Who believes that the superstring theory that supposedly accounts for all 4 main elements (nuclear: weak and strong, gravity and electromagnetism), and is thus the theory of everything? Einstein couldn't find it, Stephen Hawking is trying to find it... :confused:

Unless I have been misinformed, Stephen won't find it either. He has joined Mr. Einstien at the great chalk board in the sky.

Surely you jest?

Scary or not the advancement of science is a fascinating thing. What will become possible in the time of this generation will have been only the dreems of the last thousand years. In my opinion, for better or worse the future will be glorious.....now if only we can survive it!


Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most..
Catalyst

Somewhere I read, according to physicist Julian Barbour, and Wheeler-DeWitt equation, TIME does not exist. Even the Universe is too small. We live in Platonia, where every instance lives forever. (Plato argued that reality is composed of eternal and changeless forms...). The impression of motion only arises due to a special structure of our perception...

Some think, that when physicists finally iron out a new theory of the universe, both time and space may not be included...

Interesting....does that mean everything is predetermined in million ways?

I dont believe in the superstring theory. They havent even discovered all the energys in the universe yet I believe but eventually maybe in 100 years we will understand. Hawking isnt as smart as he sounds. People just think he is because he sits in a wheelchair and talks funny. common stereotype. He doesnt even measure up to Einstein. Now Einstein was WAY ahead of his time. Imagine, singlehandedly dismissing the ether. Thats what I call smart.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~subodeon/Sagan/web_images/monument3.gif

For some reason I have Carl Sagan on the mind, not Stephen Hawking. Stephen still lives... Prehaps you would enjoy this take...

CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND--Nobel Prize-winning physicist Stephen Hawking stunned the international scientific community Monday with his latest breakthrough, a remarkably advanced cybernetic exoskeleton designed to replace his wheelchair.
Hawking, paralyzed since early adulthood with the degenerative nerve disease ALS, unveiled the new creation at a press conference at Cambridge University.
"I am faster, stronger... better than before," Hawking told reporters via his suit's built-in voice synthesizer.
The hulking, hydraulically powered titanium-alloy exoskeleton is expected to assist the famed Brief History Of Time author tremendously in his ongoing theoretical physics research. "With the new exoskeleton, Stephen will be able to safely handle radioactive isotopes in the high-radiation area of the new supercollider particle accelerator. And his new robo-arms are capable of ripping open enemy tanks like they were nutshells," said Cambridge physics chair Sir Geoffrey Neville Shropshire-Kent.
The exoskeleton is also equipped with special infra-vision goggles, which will allow Hawking to observe sub-atomic phenomena firsthand.
"Wait a minute," said Hawking, testing out the high-tech infra-vision goggles for the first time. "I see now that the curvature of space-time follows previously unmeasured vectors that I will need to recalibrate in my equations. Also, there appears to be some sort of trouble on the moon."
Among the suit's other features: laser terminals; oxygen pressure-tanks for deep-sea and outer-space research; jet boots; and the most advanced crime-lab database in the world.
Constructed in Hawking's secret underground headquarters over the last two years by the famed scientist and his orphaned teenage sidekick and research assistant Hawk-Lad, the exoskeleton has already proven invaluable, not only in increasing the paralyzed Hawking's mobility, but in rounding up the notorious international gang of diamond thieves known as "The Fearsome Four."
The $55 million exoskeleton, which Hawking operates through slight movements of his left wrist, is powered by a pair of bio-morphogenetic servo-motors, and boasts the most advanced cyber-robotic technology anywhere, freeing Hawking of the wheelchair in which he has been confined for much of his adult life and giving him greater freedom of movement when engaged in battle.
"Beware, would-be evildoers," Hawking said. "My crimefighting powers are as infinite and unknowable as the very universe itself."
As for the future, Hawking said he plans to continue teaching and hopes to take a sabbatical in Italy with his wife and nurse. But primarily, he will focus on preparing for his greatest mission yet: a descent into a black hole in mid-1998.
"Only by penetrating the event horizon itself will I be able to observe the effects of singularity on neutrino decay and complete my research," Hawking said. "It should also prove invaluable in the construction of my new Anti-Gravity Gun. It may be our only hope for stopping Monstro, The Living Behemoth."
Hawking has already received the International Science League award for his invention, as well as a prestigious chair at the Helsinki Cybernetics Institute. He is also widely regarded as the favorite to win this year's Nobel Prize For Physics, and he recently received an honorary key to New York from Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after saving the city from the Galactons.

I miss him...I was hooked on Cosmos...enjoyed Contact...

Same here. I am a little bit through "Cosmos". I want to read More of his books to read including Contact. But first I will probably read Cosmos over and over and over!? With a dictionary at side of course.

Hey, hey, hey .....it sounds like everyone is dismissing the string theory as a bogus idea...
It seems rational; everything is made/composed of one dimensional "wavy strings"......
why not?
from what I heard there are still some problems to be weeded out, but everythings seems to be pointing in the right direction.

I am however a little confused about something... if anyone can help me out: what are all those subatomic partciles for - mao's, tao's, neutrinos ....and such???
I mean, are they just zooming in and out of space and existence for no good reason??? what the hell.

and another thing..... if anyone has read "the elegant universe" and happened upon the topic of particles "borrowing energy" to do certain things, say......, pop into existence for no good reason! and then pop back out!....can you tell we why then isn't there elephants and bathtubs appearing in weird places at any given moment...?

This is a theory used in particle physics and cosmology that makes use of a one-dimensional object in the form of a line or loop (closed string) to replace the concept of a pointlike elementary particle. Let's say, the the states of a particle may be seen as standing waves along this string. By combining this theory with the idea of supersymmetry, the superstring theory has been created.

Supersymmetry introduces a hypothetical symmetry between fermions (elementary particle, and this, josharuni , involves muon and tau particles, as well as neutrinos, just elementary particles) and bosons (also similar, Boe-Einstein physics), with new bosonic partners for existing fermions and new fermionic partners for known bosons. Although there is no evidence for this doubling of particles, the concept has been more successful than quantum field theory in approaching a unified field theory involving all four fundamental interactions, as it appears to avoid the infinities that the gravitational interaction creates in other field theories.

Superstring theory makes use of a ten-dimensional space in which particles appear to have energies far above those attainable in current accelerators. It has not, therefore, been possible to provide direct evidence for the superstring concepts.

I have lifted part of this from an encyclopaedia, and hope this answers your queries, josharuni.

This theory is supposedly the closest we come to explaining all 4 natural forces (weak& strong nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity).:D

Hi josharuni,

Hey, hey, hey .....it sounds like everyone is dismissing the string theory as a bogus idea...

I think most scientists don't dismiss string theory, they just have wait for experimental evidence to support the theory before praising it as if it were THE theory of everything. The problem is that string theory is with us for about 25 years already. Loads of mathematical progress has been made, and there are some very nice things that stringtheory can explain. But that's not really enough: you also more or less need to know if your theory has any ground. So far, string theory has no experimental base whatsoever.

It seems rational; everything is made/composed of one dimensional "wavy strings"...... why not?

Well, that would seem totally irrational to me since that immediatelly pops the question "and where are those strings made of" in my mind. They can vibrate, so this more or less implies they are flexible, and hence probalby consistute of smaller parts that are not that flexible.

I should also mention that in the 3000 years of mathematics in human history, the "point" has always been the smallest possible object. A whole new branch of exotic mathematics has been developed to handle string theory (since in this theory the smallest possible object is a string, not a point).

So I think string theory doesn't qualify as "rational" :).

I am however a little confused about something... if anyone can help me out: what are all those subatomic partciles for - mao's, tao's, neutrinos ....and such??? I mean, are they just zooming in and out of space and existence for no good reason??? what the hell.

I think the answer to that question is a potential Nobelprize-winner. In the 1930's, right before the muon was discovered, scientists had mapped all known particles at that time (which must have been the electron, positron, proton and neutron). In 1934 a completely new particle was observed in the cosmic background radiation, and it was later named "the muon". At the time of discovery, scientists asked themselves "so who ordered the muon?". That question is still unanswered today as far as I know ;).

