite power.
(By the way, are you really so naive to think such knowledge is possible?)

It has that name just because it would allow to apply quantum mechanics to gravitation, and so, to unify all the known forces of nature; nothing as important as you think would happen, believe me, you can relax!

It's only that scientists like to give sounding names to important theories!

About "the ability to kill everyone", I'd like to make you notice that they already have.
« Last Edit: 25/02/2007 19:17:20 by lightarrow »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
String theory
« Reply #12 on: 04/03/2007 19:54:17 »
Jolly.  If you had any knowledge of science you would be well aware that we already know and have at our disposal the most powerful tools of destruction that we CAN EVER HAVE in the form of thermonuclear fission and fusion explosives and we already have deployed far more of these than is needed to seriously damage life on earth.  It is up to global society to learn how to cope with this knowledge without destroying itself. No further knowledge is likely to give us any more power because it deals with states of matter so removed from life that it is just not possible to use them for any constructive or destructive purpose the theory of everything does most certainly not convey absolute power it is pure knowledge.

Looking at your posts I think that any humorous benefits from your contributions are far outweighed by your negative deceptive and argumentative contributions and I reccommend all contributors to totally ignore any posts by jolly.  I note that the topic "gravity is not about mass but energy"  is a soliloquy so this clearly shows what a lot of people feel about "contributions" like this  I would also suggest that if this causes jolly's post level to rise unacceptably high or further damage the structure of this board for the moderators to place you on the banned list.

I am not a moderator on this site but on sites that I have moderated in the past my policy was to issue only one public warning before taking this action with nuisance trolls.
 

jolly

  • Guest
String theory
« Reply #13 on: 06/03/2007 00:44:00 »
hey you go get your theory of everything and then know it all. and therefore have nothing left to learn. and get bored. Carry-on science.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2007 01:12:55 by jolly »
 

Offline science_guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
  • I'm right there... inside neilep's head!
    • View Profile
String theory
« Reply #14 on: 04/04/2007 16:06:30 »
Man strives to get a theory of everything because they are naturally curious about where they live, and how.  The only thing is, we cannot possibly in a million lifetimes put it together, for there are far to many numerous things for us to discover and decifer.  Yes, science will carry on, but we will probably never see us getting bored with the mysteries.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
String theory
« Reply #15 on: 11/04/2007 09:54:31 »
The complete knowledge of a small set of equations that fully describes how our universe works most definitely does not tell us everything about the universe because even simple equations can have incredibly complex outcomes think of fractals and the Mandebrot set and other similar complex patterns arising out of simple equations.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

String theory
« Reply #15 on: 11/04/2007 09:54:31 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums