|You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )|
| What is String Theory?|
Jump to page : 1 2
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]
|View previous thread :: View next thread|
|General Public -> Metaphysics Discussion||Message format|
|We live in a wonderfully complex universe, and we are curious about it by nature. Time and again we have wondered--- why are we here? Where did we and the world come from? What is the world made of? It is our privilege to live in a time when enormous progress has been made towards finding some of the answers. String theory is our most recent attempt to answer the last (and part of the second) question. |
So, what is the world made of? Ordinary matter is made of atoms, which are in turn made of just three basic components: electrons whirling around a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. The electron is a truly fundamental particle (it is one of a family of particles known as leptons), but neutrons and protons are made of smaller particles, known as quarks. Quarks are, as far as we know, truly elementary.
Our current knowledge about the subatomic composition of the universe is summarized in what is known as the Standard Model of particle physics. It describes both the fundamental building blocks out of which the world is made, and the forces through which these blocks interact. There are twelve basic building blocks. Six of these are quarks--- they go by the interesting names of up, down, charm, strange, bottom and top. (A proton, for instance, is made of two up quarks and one down quark.) The other six are leptons--- these include the electron and its two heavier siblings, the muon and the tauon, as well as three neutrinos.
There are four fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Each of these is produced by fundamental particles that act as carriers of the force. The most familiar of these is the photon, a particle of light, which is the mediator of electromagnetic forces. (This means that, for instance, a magnet attracts a nail because both objects exchange photons.) The graviton is the particle associated with gravity. The strong force is carried by eight particles known as gluons. Finally, the weak force is transmitted by three particles, the W+, the W- , and the Z.
The behavior of all of these particles and forces is described with impeccable precision by the Standard Model, with one notable exception: gravity. For technical reasons, the gravitational force, the most familiar in our every day lives, has proven very difficult to describe microscopically. This has been for many years one of the most important problems in theoretical physics-- to formulate a quantum theory of gravity.
In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as the most promising candidate for a microscopic theory of gravity. And it is infinitely more ambitious than that: it attempts to provide a complete, unified, and consistent description of the fundamental structure of our universe. (For this reason it is sometimes, quite arrogantly, called a 'Theory of Everything').
The essential idea behind string theory is this: all of the different 'fundamental ' particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: a string. How can that be? Well, we would ordinarily picture an electron, for instance, as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. But, if string theory is correct, then under an extremely powerful 'microscope' we would realize that the electron is not really a point, but a tiny loop of string. A string can do something aside from moving--- it can oscillate in different ways. If it oscillates a certain way, then from a distance, unable to tell it is really a string, we see an electron. But if it oscillates some other way, well, then we call it a photon, or a quark, or a ... you get the idea. So, if string theory is correct, the entire world is made of strings!
Perhaps the most remarkable thing about string theory is that such a simple idea works--- it is possible to derive (an extension of) the Standard Model (which has been verified experimentally with incredible precision) from a theory of strings. But it should also be said that, to date, there is no direct experimental evidence that string theory itself is the correct description of Nature. This is mostly due to the fact that string theory is still under development. We know bits and pieces of it, but we do not yet see the whole picture, and we are therefore unable to make definite predictions. In recent years many exciting developments have taken place, radically improving our understanding of what the theory is. - Alberto Güijosa
What is your ideas on String Theory?
Location: NE Ohio
|Perhaps watching the movie or reading the book: What the BLEEP do we know?, would shed some light on this. It's mass conscious that created everything we know. Which is an intelligence we cannot comprehend while in physical form, in my own opinion. We are so limited in our physical form and our physical way of thinking. |
I know i am part of something so much bigger than myself..... For i am part of YOU too. We built the world. We built many worlds..... and we will continue to play, love and experience.
|Hi I AM: |
I was just reading in.....now I have forgotten...and I cannot at the moment go digging through piles of journals, that a top quark was identified as not having its compliment anti-matter. (I think it was New Scientist, but I am not sure). Did you hear anything about that?
What of the behaviour of "electron masses" in relation to others?
Also, what of subatomic behaviour at zp?
I'd be interested in your thoughts on these things.
