Can someone explain string theory to me?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
AMDZen

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,589
0
76
Let me guess, OP is a christian who doesn't believe in evolution because it is just a "theory" and gravity probably doesn't exist either
 
Corn

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
My experience has taught me that if a string is present do not "go down" there......
 
phucheneh

phucheneh

Diamond Member
Jun 30, 2012
7,306
5
0
I will admit: I do love being right.

Thanks for the personal attacks from the peanut gallery. Some of you really just don't realize how obviously mentally defective you truly are...coming in just to spout 'LOL Y U NO STRING THEORY?!' because you're under the delusion that simply professing to believe in something you don't understand will make people think that you're smart.

No, it's nothing like evolution, which is a) proven and b) safe to 'believe' without being an expert in the field. You know, because it is legitimate science.

Paratus is still the scariest person, though. If we are to believe that he is what he seems to represent himself to be, he is a physicist. And he doesn't exactly seem all that bright. You'd have to be one hell of a savant to be a scientific genius who is that bad at English/not sounding moronic.

However, I am intrigued by Pheran's ideas and wish to subscribe to his newsletter. And I <3 Fritzo.
 
AMDZen

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,589
0
76
phucheneh said:
No, it's nothing like evolution, which is a) proven and b) safe to 'believe' without being an expert in the field. You know, because it is legitimate science.
Click to expand...

I would apologize but some of your comments made you seem fairly thick so I will apologize for lumping you in with religious zealots. Assuming you are not.

Still
A.k.a. 'explain to me how Steven Hawking is not retarded.'
'The Wright brothers flew a plane! Why can't the universe have eleven dimensions and be made of vibrating strings?!'
Seems like biology is the new physics. And physics is the new tinfoil hat.

These comments are pretty ridiculous. Namely the first and last one. Hawking is pretty universally accepted as a smart guy even if many disagree with him on various theories he's had and developed.

And you really need to learn the difference between "Theoretical Physics" and "Physics" because calling Physics a tintoil hat science is pretty ridiculous.
 
phucheneh

phucheneh

Diamond Member
Jun 30, 2012
7,306
5
0
AMDZen said:
I would apologize but some of your comments made you seem fairly thick so I will apologize for lumping you in with religious zealots. Assuming you are not.

Still
A.k.a. 'explain to me how Steven Hawking is not retarded.'
'The Wright brothers flew a plane! Why can't the universe have eleven dimensions and be made of vibrating strings?!'
Seems like biology is the new physics. And physics is the new tinfoil hat.

These comments are pretty ridiculous. Namely the first and last one. Hawking is pretty universally accepted as a smart guy even if many disagree with him on various theories he's had and developed.

And you really need to learn the difference between "Theoretical Physics" and "Physics" because calling Physics a tintoil hat science is pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I will also apologize for calling you an r-tard; you seem fairly well-spoken and logical.

My thought was more that 'physics' in the Newtonian sense have long been established, and Einstein's contributions of general and special relativity are also pretty well understood. While I know there is a plethora of other stuff out there (I particularly like learning about the cosmological side of things), new 'developments' in physics seem to be entirely in the theoretical area, with things like string theory being so scattershot and unprovable that I have trouble differentiating between them and the 'science' offered by Georgio Tsoukalos.

Biology really is holding the more exciting developments. The stuff that will further humanity.

And I do think that Hawking is pretty damned smart...I was being a BIT felicitous there...but when you get into his opinions on multiverses and whatnot, you kinda wonder exactly what the hell he's been smoking.
 
Jaepheth

Jaepheth

Platinum Member
Apr 29, 2006
2,572
25
91
My understanding of it:

Theorist: Hey, we can model the universe as being made of these tiny vibrating strings in 11 dimensions instead of particles. Isn't the math all pretty (self consistent) and shit?

Experimentalist: What test can we run where string theory predicts something interesting and would differentiate it from one of the other current models of the universe?

Theorist:
thinking.png


phucheneh said:
...
Physics really seems to not be advancing much these days. It's all theory and no proof...

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

Here's one Example
 
Last edited:
alzan

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
My cat has made it her life's work to prove string theory. And since she has nine lives I think she will eventually prove it.
 
OverVolt

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
Doesn't string theory just try to explain the division of matter and energy beyond the standard model and subatomic particles? Such that when you are done infintismally dividing matter you end up with energy vibrating at certain frequencies. I think this would tie into electrons and such capable of behaving as both matter and waves. Same principle but much smaller. The higgs boson from what I understand works to slow down energy and hold it in place thus mass. The higgs field is like a sticky field for energy.

That's my own understanding of this stuff for better or worse.
 
