/sci/ - Science & Math

Elegant Universe and Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

>captcha "future airope"

LOLOL STRING THEORY SUCKS DONKEY BALLS.
I SAY THIS WITHOUT REALLY KNOWING WHAT IT IS, BUT POPULAR CULTURE TELLS ME IT'S DUMB.

I don't know anything about string theory tbh, except that it basis itself on a concept that may not be true (extra curled up dimensions) and assumes a ridiculous number of them.

Sounds like it has the same kind of "it might be true even though we have no evidence and it only works if we make huge assumptions" crap that religion is based on. Why would anyone want to learn this?

Educate me /sci/

>>2965048
Thanks bro. What I'm really trying to do is learn the multiverse from the bottem up. I already understand gauge theory which has given me a real thirst for this shit. It seems like everything can be explained just through interactions of elementary particals and then working up from there.

>>2965056
As far as I know there is increasing evidence for it. Probably the most notable was the LHC. You are right that it has very little evidence but I am a math major here and the math works out very good. Belive it or not the theory of general relativity was similar to this.

>>2965056
Basically the same math that was almost useful for describing the strong force also described a string vibrating at relativistic energies. Physicists were like HOLY SHIT DUDES YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS, and thus string theory.
http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic3a.html

OP I translate your text:

/sci/ please refer me to texts of something I have been reading a lot about without having the basic knowledge of understanding it and I don't want to work my way into that basic understanding. Given this it should be obvious to you that I want bullshit texts that make me believe that I understood something while it is impossible for me of understanding it.

To learn string theory beyond a popscience level, you really need to know a lot of physics. At least you need a good knowledge of quantum field theory and some knowledge of general relativity. Anyway, here is a site listing some review articles on string theory and related topics:
http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/physics/stringrev.html

And as to why anyone should care to learn ST, despite some popular beliefs string theory actually has produced some very interesting results, such as the AdS/CFT correspondence, black hole calculations, and numerous interesting math ideas. I dont think its the only theory worth working on, but it is interesting enough to warrant continued investigation.

>>2965070
Math working out good =/= it being a good idea. Read into it and you'll see how many assumptions it is based on.

>>2965076
I think you mis-interperated a bit. What I'm saying is that I do have basic knowledge but I am looking for books that explain the basic knowledge of understanding it and also goes on to explain the more detailed concepts after that.

>>2965070
Nothing out of the LHC as of yet provides any evidence for string theory. And how is general relativity similar to string theory? I think they look very, very different. GR is based on simple geometrical ideas, whereas string theory is like a clusterfuck of different, wildly advanced mathematics and ideas.

>>2965086

Then just take any Quantum mechanics book and work your way trough it if you truly are a math major QM and General relativity and Quantum field theory and all the other shit won't be too difficult for you as the only thing to really struggle with is the math, the physics in these fields is of nearly neglectable quantity.

Here you can get the textbooks :
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4272857/Complete_Physics_And_Philosophy_Ebooks

Cohen-Tannoudji is the most popular for QM.

physic student here that is struggling with group theory to understand his theoretical particle physics lecture

>>2965110
Thanks aswell bro. Just starting to read Brian Greene's shit. Good to know the chaners don't let me down n_n.

Hey OP
Do not waste your time reading and trying and understanding this nonsense : it will all be disproved in a few years.

LOLOLOL 11 DIMENSIONS ORELSE IT DOESNT WORK DURP

It's fucking retarded.

Search for "hidden variable theory", you'll see more interesting stuff than this pile of totally made up , nonsensical shit.

>>2965192
Einstein would agree with you. Too bad he's dead.

>>2965040
>string theory/quantum mechanics

String theory and Quantum Mechanics are two very differnt things.

Qunatum Mechanics is a well established field of physics, that has been verified countless times. Quantum mechanics like most established physical models, has great predictive and explanitory power. Basically, IT FUCKING WORKS.

String theory is a mathematics system, that claims to descibe physical phenomia, yet has no verification or predictaive power whatsoever. It is just a fancy math systems, with no known tie to reality as of yet. NO ONE KNOWS IT IF FUCKING WORKS.

I would suggest learnig Quantum Mechanics, but not string theory. String theory may end up just being a waste of time.

>>2965231
>String theory may end up just being a waste of time.
It obviously is.
Having to make up so many mind-fucking assumptions for a system to work is a very good hint about the theory's quality.

>>2965240
Agreed

>>2965192
>>2965231
>String theory is a mathematics system, that claims to descibe physical phenomia, yet has no verification or predictaive power whatsoever.

WRONG.
>scientists have been using the theory to make progress in tackling one of the biggest puzzles in condensed-matter physics: the origin of high-temperature superconductivity.
>scientists discovered that string theory could be as useful as QCD in explaining the strong nuclear forces involved in a quark–gluon plasma

also: if the Higgs Boson was actually discovered at LHC, it would be more evidence that string theory is true.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090719/full/news.2009.699.html

>>2965259
>if

>implying it will

>>2965259
>if the Higgs Boson was actually discovered at LHC, it would be more evidence that string theory is true

No, you are wrong

>scientists discovered that string theory could be as useful as QCD in explaining the strong nuclear forces involved in a quark–gluon plasma

You are not understaing what they are talking about. There are two different things that can be refered to as string theory, the "math", and the actual "physical justification they say the math represents".

Yes, you can use some parts of the "math" for various things, like you can use some parts of complex analysis for various things. However, you cant competely model the system using complex analysis, or sting theory. You can just take certina parts and cut and paster.

This pheminological application of mathematics, not a physical thoery! This is not nesscarily an indicator that the "physical justification is correct". It doesn't prove string theory true, in any way whatsoever, nor does it really give any credance to "string theory as a physcial theory". All it says is that some of the math can be useful.

>>2965259

>>2965295
>>2965295
>It doesn't prove string theory true, in any way whatsoever

I know that, but if it can be used to explain and predict phenomena, which cannot be explained using the standard model, it may not be proof, but using Occams Razor, it makes a shitload more sense that it is true, rather than to believe that it was somehow just a magical coincidence that you can explain something using strings that is actually governed by some other laws, and it just happens to match up.

also, the Higgs Boson lends credence to string theory in the same way, in that string theory predicts it, and has an explanation for why it exists, while the standard model doesnt.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-does-the-higgs-boson

heres some more:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901091938.htm
>The discovery that string theory seems to make predictions about quantum entanglement is completely unexpected, but because quantum entanglement can be measured in the lab, it does mean that at last researchers can test predictions based on string theory.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090706113702.htm
>After days and nights of hard grind, it was a puzzle that fitted. "We hadn't expected it to work so well," says a delighted Zaanen. "The maths was a perfect fit; it was superb. When we saw the calculations, at first we could hardly believe it, but it was right."
>This is the first time that a calculation based on string theory has been published in Science

you can either accept it now, or deny it, and then feel like a moron for being behind the curve, when it is proven.

>>2965318

you only have popsci magazines to refer to ??

>>2965322
its not a popsci magazine. it summarizes journal articles, and has links to the original articles.

>>>2965318
>nothing but fucking nonsense

You trolling, retarded, just totally uninformed?

>>2965318
wtf?

>>2965318
>>2965259
Just wow

>>2965318
I made a theory, it is called Newtonian Mechanics, and uses a cool new math called Calculus.

OMFG! Calculus can be used in Quantum Mechanics. Therefore, Quantum Mechanics must be based off classical mechanics!

YOU FUCKIN FAIL AT REASONING!

>some people arguing about string theory


>doesnt realize that the evidence of string theories worthlessness is the fact that research groups who study it are either poor, composed of 3 people (including the PI), or fund their bullshit with 99% other stuff...


>no one, not even the NORPs who control the fund money, can be convinced of this bullshit.

>>2965192
Reading the wiki. You are right, it's a bit more 'tangible' than string theory. Basically if anyone wants to post shit about understanding elementary partical interaction and multiverse structure that would be great. I'm still strugling to understand what the particles themselves really are, because, usually when you learn what something 'is' it is the same as learning it's composition. Like we know that atoms consist of 3 parts which have different functions to give the over all attributes of the atom. You can't pull that shit on elementary particles >_>.

>>2965318
>string theory predicts it, and has an explanation for why it exists, while the standard model doesnt

No, you are either really fucking retarded, or your pop-science references are just complete shit.

>>2965322
>>2965328
>>2965326
>>2965325

fine faggots. if you want to be the guy who denied quantum mechanics until 1970, rather than the guy who accepted it in 1930, then go ahead.

also, i can tell none of you read or understood the articles because if you had, you would be thanking me.

>>2965343
HA HA HA HA HA

Like I'm gonna waste my time with pop-science bullshit. If you ever grow the fuck up, and read actual joural articles (and textbooks), then maybe we can talk.

>>2965341
>>2965354

string theory denier uses pictures of a man who denied quantum mechanics his entire life.

how fitting.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.4915v2.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5995/1043

>>2965343

Why should I waste my time on popsci magazines ? Get a real book/ paper and lets see if you do understand it

>>2965357
>>2965357
I made a theory, it is called Newtonian Mechanics, and uses a cool new math called Calculus.

OMFG! Calculus can be used in Quantum Mechanics. Therefore, Quantum Mechanics must be based off classical mechanics!

YOU FUCKIN FAIL AT REASONING!

>>2965357
>http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5995/1043

Not about string theory

>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.4915v2.pdf

OMG, a correlation in mathematical systems.....LMFAO

>>2965357
Einstein wasn't denying QMs, he was denying the part that says this shit is random and unpredictable

mfw I'm OP and made the epic flame war

>>2965318
>Occams Razor
>simplest explaination is one of seven possible 11 dimensional models of vibrating strings

You obvioulsy don't understand Occams Razor

>>2965318
Dude...

You actually said "look like a fool when it's proven"? Are you saying it's a shame to not believe in something that is unproven, and you're in fact ridiculed if it's proven?

That's not scientific thinking.

You don't believe something, for example string theory, UNTIL it's proven. Anything else is rubbish thinking.

>>2965343
Jesus christ you mother fucking retard. There wasn't enough evidence in 1930. Fuck off you little piece of uneducated pile of sandnigger shit.

Are you saying it's actually better to accept a sensible hypothesis SOONER than LATER if it turned out to be correct?

That's not scientific thinking.

FIRST you prove, THEN you accept theory.

Fucking homosexual faggot.

>>2965343
Jesus christ you mother fucking retard. There wasn't enough evidence in 1930. Fuck off you little piece of uneducated pile of sandnigger shit.

Are you saying it's actually better to accept a sensible hypothesis SOONER than LATER if it turned out to be correct?

That's not scientific thinking.

FIRST you prove, THEN you accept theory.

Fucking homosexual faggot.