P.S. Oh, yes, if you browse the posts in some forums, you will see that I, too, believe gravity to be one of the fundamental problems, so much so that it vexed Einstein's special theory. String has come under attack, I think it was a recent article in SA (Scientific American, for those that want to follow along...but again, I can't put my hands on the issue right now, as I have books and mags all over any available floor space. I am shifting so many books that I have lost my new organizational structure.
P.P.S. There are some pretty good TOE websites. I'd like to compare resources with you.
|i would say the best way to start understanding it is to Watch "What the BLEEP do we Know" because it explains it on such basic level, and it's a fun into into the subject...however "Far down the rabbit hole" you want to go after that is up to you. |
to give another perspective, The Kabbala is sopposed to be a guide to string theory, so some people have known this "Science" existed for a long time.
|Hi, and glad to meet you LWW: |
Would you elaborate a bit more on the Kabbalah and String? I think I understand "nefish" (for those that are new to the Kabbalah, it is energy fields that humans possess...I know...I am not doing it justice), but what I am asking is if there are references that relate Kabbalah to String Theory? My last contact with this subject was through Leo Schaya's study, and have not looked at literature since then.
|I would say, if I may, that the Kabbalists knew intuitively and receptively what new physics may in the future prove. i.e. that we have subtle energies within us and capacities to change them. A major piece that is not available to us is a proof the mind of an individual is capable of changing these energies and the world around us. Many of us know this to be true. We experience these states even if we cannot always show others, or prove it scientifically. |
You where asking our thoughts on string theory. I have found string theory to be a frustration, the theory seems to travel a path round the truth like the circular shape they are claimed to be. The question, is will string theory explain the physical world is not a point I will contend. If proven, string theory is a unified theory and a good explanation of the world. It is in my belief not a Total description of the physical. I may however be what we have to be satisfied with, the imperfect model. The search goes on for the proof of this theory and the search is for the graviton.
|The best way I can explain String Theory is: |
Think of the universe as a quilt. Now this quilt has patterns and the patterns are everything that is inside of the universe (stars, planets, human beings, etc.) What is holding this quilt together? It's the yarn (or "string") that holds the quilt together. You can't describe the quilt without describing the patterns. You can't describe the patterns without describing the yarn. Everything is connected and everything in one.
Now, it is said that the yarn (or "string") is the mind of God because it's the yarn that is holding the quilt together and it's the yarn that creates that patterns. Everything has it's purpose and place!
This is where the miracles of universal oneness takes it's shape. How can you describe yourself without describing the plant kingdom. The plant kingdom gives you the oxygen and sugar you need and in return you give what the plant kingdon needs through a process called Photosynthesis.
I can go on about how we are TRULY ONE with all of creation and not seperate from anything. However, I hope the above helps.
We can describe ourselves in relationship with the plant kingdom or as star stuff or without considering anything outside of ourselves or even our relationship with a computer. The methods change with the approach. The knowledge benefits us in our ability to transform our world. but this in ourselves changes very little. T We can imagine the physically infinite and describe worlds that exist only in our minds, and, at times, relate them, this is what makes the metaphysically infinite greater even than the physically infinite. We are a minute fraction of the atoms on this planet, yet we can imagine numbers greater than the numbers of stars or even the number of atoms in the universe. This makes us more than the sum of our parts, even as individuals.
The question I pose to you is what do you feel will be the benefits of the proof of string theory? I am sure there is the potential of these being many, but I have not as yet heard of the advances. Quantum theory and particle science has brought us better computers and even quantum computers, a type of computer that calculates by reading the states of some of the most minute particles, this is in itself amazing. I wish to know "what's next"?
I will say as well that with this desire lays a frustration, and this is the growing disparity and divergence of thought in the areas of spirituality and science. How do you relate to someone who has rigorously trained themselves to be objective in their thinking that the spiritual is real and that they can become a part of something that is real, valuable to them and beautiful, something that is subjective in nature. These people have a spiritual need, and it is one that is difficult to address.
|Hi all: |
Well, I am not a big fan of String and TOE, only because it is, yet again, another attempt to preserve and make work the limited knowledge we have of physics, and other branches of science that need to borrow from physics, such as quantum chemistry, cosmology etc.
Just to see "where everybody is coming from" I'd like to go back to basics.......The so called "Big Bang" If you believe in the bang, what was before the bang? What caused the bang?
Hawking said that trying to discover what was before the before the 'big bang' is like asking "...what is the world like five miles north of the north pole." Because time as we know it started at the 'big bang' the question of what was before, from the perspective of Einstienian physics, is meaningless! Our model must change before we can truly approach the question. But, human minds contain greater worlds than our universe. Perhaps we need only rephrase the question!
|i think the question i was asked has been answered, for the most part. |
however, i would like to add that while string theory is complex, and has many sides to it, i see it mostly as a way for scientists to discover god. From the realization of sting theory comes the idea that maybe spirt DOES have a part in things...something the scientific community hasent believed in about 200 years! Being a logical girl, i am not in the camop that says "Just have faith" i like it to be backed up by proff.
and yeah, it's not the kind of proff you can take to the court room, but i think it makes me feel alot better, and when i say things now about "Making your own reality" i think no one can argue in any real way..when it has been PROVEN reality isent concrete!
i heart string theory.
it's like everyone was saying "Just give me some proof, god" and then...STRING THEORY!
|Hi LWW: |
The July '07 issue of SciAm features a dialogue between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. Dr. Dawkins is famous (or infamous) for denying the existence of "God" (I am being liberal with his statements...but quite blunt and candid, as this is what he says). I, unabashedly, side with Dr. Krauss, in that I believe in the existence of what I have always called "religious experience" which is metaphysical in nature. PROVEN by the classic study by William James, "The Varieties of Religious Experience" which I think of as a good "ghost book" to be read on a stormy night, by a burning fire, with the lights very low.
This was transformational for me, and made me re-study the older library of occult books that I have, and brush up on my physics and other related science. Particularly quantum physics.
I see NO incompatibility between science; 'religious experience"; and meta-physics.To me, they are the same.
Love and Peace,
P.S. Also, please do not confuse religion with "religious experience." Many religions exist, but they have little, if any, religious experience. And, their contact with the higher plane is non-existant.
Location: P.O. Box 1095, Kyle, Texas, 78640
Hello! I am new to the discussion board so forgive me if I just jump right in. I am so glad to see someone talking about the string theory in here. I am not an expert on this theory but I have read alot about it and there is something intriguing about this theory.
I first stumbled upon this while flipping through a friends book called "Hyperspace." This section caught my eye and the odd thing is that as I began to read I found that I could actually relate to what they were talking about. It was as if I could understand what they were referring to, kind of like reading between the lines or seeing buzz words that triggered unique and interesting thoughts that were beyond my normal grasp of understanding. At first, I did not understand what was happening but it started me on a journey trying to read as much as I could to better understand yet there seems to be alot of confusion and different opinions on this topic.
What I have also noticed is that the scientific community seems to be working on this backwards, why is this? Why not start at the beginning? Is it possible that there is one ... a beginning point, but no one has attempted to share it? Where do you think it would begin if you could speculate? Does anyone have any ideas that they would like to share, or even possible theories? Why not a string? Is it possible that we are all connected via strings? Invisible life lines that connect us to the Divine One, that connect us to one another? Who is to say that just because we can not see the string(s) that it simply does not exist?
A leading physicists once wrote something along the lines that it will require new techniques beyond their current methods, and a new kind of science ... to prove such a theory. Wouldn't it be wonderful to one day see if a researcher of Meta-physics can solve the big question that has been stumping the researchers of physics for over 20 years? It would be even better if the two would learn to work together, maybe then the answers could be found. Just a thought!
|Hello Terri R: |
Many of us have discussed this in various ways, shapes and forms in other posts, and I would suggest, just for fun, to go back and see what was said in former posts.
