Do you believe in string theory?

I would need more education in physics to have a strong opinion on this matter. From school and personal reading into books from Stephen Hawking, I don’t know beyond the Big bang. But from what I gather m theory has pretty much replaced string theory.

I really enjoyed listening to Brian Greene’s book The Elegant Universe as an audio book. It’s a great “read.”

I feel guilty, but I lack personal interest in this subject. I don’t have the motivation to learn about it.

M theory is just the 11 dimensional variant of string theory. Basically the same thing.

This video isn’t going to give you a real understanding. That would require some academic instruction.

Good. I was beginning to think schizophrenics were really “mental.” :wink:

1 Like

I realize when I don’t know or fully understand, and this video gives me very little understanding. It realistically would require years of education to really understand, not to say there couldn’t be a maverick who could give us an expanded understanding of physics who was partially self taught. I once did a thesis on michelangelo, and he was actually self taught by his own admission, although he had some instruction as well in his early years.

The insights it would provide you with have no implications and it doesn’t stand proven anyways.

You’d be better off learning real physics. This would take an equal amount of time. You’d actually stand at the brink of the known and contribute to the progression of technology.

String theory is fanciful crap for now.

They don’t even know what to stick with or what works best. Is it a string or a loop or brane. Is it this n dimensional shape or this n d shape.

What they are trying to do is come up with a framework of how energy takes to different forms. That is something we need to figure out, but the suggestion of strings alone is a shot in the dark and poor grounds to base a whole theory.

Real string theorists have been crunching the numbers for decades to no avail. It’s only partially right.

They are building something that operates like the universe but doesn’t actually represent it’s functionality.

Does it need to? I’m thinking that at some point they will have run out of data but still need to unify the theories that describe the data so far. Whatever unifies the descriptions that have worked in the most economical way will be the candidate of choice. It will be an open question whether anything actually corresponds to the best explanation. I believe the notion of a ‘force’ is quite dubious in this respect, but I might be wrong. Nevertheless it does wonders for our explanations, but I think it points to some minor lasting role for metaphysics.

In my opinion string theory is easier to understand than the particle wave duality found at the core of quantum mechanics.

Light waves are also very trippy. You’d like to imagine a light wave as a linear motion as in lazers. But naturally like operates more like sound but instead of air you have space. In every possible position there is light traveling in all possible directions. Even in space when your counting invisible light or em radiation. Still this mess of waves is very good at maintaining imagery.

It’s so ■■■■■■■ crazy that it’s real. Impossible to replicate it’s nature in my mind.

There is so much energy in the form of em radiation. Photons aren’t really even particles though. They can be influenced by objects carrying charges to instantaneously support its em field.

Physics is really trippy ■■■■. It’s taken me to the limits of my ability to understand something.

It’s totally goes against intuition a lot of the times.

Macro physics though. That ■■■■ is very natural.

I don’t know. It seems to be gaining credibility. That might be a good explanation for my mental state - I wandered into another dimension, or an alternate universe.

1 Like

Good question… I don’t know :smile:. What is the real advantage of using a single formula instead of one?

They like to think they peering into the ‘mind of God.’ As it’s been said. But I don’t think the universe really respects concrete things like mathematics. Works for large objects. But for the very small it becomes probabilistic.

Really though they might find a way to use a unified formula. Might be instances where it’s needed. The extremes of physics. Black holes the Big Bang etc. I don’t know though.

I do believe in string theory… but if I think about it too much, I’m in trouble.

it will start to affect me. I’ve had a problem with this before.

March 31 & April 1, 2003:
From Entity:

(Q: Ok, so theres the 7 spiritual dimensions, large that we can access, and then 5 beyond that, not just 9 or 11 total as Hawking and others describe, do I have this right?)

‘Correct. The 5 dimensions within and beyond the 7, these are the “smaller, curled” dimensions, comparable to the 5 string theories which combined in their totality create the unknown or undiscovered theory along with supergravity, but the complete Unified Theory of the All would encompass the 7 and the 5 together in harmony, working in the order rather than separately distinct.
As also I told you last night about obsolete theories, some of which are only missing this one simple point. The 3, the 7, and 12 are revealed throughout your Bible, the 5 has been more hidden, therefore “occult” ~ not in the sense of negative anti-forces, but revealed in the pentacle; the 5 elements - often kept separate from the 3, 7, and 12, yet in truth a part of them; a representation of the totality.’

All is one no matter how separate by distance in the present illusion of space and time. By your own query you suggested the assertion and by that presentation were in truth upon the horizon of the totality. In essence we are of the intricate order, and there are others, groupings of individuals whose extensions form their own intricate orders. Why communities congeal as one in similar purpose… Like attracts like and forms bonds of pure energy not perceived by most humans.

Well if you can prove it instead of just stating thats the way it is then i’d listen.

Side note:
string theory is not a unified theory. on that level of abstraction they find many formula that work but dont agree. all of them indicated a 10 dimensional cosmos. but which was right? they couldnt decide so they added another dimension and put them all together under the label of M theory…

thats all if my memory serves me right… been years so since i’ve really looked at it. ■■■■ sz

david icke and his 5 sense conspiracy is a good example of psuedo science.

That’s my theory as well…portal time :smiley:

If any theory is properly understood, thus it is correctly and completely understood, then this leaves no gap between this theory and another correct theory. Meaning, correctly understanding a theory will connect you onward to understanding everything. Only an error will prevent this due to the error creating a gap, thus creating a barrier.

I don’t think I could give a qualified opinion. It sounds as esoteric as “dark matter” and “dark energy”. I think those concepts are less theoretical, though. I think there is empirical evidence for them.