My Interpretation of String theory.

Mr. Incognito

I was watching Michio Kaku on String Theory on You tube and trying to learn about string theory.

My understanding would be as follows and I'd love to get some professional insight into it from proper Physicists.

Basically the theory is that atoms are made of super strings that resonate at certain frequencies existing in multi dimensional space.

My understanding then is thus:

At the sub atomic partical level there is a level of chaos. This chaos means that time and the other laws of general relativity break down. Super strings are like the building blocks of the universe. If they vibrate at an established frequency they take the form of a solid material that exists in our dimension. However the super strings that vibrate at non established frequencies that are in a state of flux exist in multi dimensional space and do not exist in our dimension as our dimension is made up of superstrings vibrating at a constant frequency. These non conforming superstrings that exist in a flux explains why the theory of general relativity is ineffective as it only covers superstrings that are vibrating at an established frequency and the ones that are in a constant flux would mean that together they would create a pattern of chaos. However, if we could manipulate the super strings in a state of flux to vibrate at a constant frequency we could create light, or energy or anything we wanted by converting these super strings from the other dimensions where they exist in a state of flux to a fixed frequency and thus bring them into our dimension which consists of strings vibrating at established frequencies.

Mathamatically then

X=Xf

Where X is anything, and f is the frequency that it's super strings are vibrated at. If f is not constant than X does not and cannot exist as it is vibrating at a non established form.

The practical application if this theory is correct means that we could literally create anything we wanted from the strings that are in a state of flux by manipulating the frequencies that these strings are vibrated at. They are invisible to us at the moment as they exist in our dimension but by virtue of their state of flux they exist in dimensions that are hidden from our view.

Is that overly simplifying string theory?

It seems to make sense to me and there are a host of other questions that I would have if this is the correct interpretation, could the super gravity in a black hole then serve to disrupt the constant frequency that superstrings are vibrating at and by that manipulation break down superstrings from a fixed constant frequency to a flux frequency where they would move from our dimensional space to multi dimensional space.

I'd be fascinated to get feedback from the professionals.

Podge_irl

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Is that overly simplifying string theory?

Yes. You'll have to forgive me for it's my birthday and I'm a little drunk but I shall attempt to return to this tomorrow to attempt to give you a decent insight into String Theory.

Podge_irl

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Basically the theory is that atoms are made of super strings that resonate at certain frequencies existing in multi dimensional space.

Not atoms - all fundamental particles.

At the sub atomic partical level there is a level of chaos. This chaos means that time and the other laws of general relativity break down.

This isn't really accurate. The problem with GR is that it simply isn't a quantum theory of gravity and as such when you reach levels where quantum effects become large it breaks down. Standard ways of quantising theories don't work with GR for a host of reasons.

Super strings are like the building blocks of the universe. If they vibrate at an established frequency they take the form of a solid material that exists in our dimension. However the super strings that vibrate at non established frequencies that are in a state of flux exist in multi dimensional space and do not exist in our dimension as our dimension is made up of superstrings vibrating at a constant frequency.

I don't really get what you mean by "established frequency".

All strings are free to oscillate in all 10 dimensions of string theory (there are some important caveats here with regards things called branes which are essentially multi-dimensional "sheets" upon which strings can end). The different particles in the universe are made up of different oscillator modes of the strings. This is in some ways similar to how you can get Fourier modes of a musical note. As you add oscillator modes the particles get much more massive so we don't really see the higher level modes. On a very basic (and somewhat wrong) level, one oscillation gives you a photon, two oscillations gives you a graviton etc.

These non conforming superstrings that exist in a flux explains why the theory of general relativity is ineffective as it only covers superstrings that are vibrating at an established frequency

GR isn't a "stringy" theory at all.

Is that overly simplifying string theory?

Not really, I'm afraid it's just wrong.

Mr. Incognito

Podge, I have to admit I was looking forward to your reply but I have no idea what the heck you are saying, seriously.

Not atoms - all fundamental particles.

We are kinda agreed here, atoms are made up of superstrings. No need to correct me.

This isn't really accurate. The problem with GR is that it simply isn't a quantum theory of gravity and as such when you reach levels where quantum effects become large it breaks down. Standard ways of quantising theories don't work with GR for a host of reasons.

This doesn't really address my point. My point is that GR is applicable to Super strings in a constant frequency and thus predictable. Are you saying that in pure mathamatical terms if gravity is expotensial that GR breaks down? This would fly in the face of GR which is based on gravitational force, no??

I don't really get what you mean by "established frequency".

All strings are free to oscillate in all 10 dimensions of string theory (there are some important caveats here with regards things called branes which are essentially multi-dimensional "sheets" upon which strings can end). The different particles in the universe are made up of different oscillator modes of the strings. This is in some ways similar to how you can get Fourier modes of a musical note. As you add oscillator modes the particles get much more massive so we don't really see the higher level modes. On a very basic (and somewhat wrong) level, one oscillation gives you a photon, two oscillations gives you a graviton etc.

