13th Mar 2010
What is the purpose of 'string theory'? What explanations have been
found wanting and therefore require the proposal of 'strng theory?'
Can my questions
be answered conceptually rather than with mathematical formulae? What
questions go unanswered still even with string theory. Please provide
a bibliography and other references for my future reading.The
"a bibliography and other references for my future reading .."
should be also non-mathematical?
Do you want popular books on the topics
or introductory text for a student, or both?
Can you tell us more about what you did read so far,
on this topic and/or other fileds of physics,
what was just right, too hard, too easy?
Recent development in this field is known as M-Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory_(simplified)
Should answer include M-theory, be limited to M-Theory or
include both, history and current research?
Is this about right level ?
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.htmlIn the link to
M-theory (simplified) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
M-theory in relation to the 5 other string theories ..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory_(simplified)
system dropped the last paranthesis:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory_(simplified)
The whole link
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory_(simplified)
]
may need to be pasted to the browser or the paran added by hand.rocknejoe
Perhaps the best way to explain the purpose is to draw an analogy
between today's situation in the high energy physics and
situation in chemistry at time of Dmitri Mendeleev (1834-1907)
[
http://pmi.itmonline.com/netnotes/Big%20Questions%20Net%20Notes/Dmitri%20Mendeleev%20-%20Bio.htm
]
Note :these wery long URLs (web addresses) often require that whole
content of [ ] (but not brackets themself) is pasted into the
browser.
At that time chemistry already separated from the alchemy. Concept of
the 'chemical element' was understood and about half of chemical
elements were known.
Since you did not clarified the question, I am only guessing how much
of the history of science you encountered in past and are interested
in. So:
Brief excursion into history of science:
-------------------------------------
It is important here to understand the concept of 'element' - a
material which cannot be made from other materials. This was an
important 'negative result' of
the 'early' 12-18 century research.
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0857946.html
So, at 1900 gold was an element and 'law' or scientific postulate was
that it cannot made from other materials. It was made from 'atoms' a
greek word meaning
'that which cannot be divided' and atoms did not split. Transmution of elements
was impossible.
This was an important 'negative result' of the early (12-18 century) research.
We should not forget our debt to the early pioneers and visionaries,
who did not found gold, but invented the basic tools of science. These
were the people who came to the rulers and barons and said:
" Give us some money to build a lab, and we will make you gold "
by that they invented the concept of 'grant' which propels the modern science,
concept which drives modern scientists in their quest for 'theory of
everything' for which strings are 6 of the candidates.
Science does not progress in straight lines, and sometimes negative result
is a valuable spring board for jump into a new paradigm. We should tolerate
failure and not aks scientists to write down and meet their milestones.
"
Our Debt to the Alchemists (by Reginald Merton)
Until the end of the eighteenth century, it was customary to hang
alchemists dressed in a grotesque gold robe on gilded gallows. If they
escaped this punishment they were usually imprisoned by barons or
kings, who either compelled them to make gold or extorted their secret
from them in exchange for their liberty. Often they were left to
starve in prison. Sometimes they were roasted by inches or had their
limbs slowly broken .."
http://www.alchemylab.com/history_of_alchemy.htm
Then Lise Meitner 1878-1968 figured out that atoms do split and 'atomic age' began.
http://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/meitner.html
End of excursion into the past. Back to the future:
---------------------------------------------------
Atom now was made from more 'elementary particles' and more and more were found
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/elementaryparticles/elementaryparticles.html
Today we know about 60 of them and they show some tantalising regularities,
just as chemical elements did in 1900.
Today we not only know the Periodical Table of Elements but we
actually understand it. We understand the structure of atoms, nucleus
and orbiting
electrons and so we know why those periods, 8, 12 , 32 .. are there.
These were the regularities which tantalised the chemists and allowed
Mendeleev to figure out the Table. Table lead to further discoveries
about atoms.
Today we know many particles, such as electrons, protons,..
http://www.hep.net/documents/drell/sec3.html
but we do not understand them. We do not have a theory for them.
We have several theories which are relevant, QM, STR, QCD ...
http://dmoz.org/Science/Physics/Particle/
and we are building bigger and bigger 'atom smashers' to study those particles
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/th/thinterest.html
but we do not have a good theory.
Superstring and M Theory are supposed to provide it.
The RFCs I gave you before, lists books, popular and technical, and
additional references about the M -theory itself.
The question, a different question, really, is
'what is it good for'?
and it is a good question, not only because since taxpayers, (not only
in US) are footing the bill.
They foot the bill reluctantly as this one example shows:
"debate offers a fascinating look at the arguments both sides are
expected to use throughout the coming decade as Congress wrestles with
funding for the $6 billion accelerator.
Supporters, in an effort to blunt criticism that the project is merely
an expensive toy for a handful of high-Energy physicists, make broad
claims for its practical uses, particularly in medicine. They also
argue that it is essential to the preservation of U.S. superiority in
science. Opponents stress that the project is prone to mismanagement,
that it would drain funds from other research fields, and that the
government's limited resources would be better spent on small-science
projects that are more likely to benefit society..."
[
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:wbHNkq6kG50J:www.the-scientist.com/1989/8/7/11/2+supercollider++%27now+throw+in+the+money%27&hl=en&lr=lang_en
]
More on super-collider example
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1857361
Here are the pictures of other 'particle accelerators' or 'atom smashers'
http://images.google.com/images?q=accelerator+particle&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
These are the experiments which provide data for these theories.
Since that was not your main question, I will stop here, and just mention
(my own view on importance of this branch of physics) that there are many
other, more aplied branches of physics.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=571062
There are limits on 'reductionism' and lot of the progress in physics is
happening independently of the 'elementary particles reaserch' also called
'high energy physics' or 'particle physics'.
It is, nevertheless, a legitimate branch of physics, 'basic science'
which may bring benefits in the future, e.g. for important applied
projects, such as ITER.
http://images.google.com/images?q=ITER&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
Please, feel free to request clarification (do a RFC, as GA jargon
calls that) if I did not answer fully your question.
If question is answered, I do appreciate a rating.
It helps me to refine my skills.
HedgieOpps,
This (last but one) link is mistake.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=571062
I wanted to point to this one (on concept of scale and reductionism)
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=570696#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
|
Posted by cfz under toyotataa.com |
