Originally posted by qwiksylverAs you know, there is a real heated debate between the "stringers" and the hardcore experimentalists. I lean more to the experimentalists (standard model guys, or whatever we call them these days) just because string and/or branes are so ugly. I have to join with Einstein as to his perception of Quantum mechanics... "God does not play dice". Maybe I, and the experimentalists are just being selfish. It seems that we are somehow cheated if the Theory Of Everything turns out to be something that can never be tested in our universe. By definition, that can make a curious being nuts!
So, for all you physicists out there, what do you think: String theory or Brane theory? Or something else all together?
I have to admit though that an "unattached string, free to roam between branes" does seem to describe gravity and "attached strings, anchored to a brane" handle the four forces quite well.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI know essentially nothing about modern physics, but what specifically irks you about QM? I'm very curious...
As you know, there is a real heated debate between the "stringers" and the hardcore experimentalists. I lean more to the experimentalists (standard model guys, or whatever we call them these days) just because string and/or branes ar ...[text shortened]... strings, anchored to a brane" handle the four forces quite well.
EDIT: Argh. It's 12:17 in the AM and I haven't started my homework yet and I have to wake up in 6 hours, so I can't really get into this right now :'(. [Austrian accent]I'll be back.[/Austrian accent]
Originally posted by royalchickenHi RC! The basic premise of String and/or Brane theory delves into "unmeasurable" regions smaller than the Planck regions of Quantum Soup. So... We will never be able to experiment with them. They might be real, but we will never be able to prove them. At least as we now understand the Quantum uncertainty thing.
I know essentially nothing about modern physics, but what specifically irks you about QM? I'm very curious...
EDIT: Argh. It's 12:17 in the AM and I haven't started my homework yet and I have to wake up in 6 hours, so I can't really get into this right now :'(. [Austrian accent]I'll be back.[/Austrian accent]
Well, eventually (with large enough particle accelerators) some physicists think (emphasis on think)we may be able to prove/disprove string theory... of course that involves discovering supersymmetry and yada yada yada.
Star valley - In some ways I kinda have to agree with you and in other ways I don't. I agree with the fact that "God does not play dice with the universe" but at the same time there has to be some way to harmonize quantum mechanics with relativity. (I love both quantum physics and and relativity (well I also love chaos but that's a different discussion) I started studying physics when I was ten and I've been hooked ever since).
Originally posted by qwiksylverWhen I returned from my mission, I enrolled at BYU as a physics major. Honors program and they allowed late enrollment for missionaries. I had missed the first three weeks! Yikes. I had 22 hours of Physics + 2 labs, Chemistry + 2 labs, Analytical Geometry + 1 lab (held at the same time as the Physics labs) , English, Book Of Mormon, Weight Lifting <got to get that PE credit you know> and I was on the practice squad on the frosh Baseball team. Catcher. And two weeks of football on the frosh team in march. I was carrying about a b minus average. I drove to Las Vegas the weekend before finals. Met some girls. They liked my brothers car that I was using. Bought some dope and booze and never woke up till the day after finals. <Yikes! What month is it?!> I still have a WHOLE BUNCH of incompletes to cover when I go back! <grin>
Well, eventually (with large enough particle accelerators) some physicists think (emphasis on think)we may be able to prove/disprove string theory... of course that involves discovering supersymmetry and yada yada yada.
Star valley - ...[text shortened]... studying physics when I was ten and I've been hooked ever since).
Bought a 23 dollar 1948 ford flat head v-8 and left for California the next day. Worked in Huntington beach, Sunset beach then went to Hawaii working construction. Worked there for about five months... long enough for a down payment on a new Vette. Came home and bought a gold hardtop vette with a 457 and a holly 3deuce carb. Got layed by half the girls in star valley. Wrecked the car in Salt Lake after finishing a bottle of whisky and going for another "at ther licker'st ore".
No I didn't see it, but if I recall correctly, the Official string theory website has info on how it would be possible to prove it. Let me go find the site...
Time passes as qwik searches the internet...
Here it is: http://superstringtheory.com/
Ya, it has some info, you can find more by searching the web (google). And it seems I was wrong, particle accelerators won't really help a whole lot in trying to prove it.
Anyways, I haven't really studied string theory for a while, what I've been looking more into lately is brane theory. I don't know that I really believe any of them to be particularly true, but if I had to choose on I would say that I'm actually leaning toward the hybrid between string and brane theory.
Originally posted by qwiksylverwelcome to rhp qwiknylver!
So, for all you physicists out there, what do you think: String theory or Brane theory? Or something else all together?
glad to see a physics person here. btw, if you really want to talk physics, check out this great forum:
http://www.physicsforums.com/
in friendship,
prad