If string theory is true and inside atoms are vibrating strings that are responsible for strong and weak force, electromagnetism why can't we see them when atoms are smashed together in a particle collider?
QUOTE (jr. Einstien+Oct 21 2008, 12:18 AM)
If string theory is true and inside atoms are vibrating strings that are responsible for strong and weak force, electromagnetism why can't we see them when atoms are smashed together in a particle collider?
Concerning String Theory, the "strings" which you are referring to are vibrating strands of energy on an very tiny scale, way much smaller then atoms; which all matter and force comprised. these strings act on frequency waves. There are also groups of "strings" so the theory proposes as subatomic and loops. I guess a great way to consider them would be as rubber bands. This is correlating that our 3 dimensions: strong/weak nuclear force, electromagnetic, and gravity, with time being as (4). Also proposes extra dimensions (10) possible. So if you really think of a strings size which is approximately a billionth(2) of a proton, they only way we can possibly conceive them being is through our cogitation. As far as why you wouldn't see them by means of being smashed together in the P/a, H/c, in essence will hopefully create dark matter. This energy cannot be seen, its detection is extremely sensitive. We can only theorize what is to come from experiments in progress, test runs are inquisitive, but we will have a warm welcome in thought process after all said and done!
Concerning String Theory, the "strings" which you are referring to are vibrating strands of energy on an very tiny scale, way much smaller then atoms; which all matter and force comprised. these strings act on frequency waves. There are also groups of "strings" so the theory proposes as subatomic and loops. I guess a great way to consider them would be as rubber bands. This is correlating that our 3 dimensions: strong/weak nuclear force, electromagnetic, and gravity, with time being as (4). Also proposes extra dimensions (10) possible. So if you really think of a strings size which is approximately a billionth(2) of a proton, they only way we can possibly conceive them being is through our cogitation. As far as why you wouldn't see them by means of being smashed together in the P/a, H/c, in essence will hopefully create dark matter. This energy cannot be seen, its detection is extremely sensitive. We can only theorize what is to come from experiments in progress, test runs are inquisitive, but we will have a warm welcome in thought process after all said and done!
To me the Theory of String is more of a mathematical thought than reality.but Wikipedia says this about reality.
To know it is real is yet to be known.
Rethinker
QUOTE
Reality, as a philosophical category, includes the formal concept of "nothingness" and articulations and combinations of it with other concepts (those possessing extension in physical objects or processes for example).
To know it is real is yet to be known.
Rethinker
This theory is not true. But it's a good try.
QUOTE (velvetpink+Oct 21 2008, 03:52 PM)
This theory is not true. But it's a good try.
When using perturbation methods you can create any theory that suits your taste: It is unlikely to be more than a curve-fitting exercise
When using perturbation methods you can create any theory that suits your taste: It is unlikely to be more than a curve-fitting exercise
QUOTE (johanfprins+Oct 21 2008, 05:36 PM)
When using perturbation methods you can create any theory that suits your taste: It is unlikely to be more than a curve-fitting exercise
So you think universal theory is possible to be typed out with letters and numbers or any other signs?
So you think universal theory is possible to be typed out with letters and numbers or any other signs?
QUOTE (velvetpink+Oct 21 2008, 08:51 PM)
So you think universal theory is possible to be typed out with letters and numbers or any other signs?
I do not understand your question: Are you asking whether I think a universal theory is possible? Or are you asking whether I think a universal theory is only possible by using letter and numbers or other signs: What are other signs?
I do not understand your question: Are you asking whether I think a universal theory is possible? Or are you asking whether I think a universal theory is only possible by using letter and numbers or other signs: What are other signs?
QUOTE (johanfprins+Oct 22 2008, 07:53 AM)
I do not understand your question: Are you asking whether I think a universal theory is possible? Or are you asking whether I think a universal theory is only possible by using letter and numbers or other signs: What are other signs?
Sorry my english is bad cause it's not my first language. But yes, if you think it's possible to write out/down an universal theory with letters, numbers, formulas or whatever signs we develop? Of course if someone claims he has find an universal theory he gotta represent that theory somehow...I'm just asking this cause I think it's not possible to type out an universal theory with the signs we are expressing our thoughts.
Sorry my english is bad cause it's not my first language. But yes, if you think it's possible to write out/down an universal theory with letters, numbers, formulas or whatever signs we develop? Of course if someone claims he has find an universal theory he gotta represent that theory somehow...I'm just asking this cause I think it's not possible to type out an universal theory with the signs we are expressing our thoughts.
