strings theory

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by once mortal, Jun 19, 2007.

  1. once mortal once mortal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9
    Before I begin discussing thoery like "strings theory" which, as i think, is another baseless theory as time travel to some of the intellects with an excellent command over physics, I would like get their comments first. When I will have enough discussion done over it I will argue my case. I just saw in one of the threads how brainers have doctored time according to their convenience.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    And your command of physics is....? Your thinking is based on....?

    Doctored time? Do explain.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. once mortal once mortal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9
    I would still consider myself naive as compared to the people who are blogging here. Iwish to be right! that's it!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Then what gives you the authority to say :

     
  8. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    You are probably referring to the lack of experimental evidence backing up string theory. Good point. However, the beauty of the mathematics supporting string theory justifies research so that experimental proofs can be devised.
     
  9. once mortal once mortal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9
    Thank you John for your support. Atleast, you got the point I was trying to make.
     
  10. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I don't understand. It seemed like, in the OP, that you attacked string theory for some reason. Now you agree with John's claim that the maths are beautiful and worthy of study in an of themselves?
     
  11. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Hey, Ben - me too. What I do detect here is a difficulty on the part of the original poster to communicate clearly.
     
  12. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    You consider yourself naive, and wish to be right but you claimed:
    So how do the "brainers" doctor time to their convenience, when you state you have no background in physics?
    What do you consider "doctoring"?
     
  13. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    This is what I want to know.
     
  14. once mortal once mortal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9
    I don't think you ever read the previous post. The point that I made there had nothing to do with strings theory. My reason to start this string is know how many people believe in originality of theories like the strings theory. Also, the reason I mentioned the word "doctored" is because I can see people manipulating the idea of time according to their convenience rather than understanding the concept of time and its relevance to what is the original idea of posting a thread. If you don't believe me, go ahead and check the newest posts on time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
     
  15. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    So how is it being doctored by the brainers? (I'm assuming by that you mean the people WITH brains, as opposed to "no-brainers").
    Ben gave a perfectly valid explanation and you claim it's doctoring?
    Or if you meant the no-brainers why read their posts? Physicists and philosophers (and woowoos) have differing ideas, but only one of those groups can show how things work.

    Since the original post asked
    and Ben's posts show that time exists whether we "measure" or not...
    Did length exist before we (humans) decided to measure it?
    Was the universe a point source before someone delineated feet and inches (or whatever they used)?

    BELIEF in sting theory is not prerequisite: it works.
    Do you believe in gravity? Colour?
    And how do you justify calling it "baseless"?
     
  16. once mortal once mortal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9
    Let's go ahead and make it work

    I am sorry. Earlier, I was just playing around with all that goofy stuff in the beginning of the post. But now, it seems things have escalated and I need to get serious.
    One can conclude that, however smart string theorists may be, that
    they are not thinking deeply enough about the unification of general
    relativity and quantum theory, and while they do not think deeply about such ideas, there is not a lot of point in discussing the subject with them.
    I find it obvious that string theorists are currently the only community
    that is able to seriously and collectively consider even the general
    puzzles related to quantum gravity. For example, a paper by Maldacena and
    Horowitz that was published less than two weeks ago initiated a new
    intense wave of discussions - among string theorists and some particle
    phenomenologists - about the black hole information puzzle. It is sort of
    amazing that no one in this newsgroup seems to be interested in this
    important issue.
    Is the information lost after the black hole evaporates? String theory
    (perturbative string theory, Matrix theory and AdS/CFT in particular) seem
    to suggest that the information can't be lost. On the other hand,
    semiclassical reasoning leads us to the opposite conclusion; it is based
    on Hawking's approximative calculations, and it even led Hawking to bet
    that the information is lost even in the exact theory (a statement that he
    partly softened, after the breakthroughs in string theory's description of
    black hole thermodynamics).
    In popular terms, a person who falls into the black hole knows his or her
    future - he will die. In fact, he can know it even at the microscopic
    level - the final state is a unique quantum state, they say. Once he or
    she hits the singularity, one can imagine that he is reflected - by a
    complicated but concrete unitary transformation - and becomes Hawking
    radiation that travels backwards in time inside the black hole. (The arrow
    of time might seem reflected, but Juan and Gary argue that such effects
    won't be measurable because of the space and information limitations
    inside the black hole.) Once this Hawking radiation reaches the horizon,
    it is transformed - via the Unruh state - to the Hawking radiation that
    escapes to infinity. All steps in this description were unitary, and one
    can show that the information will be preserved.
    The possible modifications of causality, locality, information loss, black
    hole entropy and its microscopic origin, (in)dependence of the degrees of
    freedom inside and outside the black hole, quantum treatment of
    singularities, topology change, the arrow of time and similar issues is
    what I - as well as most "real" quantum gravity practitioners - call
    "interesting questions about quantum gravity". A reader of this thread
    would conclude something completely different: he would conclude that the
    most important thing is to complete some details in a naive picture that
    constructs spacetime out of some almost randomly chosen elementary
    building blocks.
    But the main goal of this text is to say
    something slightly different.
     
  17. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Define "thinking deeply enough". You think most of them just see it as a hobby? Most physicists (of) I know think about it night and day, 24/ 7.
    Suggest a line of research...

    The same ones that aren't thinking deeply enough?

    The same string theorists that aren't thinking deeply enough?

    SciForums isn't so much a newsgroup as collection of like and un-like minded people. There's a lot of everything to get through. Someone would have posted on it sooner or later. Congratulations, you were first.

    That being?

    PS. I just downloaded the pdf and will read through it.
    For others interested I found it at:
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0310/0310281v2.pdf

    Once mortal: it's considered good form to provide links.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2007

Share This Page