Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

String Theory: Are you a believer?

2

Comments

  • #32
    planck2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 242 ✭✭planck2


    I don't think there would be any point as one would then be talking about conformal field theory, Vertex operator algebras, AdS/CFT dualities, S-dualities, T-dualities and the like and even before then you will have lost many


  • #33
    sean_0
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 94 ✭✭sean_0


    I know one lecturer in UCC who was well into it. But he was different to say the least.

    He he, I know who you're on about.

    There is a fairly comprehensive introductory course in General Relativity in 4th year at UCC, I think they use Landau and Lif****z "Classical theory of Fields" as part of the course so it must be pretty thorough. I'm a postgrad at UCC but I've only taken the undergrad courses relevant to my research (Quantum stuff) and definately won't be taking that course any time soon.
    It's just like Quantum. There are loads of pop science books on quantum around the place. Compare the understanding from those books to actually studying the subject from a mathematical basis. There are leagues of a difference between the two.

    Yea, I know what you mean. Sometimes I'd love to bash some of those guys who carp on about it with a copy of Sakurai or something. Still though, you've got to start somewhere and having an interest in the subject is half the battle when it comes to dealing with the high level mathematical stuff.


  • #34
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    Sev wrote:
    That said I do understand the cringe-worthiness of this thread. Ive finished 2 years of an undergrad course on Theoretical Physics and still am in absolutely no position to comment at all on haughty topics such as string theory and general relativity.

    This isn't really in response to you, but I knew three psychology undergrads who had an in-depth knowledge of General Relativity.
    As well as a good deal of philosophers who learned the mathematics of quantum mechanics just so they could discuss it.
    More importantly I know a lot of physics post grads who know nothing of their subjects.

    Just to say that a degree in physics doesn't qualify one to discuss it.
    A lot of people have degrees based of their ability to mentally regurgitate in an exam.


  • #35
    sean_0
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 94 ✭✭sean_0


    Son Goku wrote:
    This isn't really in response to you, but I knew three psychology undergrads who had an in-depth knowledge of General Relativity.
    As well as a good deal of philosophers who learned the mathematics of quantum mechanics just so they could discuss it.
    More importantly I know a lot of physics post grads who know nothing of their subjects.

    No you didn't. You knew 3 psych undergrads who were full of s**t and you made up the rest. Idiot


  • #36
    simu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,730 ✭✭✭✭simu


    Keep it civil people!


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    ecksor
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 10,501 Mod ✭✭✭✭ecksor


    Too late, he's banned!


  • #38
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Son Goku wrote:
    T
    A lot of people have degrees based of their ability to mentally regurgitate in an exam.

    This is my problem with college in general. An ability to regurgitate doesn't mean someone is intelligent. Actually this is something that gets some people quite angsty... (see above)

    Insecure about our intelligence are we?


  • #39
    Sev
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭Sev


    Son Goku wrote:
    This isn't really in response to you, but I knew three psychology undergrads who had an in-depth knowledge of General Relativity.
    As well as a good deal of philosophers who learned the mathematics of quantum mechanics just so they could discuss it.
    More importantly I know a lot of physics post grads who know nothing of their subjects.

    Well half the reason I cant comment on general relativity or quantum mechanics at the moment is because, in place, ive done two years of maths. Two years of linear algebra and analysis etc. Now I'd hope this isnt all irrelevant, and when I finally do get down to the nitty gritty of quantum mechanics.. hamiltonians, commutative groups and vector subspaces might begin to take on new meaning. But I'd imagine, or hope at least, with a rigorous mathematical background in place im going to have a better grip of things than your 3 psychology friends.

    I could be wrong. If I had it my way, I would have skipped the tedium of analysis and algebra this year. But I'd like to think that its something that you have to learn, and that the psychology man with the casual interest will always be lacking, cos unlike me, he wasnt forced to learn the groundwork.


  • #40
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Sev wrote:
    But I'd like to think that its something that you have to learn, and that the psychology man with the casual interest will always be lacking, cos unlike me, he wasnt forced to learn the groundwork.

    My honest take on this is as follows:

    A degree doesn't really mean you understand anything better than someone with a lay interest. What it means is that you have a good general understanding of most of the basics and intermediate topics of the subject. The key word being general.

    It would be easy for a lay man to have a better understanding of general relativity than you. It's a niche, it's easy to know a lot about a niche.

    Having a good grasp of all the basic subsets of physics and all the mathematical tools that you might need is very different. That would be a tough task to achieve for someone who didn't do a degree in a topic. It would take many years to get that kind of knowledge in your spare time. There are lay people out there that dedicate quite a lot of their spare time to their pet interest, but they are rare.


