| Pages:
1
2 |
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Nerro
Is it likely that these are all manifestations of a single effect yet to be discovered? |
Yeah, the Grand Unified Field Theory.
Which so far hasn't worked... 
Tim
|
|
|
cbfull
Harmless
Posts: 33
Registered: 24-6-2006
Location: OH
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I thought that string theory was showing promise to finally tie (pun) it all together? I want to say that I remember seeing a documentary on quanta,
superstrings and such, which claimed that physicists around the world were laughing at the concept of space being made of "invisible" strings that
stretch in an infinite number of directions, and ties everything in the universe together.
I am a chemical engineer so my thoughts on the matter are purely a result of my passion for clearer visualizations. I personally have no problem
visualizing the universe being made only of infinitesimal strings, waves in the strings (light) and "tangles" in the strings (particles). And in my
visualization, the explanation for the force of gravity becomes painfully simple. I'll share it only if anyone is really interested. I would be
crushed if I missed something obvious that blew my theory out of the water.
I am new here so I want to be sure I am not stepping on any toes by posting my own ideas in the matter, without any real credentials to back them up.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Little progress has been made with string theory. So far it's been a mathematical stretch, with nothing new and measurable, thus no predictions.
They've been saying for 30 years, "another 30 years and we'll have it". So another 30 years, eh? Riiight
Tim
|
|
|
cbfull
Harmless
Posts: 33
Registered: 24-6-2006
Location: OH
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I wonder if it could be because string theory requires very little mathematical foundation and works so well conceptually. It's almost as though it
mocks the mathematics that have been the meat of the entire academic subject, and many very educated people have spent lifetimes trying to build
mathematical models.
I personally do not deal well with math, even though I have been through a gammut of math courses. That's a big reason I like the concept of string
theory.
[Edited on 26-6-2006 by cbfull]
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
| Quote: | | Little progress has been made with string theory. So far it's been a mathematical stretch, with nothing new and measurable, thus no predictions.
|
Not so. Why do you think these high energy particle accelerators are made? It's not even a mathematical stretch. It represents the best solution(s)
for what we currently know. The problem is, it has so many solutions that no one knows what the correct one is.
| Quote: |
I wonder if it could be because string theory requires very little mathematical foundation and works so well conceptually. |
Haha, unless this is some concocted way of sarcasm, but I hate to point out to you that the REVERSE is true. Unlike the theory of relativity, which
works conceptually like a charm, string theory doesn't, not at all. Or do you think 11-dimensional spaces are easy to grasp, with dimensions at the
plank length, and space, and time?
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Eh?
Multidimensional spaces aren't real pretty.
Better than a Hilbert space could be I suppose, but still...
Honestly, if it were as easy as you state (I would estimate, vector calculus as the highest toolset needed), explanations would be all over. But they
aren't. Instead you've got ugly hand-wavey things like trying to explain and imagine how seven or ten dimensions would behave to a three or four
dimensional person.
Tim
|
|
|
cbfull
Harmless
Posts: 33
Registered: 24-6-2006
Location: OH
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Good point. I actually stated that in a very weird way. It makes perfect sense that string theory makes the whole universe a complete mathematical
nightmare, yet it seems so easy to conceptualize. It defies logic, i.e. it is amazingly simple as a concept, yet seems so incredibly impossible to
articulate in a mathematical language. Mathmeticians/physicists don't like that one bit. I don't feel sorry for them, I am not a fan of math.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Physics of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials
K. H. J. Buschow , F. R. de Boer
http://rapidshare.com/files/55642959/0078150907.rar
Password = physicsbooks.info
Abstract
In this book, the fundamentals of magnetism are treated, starting at an introductory level.
The origin of magnetic moments, the response to an applied magnetic field, and the various
interactions giving rise to different types of magnetic ordering in solids are presented and
many examples are given. Crystalline-electric-field effects are treated at a level that is
sufficient to provide the basic knowledge necessary in understanding the properties of
materials in which these effects play a role. Itinerant-electron magnetism is presented on a
similar basis. Particular attention has been given to magnetocrystalline magnetic anisotropy
and the magnetocaloric effect. Also, the usual techniques for magnetic measurements are
presented. About half of the book is devoted to magnetic materials and the properties that
make them suitable for numerous applications. The state of the art is presented of
permanent magnets, high-density recording materials, soft-magnetic materials, Invar alloys
and magnetostrictive materials. Many references are given.
.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
For those of you who are interested in the superstring theory I would reccomend Brian Greene's book "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden
Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. It starts out very simple and builds very nicely on explaining the fundamentals of string theory.
I loved the book and found it very fascinating. I also found that the super string theory is more focused on subatomic strings and their relation to
the Plank "foam".
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
JohnWW
International Hazard
Posts: 2849
Registered: 27-7-2004
Location: New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That book is available as a DJVU and as an HTML ebook. I think I downloaded it from www.eknigu.ru or similar in April. If it cannot be found by searching there or on Google or gigapedia.org, I could upload it.
|
|
|
len1
National Hazard
Posts: 595
Registered: 1-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: NZ 1 (goal) - Italy 1 (dive)
|
|
Particle accelerators are not built to test string theories. One I did my PhD on at Cern discovered the Z-boson (electroweak mediator) and recently
signs of the top quark (though no one in their right mind really believed in top-less models). Standard theory however still has a huge hole in it -
the Higgs boson, without which the the electroweak sector falls down. Much experimentation is to find that, they were looking for it 20 years, ago
and are still now. Another key aspect is evidence for supersymmetry - there isnt any. These are two huge problems in currently known theory before
we even get to strings.
String theory has made a lot of progress mathematically - theories can now be classified a lot better. Trouble is it all predicts supersymmetry, the
electron is meant to have a mirror particle (not the antiparticle), and so do all elementary particles. Of course you could adjust their masses to
infinity so you never see them but a theory without predictions is what ocams razor is meant for. Basically as someone whose name escapes me said,
'superstrings makes not a single experimental prediction and theres no single experiment known that can disporve it'.
Its in fact in the realm of maths now not of physics in the traditional sense of the word. And its reason for existance - standard model QED, QCD
blows up and requires renormalisation (swallowing up of singularities) due to short distance behaviour of local theories, with quantum gravity the
divergence in the theory cant even be normaised, so if we smear the particle over space (a string) the interaction wont be so singular. Yes thats
true, but it doesnt appear to predict anything physical either.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