I'm so glad you brought up music as i am a semi professional musician and that's how I am understanding string theory. As I understand it I can resonate a string in a particular key, lets say E for example. For all strings that resonate in E I get an E note, for all strings that are not resonating in a particular key I get and uncertain note or a uncertain non established resonance or freuency. This is exactly how I see super strings. Those in G are in G, those in E are in E, where the building blocks that are G and E correspond to atoms and their make up. Different corresponding frequencies give you the constituents of atoms

GR isn't a "stringy" theory at all.

I know this, GR is based on the real world and it's interaction, ST is based on a theory that may link GR and the observation of sub atomic particles

Not really, I'm afraid it's just wrong.

what is? String theory? It has not been disproved to my knowledge? As a scientist how can you reject something that has not been disproved?

Professor_Fink

I don't have a huge amount of time, but thought I would chip in to clear up some places where you seem to be having some confusion.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

We are kinda agreed here, atoms are made up of superstrings. No need to correct me.

I believe the point was that atoms aren't anything special. They are made up out of fundamental particles, but are not themselves fundamental particles. On the other hand, if string theory is correct, everything is strings, not just atoms.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

This doesn't really address my point. My point is that GR is applicable to Super strings in a constant frequency and thus predictable. Are you saying that in pure mathamatical terms if gravity is expotensial that GR breaks down? This would fly in the face of GR which is based on gravitational force, no??

None of this really makes sense to me. Strings simply have some metric imposed on them (i.e. the induced metric). String theory uses very similar maths, but it's not GR. In terms of GR breaking, this is simply because it doesn't play nice with quantum field theory. Trying to quantize the gravitational field doesn't work in the way we can quantize other fields, but we have very good reasons to believe we should be able to quantize gravity. Hence the problem.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

what is? String theory? It has not been disproved to my knowledge? As a scientist how can you reject something that has not been disproved?

Because it's not a coherent theory, it's just some words you've written. There is no grounding for any of it. I don't mean to be harsh, but you seem to have just come up with some vague idea without actually basing it on anything.

Podge_irl

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Podge, I have to admit I was looking forward to your reply but I have no idea what the heck you are saying, seriously.

Apologies, I will try harder this time.

We are kinda agreed here, atoms are made up of superstrings. No need to correct me.

The correction is only necessary insofar as strings make up more than just matter. They make up light and electricity as well (amongst other things). It's an important distinction.

This doesn't really address my point. My point is that GR is applicable to Super strings in a constant frequency and thus predictable. Are you saying that in pure mathamatical terms if gravity is expotensial that GR breaks down? This would fly in the face of GR which is based on gravitational force, no??

I'm afraid I don't really understand this.

GR breaks down at a quantum level because it's not a quantum theory. String Theory is a quantum theory and deals with gravity largely in terms of gravitons and scattering amplitudes - something that is not natural in GR.

There is nothing inherent in GR that says it can not deal with "strings" and indeed cosmic strings are prefectly well described by GR, but GR has no "stringy" elements to it in terms of what we understand in string theory. All superstrings are quantum objects, and GR doesn't deal with quantum objects at all.

I'm so glad you brought up music as i am a semi professional musician and that's how I am understanding string theory. As I understand it I can resonate a string in a particular key, lets say E for example. For all strings that resonate in E I get an E note, for all strings that are not resonating in a particular key I get and uncertain note or a uncertain non established resonance or freuency. This is exactly how I see super strings. Those in G are in G, those in E are in E, where the building blocks that are G and E correspond to atoms and their make up. Different corresponding frequencies give you the constituents of atoms

Very roughly speaking this is correct. I hate to be pedantic on this point, but they don't make up "atoms", they make up fundamental particles. This includes photons, gravitons etc. The way the strings work is more akin to saying if you play one note it's a photon, if you play two it's a graviton etc.

ST is based on a theory that may link GR and the observation of sub atomic particles

It may well do, but at it's core ST is literally just that - a theory with strings instead of point particles. It's fascinating that so much falls out of it with that simple change. It arose almost by accident, but is far from being a fully formed theory.

what is? String theory? It has not been disproved to my knowledge? As a scientist how can you reject something that has not been disproved?

No, I meant your understanding of it. I don't really know where you're getting the concept of set frequencies of vibration are in our dimension and variable frequencies are in the other dimensions. I certainly don't reject String Theory as it's what I'm doing my PhD on!

thecornflake

Hey,

try looking up a book called "The Elegant Universe." by Brian Greene. It doesn't go into the maths of it, but gives a build up to string theory from partice families to why GR doesn't go with Quantum mechanics. It then goes on to the Calabi-Yau spaces and all that jazz. Not a bad book at all , i like it , but it can be bit basic. Hope this helps.

Podge_irl

thecornflake wrote: »

Hey,

try looking up a book called "The Elegant Universe." by Brian Greene. It doesn't go into the maths of it, but gives a build up to string theory from partice families to why GR doesn't go with Quantum mechanics. It then goes on to the Calabi-Yau spaces and all that jazz. Not a bad book at all , i like it , but it can be bit basic. Hope this helps.

Excellent suggestion actually, that's a brilliant book. I'd say it's been close to 10 years since I read it, but it's what first got me really interested in string theory.

Unfortunately any sort of real introduction to ST will be, by necessity, absurdly mathematically complicated.