    A perfect example is as follows. In psychology/psychiatry I have an indepth knowledge on certain topics, particularily pharmacology, certain disorders and the like. I know these topics better than a psych grad. But I do not know psychology generally as good as a psych grad if that makes sense.

    I would know little about interview technique, the history of psychology and little on anything but the few topics that I've an interest in.

    That is the difference between a lay interest and an academic background in a topic.


  • #41
    Sev
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭Sev


    Can't argue with that.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Sev wrote:
    Can't argue with that.

    I get that a lot. It's no fun, means I kill thread half the time! :p


  • #43
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    I should probably clarify what I mean.

    A subject is usually only understood by those with extreme interest in it.
    The majority of those with degrees aren't really interested.
    No you didn't. You knew 3 psych undergrads who were full of s**t and you made up the rest. Idiot

    What brings you to that conclusion?


  • #44
    David19
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 925 ✭✭✭David19


    nesf wrote:
    My honest take on this is as follows:

    A degree doesn't really mean you understand anything better than someone with a lay interest. What it means is that you have a good general understanding of most of the basics and intermediate topics of the subject. The key word being general.

    It would be easy for a lay man to have a better understanding of general relativity than you. It's a niche, it's easy to know a lot about a niche.

    Having a good grasp of all the basic subsets of physics and all the mathematical tools that you might need is very different. That would be a tough task to achieve for someone who didn't do a degree in a topic. It would take many years to get that kind of knowledge in your spare time. There are lay people out there that dedicate quite a lot of their spare time to their pet interest, but they are rare.


    A perfect example is as follows. In psychology/psychiatry I have an indepth knowledge on certain topics, particularily pharmacology, certain disorders and the like. I know these topics better than a psych grad. But I do not know psychology generally as good as a psych grad if that makes sense.

    I would know little about interview technique, the history of psychology and little on anything but the few topics that I've an interest in.

    That is the difference between a lay interest and an academic background in a topic.

    Surely knowing the groundwork and basics would automatically give you a better understanding? For a lay person they might be able to describe what general relativity is about and what it means but they don't have a true understanding of it because they don't have the ground work. From a mathematical prospective they don't know why the theory is true. Would I be right in saying that to understand general relativity you need to understand the maths involved?


  • #45
    Sev
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭Sev


    nesf wrote:
    I get that a lot. It's no fun, means I kill thread half the time! :p

    Thats ok, im sure theres lots of other things we disagree on.

    How do you eat your cream egg? (rhetorical)


  • #46
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    David19 wrote:
    Surely knowing the groundwork and basics would automatically give you a better understanding? For a lay person they might be able to describe what general relativity is about and what it means but they don't have a true understanding of it because they don't have the ground work. From a mathematical prospective they don't know why the theory is true. Would I be right in saying that to understand general relativity you need to understand the maths involved?

    Whats to stop a lay person who's mathematical from understanding the maths involved?

    College isn't the only place to learn maths you know.


  • #47
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    Yeah, you do.
    Although General Relativity is fairly self-contained.

    For instance, given an itnerest, Bernard F. Schutz's book would be enough to introduce somebody to General Relativity.

    Without much groundwork beforehand. (Like a knowledge of Lagrangians)


  • #48
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Son Goku wrote:
    What brings you to that conclusion?

    I'm afraid the answer to this will forever be a mystery for he has been banned.

    I'm sure the generations that follow us will ponder it though.


  • #49
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    I'm afraid the answer to this will forever be a mystery for he has been banned.
    I'm sure the generations that follow us will ponder it though.

    lol.
    A happy ending to a happy story.


  • #50
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    As a side note, I had a lay interest in cryptology ages back and had a solid mathematical understanding of it.

    But I've never done a course on the topic. I just picked up the maths as I went along, or if I didn't understand something I looked it up and figured it out.

    Admittedly yes, not knowing much maths does make physics very hard to get your head around, but just because someone didn't do a maths heavy course in college does not mean they aren't good at it or unable to learn it.

    If someone had a serious interest in General Relativity and wanted to understand it, they could teach themselves the small subset of mathematics thats used in it.

    Like I said, niche subjects are easy to get deep with.


  • #51
    David19
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 925 ✭✭✭David19


    Ah ok, I thought we were talking about a person who doesn't understand the maths i.e reads pop science books. Also, I wasn't sure if general relativity was fairly self contained as Son Goku put it.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    David19 wrote:
    Ah ok, I thought we were talking about a person who doesn't understand the maths i.e reads pop science books. Also, I wasn't sure if general relativity was fairly self contained as Son Goku put it.

    Oh don't worry, we hate the pop science heads.

    Read back in the thread for our "treatment" of the topic...


  • #53
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    David19 wrote:
    Ah ok, I thought we were talking about a person who doesn't understand the maths i.e reads pop science books.

    Yeah, I'm presuming intelligence persistence and ability to understand.

    Big assumtions, but if anybody has them they can gain a large amount of physical knowledge.

    Some areas of physics don't lend themselves to this.

    For instance Quantum Field Theory or Quantum Mechanics of complicated systems (the electron shells of the heavy elements), would really require training in the area.


  • #54
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Son Goku wrote:
    For instance Quantum Field Theory or Quantum Mechanics of complicated systems (the electron shells of the heavy elements), would really require training in the area.

    Or an extremely bored person with a lot of time on their hands and access to a damn good scientific library.

    Or in other words a student.


  • #55
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    Yeah, pretty much.

    P.S. If sean_0 was banned because of what he said to me, I think he was just reacting to what he might have seen as person with no experience of physics saying:
    "Yeah well, I can know physics too".


  • #56
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Son Goku wrote:
    Yeah, pretty much.

    P.S. If sean_0 was banned because of what he said to me, I think he was just reacting to what he might have seen as person with no experience of physics saying:
    "Yeah well, I can know physics too".

    *shrugs*

    He probably was abusive in another thread aswell. It's rare to be banned for just being abusive in one.

    If someone is acting the muppet and posts in multiple threads with insults at people, well, then they get banned.

    Or put in a glass case and left near a keyboard if a board gets too boring.


  • #57
    sean.o
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1 ✭sean.o


    Son Goku, I'm really sorry. I was cranky on Friday evening and shouldn't have reacted like that. Can you forgive? :o

    nesf: do a search of all my posts and you will see that I never posted anything remotely abusive before the one in this thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=715485)

    Can we just forget about it?

    Anyway, moving on: I'm interested in GR but I've never really seriously studied it. Maybe it would be interesting to begin an online study group in GR, possibly using Schutz' book (it looks pretty accessible). If we got a community together maybe it would take some of the tedium out of self-study. Of course a certain amount of mathematical knowledge would have to be assumed, and a keen interest.

    If it went well then maybe we could move on to String theory at some point in the future. There is one book by Zwiebach which is aimed at undergrads.


    I'm not an expert by any means (though i have a good background), so some more learned people would have to contribute (nesf? son-goku?) From my own experience I would say that helping other people learn is a good way of suring up yur own thoughts on a subject. Also I can ask lecturers about stuff from time to time if needs be.

    Any interest?


    p.s. I know this is a bit cheeky but I don't think it was fair to ban me for good for the comment on Friday. If you don't agree you should shop me in and that will be the last you'll hear from me


  • #58
    ecksor
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 10,501 Mod ✭✭✭✭ecksor


    I did unban your other account iirc. Signing up new accounts to get around bans is very cheeky.


  • #59
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    sean.o wrote:
    Son Goku, I'm really sorry. I was cranky on Friday evening and shouldn't have reacted like that. Can you forgive? :o

    Yeah, sure.
    I can realise why you said what you said.
    Online study group idea.

    I'll be here if anyone wants advice on books to learn topics from.


  • #60
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Spear wrote:
    That's part of the problem though, it could be either since there's no way to verify it experimentally.

    If there is no way to test it it is not science and is just a philosophical construct. It is a bit like theories on other universes that we can never get into or communicate with. Even assuming we can prove they exist what's the point in discussing conditions in them if we can never actually find out what those conditions really are?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Son Goku wrote:
    This isn't really in response to you, but I knew three psychology undergrads who had an in-depth knowledge of General Relativity.
    As well as a good deal of philosophers who learned the mathematics of quantum mechanics just so they could discuss it.
    More importantly I know a lot of physics post grads who know nothing of their subjects.

    Just to say that a degree in physics doesn't qualify one to discuss it.
    A lot of people have degrees based of their ability to mentally regurgitate in an exam.

    there is a group called ASGI. Nothing to do with the Gardai. the Astronomical Science group of Ireland. I go to some of their meetings. They are professional astronomers. I would think you could find some GR adherents among them. Actually I have discussed some anti GR stuff with some of them e.g. faster than light transfer of information.

    the cork guy might be callannan. a sound fellow and really into astronomy.

    I must admit I get peeved when I post to public forums that it is difficult to say what a photon is or what a quantum is but people keep reminding me in their replies that the idea is old hat or producing dictionary definitions. None of this has assisted my understanding. If one understands anything though, there is something that happens on those rare occasions when one comes across original and profound thinking. People on the net however see to think that they are aware of all these people and think like that themselves all the time. In fact even the greatest of thinkers only do it ocasionally. How is it that we seem to encounter them so often :) ?

    I would think DIAS would be another place to look with their cosmic and partice physics schools. Then again a trip to CERN might uncover a few particle physiucists. all of them eventually do the "hage" to CERN.


Advertisement