0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

string theroy?

QuoteThe simplest models of particles as points fail at the highest energies because they involve all sorts of awkward infinities in the mathematics. like saying one divided by zero. Thanks for this. Is this the classical model of particles we are talking about? QuoteA good example of this is the inverse square law of gravity and electric charge as you get closer to an infinitely small point particle the field increases without limit and theory becomes meaningless.Having your particles described in terms of finite and irreducible sized elements can get round this. In the simplest form these are one dimensional strings but other versions use two or more dimensional membranes "branes". This could of course include simple spherical surfaces like balloons. Various numbers of "dimensions" up to around 32 have been proposed but around 10 to 11 are currently preferred. These dimensions could be like having more dimensions in space but they could be like the the real and imaginary numbers commonly used in wave analysis just a mathematical artifice that allows the sums to work. They could also be simple descriptors that create a property like electrical charge.This is what I wondered, are 11 dimensions real or just brought out of the blue like Penn and Teller to fit the figures?QuoteAs has already been said to resolve these properties using "microscopes" (particle accelerators) is very likely to be far beyond human resources but there may be extreme conditions in collapsing stars and or the early universe where confirmation may be observed. However this will require a very careful analysis of predictions of very many alternative models.Is this what the search for the elusive Higgs Boson is all about? Would that prove that particles exist as one dimensional strings?Thanks for the response. I can't stop thinking now...

The simplest models of particles as points fail at the highest energies because they involve all sorts of awkward infinities in the mathematics. like saying one divided by zero.

A good example of this is the inverse square law of gravity and electric charge as you get closer to an infinitely small point particle the field increases without limit and theory becomes meaningless.Having your particles described in terms of finite and irreducible sized elements can get round this. In the simplest form these are one dimensional strings but other versions use two or more dimensional membranes "branes". This could of course include simple spherical surfaces like balloons. Various numbers of "dimensions" up to around 32 have been proposed but around 10 to 11 are currently preferred. These dimensions could be like having more dimensions in space but they could be like the the real and imaginary numbers commonly used in wave analysis just a mathematical artifice that allows the sums to work. They could also be simple descriptors that create a property like electrical charge.

As has already been said to resolve these properties using "microscopes" (particle accelerators) is very likely to be far beyond human resources but there may be extreme conditions in collapsing stars and or the early universe where confirmation may be observed. However this will require a very careful analysis of predictions of very many alternative models.

Present colliders only work at a few hundred GeV whereas the LHC will operate at 1TeV (1000GeV). Some particles predicted by string theory should then become detectable. If they do, it won't necessarily prove that string theory is correct; but it will certainly give strong indication that the theory is on the right lines. Conversely, if those predicted particles are not detected, that will not necessarily mean that string theory is wrong; merely that certain aspects will need looking at again.Strings themselves, if they exist, are far too small (10^{-33}cm) for us ever to measure or even detect directly as the energy required to probe such minute distances would be such that the energy itself may well be enough to collapse into a micro-blackhole. It is certainly way beyond any energy level we could ever hope to create.

Quote from: DoctorBeaver on 08/07/2007 19:50:41Present colliders only work at a few hundred GeV whereas the LHC will operate at 1TeV (1000GeV). Some particles predicted by string theory should then become detectable. If they do, it won't necessarily prove that string theory is correct; but it will certainly give strong indication that the theory is on the right lines. Conversely, if those predicted particles are not detected, that will not necessarily mean that string theory is wrong; merely that certain aspects will need looking at again.Strings themselves, if they exist, are far too small (10^{-33}cm) for us ever to measure or even detect directly as the energy required to probe such minute distances would be such that the energy itself may well be enough to collapse into a micro-blackhole. It is certainly way beyond any energy level we could ever hope to create.Thanks for the response. Doesn't scientific method fall apart if something can be neither proved nor disproved?

If string theory turns out to be correct, then the extra dimensions are real. They could be curled up so small (compactification) that they are invisible, or they could be infinite but still invisible to us (the reasons for that are a bit complex and would need a separate thread).The Higgs boson is supposedly the particle that gives certain gauge bosons (force-carrying bosons) their mass. Check out the Wiki article ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN. That explains it pretty well.

Quote from: DoctorBeaver on 09/07/2007 20:22:45If string theory turns out to be correct, then the extra dimensions are real. They could be curled up so small (compactification) that they are invisible, or they could be infinite but still invisible to us (the reasons for that are a bit complex and would need a separate thread).The Higgs boson is supposedly the particle that gives certain gauge bosons (force-carrying bosons) their mass. Check out the Wiki article ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN. That explains it pretty well.Thanks Doc, I will check out the article. Does it mean that when I raise an arm, I could be passing through the start and end of these extra dimensions?