OverVolt

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
I think of us as living in the electromagnetic domain along side the weak interaction and gravity domains. Anything scaled beyond that is ultimately meaningless to us although I'd bet many more forces exist on both the ultra small and ultra large scales. We have to burn a ton of ultra dense chemical energy to even make the slightest dent in overcoming gravity. And the opposite of that radioactive decay from the weak interaction yields borderline uncontrollable amounts of energy to us. I would imagine there are whole other universes to observe on different scales. Anything beyond the observable universe or smaller than an electron is ultimately meaningless to us due to scale but I'd bet it goes much further in both directions.
 
Paratus

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,653
15,857
146
phucheneh said:
I will admit: I do love being right.



Paratus is still the scariest person, though. If we are to believe that he is what he seems to represent himself to be, he is a physicist. And he doesn't exactly seem all that bright. You'd have to be one hell of a savant to be a scientific genius who is that bad at English/not sounding moronic.
Click to expand...

Cool. I don't think anyone on ATOT has ever found me scary before. :thumbsup:

Now, you seem to be under a couple of mistaken impressions of me.

1) I never claimed to be a physicist. If you followed my posts on ATOT I'm actually an engineer working in Mission Control for NASA.

2) As for the bad grammar, do you see that nice rig in my signature? Between my wife and kids I never get to use it. I also won't post while I'm at work. So for the last 10 years I've been posting from my mobile devices. It's hard to compose posts, I'm always interrupted, and quite frankly, sometimes I just don't care to fix the grammar.

So I'm not an idiot or savant. I'm just an iPhone user with a busy schedule. :sneaky:

3) I have to agree with the first line of your post. You do like to be right. Which is why I think the answer to your question in the OP is, "No". No one's going to be able to explain it to you.

So I hope that clears things up. ;)

:beer:
 
alzan

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Paratus said:
Cool. I don't think anyone on ATOT has ever found me scary before. :thumbsup:

Now, you seem to be under a couple of mistaken impressions of me.

1) I never claimed to be a physicist. If you followed my posts on ATOT I'm actually an engineer working in Mission Control for NASA.

2) As for the bad grammar, do you see that nice rig in my signature? Between my wife and kids I never get to use it. I also won't post while I'm at work. So for the last 10 years I've been posting from my mobile devices. It's hard to compose posts, I'm always interrupted, and quite frankly, sometimes I just don't care to fix the grammar.

So I'm not an idiot or savant. I'm just an iPhone user with a busy schedule. :sneaky:

3) I have to agree with the first line of your post. You do like to be right. Which is why I think the answer to your question in the OP is, "No". No one's going to be able to explain it to you.

So I hope that clears things up. ;)

:beer:
Click to expand...

It's the eagle avatar; some find it off-putting. ;)
 
D

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Fritzo said:
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".).
Click to expand...

Wasn't it Hawking himself that made that claim?
 
D

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Fritzo said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

So then why would it be a big blow to him? If somebody is going to refute your discovery, wouldn't you rather it be you?

Anyhoo, I think Stephen Hawking is overrated. Dirac has contributed more to science.
 
Fritzo

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
phucheneh said:
I will also apologize for calling you an r-tard; you seem fairly well-spoken and logical.

My thought was more that 'physics' in the Newtonian sense have long been established, and Einstein's contributions of general and special relativity are also pretty well understood. While I know there is a plethora of other stuff out there (I particularly like learning about the cosmological side of things), new 'developments' in physics seem to be entirely in the theoretical area, with things like string theory being so scattershot and unprovable that I have trouble differentiating between them and the 'science' offered by Georgio Tsoukalos.

Biology really is holding the more exciting developments. The stuff that will further humanity.

And I do think that Hawking is pretty damned smart...I was being a BIT felicitous there...but when you get into his opinions on multiverses and whatnot, you kinda wonder exactly what the hell he's been smoking.
Click to expand...

I'm getting all warm and fuzzy with you people.
 
MongGrel

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
phucheneh said:
I will admit: I do love being right.

Thanks for the personal attacks from the peanut gallery. Some of you really just don't realize how obviously mentally defective you truly are...coming in just to spout 'LOL Y U NO STRING THEORY?!' because you're under the delusion that simply professing to believe in something you don't understand will make people think that you're smart.

No, it's nothing like evolution, which is a) proven and b) safe to 'believe' without being an expert in the field. You know, because it is legitimate science.

Paratus is still the scariest person, though. If we are to believe that he is what he seems to represent himself to be, he is a physicist. And he doesn't exactly seem all that bright. You'd have to be one hell of a savant to be a scientific genius who is that bad at English/not sounding moronic.

However, I am intrigued by Pheran's ideas and wish to subscribe to his newsletter. And I <3 Fritzo.
Click to expand...
Right about what ?

Large Hadron Collider being reactivated after 16 months of upgrades

http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news...eing-reactivated-after-16-months-of-upgrades/

Would be nice if we ever get Superconductors working up to a higher temperature, and the Carbon Nanotube Tech worked out first.

Superconductivity


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

Carbon nanotube



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom