# Put a String on Your Finger!



## Digger Blue (Dec 1, 2010)

I have been fascinated with the new field of string theory. A string is a loop of energy in a string, or a circle that is about 10e-12 times smaller than an atom (or was it smaller than an electron?!), but it is the soup that everything is made up of. 
I was thinking about various places where this frontier is being approached, and I will list a few examples and invite comments and other examples from the more or less educated than I. 

Bose-Einstein Condensate, when you cool something down to absolute zero, this is the stuff you get (as an ESFP, I will lay claim to having a coffee cup of that stuff in my deep freeze!).

Black Holes (this would be an obvious one, but we know little about these). 

So, where else can you think of where we are pushing the laws of physics hard enough to be crossing over into the next physics domain?

Regards,
Digger Blue


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 30, 2011)

They are "the soup that everything is made up of" but you are uncertain whether they are smaller than an atom or an electron.

/facepalm


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Diogenes said:


> They are "the soup that everything is made up of" but you are uncertain whether they are smaller than an atom or an electron.
> 
> /facepalm


No need to be rude. It is a fascinating possibility  I enjoy topics like this!


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 30, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> It is a fascinating possibility


String theory is a fascinating possibility, no doubt.
But it it's true, and strings are the basic components of everything, why should anyone doubt that they are smaller than electrons?
"Everything" includes electrons.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Diogenes said:


> String theory is a fascinating possibility, no doubt.
> But it it's true, and strings are the basic components of everything, why should anyone doubt that they are smaller than electrons?
> "Everything" includes electrons.


Oh, okay, I understand now, lol. Good point!  I wonder if anybody else has some thoughts. I've got nothing... I haven't tapped into string theory too much, but I'm hoping this thread will help me learn.


----------



## Digger Blue (Dec 1, 2010)

What I meant was that I don't remember if they are 10e-12 times the size of an atom or 10d-12 times the size of an electron. There is quite a difference, but either way, you're not going to see a string with your best microscope!
I was inspired to start this string because they are so many orders of magnitude that you have to get off the beaten track to get close to them. You have to push the limits of reality to get to them, and how do we do that? In order to proceed, we will need tools in a laboratory that are smaller than atom smashers (which tend to be big and chew up research dollars really quickly)/
Digger Blue


----------



## Digger Blue (Dec 1, 2010)

Michael Green and John H. Schwartz did their equations that both equaled 496, thus proving with theoretical physics that string theory is real (at least as I understand this stuff), and now the applied physicists have their work cut out for them. 
Digger Blue


----------



## Digger Blue (Dec 1, 2010)

For you Gen-Y folks, the two most extraordinary skills I have seen (and this gave these people great power) was a man who knew shorthand and could take notes during the meeting as he led it, and a guy who was good enough at doing math in his head such that he'd round everything off to 0 or 1 decimal points and work through the equations on the spot to get an answer within one or two orders of magnitude and thus hold the lecturer's feet to the fire. I've seen 'em both, and it was incredible. 
The guy who did the math would see who was speaking and what topic, then he'd go hit the library and in 15 or 20 minutes time come up with the key equations that were used in the lecture. He'd walk in prepared and his reputation of being a genius grew like wildfire. All he did was his homework (i.e., preparation!). 
Digger Blue


----------



## Digger Blue (Dec 1, 2010)

Part of the reason for this string is to challenge you young people and get you interested in busting open one of the next big scientific frontiers. This should bring Star Trek into reality. 

Oh yeah, Gen-Y never bothered with Star Trek, I forgot. Well, start watching it because when I was young they were talking about how my generation was the generation of Space Travel, and it happened. You can make this happen, people!

Digger Blue


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

String theory has turned into the modern day equivalent of the old aether theories. Other then some great mathematics it hasn't produced anything useful in 40 years. Conceptually though its a lot of fun to play with because the possibilities are virtually endless. For example, one variation are the so-called "mirror worlds". These would explain the forces of nature as a kind of puppet show caused by our universe being in an intimate relationship with a parallel one. What we would perceive here as gravity might be size or color or whatever in the mirror world and if we could only see the strings on the puppets in action it would all make sense. Another variation speculates that our universe is really two dimensional and the third dimension is a holographic illusion created by something outside our universe imposing on us. Thus the action-at-a-distance of things like gravity is explained again as a kind of parlor trick.


----------



## Digger Blue (Dec 1, 2010)

Yeah, and the real parlor trick is to neatly wrap one's head around all this stuff before exam time!
Watson (age 25) and Crick (age 36) unraveled the theory of DNA's double helix. My hat's off to the both of 'em. I think I was pushing 4 when I took off on my brothers tricycle. Now that was nowhere near the educational accomplishment of Watson and Crick. . . but the point I was trying to make. . . . 
Digger Blue


----------



## MachinegunDojo (Dec 27, 2009)

Electrons are believed to be point particles or elementary particles. A good analogy I've heard of for the size of a string is if you scaled up the size of an atom to the size of the solar system, a string would be about the size of a tree.


----------



## Digger Blue (Dec 1, 2010)

MachinegunDojo said:


> Electrons are believed to be point particles or elementary particles. A good analogy I've heard of for the size of a string is if you scaled up the size of an atom to the size of the solar system, a string would be about the size of a tree.


I'll assume you are speaking of our solar system, but should I assume you are speaking of the Hydrogen Atom? Or are you messing around with Francium? (Hard to come by, but reactive as all hell!).

More seriously, I will comment that Black holes offer an opportunity to have the multiverse expand and contract into another dimension at the same time. 

Digger Blue


----------



## Digger Blue (Dec 1, 2010)

What is neat about string theory is that the theorists can calculate and prove their theories. This is very limited, yet was done on one occasion where two different things were used to calculate the same thing. Both equations came out to be equal 496, thus proving that both were valid equations. While nothing can be measured down at that scale yet, the fact that the calculations work means that some of it is correct and valid. I wish my math were so good. 
Digger Blue


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Digger Blue said:


> What is neat about string theory is that the theorists can calculate and prove their theories. This is very limited, yet was done on one occasion where two different things were used to calculate the same thing. Both equations came out to be equal 496, thus proving that both were valid equations. While nothing can be measured down at that scale yet, the fact that the calculations work means that some of it is correct and valid. I wish my math were so good.
> Digger Blue


If both theories (string theory and the old 'standard model') are functionally equivalent, then why do we need string theory again? :tongue:

I think the whole "string" conceptualization came about because physicists were so sick answering the question about "is matter made up of waves or particles". (The correct answer is neither, but it presumably took many hours of physics to explain it, often without the physicist noticing when exactly the layman had left the room)

I figure at some point the physicists thought, 'Screw it, lets throw all of our equations together into one big melting pot to stop others from understanding what we're doing and then make up some vague notion about vibrating strings whenever laymen ask about it'.

Of course I wouldn't know because I'm not a string-theorist insider.


----------



## MachinegunDojo (Dec 27, 2009)

I'm not a string theorist either, but I watched a video with Leonard Susskind explaining how it became know as string theory and it's because the math shows them to be tiny vibrating strings. 

I am about to start rereading "The Blackhole War" by Leonard Susskind again, it was a very interesting read to say the least and his explanations and analogies are on par with other writers like Brian Greene and Michio Kaku. I highly recommend it.


----------



## Digger Blue (Dec 1, 2010)

Snow Leopard,
What is so incredible about the strings is that they are something like 22 orders of magnitude smaller than the atom. I believe that is correct. That means that the particles that the physicists are busy smashing are huge compared to the strings. Strings are smaller than quarks. We are talking some really, really tiny things. Thus the fact that the theoretical physicists were able to come up with two different equations that would come up with a common answer was the first crack in the shell of the theory. Both equations came out with the same answer, 496. That gave their theories validity. It's not as good as having a measurement that corroborates with the calculated equation, but it provides great credibility to the theories. 
What is really exciting about all of this is that if some day we are able to come up with more of the laws of physics that strings play by, then we can do things that we can't do yet: The Transporter from Start Trek, Travel at speeds faster than the speed of light, chemical reactions that won't go by today's methods, the final linking of the equations of Gravity, electro-magnetic, Strong Force, and Weak Force. This would actually put us in Geordi LaForge's domain where we could use his great material, Durallium. 
What has not been mentioned much is the relationship that strings may have to fusion, or even cold fusion. Fusion is being explored in SE France, and a better understanding of strings might make fusion possible, or more easily developed. At any rate, it is an advancement of the understanding of Nature on an incredibly smaller scale than even (atom smashing) particles. 
Digger Blue 

PS For you students who are into math and physics, this an inviting frontier to pursue.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

MachinegunDojo said:


> I'm not a string theorist either, but I watched a video with Leonard Susskind explaining how it became know as string theory and it's because the math shows them to be tiny vibrating strings.


My head explodes when I try to think about three dimensional Bessel functions, so imagining 10-26 dimensional string states as some sort of physical object is well beyond me.

Digger Blue - the key test of String theory, is basically when someone says 'lets add this extra mathematical bit' and suddenly the theory manages to explain some sort of phenomena that resists existing models. That has basically been the story of prior revolutions in physics.

Given the equivalence principle, I don't think faster than light travel is going to be one of the consequences though it is fun to think about.


----------



## Digger Blue (Dec 1, 2010)

*String Theory & Bessel Functions*



Snow Leopard said:


> My head explodes when I try to think about three dimensional Bessel functions, so imagining 10-26 dimensional string states as some sort of physical object is well beyond me.
> 
> Digger Blue - the key test of String theory, is basically when someone says 'lets add this extra mathematical bit' and suddenly the theory manages to explain some sort of phenomena that resists existing models. That has basically been the story of prior revolutions in physics.
> 
> Given the equivalence principle, I don't think faster than light travel is going to be one of the consequences though it is fun to think about.


Snow Leopard:
You gotta understand, first of all, that when a theoretical physicist says, "Let's add this extra mathematical bit", he's is doing his job. He has at his disposal more little mathematical bits than Fastenal has Screws! Not only that, but he has a good understanding of what he is doing, spending a good part of his waking hours studying the literature of fellow theoretical theorists who have been proposing their own little mathematical bits. If you can imagine each little mathematical bit to be a Lego, or better yet, a Tinker Toy, then you can see that if they can put them together just right (such as writing equations from two different approaches that equal the same thing) and wind up with the frame of a Harley Hawg, then even if they don't have the engine, gas tank, or dashboard, they still have a frame, which is a very nice place to start!

Did you watch the entire series? I sort of considered Susskind to be the way, way out whack job of the people they interviewed. I have no ability to criticize his ideas, but he seemed to me to be the furthest out of anybody they presented. I was sitting there trying to wrap my head around ideas that various theorists had introduced, which was difficult enough, then they'd come back to Susskind, and he'd basically describe something that says essentially, there is no envelope of believability because this might well be the way it is. I think the name of the series was Unraveling the Fabric of the Cosmos. I think, also, that it can be viewed on PBS.org, though I don't have bandwidth for that capability. 

As for those Bessel Functions, why don't you get hold of a paper or two and see just how bad the math really is? You might understand more than you think. I was struggling (in my early days) trying to understand something from a book. I had an older man who was not anywhere near as educated as I was looking over my shoulder. I stopped when I didn't understand something, so I was reading it out loud for the third time. He told me, "Don't worry about that. Let's move on and if we need it, we can come back." That was a great lesson for me. 

Regards,
Digger Blue
:wink:


----------



## 22575 (May 23, 2011)

I don't know too too much about sting theory (I'll be taking a class on it in the spring), but I'll take a crack at sharing what I know.
Why do we need string theory? - We're looking for a theory of everything, and supposedly string theory provides that (though there have been no measurable predictions as of yet; This is critical because you can make "new" theories work for various things, but if they don't provide some new insight then all you're doing is playing with numbers and complicating the background picture without actually proving anything)

This part I'm a bit fuzzy on (just a fair warning):
One of the issues with the electron (in classical theory) is that it is a point source of charge making maxwell's equations blow up, this is fixed by having an infinitely long dirac string with phase such that it does not affect anything else. Now in quantum mechanics the electron's observed spin state at a certain angle is not the same if you rotate around it by 360degrees, instead you must make two full rotations to return to the same state. So there are some interesting analogies and animations of dirac strings getting bent out of shape after 1 rotation and then returning to the same state after 2 rotations. 






Addendum: I saw some mention about faster than light travel. We can explain faster than light travel using general relativity. You have to bend space is a nice way is all :tongue:

see: Alcubierre Drive


----------