So there is no real reason for these particles: they have been observed and they have been included in our catalog of known particles.

Can you tell we why then isn't there elephants and bathtubs appearing in weird places at any given moment...?

Well, I never really liked/believed the idea of those particles borrowing their energy and popping into existence, but anyway, the theory says the following: when these particles "borrow" energy, they have to give that energy back within a specific time interval (energy-time uncertainty relation: Delta(E) * Delta(t) > h-bar/2). This time is really incredibly short (for a regular particle this would be around 10^(-40) seconds). So if you want to construct an elephant out of elementary particles, the energy you borrow for that would have to be given back to the universe very - very - fast, too fast for you to even notice there was an elephant in the first place. With our current measuring techniques, we can hardly see the effect of just a few particles popping into existence, so an elephant is definitly way out of our technological reach :).

Bye!

Crisp

hahaa, I got a kick out of that article! Thanks for posting it wet1. I'm glad somebody else on this forum is capable of seeing the humor in the stereotipical belief that hawking is smart because he sits in a wheelchair! I never thought of that guy as a once in a generation genius, although he is undoubtablly a genius it isnt fair to discriminate against the abled like you or me.

As far as the superstring theory goes, I've almost completely written it off. Sure it sounds catchy but things are alot simpler than that. Maybe too simple for a human mind to comprehend. Space in my opinion is only 0 dimensional. I'm sure there have already been physicysts saying that but I haven't heard of them yet (Im 15) space is nothing so it is 0 dimensional like a paradox or something basically being something yet nothing at all. Opposite of something which would be like a 1 dimensional truth which would account for the existence of everything.

Anyway I'm losing myself, so I'm gonna shutup now. The best way to look at a unified field theory in my opinion has to be something FAR more simpler than that. So even the most intelligent would have their minds blown. I dont want to sound stupid saying that the superstring theory is not simple but I just dont think that it is simple enough. A string just doesnt sound right to explain everything. once discovered even the stupidest people should have a hard time figuring out how they didnt understand in the first place.

Wet1,

Thanks for the humor - nice article.

String theory - wonderfully imaginative, but overly complex. It is not the right approach.

Cris

you just repeated what said?? are you trying being to sarcastic saying that the string theory isnt complex. maybe to your mind. eventually they will try to say what is in those strings and what is in those things that is in those strings and then what is in those things that is in those things that is in those strings.

Its just gonna keep going!?!?! That's why it sounds complex to me. How does Hawking think he knows everything?? I dont like that guys ideas.

Hawking must be very intelligent...he currently occupies the post of Lucasian Professor Of Mathematics at Cambridge University, England, a niche whose previous incumbent was a Sir Isaac Newton.

Sure he IS intelligent, no doubt. But that guy gets extra credit cause he sits in a wheelchair and talks funny. I hate that stereotype. People will listen to his every word nowadays 'cause of political correctness, while some other brilliant ideas get overlooked.

What's this? Some residual resentment? Are we a brilliant scientist(Elbaz)?

what the hell? I openly consider myself stupid. besides I'm 15 I dont care about hawking but the situation in whole. I just think all this pollitical correctness stuff is crazy. Its like when I get older someone less qualified than me gets a better chance at a job because they're disabled or black or something. I got nothing against those people but dont forget there are other scientists out there and other theories that make sense, but nobody gets to hear about them. You probably lived half your life already, but this is the stuff I got to deal with.

Its like when I get older someone less qualified than me gets a better chance at a job because they're disabled or black or something.

Calm down Elbaz. Geniuses do not need crutches. They sign whether they are in a wheel chair or green - because it is the knowledge that counts...

So, when you get old, remember to shine with "your" knowledge and you will be fine. Dont be afraid to get old...

Elbaz,

Stephen Hawkings disabilities work against him rather than for him. Through political correctness out the window for a moment. Have you ever heard the man as he has to speak? Personally, I get bored with the waiting for the next word and sentence to make a complete whole. He has an assistant to help with the translations among other things. This does not take away from his brilliance but rather adds to it that he has been able to make such impressions inspite of his limitations. That he has been able to make such contributions to his field in spite of the handicaps speaks for itself. Do not think for a minute that his colleagues o easy on him for his theories because of his limitations. His theories must still stand to the rigors of scientific method.

Firstly, I'm only a year older than you, Elbaz.

Secondly, I agree with wet 1, that Hawking has achieved something magnificent in establishing himself as a remarkable scientist/mathematician despite his obvious handicapping disabilities.

Thirdly, we seem to have digressed; my original topic of discussion was the superstring theory...



"Following a leading light inevitably leads to success".

Ankit

Let me just point out a few things. Firstly I dont know if you think i was trying to be sarcastic or not but I know way in hell think or myself as even smart. I just like these topics. Secondly I'll admit that he has had restrictions and overcame many, but still though I honestly think superstring is just another idea that will be replaced, after quite a while though. I dont want to insult hawking because his views are as legitamite as mine or yours until we actually have some sort hardcore proof. I'll agree his ideas have made impressions and made people see things in a new light thats great. Still I disagree with the idea. Its brilliant ofcoarse and I never said it was stupid, (actually I might have). people have to disagree on issues like this, If there is no opposition or criticizm then how our we suppose to reexamine the ideas in angles that cant be seen from that direction. To make even A more legitamite Idea.

I'll just leave it at this - I STILL believe its wrong and I STILL dont see him as man of the century or anything. I do highly respect him and his ideas - that I dont believe on the most part as I've pointed out many many times. I have absolutely nothing against any of you, Maybe HOWARDSTERN's stupid polls but thats it. We could talk about this issue forever because we each have our own beliefs that seem tottally unswayed. I will never switch to superstring.

What makes this stuff so hard is that there is nothing to grab hold of with your hands and examine. It's all highly theoritical. The ideas are so far out there that to averge Joe Blow it is just gobbledee gook. It usually takes a wierd mind to even come up with this stuff. Being as you can't lay hands upon the theory you wind up doing thought experiments to try and prove or disprove the idea. Somewhere along the line you finally get down to if that is so then such and such particle ought to behave this or that way. Only when you reach this stage you find out that the particle accelerators are not yet capable of doing what you need done. So then it is left to someone down the line to prove or disprove it when the equipment can produce the results.

For a little light reading on this go to this link...
http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~jpierre/strings/extradim.htm

Firstly, Elbaz...no need to justify what u said; everybody is entitled to their opinions...if u think it is stupid....u may have a valid support. There's every chance tht this thoery is claptrap...after alll...as wet1 said, it is based upon thought experiments...and, somewhere along the line, most minds make a mistake.

Secondly, I believe the superstring theory needs to be revamped...if we used a material constant and linked it to the whole theory...then maybe...?

question here: what makes them think it has to be 'strings' that everything is made up of? Do they have any logic involved or actual experiments to say "ya it must be strings"

[B]wet1[/B
I read most of the link, I had to stop b4 my head exploded.
In english anyone?:confused:

Hi all,

Elbaz,

question here: what makes them think it has to be 'strings' that everything is made up of? Do they have any logic involved or actual experiments to say "ya it must be strings"

I am quite sure that one guy was drinking a beer in the local pub somewhere in the 70's when he got the idea that quarks might not be the end of the story but that something else had to be the origin of all particles. The main idea behind string theory is to try to unify all known flavours of particles back to one "object": a string, that we perceive as one of the many flavours of particles knownst to us when that string vibrates in some way.

The problem with string theory is that it's a theory. There are, until now - so far as i know - no experimental indications that prove it, or even hint at it. We will probably have to wait until 2005 or 2006 before we get a first hint in favour of/contradicting string theory. That's when a new particle accelerator, the LHC (Large Hadron Collider), at CERN goes online. That particle accelerator should be capable of producing new kinds of particles that are predicted by a sidebranch of stringtheory. So if we find these particles, then it becomes very lickely that that sidebranch of string theory (the so called supersymmetry) is true, somewhat hinting at string theory as a whole.

Bye!

Crisp

Well ya no duh, particles are made up of energy and different energys but vibrating strings?? I respect your beliefs but I will never accept the string one. I dont know how to explain it, but it seems that whenever I think something might have a crack in it or not be right, it ends up not being right.

Strange when a respectable theory is made nobody seems to question it. All following like hearded sheep. Take the ether for example. Perfectly believable but few questioned it. It came from respectable physicists so it must be true right? Conventional people nowadays believe anything they hear and never question its credibility. Sometimes I despise the part of me that stays away from the conventional and questions everything. But deep down I know I'm lucky.

Anyway. I cant wait till they perform tests on it.

MARK MY WORDS when they do, I will come back boasting.

I almost completely agree with you, Elbaz. It seems that scientists are clutching whatever seems to fit the bill. String theory tries to combine the causes for all 4 major elements, while considering this dilemma in approx. 10 dimensions, which would require several geniuses to finish. Also, there is an elusive 'cosmological constant' that, if obtained, would solve many, many problems, and finish or take further Einstein's calculations.

Considering previous exploits, we may never discover the 'Theory Of Everything' (i.e. superstrings). This is because, as I mentioned before, we need quite a few vastly intelligent chaps (let's say, IQ: 250+). But fear not, there may be help...geniuses are turning out over the world, and, in America, there is an 8 year old boy called Justin Chapman who has written 2 books and created a website; has an IQ of 298+; and is supposedly one of the greatest minds ever to have graced this Earth, possibly even superior to our Albert.

We need people like this boy here to complete this theory, find the constant etc. And, the problem is, thse geniuses are not discovered in school (again, just like our Albert). Oh dear...are we doomed? Or willour geniuses come out top? You decide.

Ankit

Hi all,

Elbaz,

Strange when a respectable theory is made nobody seems to question it. All following like hearded sheep.

Well to me it seems that you've been talking to the wrong people then (or watched the wrong documentary). Most people I know actually do not believe string theory and, like me, await for experimental observation before proclaiming it as the greatest invention of the late 20th century.

Conventional people nowadays believe anything they hear and never question its credibility.

This is not a scientific, but a sociological problem. The media tends to zoom into the most extravagant theories and spend hours talking about how great string theory is. Unfortunately, most of the time the opponents of string theory are not heard.


Ankit,

It seems that scientists are clutching whatever seems to fit the bill.

This is exactly what research is about. How do you think Newton ever got to his three laws ? It wasn't because he was a genius(*) or because he suddenly received a call from the supreme being on the hotline. After testing, verifying, re-adjusting, remodelling and retesting his laws of motion, he finally got to a point where his description fitted reality incredibly precisily for that time.

(*) I'm assuming that Newton actually was the one who formulated his three laws as there recently was some doubt about that.

while considering this dilemma in approx. 10 dimensions, which would require several geniuses to finish.

I disagree, at the moment the theory is far from complete, so it is indeed difficult to comprehend because not all the pieces fit nicely together yet. Rest assured that in the 1600's, people also thought that differential calculus was impossible to comprehend, and yet today we teach it to 16-17 year old adolescents. As time evolves, theories are often refined and adjusted to be formulated more simply.

Another example would be Einstein's theory of general relativity. At the time of publication, the media mentioned that only three persons on earth could possibly understand it. And yet today thousands of science students take courses in general relativity. These aren't all 290+ IQ people, but just ordinary people like you and me.


Bye!

Crisp

Surely comprehension and formulation are two separate actions, and, surely, the former much easier that the latter?. Debate?

Hi Ankit,

I don't think there's much to debate about :). I think two general remarks always apply:

1. The amount of difficulty is inverse proportional to the amount of documentation available.

2. The better the documentation, the easier it is to comprehend.

Bye!

Crisp

In order to solve modern physics' mysteries (and, let's face it, there are many), we need (to quote...some physicist) 21st century mathematics, which hasn't been invented yet. Therefore, my comment on geniuses.

Thankyouverymuch.

the geniuses of today will be the fools of tomorrow...

Bye!

Crisp