I watched a few videos about it in my physics class. It's pretty much this theory that everything is made out of little vibrating "strings", which leads to other ideas, such as that there are eleven dimensions. Read more about it here.

What do you all think of it? Question
Quite frankly, anything is possible considering the nature of science itself. Although, I don't quite understand what said strings are composed of Confused

I've actually read quite a bit on this level of theoretical physics, and I find it rather interesting. Articles on theoretics such as the Calabi-Yau multi-dimensional manifolds and mebrane theory really bring a newfound understanding to the theoretical explanations of the universe. Things such as the Big Bang actually make more sense. Of course, in the end it's seemingly infinitely repetitive. After all, if we know that blah happened because of blah which happened because of blah which occurred because of blah, we still aren't all too close to answering the question "how did it all begin?" because there is seemingly NO beginning (and therefore no end) because to say the universe had a beginning is to imply it did not exist at some point, which violates conservation of mass and energy because we'd be implying something occurred from nothing.. Confused
*brain explodes*

anywho, yeah it's pretty interesting... (sorry for going semi-tangental there ^^;; )
yeah, real interesting stuff.

Actually, if my mind is correct and stuff, the currently accepted theory by many scientists in M Theory, which is similar to String Theory, but enough different to be a different theory. Sorry though, I don't know much of the details on it.
There are a bunch of variants of string theory, which all differ in little ways that affect the math involved. M theory is basically something that connects all those ways into one coherent whole. Problem is, no one knows what it should be that connects those.

Think of a starfish, with the legs sticking up. The tips of the legs are the various string theories, and the middle is M theory, but it's obscured by fog or something.

Coincidentally, a very good book to read involving string theory (and other epic physics) is Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos.
I find the way the 11 dimensions work to be kind of unrealistic (more so than some of the other parts of string theory I learned about), or at least the way it was explained in the videos. How there are little incredibly small tube-like dimensions in the "fabric of space-time".... I don't know....

rivereye wrote:
yeah, real interesting stuff.

Actually, if my mind is correct and stuff, the currently accepted theory by many scientists in M Theory, which is similar to String Theory, but enough different to be a different theory. Sorry though, I don't know much of the details on it.


Yeah, I think I heard of M theory before.
I believe that M theory (Master) is a theory composed of the many string theories. I think there are 5 string theories and M theory unifies their ideas.
The M doesn't stand for Master... nobody knows what it stands for. Some people think it might even be an upside down W for the guy who presented the idea.
Pseudoprogrammer wrote:
The M doesn't stand for Master... nobody knows what it stands for. Some people think it might even be an upside down W for the guy who presented the idea.


It does not necessarily stand for master, but it is a master string theory.
Quote:

According to Witten and others, the M in M-theory could stand for master, mathematical, mother, mystery, membrane, magic, or matrix
quite frankly this theory as no fundamental base... normally we see have a theory and then we can prove it like einstein time dilation and bosons in our atmosphere that can reach ground, this theory has no fundamental thing and many times it contradicts itself if it works on hyperphysics ( teleportation of the photon state (only information) ) it doesn't work on another set... seryously guys i think we have better chances with the heim theory than with this one, and it has already proven that it works with the mass formula from 1989, in this formula there isn't the presence of the matrix A witch was necessary, but could leed to good results with the introduction of the experimental data in it... from the formula of 1989 we do not have that case and it seems working, also the experiment that heim have thinked for provind it has shown that is working...
(http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/498/1/ESA-Announces-Gravity-Modification-Breakthrough/Page1.html)
this theory is being explored by


if you don't believe me read this it see~ms we can't prove the hell of this theory
-> http://www.scottdstrader.com/blog/ether_archives/000858.html
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 1 of 1
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement