- #1
mitch bass
Can someone please define for me what is meant by string theory and what the significance of it is and why, according to stephen hawkins, it would take 32 dimension to permit the existence of such a phenomenon.
Originally posted by mitch bass
Can someone please define for me what is meant by string theory and what the significance of it is and why, according to stephen hawkins, it would take 32 dimension to permit the existence of such a phenomenon.
Originally posted by mitch bass
Can someone please define for me what is meant by string theory and what the significance of it is and why, according to stephen hawkins, it would take 32 dimension to permit the existence of such a phenomenon.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
It doesn't matter if the universe really has lots of extra physical dimensions or not; all that matters is that the math is the same.
Originally posted by Eh
...where you can ask questions about aspects of the theory without crackpots hijacking your thread with their nonsense.
Originally posted by Eh
For someone who never learned QM or GR, and yet proclaims to have found a better theory, you aren't one to be talking about ignorance.
Sorry but I have learned both and I actually know what the equations physically represent.
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Agreed. I believe it was Chroot who demonstrated you did not know what the Einstein equation was in some other thread.
anyways, one of the interesting areas of research going on now is in the holographic principle.
Originally posted by Eh
Your posts here have proven otherwise.
Really, this thread is about string theory, not crackpot ideas or conspiracy theories.
It has all these 32 some odd dimensions (which do not exist in reality) precisely because of the unnecessary and incompatable complexity in standard model.
Originally posted by Eh
What ad hominem? You are the one who jumped in and started defending crackpots...
If you want to start claiming ignorance is the reason why your theory is ignored
Originally posted by Eh
You've studied it, yet you don't see a problem with the claim it requires 32 dimensions? Right, and I'm the president of the United States.
Originally posted by subtillioN
You answered your own question.
?? you are talking in circles and misunderstanding everything I am saying.
I am saying that clinging to a theory in spite of the falsifications of that theory and instead of searching for an actual understanding is what stops you from hearing what I am saying.
You are simply another defender of the faith.
%99 of the Universe consists of a mysterious substance called "dark matter/energy" yet you believe and have faith that your theory is absolutely correct and you have no need to even understand any other theory. That is hubris.
Originally posted by subtillioN
I did not make any such claim. I was responding to the original poster who was saying that Stephen Hawking had made such a claim.
Originally posted by Eh
When is it in ad hominem to tell a poster that crackpots are absent from a specific forum?
You aren't saying anything meaningful. You are simply attacking theories you haven't even bothered to learn.
Wow, so GR and QM have been falsified?
My gripe isn't with the alternative ideas, it's with posters who claim a current theory (like GR) is wrong without even knowing what the said theory is.
This is exactly what you are doing, attacking theories without even having a clue as to what the theory actual says. Such intellectual garbage does not help anyone hoping to learn something about a certain theory.
So energy is a substance now? And no one is saying everything current theories are absolutely correct. Get a clue.
Originally posted by Mentat
1) It said that GR didn't explain gravity, but just gave us an analogy of the rubber-sheet. This is entirely false, as General Relativity is a mathematically sound theory of gravity itself, and gives a perfectly reasonable explanation.
2) (And this is probably the worse one) it actually says that there are no dimensions, but that is something the human mind has invented. I don't know who wrote this originally, but they obviously have no understanding of theoretical physics.
3) It said that the idea of point-particles is utterly nonsensical, when, in fact, Quantum theorists have been using it for decades.
4) It said that the purpose of String Theory was to get rid of the ridiculous point-particles, which would make String Theory a reductionist theory, when - in fact - it is both as reductionist as the Standard Model, and as holisitic as General Relativity (taken up a few dimensions).
GR does not give the causal mechanism of gravity. This is what the search for quantum gravity et al is all about.
Physical reality does not contain dimension whatsoever. Do you think that science has really ever observed a dimension?
The point-particle assumption (as an explanation of the quantum reaction) is the direct cause of the uncertainty relations and Born's probability interpretations of Schrodinger's (et al) wave equations.
Originally posted by subtillioN
To call someone a crackpot is an ad hominem especially considering that you don't know the theory I am talking about.
I HAVE learned them.
Yes by the fact that they are incompatible with each other and with reality itself and that it takes far too many hypothetical dimensions to incorrectly patch them together.
I made valid criticisms about string theory.
I don't think energy is a substance and I don't think dark matter is one either. It simply demonstrates the incorrectness of the theory.
Yet another ignored falsification.
Originally posted by Eh
It has nothing to do with your theory. Attacking theories you haven't learned is what earns one the title of crackpot. Note that crank will also suffice.
I am not interested in defending myself against your personal unwarrented and incorrect attacks.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
What's wrong with "Stress-energy warps space"?
And incidentally, the search for quantum gravity is about unifying gravity with the other three forces.
No less so than observing a cloud or a force.
No. The point-particle definition was prompted from the fact that a particular property of a wavefunction (average, I think) has many of the properties of the ideal classical point particle (or the ideal relativistic point particle in relativistic QM)
Originally posted by Hurkyl
And what does that have to do with the post you quoted?
A string is a data type in computer programming that is used to represent text or a sequence of characters. It can include letters, numbers, symbols, and spaces.
To search for a string in a document or code, you can use the "find" or "search" function in your text editor or IDE. You can also use regular expressions to perform more complex searches.
A case-sensitive string search will only return results that match the exact casing of the search term. For example, searching for "Hello" will not return results for "hello" or "HELLO". A case-insensitive search will return results regardless of casing, so "Hello" would also return results for "hello" and "HELLO".
Yes, you can search for multiple strings at once by separating them with a comma or using regular expressions. This can be useful for finding specific patterns or combinations of characters.
To improve the speed and efficiency of string searches, you can use optimized algorithms and data structures specifically designed for searching. You can also narrow down your search by specifying the location or context in which you want to search, rather than searching through an entire document or code base.