The NYT WYTs get it right every now and then. Even a stopped clock is right in two or three dimensions of the space-time continuum......
A good book about the subject
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393058581/qid=1102691824/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-3406403-9374245?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
So where can we buy the T-shirt?
Not to be a poop but the 10+ dimensional requirements for things to work remionds me of the Ptolomey model for the solar system. Full of complex gyrations to make up for knowledge of something we learned later.
Interesting... bump for later.
bump to read later
My closest colleague has tried to pin them down: string theorists assert with near clockwork regularity that string theory is 'perturbatively finite', but when you ask them where this is proven, most can't point to a source, and those who can point to a paper in which the methods only work up to two loops. . .or they give bogus arguments based on misunderstandings of a mathematical construct called Teichmuller space. And, to date string theory can only be done in a 'flat background' space-- but general relativity tells us gravity is equivalent to certain kinds of curvature on space. If it's not perturbatively finite, or can't be done in a realistic space-time, string theory isn't even a theory much less a theory of everything.
Of course, neither the popular science press nor the National Science Foundation seem to have noticed this, not even when Edward Witten, one of the leading lights of string theory over its 20 year life has given up on it to turn to work on loop quantum gravity--which according to the string-theorist quoted in the times (who has no basis in either physical or mathematical fact for his assertion) 'must be part of string theory'. It isn't.
Yes, but this article would be quite different if either the GOP or the Dems adopted belief of string theory into their party planks.
Thankfully, that hasn't happened yet. lol.
42.
Fantastic, but over my head. It's nice to know we may not be limited by relativity and C in exploring the universe in the near future.
My theory is that any N theories can be "unified" by postulating a new universal theory with N + 1 dimensions.
I always wanted to know about newer modern physics, so I
got Hawkings books, including "universe in a nutshell",
and Greens book, The elegant universe. These concepts are
very difficult for nonmathematicians or maths which don't
specify "topology'...
What is fascinating to me is that strings are suppposedly
these tiny (like 10 to the minus 33) meters size vibrating
loops of energy...but can't there be 1/2 strings, or left
strings, right string? substring areas???..and by the way,
what is energy? Can it be detected by what it does, or
does it exist without our ability to dectect it?
Does energy move material objects? Since material objects
according to string theory are only manifestations of the
vibrational patterns of strings, does that mean energy is
what moves its own species??? It sounds very reminiscent
of it being self-existing on its own without beginning and
without end.....but it is impersonal...hmmmmm....
Finally, some of the maths used to explain these subatomic
physical oddities are accessible only to mathematicians.
They incorporate ideas such as "imaginary time", the
sum of paths mentioned earlier, things existing only because
they are "detected" , fabric of space changing or opening and
closing, multiple universes undetectable by us (as our
physics is different)...and somethings (is that a good wor
to describe it?) called Calabi-Yau spaces which explain in a
spatial way how the extra 7-8 dimension curl up. Like I
said, you gotta he heavy into math to even understand what
they be talk'n 'bout, never mind prove or disprove it...
It is interesting however. We may find that we are trying
to make up "just so" stories to explain that we cannot
really "get at" the core bits of matter/strings cause the
energy requirements to control them or blast them out of
their "comfy" homes are too great. Example, it may take
a supercollider the size of our solar system to generate the
energy to accelerate these "particles" very close to the
speed of light....
Alright, enough of this. Time to watch the 3 stooges.Nyuk,
Nyuk, Nyuk.
I've believed in string theory for some time. I read a book that talked about it a LONG time ago.
It's called the Bible...
I always thought there was seven.
Bump
Or maybe I watched too much Twilight Zone as a child... :)
String Theory, at 20, Explains It All (or Not)
The New York Times | December 7, 2004 | Dennis Overbye
Posted on 12/07/2004 10:01:55 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1296277/posts