who else can understand string theory and general relativivt

Post Reply New Topic

Does anyone else think maybe the reason why quatum theory and general relativity dont add up and creates many infinities is the same reason that they keep finding smaller and smaller subatomic particles because these very thought processes and observations are what creates them. This is the same reason why the deeper into space and the further back we see in astronomy always causes further regression. Why has this observation of the evidence, the almost infinite regression of explanation never contemplated. Is it due to the incorrect questions being asked? We strive to understand why yet only ever ask how in science. I very much like string theory, quantum theory, anything to do with the big band and its many explanations, astronomy and so on. I very much understand the concepts but not great with the maths. I did not grasp pure mathematics in school and dropped out of a level maths and took geography instead. Big mistake really these last few years I seem to understand it more mainly due to previous heavey psychedelic substance use and no alcohol any more. Thinking about going back and re attempting a level maths then having another go at uni maybe astronomy or science philosophy.

I can understand it, but not in a mathematical formula way. I never learned it at school but I did do alot of research and watch alot of visual videos on it. I understand the basic concept of it and I think it makes alot of sense!

Huh, that's interesting. How are those two theories being used together?

to "adetheproducer", yes that's a really good observation. It's because humans think in terms of language, and language is not a perfect science. And since our use of signifiers is not a definitive measurable thing like numbers, the semantic explanations for physical phenomena are often flawed. Mathematics often explains how things happen, but since numbers are not symbolic like words, people use language to explain "why", and it seems like that's more of a subjective opinion in the end, since symbolism isn't a concrete thing.

Earlier in this thread, it was asked why spend money on LHC. We already have solved the problem of the Higg's field with the LHC. It is about to be powered up with a doubling of it's former power and we might see particles hypothesized by supersymmetry. That would be a big boost to supersymmetric string theory. If we don't see them, it probably means supersymmetry is wrong as we've narrowed down the possibilities of where to find them just as the Higg's particle was found. So, we may begin to get answers sooner than later. Or not.

As to the discussion of math for understanding string theory, I have a 4 year degree in theoretical math, and I couldn't begin to approach it. When I was in school, a professor who had a PHD told me he had been studying the math needed to understand Einstein's general relativity. So, that math is very advanced.

Yes, dark matter was also mentioned for the same reason.

I will be disappointed if they don't find ss and joyfully astonished if they do.

In this context "understands" = "can do the math and explain it" or "recognizes it just from seeing the math". So no, I do not understand it. But I casually follow the field. I suspect the field has passed the point where anything but the math is useful to describe an idea. Such as extra, even 11!, dimensions. I reject the idea that dimensions beyond the 3 or 4 we can apprehend are "curled up inside" the others. But again I don't understand that math either (I haven't tried, maybe I could) - so my rejection is purely on a hunch. If you like following the field, you must have seen this breakthrough: the The Amplituhedron. It is the most exciting thing to come out of quantum physics (for me) in a very long time - I can't remember the runner-up, lol. Something super-difficult to calculate suddenly is much, much simpler and resembles? NO, is identical to the formula for computing the volume of a multi-faceted jewel. It has the kind of beautiful simplicity that "E = mc2" has. It grabs my attention too because it's an example of the applicability of mathematics that is not obvious or intuitive. So many more such applications must be out there. Maybe those Physics-PhD "Quants" on Wall Street have found some.

I wish - but it would be a serious undertaking for me to understand string theory. You have to understand so many advanced topics in modern physics (quantum field theory, general relativity, etc)- id have to master pHD level physics to even begin to understand string theory. Its not worth the time in my opinion because I wouldn't get anything out of it.

Jono I disagree, although I am familiar with similar sayings attributed to Einstein or Feynman or et al see here . Simile or metaphor is definitely helpful, but I think the math is the only necessary thing. A fusion experiment, landing a craft on an asteroid... stuff like that cannot be accomplished without math - no amount of description alone will suffice. I'm open to examples to the contrary. I think we may be defining "understand" differently in this context. The thought experiments Einstein did that resulted in Relativity (ies) are clear and illustrate the concepts very well, but I just don't think String Theory is as accessible. For instance, can you explain why it's "strings" and not, say, "tuning forks"?

I used to have a roommate who was working on his PhD in Physics in the field of string theory.

I never took the time to look at it very closely because I was too busy working on other subject matter.