Can someone explain string theory to me?

[phucheneh]

Well, not really. More like 'someone explain why string theory is even a thing and not just some rambling garbage from the minds of crazy people who mistakenly think that they're geniuses.'

A.k.a. 'explain to me how Steven Hawking is not retarded.'

There have been a few threads in the past (one recently) where talk of space travel led to lots of purely, entirely, 100% theoretical untested 'science,' which I tend to openly mock. And it's always the dumbest people who come in with their 'OMG open your mind' crap, citing any random scientific discovery in the history of mankind as proof that 'anything is possible' or what-the-fuck-ever.

'The Wright brothers flew a plane! Why can't the universe have eleven dimensions and be made of vibrating strings?!'

Physics really seems to not be advancing much these days. It's all theory and no proof, and everyone thinks that they're going to be the next Einstein. The important difference, IMO, being that Einstein was pretty humble and often assumed that his predictions [based on observation, rather than nothing] were not true. But then that whole relativity thing kind of got proven to be true, and now it seems like the goal of the modern [useless] theoretical physicyst is to once again rewrite things with a universal solution to everything, no matter how hard they have to jam that imaginary puzzle piece into what they see as the open hole.

Seems like biology is the new physics. And physics is the new tinfoil hat.

If someone can coherently explain why any of these modern theories have value, I would actually like to understand why.

 

[Fritzo]

They're called theories because there is observable evidence to back up the hypothesis. The fact you don't think physics is advancing at all is laughable. We've discovered the Higgs boson (which, BTW, was also just a "theory" at one time), we've discovered a way to detect extrasolar planets, we've discovered the rate at which the universe is expanding, we've found neutrinos have mass, we're learning to use quantum teleportation...all within the last two decades. Physicists are busier now then they've ever been in history.

String theory is an idea that ties the very small (quantum) world in with the very large (normal) world. They two have different sets of physical properties and string theory ties them together.

Here's an easy primer: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-basic-elements-of-string-theory.html

Is it most likely 100% correct? No. Are some parts of it a perfect match? Yes. Will we continue to study it and zero in on the correct answer? Definitely.

 

[zebrax2]

They are not considered ramblings because this theories do have a lot of mathematics to support them. Tests doesn't yield much proof simply because this things are a huge PITA to test.

Relativity brought us things like the GPS while quantum mechanics helped a lot in the semi conductor industry. The question would be "why should we stop 'jamming imaginary puzzle pieces together' when history has proven time and time again that we benefited a lot when this 'imaginary puzzle pieces' suddenly turned out to be the real pieces to the puzzle"

 

[Bird222]

They're called theories because there is observable evidence to back up the hypothesis. The fact you don't think physics is advancing at all is laughable. We've discovered the Higgs boson (which, BTW, was also just a "theory" at one time), we've discovered a way to detect extrasolar planets, we've discovered the rate at which the universe is expanding, we've found neutrinos have mass, we're learning to use quantum teleportation...all within the last two decades. Physicists are busier now then they've ever been in history.

String theory is an idea that ties the very small (quantum) world in with the very large (normal) world. They two have different sets of physical properties and string theory ties them together.

Here's an easy primer: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-basic-elements-of-string-theory.html

Is it most likely 100% correct? No. Are some parts of it a perfect match? Yes. Will we continue to study it and zero in on the correct answer? Definitely.

Did we actually discover the Higgs boson?

 

[iGas]

Did we actually discover the Higgs boson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle initially theorised in 1964,[2][6] whose discovery was announced at CERN on 4 July 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#cite_note-discovery-9

 

[Pheran]

Unfortunately string theory has turned out to be pretty much nonsense, though it has advanced some areas of math. For a much more complete treatment of this topic, see Not Even Wrong by Peter Woit.

Fritzo never made this claim, but for the record, the Higgs boson has nothing to do with string theory. To my knowledge, string theory has yet to make a single useful or correct prediction about the universe. Also, there is no observable evidence for string theory.

 

[MongGrel]

I take it you were kinda off handily referring to this to begin with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8y5EXFMD4s

 

[Pheran]

Are some parts of it a perfect match? Yes.

I would be curious to know what parts of string theory you think are a perfect match for something in the real world?

 

[MongGrel]

Well, not really. More like 'someone explain why string theory is even a thing and not just some rambling garbage from the minds of crazy people who mistakenly think that they're geniuses.'

A.k.a. 'explain to me how Steven Hawking is not retarded.'

There have been a few threads in the past (one recently) where talk of space travel led to lots of purely, entirely, 100% theoretical untested 'science,' which I tend to openly mock. And it's always the dumbest people who come in with their 'OMG open your mind' crap, citing any random scientific discovery in the history of mankind as proof that 'anything is possible' or what-the-fuck-ever.

'The Wright brothers flew a plane! Why can't the universe have eleven dimensions and be made of vibrating strings?!'

Physics really seems to not be advancing much these days. It's all theory and no proof, and everyone thinks that they're going to be the next Einstein. The important difference, IMO, being that Einstein was pretty humble and often assumed that his predictions [based on observation, rather than nothing] were not true. But then that whole relativity thing kind of got proven to be true, and now it seems like the goal of the modern [useless] theoretical physicyst is to once again rewrite things with a universal solution to everything, no matter how hard they have to jam that imaginary puzzle piece into what they see as the open hole.

Seems like biology is the new physics. And physics is the new tinfoil hat.

If someone can coherently explain why any of these modern theories have value, I would actually like to understand why.

I'd pretty much theorize you can't hit you ass with both hands in reality and no one should bother trying.

 

[Rakehellion]

Well, not really. More like 'someone explain why string theory is even a thing and not just some rambling garbage from the minds of crazy people who mistakenly think that they're geniuses.'

Tide comes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that shit!

Can you believe some of these idiots believe in evolution too?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

String Theory is misnamed because it doesn't really count as a theory.

Theories are testable and make predictions. String Theory is neither.

 

[Paratus]

Well, not really. More like 'someone explain why string theory is even a thing and not just some rambling garbage from the minds of crazy people who mistakenly think that they're geniuses.'

A.k.a. 'explain to me how Steven Hawking is not retarded.'

There have been a few threads in the past (one recently) where talk of space travel led to lots of purely, entirely, 100% theoretical untested 'science,' which I tend to openly mock. And it's always the dumbest people who come in with their 'OMG open your mind' crap, citing any random scientific discovery in the history of mankind as proof that 'anything is possible' or what-the-fuck-ever.

'The Wright brothers flew a plane! Why can't the universe have eleven dimensions and be made of vibrating strings?!'

Physics really seems to not be advancing much these days. It's all theory and no proof, and everyone thinks that they're going to be the next Einstein. The important difference, IMO, being that Einstein was pretty humble and often assumed that his predictions [based on observation, rather than nothing] were not true. But then that whole relativity thing kind of got proven to be true, and now it seems like the goal of the modern [useless] theoretical physicyst is to once again rewrite things with a universal solution to everything, no matter how hard they have to jam that imaginary puzzle piece into what they see as the open hole.

Seems like biology is the new physics. And physics is the new tinfoil hat.

If someone can coherently explain why any of these modern theories have value, I would actually like to understand why.

Well in that other thread you were trying to rip apart theoretical science as not being tested that was in the process of being tested.

Now in this thread you want to know if Stephen Hawking is an idiot because you don't understand what string theory is or it's limitations.

Ya I'm going to go with you not really being interested in learning anything.

 

[z1ggy]

Is Hawking even involved in M-theory/string theory? I don't know the answer to that one.. I thought he was more into black holes (hence Hawking Radiation) and things like that?

 

[Scarpozzi]

At the end of the day, none of it matters.

Family and beer are the most important things to me. People can study whatever stuff they want to consume their minds with. I'll be at the lake with a cold one.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

At the end of the day, none of it matters.

Family and beer are the most important things to me. People can study whatever stuff they want to consume their minds with. I'll be at the lake with a cold one.

Boring.

 

[IronWing]

At the end of the day, none of it matters.

Family and beer are the most important things to me. People can study whatever stuff they want to consume their minds with. I'll be at the lake with a cold one.

While not a practitioner of the mystic arts myself I understand that string theory comes into play while fishing.

 

[Arcadio]

At the end of the day, none of it matters.

Family and beer are the most important things to me. People can study whatever stuff they want to consume their minds with. I'll be at the lake with a cold one.

Are you implying that studying the Universe somehow conflicts with enjoying the simple things in life?

 

[manimal]

Turn on the science channel. Morgan Freeman or some brittish dude will explain it twice an evening most nights.



The crux of the problem here is people dont know when to listen and when to speak anymore. I think much has been lost because of this internet nonsense.

 

[Fritzo]

Unfortunately string theory has turned out to be pretty much nonsense, though it has advanced some areas of math. For a much more complete treatment of this topic, see Not Even Wrong by Peter Woit.

Fritzo never made this claim, but for the record, the Higgs boson has nothing to do with string theory. To my knowledge, string theory has yet to make a single useful or correct prediction about the universe. Also, there is no observable evidence for string theory.

Some of the elements of string theory "fit", meaning they adequately explain the relationship between the quantum and the macro world. However, a lot of items do not fit, and in order to make it work you have to make more and more outlandish and amazing assumptions. Typically nature doesn't work like that: if it's too complicated it's probably not correct.

As I said, some items in string theory panned out to make us think in different ways (being part of a multiverse for example), but others aspects fell flat on their face (it's "way off" predictions of the cosmological constant is a big one).

The reason string theory is so controversial is the math works, but a lot of it is untestable and some natural observations support it, some poo-poo the whole idea, and we are not even equipped to observe things like extra dimensions.

So, as I was alluding to: string theory is most likely wrong, but certain parts of it may be right and point us to the truth.

 

[soulcougher73]

Well if you don't understand it, how can we explain it to such a simple mind. Some things are just not meant for layman to understand

 

[Fritzo]

Is Hawking even involved in M-theory/string theory? I don't know the answer to that one.. I thought he was more into black holes (hence Hawking Radiation) and things like that?

He was a big proponent of M Theory (which is a modified version of string theory), but he's been backing off lately

The discovery that black holes don't actually exist was a big blow to him, so he's rethinking a lot of things right now. (Black holes actually emit radiation, meaning they will eventually evaporate over trillions of years, this makes them "gray holes".).

 

[z1ggy]

He was a big proponent of M Theory (which is a modified version of string theory), but he's been backing off lately

The discovery that black holes don't actually exist was a big blow to him, so he's rethinking a lot of things right now. (Black holes actually emit radiation, meaning they will eventually evaporate over trillions of years, this makes them "gray holes".).

Please link me to papers/research, that sounds interesting.

Does this mean that eventually you could recover the lost "data" somewhere else in space/time, assuming Hawking Radiation doesn't emit 100% of what the black/gray hole takes in?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

He was a big proponent of M Theory (which is a modified version of string theory), but he's been backing off lately

The discovery that black holes don't actually exist was a big blow to him, so he's rethinking a lot of things right now. (Black holes actually emit radiation, meaning they will eventually evaporate over trillions of years, this makes them "gray holes".).

Hawkings radiation is still unproven and the math behind it is still shakey, because of the problem of information loss.

 

[Brian Stirling]

If you want to understand string theory you need to know what Bill Hicks said on the subject.

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather."


Brian

 

[OutHouse]

this should help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGRdeJkdagA