Discussion of Superstring Theory

[anileve]

Originally posted by dusken You are being unfair. Physicists do not accept the Big Bang as set in stone. It is only that there is evidence to show that it may be true and little to no evidence of any other explanation.

I think he confused this thread for the "Nature of God" thread, for I can see what he is already gearing towards :D

I find it interesting that mathematics was the dominating gateway to the understanding, although I think in this case it is almost necessary to have a collaboration with physics, what took them so long to figure it out?

[dusken]

Originally posted by anileve I find it interesting that mathematics was the dominating gateway to the understanding, although I think in this case it is almost necessary to have a collaboration with physics, what took them so long to figure it out?

I am not quite sure I understand what you mean by this. Can you please explain?

[anileve]

What I meant was that the process was so largely viewed through a mathematical explanation, rather than physical. In the case where matter, mass and a fusion of electrons are involved, physical process is rather the main gateway alongside with math, to understanding the creation of the universe. Physicists are only now penetrating the shell of the super string theory, which was primarily through a mathematical perspective. Did I make my question clear, or shall I elaborate further? :D

[dusken]

If someone ever told me that the process of understanding the universe only recently married mathematics and physics, I would be confused. I would ask this person whether he or she was considering the fact that the discoveries of physics were done mathematically and that physics itself is applied mathematics. And then I would sum it all up by saying that there never seemed to be a claim that they were separate but, instead, co-dependant. Of course, I would also give this person the benefit of the doubt and accept that I may have misunderstood or missed something.

[loseyourname]

Your original question: What took them so long to figure it out?

What are you referring to? Big bang theory? Ekpyrotic theory? Supersymmetry? M-theory? Topography?

The reason mathematics and physics are so closely intertwined is that the universe follows very strict mathematic rules and, because of that, things that are not observed can be predicted mathematically, such as the neutrino, the graviton, and Calabi-Yau shapes for lower dimensions. In order for theoretical physics to be tenable, it must be mathematically consistent with what is observed. The reason string theory came into existence is that relativity and quantum physics did not mesh mathematically. Each one works well in its own domain, in fact, works perfectly as well as we can measure, but when brought into the other's domain, inevitably produces infinite answers. As infinite energy and infinite speeds and infinite spatial extent are not observed, there must be some deeper theory that explains the other two. As there is no way to observe the world of elementary particles, the only way to theorize about it is essentially to guess, and then attempt to verify your guess mathematically. That is the challenge of string theorists today. The mathematics are extremely complicated and the equations can only be approximated.

[anileve]

What I was refering to was a superstring theory which explains matter, energy, spacetime, and the basic forces of nature and framework. Also take into consideration that physists are just beginning as I have said before to prod at the implication of the superstring theory. Therefore it's complexity was due to the neglect of a physical approach rather than the mind baffling, formula infested mathematical approach.

[dusken]

If that same person said that he or she was referring to superstring theory and that its complexity was due to the neglect of a physical approach rather than the mind baffling, formula infested mathematical approach, I would say, "I see."

[anileve]

And I would say: "I shall ream your neck! :D" You know you still adore me dusk jan, the small quarrels are just a display of our deeply rooted affections for each other, that transcend the multitude of dimensions, the power of which are equivalent to that of a cosmic collision. :D

[dusken]

I must be hallucinating. I thought I just saw a post.

[anileve]

Originally posted by dusken I thought...

It is a refreshing process once in a while isn't it?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by anileve Also take into consideration that physists are just beginning as I have said before to prod at the implication of the superstring theory. Therefore it's complexity was due to the neglect of a physical approach rather than the mind baffling, formula infested mathematical approach.

It's a little unfair to say that. For one thing, there is no way to physically verify superstring theory without the use of mathematics. The fact is, there exist no implications that can be tested or observed that are predicted theoretically. They are only predicted mathematically. The prediction, of course, is supersymmetry, which is a mathematical theory. Furthermore, a good deal of the complexity of the theory was alleviated through a mathematical approach, the Calabi-Yau inversion I have spoken of previously. The numbers involved were greatly simplified and many of the equations have since been very nearly solved and have hinted at other testable predictions. Granted, the insight came from mathematicians that were working on an unrelated problem, but that is part of the beauty of science and math, a strange confluence that is unintended but highly beneficial.

[anileve]

Who did this I ask?!! Who split the thread? I demand some answers!!! Who the hell do these mods think they are? Professional editors working for an imaginary publishing company? Some people are just so hungry for power it's outrageous!

On a more calmer note, the theory was not discussed in detail, so it's cool that we have a whole new thread dedicated to this glorious discussion.

[ckBejug]

How did I miss this thread?

Heeeeeeeeey. I just went to a lecture about this at Caltech.

String theory connects the microscopic quantum world of elementary particles to the macroscopic world of gravity and geometry. Physicists believe that it is going to eventualy help them give a mathematical description of the microscopic laws that determine the properties of elementary particles and the forces that act on them, and help them explain the origin and evolution of the universe. Much has been achieved, but string theory is still a work in progress. I actually didn't know a single thing about the topic before I walked into the lecture. I called it my new thing learned for the week. It was a history lesson in string theory and a discussion about some of the problems that stand in the way of progress. It was pretty damn cool, actually.

[Anonymouse]

What's all the big deal with this anyway? This theory guesses that the universe should exist in 10 dimensions, contrary to the 4 of spacetime. Here they cleverly bring in the Big Bang guess to explain where the other dimensions went and that they "collapsed" or "disappeared" during the big bang. Perhaps a thread should be made to address the big bang. The problem I have with a lot of these Big Bang theories is that theoreticians can pretty much say whatever they like, due to the fact that it is impossible to look back to the early universe.