I think that I am the most radical of the posters, in that I do not believe the General Theory of Relativity, nor the Special Theory of Relativity to be correct, yet the string theorists, and TOE theorists say that they have reconciled the Einsteinian origins with the new findings of the quantum physicists, whose forebear was Max Planck, the father of quantum physics. Albert didn't address the fact that at zero point, there is no time. Max, reognized this, and had to construct a very different view of how time works, in relation to the perceiver of time. Hence, we developed a "holographic" universe. And yes, it has room for the 11 dimensional universe that the string guys like, except we say that it is a multidimensional universe, with perception being the key. See a mass of electrons and it is a car, look away from it and it is a mass of electrons.....I know that sounds ridiculous....but, ask yourself, see an angel, is it an angel....look away, is it still not an angel?
Good questions to ask!
You have an interest in this, and hopefully you will post your ideas.
Location: P.O. Box 1095, Kyle, Texas, 78640
I too have an interest in this, but my point of views are basically my own perceptions of what I see and feel within that which has been written by others.
I am not one who is studying within the field of physics, but interested in what has been shared by others that catches my attention. As mentioned above, I stumbled onto the theory of string quite by accident many years ago. But as I began to research this area of interests, reading various articles and books I began to see things jump out, kind of like reading between the lines. Even when reading an equation written scientifically and performed within a lab, I understood what they were saying, knowing first hand what they were talking about, but through a meta-physical manner when referring to energy, kinetic energy and the collision of two spheres, the exchange of energy that takes place.
It was like reading a science book about physics, and finding bread crumbs to follow for those in meta-physics, I understood what was being said, through my own personal experiences.
It would just be a nice thought to be able to communicate and exchange ideas, in an open and positive manner where we could all learn from. I have wanted this kind of dialogue for a long time, but no one was willing to consider and discuss both topics within the same text. What do you think about this?
Location: P.O. Box 1095, Kyle, Texas, 78640
Something else to mention, is that while reading about the string theory, and trying to understand the basic concepts something else has evolved for me and something I have been working on for over the last twelve years or so. Yes, it has been a long process but it appears to be very much interwoven within much of theory of strings. Which is why I asked such questions in previous responses.
I have been working on (the theory of) Signature Vibrations. And it also deals with strings, but in a different manner. I am approaching my theory from a metaphysical approach in hopes to bridge the gap into physics and some how tie them together.
The string theory is known for saying that they are working on the string theory backwards, trying to figure out it's beginning. Whereas I am working from the beginning and allowing it to show me the end (if it ever does). But as I have said, there are alot of similarities that I can't help but wonder if the two theories are some how connected or contribute to one another.
I suppose only time will tell, and hopefully through open dialogue maybe I will find answers through the assistance of others who are more knowledgeable in this area of interest and willing to share and exchange ideas. Sincerely,
Peace be with you,
It is interesting to note that many famous physicists have had a belief in God and been strong spiritually. Einstein believed in God and asked questions that many would consider metaphysical or philosophical. The originator of the Idea of a "Big Bang" was a Christian priest!
It is also true that guided intuition is not disapproved of in physics circles, and I very much believe that great leaps in logic cannot be made without a robust intuition. If you have found a joyful thing in physics for yourself that is great. I share your increasing enthusiasm, and very much believe that through your intuition you have found a valuable intellectual item of study.
|Hi to all: and good to hear from you Cause, and welcome to you Terri B.....I feel an affinity for the approach that is being taken here. The "new" modern physics has always been built on the older and ancient approach to physics. The ancient physicists were metaphysicians.The physics that we know today, is founded in the "rationalist" school, but is severly challenged by the work of quantum physicists, of our time. |
If you wish to touch the pulse of the modern "physician" you will find that there are several predominant themes...but the two that most intrigue me are 1) time is not relative, but perceptual; and 2) there is a "higher order" of being that somehow shapes what we see, hear and do today, at this very moment.
G'day to you all,
"All time exists;
All time exists at all times;
All time exists everywhere."
|I just wanted to share with you a documentary called The Elegant Universe. It is a 4 disc NOVA series with Brian Greene. Awesome because it helps the watcher to understand the concepts with visual diagrams and special effects. I am only on the second disc and am really enjoying it. You might be able to find it at your local library, I am sure Amazon would have it. We are getting it from Netflix. Fascinating subject and for me it is a little hard to grasp at times, I have been watching certain sections a few times to give my brain a chance to integrate the ideas. Hope this helps :-) |
Blessings and joy,
|Hi Shantina et al:|
I missed the NOVA series, because my teevee's never get turned on, except for college football.
Shan, could you give us a brief summary of what "The Elegant Universe" is covering? I know we can find it on the internet, but your words would be so much better; particularly how it is affecting and effecting you, being on this website, and I think you are a student?
|I hear what you are saying about the TV, we are much the same but do subscribe to Netflix so we can be more commanding of what is coming into our brain via the media. There are so many interesting documentaries out there, very informative and inspiring. |
All I can say at this point about the series is that it is mind blowing. I am only 2 discs into the 4 disc series and it is packed full of information, much of which I have only had glimpses of in the past. The information is very complex and profound. I could not do it justice, I can barely understand it let alone explain it to someone else. The information has not integrated yet. I will certainly come back to this topic, once I finish the series, with hopefully a synopsis that is cohesive for you. How it is affecting me is by way of a reality shift. I am questioning everything in my life at this point. I was on that journey before I came to see the Elegant Universe but this series is very much boosting my acceptance that what I percieve as reality is illusion. I am a huge fan of Ramtha and much of what he says is the same, I like the subject matter very much. I say it is complex that is because so much of the information is beyond my normal scope of perception. The ego/personality is a tough barrier to overcome. Definitions and boundaries are the way we live, to try to acheive a truly limitless/infinite perspective is very difficult. I really would recommend getting it from Netflix. If you are not a subscriber I think they have a special offer to new customers, 2 weeks for free. If you don't want to keep your membership just cancel, but that would give you the opportunity to watch the series. I would like to hear what you think of it :-) I am at work and need to move on, but I will be back with more after I have finished my viewing.
Blessings and Joy,
|Hi Shan.....just a brief note to say that if you look back in older posts you will see that a small, but significant number of "us" have said that the world is of another nature....it is "illusionary" based on the belief that it is holographic. What you see is perceptual, and may not really be there. Some of us have gone on to use this principle to explain healing. And, by so doing, have had to change our concept of time. Takes too long to explain.....if you are interested, go private. But, please explore more.|
|Yes, I have read the earlier posts and I agree with what is said there. I like the movie because it gives a picture to the words and can sometimes help to visualize the concepts. I will indeed continue to explore, I love learning. Thanks |
The interesting thing about physics at this time in history is that we are re-exploring the fathers of quantum theory; and the new physicists are blending quanta with "spirituality" for want of a better, more descriptive word.
So, I offer you two things which, are quite amazing.
First, if you take a holographic picture of, say, an orange (don't think about it as film or the pictures you buy that seem to have three dimensions...a holographic photoplate is not that) and you aim two lasers at the plate, the image of the orange appears as if it is "really" there. You might want to reach out and grab it and eat it, it is so real. BUT, if you break the plate into a million or a billion little pieces, and grab just one piece and aim two lasers at it...the ENTIRE orange appears, just as the whole plate allowed.
Second, if you look at an electron mass, and expect to see a carbon crystal, that is what you see. But when you don't look at it, it reverts to an electron mass.
Both of these things are proven and done deals.
So, maybe your use of the word "illusion" is the same as my use of the word "perception."
I am always amazed at the power of perception.....good example.....in a "work" environment one person comes in with flu like symptoms, but everyone else is fine. Within a short time one other person will also claim and/or exhibit flu like symptoms, and given enough time, a majority of those in the environment will do so. Fortunately, this never happens to me, since I generally feel great all of the time, in so far as flu and other such things go. I guess it is "misery loves company" but I don't perceive myself as being in that company.
Hope this makes sense....
Marty, Luckylee, Poppyhead and SissyGirl
|All makes perfect sense to me. And yes, I think how we are using the words perception and illusion in much the same way. I like your input and I look forward to seeing what other things you are discussing on the board. :-) Shantina|
|Jump to page : 1 2 |
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]
|Search this forum|
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
|(Delete all cookies set by this site)|
|Running MegaBBS ASP Forum Software|
© 2002-2016 PD9 Software