String Theory?

lanch

Anybody want to give me a lay mans definition of what this theory entails?

Spear

A quick scan over the Wikipedia should give a good idea.

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

Son Goku

lanch wrote:

Anybody want to give me a lay mans definition of what this theory entails?

Even what you'll get on Wikipedia is going to a great deal removed from what the theory actually says.

In a way you can say it is an attempt to replace particles with Strings.

Wikipedia will expand more on this, but without a knowledge of Quantum Field Theory, it is difficult to understand what String Theory is saying.

nesf

He's just looking for a layman's definition. Wikipedia should be find imho. Though perhaps there are some good pop-sci books out there on this? Good as in not complete bull**** waffle.

Son Goku

nesf wrote:

He's just looking for a layman's definition. Wikipedia should be find imho. Though perhaps there are some good pop-sci books out there on this? Good as in not complete bull**** waffle.

Funny thing is, although I should have expanded on it, I'm actually talking about a layman description. I've noticed that laymen books teach Quantum Mechanics ,Special Relativity and General Relativity and then they move on to "New physics" like String Theory. I've never seen a popular book say anything about Quantum Field Theory.
Then you have Wikipedia, which has a great "layman, but serious" description of everything, but the Quantum field Theory article is too technical.

Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe", is very good. He has a swift informative style of reading and he'll definitely keep it interesting. It's probably the best book, but it again skips QFT.

There is a whole area of science completely unaccounted for in popular literature, which is weird because it is pretty much the area of research for particle physicists.

The Free Man

Brian Greene also does a tv program of his book, it would explain even less than the book, but its in very lay terms.
you can watch it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Son Goku

The Free Man wrote:

Brian Greene also does a tv program of his book, it would explain even less than the book, but its in very lay terms.
you can watch it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

I really like these documentaries, they're very fun and a decent watch for kids who are interested but too young to read a book like the elegant universe, for vocabulary reasons.
Its also a good watch because it comments on things that usually get discussed in Popular stuff.

They also have that added bonus of visual appeal. I particularly liked the part when he said General Relativity only talks about geometry and not topology.

Not only that, but I liked the scepticism toward the theory that was kept in and the comments from Sheldon Glashow.

Bullockshaver

String theory tries to unify all theories of electromagnetisn,nuclear,quantum physics etc into one big theory looking for the common relationships between all concepts of physics.

bonkey

Son Goku wrote:

Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe", is very good. He has a swift informative style of reading and he'll definitely keep it interesting. It's probably the best book, but it again skips QFT.

His new book - The Fabric of the Cosmos - is probably even more layman-accessible, but still avoids QFT.

jc

Son Goku

bonkey wrote:

His new book - The Fabric of the Cosmos - is probably even more layman-accessible, but still avoids QFT.

jc

Weird. QFT really beats quantum mechanics in terms of weirdness and it's actually kind of easier to explain on a qualitative level and all our modern theories QED, QCD and the Standard Model are all Quantum Field theories.
I wonder why there is this avoidance of it in popular literature.

juddd

The theory more or less means that all molecules or particles are made up of these strings, and the frequency they vibrate at determines the make up of the particles, atoms, tables, chairs etc.
If proven true it could almost be classed as the theory of everything, as these strings are thought to be the building blocks of everything we see around us, if not the very foundation of those building blocks.

juddd

Think about it, they use ultra sound to break up kidney stones, maybe the ultra sound interferes with the frequency at which it's "strings" vibrate, music can fill a person with deeply moving emotions probably because every "string" in our bodies reaches an excited state when listening to certain music, when something vibrates enough it will make a sound, if you play music loud enough you are able to actually feel the sound. and a study has shown that laughter is actually good for you, when we laugh certain genes that lay dormant become excited and switch on.
http://www.physorg.com/news9810.html
"Murakami's tentative theory is that laughter is one such stimulant, which can trigger energy inside a person's DNA potentially helping cure disease. "

When we laugh we produce sound.
Maybe when we laugh it stimulates the "strings" in our genes, the vibration of those strings will create energy, and switch those genes on, if you look around you and keep in mind that all things are made of sound you might soon come to realise that the theory may well have some truth to it.
Imagine being able to cure all disease's by using sound to switch on certain genes, or to destroy or switch off certain "strings" of cancer cells and genes or any diseased cell, or to create new genes and cells by simulating or creating the strings that are found in those cells.
It boggles the mind, the possibilites of this theory if it is found to be true, or even partially true.
It would have so many applications.

I would recommend viewing this website for all things physics and more, everyday it has new news from the world of science and physics and makes for and easy and interesting read.
http://www.physorg.com/

whyamihere?

they use ultra sound to break up kidney stones, maybe the ultra sound interferes with the frequency at which it's "strings" vibrate, music can fill a person with deeply moving emotions probably because every "string" in our bodies reaches an excited state when listening to certain music, when something vibrates enough it will make a sound, if you play music loud enough you are able to actually feel the sound.

eh no.

strings dont "vibrate" like soundwaves through space, its just an analogy, its nothing to do with vibrations as we think of them. Strings are far too tiny to be affected by something as relatively blunt as an ultrasound or music soundwaves. Biology will explain the above (as it says in your article!).

cognos

I found the book Hyperspace by Michio Kaku a very good layman's introduction to "New Physics" quantum field theory and strings included. It's somewhat out of date now but I would recommend it nevertheless.

Son Goku

It is dreadful book. Quite a lot of inaccuracies and the man tries to sell untested theories far more than he discusses established theories and he still doesn't really talk about QFT.

It's one Pop-Science book you shouldn't get.

Rowan1984

whyamihere? wrote:

eh no.

strings dont "vibrate" like soundwaves through space, its just an analogy, its nothing to do with vibrations as we think of them. Strings are far too tiny to be affected by something as relatively blunt as an ultrasound or music soundwaves. Biology will explain the above (as it says in your article!).

I hear what you're saying but, it could just be a rich tapestry, first starting with the strings themselves, these "vibrate" and form the subatomic particles, these themselves "vibrate", creating the atoms, when these atoms interact as in a sound waves (another vibration, which itself is just the fields of atoms vibrating and influencing each other), the frequencies of vibration in every step have to be very specific to ultimately get the finished result... so I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just very complex, and I wouldn't say no straight off.

Maybe I've gone to deep...

On another note, I come from an engineering background and I am just wondering if some parallels may be drawn between transfer functions (control theory) and string theory, I know string theory is a lot more complex, but is it that under very specific frequencies, very specific results are encountered (defined by a specific diferential equation or equations)?

Just a thought I had...