QUOTE (velvetpink+Oct 23 2008, 11:10 AM)
Sorry my english is bad cause it's not my first language. But yes, if you think it's possible to write out/down an universal theory with letters, numbers, formulas or whatever signs we develop? Of course if someone claims he has find an universal theory he gotta represent that theory somehow...I'm just asking this cause I think it's not possible to type out an universal theory with the signs we are expressing our thoughts.
I do believe that everything fits together. If this is not the primary assumption then physics has no meaning. Whether we will ever be able to summarize and understand all of this, is another matter. But as long as we find new insights, and are willing to change older dogmatic insights (something that has become rare since the 1930's) we might approach a very good theory of everything. I just hope we will never accept such a theory as the final dogma. Then life will have no purpose anymore (for me at least).
I do believe that everything fits together. If this is not the primary assumption then physics has no meaning. Whether we will ever be able to summarize and understand all of this, is another matter. But as long as we find new insights, and are willing to change older dogmatic insights (something that has become rare since the 1930's) we might approach a very good theory of everything. I just hope we will never accept such a theory as the final dogma. Then life will have no purpose anymore (for me at least).
Cause what i think is that, if the universe is dead we will never realize the universe.
QUOTE (velvetpink+Oct 23 2008, 11:27 AM)
Cause what i think is that, if the universe is dead we will never realize the universe.
What do you mean with "if the Universe is dead"? Maybe it is, but not for me: "I think therefore I am".
What do you mean with "if the Universe is dead"? Maybe it is, but not for me: "I think therefore I am".
QUOTE (johanfprins+Oct 23 2008, 11:27 AM)
I do believe that everything fits together.
No doubt about that. Maybe thats already an universal theory.
No doubt about that.
Maybe thats already an universal theory.
QUOTE (velvetpink+Oct 23 2008, 11:31 AM)
No doubt about that. Maybe thats already an universal theory.
A good point!
Maybe thats already an universal theory. A good point!
QUOTE (johanfprins+Oct 23 2008, 11:30 AM)
What do you mean with "if the Universe is dead"? Maybe it is, but not for me: "I think therefore I am".
If the universe is dead, it has no meaning, and if it has no meaning, then we have nothing to describe as a meaning. All we are doing then is defining and describing no meaning. But you cannot describe no meaning as a meaning, if you could it would still be no meaning. And as I think, I think there is no line between dead and alive, and observations shows that there is way more 'mass or space or whatever' dead than alive, that means its much bigger chance that the universe is dead. And if you realize that you are also dead(as there is no such thing as alive) then obviously everything is dead. And if everything is dead, there is no line between everything and nothing. That makes sense to me as I think there really is no line in there. So even if we define all parts/components of the universe, its a great possibility that all the components do not define the meaning of the universe. You don't even know if you are defining everything or nothing. 'Dead things dont need to think to be. But still they are.Or maybe they are not?' Maybe we overrate ourselfs. We are a part of the universe thats no doubt as if we define universe as a universe. And when I take a look at anything, I never experience that a component of something would be able to define that something.
If the universe is dead, it has no meaning, and if it has no meaning, then we have nothing to describe as a meaning. All we are doing then is defining and describing no meaning. But you cannot describe no meaning as a meaning, if you could it would still be no meaning. And as I think, I think there is no line between dead and alive, and observations shows that there is way more 'mass or space or whatever' dead than alive, that means its much bigger chance that the universe is dead. And if you realize that you are also dead(as there is no such thing as alive) then obviously everything is dead. And if everything is dead, there is no line between everything and nothing. That makes sense to me as I think there really is no line in there. So even if we define all parts/components of the universe, its a great possibility that all the components do not define the meaning of the universe. You don't even know if you are defining everything or nothing. 'Dead things dont need to think to be. But still they are.Or maybe they are not?' Maybe we overrate ourselfs. We are a part of the universe thats no doubt as if we define universe as a universe. And when I take a look at anything, I never experience that a component of something would be able to define that something.
Or if gravity or mass or whatever doesnt make sense to the universe why would it make any sense to the universal theory?
QUOTE (velvetpink+Oct 23 2008, 11:57 AM)
if you realize that you are also dead(as there is no such thing as alive) then obviously everything is dead. And if everything is dead, there is no line between everything and nothing. That makes sense to me as I think there really is no line in there. So even if we define all parts/components of the universe, its a great possibility that all the components do not define the meaning of the universe.
For somebody who is dead, you are making an appearance in my "live Universe" . How do you do this?
For somebody who is dead, you are making an appearance in my "live Universe" . How do you do this?
QUOTE (johanfprins+Oct 23 2008, 11:27 AM)
I do believe that everything fits together. If this is not the primary assumption then physics has no meaning. Whether we will ever be able to summarize and understand all of this, is another matter. But as long as we find new insights, and are willing to change older dogmatic insights (something that has become rare since the 1930's) we might approach a very good theory of everything. I just hope we will never accept such a theory as the final dogma. Then life will have no purpose anymore (for me at least).
I agree: I believe everything Does fit together. In a simple correlation with the universe. We have been totally thrown into loops with chaos, and disorder within the realm of compositions, We already know of these dimensions: strong/weak nuclear force/electromagnetic/gravity...time... they all interplay and work with each other. String theory examines the possibilities of what more then meets the eye (figuratively) But its an interesting bind that physics has with the universe...
I agree: I believe everything Does fit together. In a simple correlation with the universe. We have been totally thrown into loops with chaos, and disorder within the realm of compositions, We already know of these dimensions: strong/weak nuclear force/electromagnetic/gravity...time... they all interplay and work with each other. String theory examines the possibilities of what more then meets the eye (figuratively) But its an interesting bind that physics has with the universe...
QUOTE (WhiteRhasta+Oct 23 2008, 05:01 PM)
I agree: I believe everything Does fit together. In a simple correlation with the universe. We have been totally thrown into loops with chaos, and disorder within the realm of compositions, We already know of these dimensions: strong/weak nuclear force/electromagnetic/gravity...time... they all interplay and work with each other. String theory examines the possibilities of what more then meets the eye (figuratively) But its an interesting bind that physics has with the universe...
Have you got experimental evidence that "string theory" is anything but the imagination of people in "cloud cuckoo land"?
Have anyone shown "tracks" of the "vector bosons"?
Will they REALLY prove that a "Higg's boson exist"? Or will they have to claim that, like the vector bosons it does exist? 20 billion dollars is a LOT of money to report a negative result, is it not?
Have you got experimental evidence that "string theory" is anything but the imagination of people in "cloud cuckoo land"?
Have anyone shown "tracks" of the "vector bosons"?
Will they REALLY prove that a "Higg's boson exist"? Or will they have to claim that, like the vector bosons it does exist? 20 billion dollars is a LOT of money to report a negative result, is it not?
QUOTE (johanfprins+Oct 23 2008, 06:55 PM)
Have you got experimental evidence that "string theory" is anything but the imagination of people in "cloud cuckoo land"?
Have anyone shown "tracks" of the "vector bosons"?
Will they REALLY prove that a "Higg's boson exist"? Or will they have to claim that, like the vector bosons it does exist? 20 billion dollars is a LOT of money to report a negative result, is it not?
Nope, did I say I was a firm advocate of String Theory or The Large Hadron Collider? Again No! In fact I have a lot of skepticism for the both of them. However just because you may not agree with something doesn't mean to allow one to learn what they can about it. Yea $20 billion is a hefty sum, so isn't half the money spent and failed on scientific experiments. That's is what is referred to as trial and error. Besides that, I was trying to agree with your statement about how all systems and forces in the universe coincide together...
Have anyone shown "tracks" of the "vector bosons"?
Will they REALLY prove that a "Higg's boson exist"? Or will they have to claim that, like the vector bosons it does exist? 20 billion dollars is a LOT of money to report a negative result, is it not?
Nope, did I say I was a firm advocate of String Theory or The Large Hadron Collider? Again No! In fact I have a lot of skepticism for the both of them. However just because you may not agree with something doesn't mean to allow one to learn what they can about it. Yea $20 billion is a hefty sum, so isn't half the money spent and failed on scientific experiments. That's is what is referred to as trial and error. Besides that, I was trying to agree with your statement about how all systems and forces in the universe coincide together...
QUOTE (WhiteRhasta+Oct 23 2008, 10:56 PM)
Nope, did I say I was a firm advocate of String Theory or The Large Hadron Collider? Again No! In fact I have a lot of skepticism for the both of them. However just because you may not agree with something doesn't mean to allow one to learn what they can about it. Yea $20 billion is a hefty sum, so isn't half the money spent and failed on scientific experiments. That's is what is referred to as trial and error. Besides that, I was trying to agree with your statement about how all systems and forces in the universe coincide together...
Well said. I just wanted to check
Well said. I just wanted to check
Thanks johanfprins; its completely understandable. Better safe then sorry lol, that's the beauty of being inquisitive! Read ya around... Peace
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.