M-theory is a massive theory that is in the end supposed to be "the theory of everything". Everything has to do with string theory. I think that this is not going to provide all of the answers, just provoke more question. Great, isn't it? It turns out, this theory isn't complicated at all! According to Wikipedia, "Some cosmologists are drawn to M-Theory because of its mathematical elegance and relative simplicity". Relative simplicity? This is why all of your teachers tell you NOT to use Wikipedia.
According to string theory, everything is made up of strings. We see particles the way we do because of how the string oscillates, or ripples. "Fundamental particles" such as electrons or quarks are made up of these strings. Electrons and quarks are said to be closed strings, which means the string is in a loop like this:
Note that the loop is not a perfect circle. It has waves in it because it is oscillating.What exactly is a string? It is basically the infinitely small building block of everything. The thing that a string makes up depends on how much it oscillates or how much tension it has (yes, even though they are floating in spacetime, they have tension).
String oscillation could relate to particle wavelength, as particles are also waves. Strings in particles are one dimensional and are called world lines. However, strings do not just apply to particles. When a string oscillates, it affects space and time, which creates a world sheet. The string at any one time is one dimensional, but because it moves through time, it is two dimensional.
Strings exist in multiple dimensions. When affecting more than one dimension, p-branes come into play. The letter "p" is a variable which stands for the amount off spatial dimensions it affects, so time is not counted in p. This is why M-theory should be able to relate everything.
It even can explain the Big Bang. If two branes collide, it somehow causes our universe to expand. The problem is that I can't find anything that tells me how that works on the internet. Perhaps somebody could help us out, here.
How can something be infinitely small? That's one of my problems with this theory. For something to be one dimensional, it has to be infinitely small. Something with a length, but no width. Unfortunately for us, we can't detect anything that is one dimensional because it doesn't have a size! If it doesn't have a size, can it exist? I'm not sure. That's why there is so much controversy to this theory. It can't be proven.
That was my attempt to explain string theory. Is it true, or not? Is it the theory of everything? We may never know, which will be a huge headache for physicists everywhere in our universe. I see how it could be possible, but I could easily make up a theory like that. Every time there is a problem, alter it so that we can't disprove it. Because right now, we can't disprove string theory. We don't have the equipment, and probably never will. Then again we also can't disprove that magic dinosaur fairies which have powers to transform komodo dragon lung cells into solid hydrogen just by breathing on them live in some 75,000 dimensional multiverse 23 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion kilometers away from the edge of our universe. We can't disprove that, but it certainly doesn't make it true. String theory may not be true either. I doubt it actually exists, but we will just have to wait and see. Comment with your opinions. Is string theory correct?
I like that theory, It is just as probable as M-theory and It's a whole lot cooler.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that there are too many variables for M-theory to ever be proved or disproved, like one 2-variable equation. there will be multiple answers for each variable.
However it just occurred to me that if an atom is encapsulated by string, how can we have Ionic bonds? the string would have to be severred and connected to the other atom, which is plausible, but then there would be extra space for the subatomic particles with in the string, and the world would expand forever and never contract.
Great way to explain expansion, but if it follows big bang, it would be impossible for the string around the singularity to expand without coming in contact with another particle. Plus the "bang" would have to be a lot slower than previously thought.
If I have completely veered out of the qualifications of M-theory(which has most likely occurred), please notify me at once.
I don't think atoms are encapsulated by strings, just made up of them. Everything is made of strings, but they don't tie the atoms together necessarily. They make up all of the particles, which all exist in the 3-brane of spacetime, also a string.
ReplyDeleteThe string doesn't have to hit another string if it is a brane. Branes could be far enough apart so that they don't have to collide. Strings on a microscopic scale don't collide, so why do branes have to? Strings do collide sometimes on a small scale in the form of particles, but not all of the time. Since the nearby branes are so large, it takes extremely long for them to oscillate.
Glad you enjoyed the magic dinosaur fairy theory. It's fun to make up ridiculous occurrences that can't be disproved.
I, too, laughed at the magic dinosaur fairy theory, just as I laughed at string theory. It makes absolutely no sense! Particles should be particles, not the vibrations of random strings. They're matter, not movement. Seriously, if I fill up a jug of water, are you saying that on a subatomic scale, that water is just tremors in one-dimensional string?
ReplyDeleteString theory does not solve the problems of physics; far from it. It has so far served to give me a headache and cleared up exactly zero mysteries, at least for me.
Well, Dorothea, I'm sorry to tell you that particles are also waves. They do have movement to them. Although it does seem hard to believe that everything is made up of strings, we also should remember that just about all matter is made up of a combination of protons, electrons, and usually neutrons. All matter! If we can fathom that all matter is made of a combination of three particles with help from energy, and that all the protons and neutrons are made of quarks, why can't we fathom that the quarks and electrons are made of strings? The fact is, string theory is not going away. Big time colleges are teaching courses on string theory, and it is quite probable that they will continue to do so for at least a few more years, or a lot longer if we find reason to prove it.
ReplyDeleteString theory may not be as ridiculous as we think. After all, strings are only making electrons, quarks, and some energy particles when we are talking about structuring Dorothea's jug of water. Then it's all about how the particles that the strings make up combine together into subatomic particles, then into atoms, which if you put enough hydrogen and oxygen atoms together, water!
It's not unfathomable if you think about it, but until we have the proper technology, we can't prove it, which is a pretty big reason to not believe it. I'm not saying that I think string theory is true, but I do think we should give it an honest try before we decide that it has to be false. What if string theory is correct, and humanity chose to push it away, when the answer to everything in our universe was there all along? We need to be careful about dismissing theories as crazy.
Don't dismiss the magic dinosaur fairy theory either, though. It may also be true, and we don't want to hurt the fairy's feelings.
I believe that although string theory may help to solve many problems in our universe, it opens up way more questions about what's really going on outside of our universe. Is our universe really the universe? Or one of many verses that exist in the vast ocean of what was thought to be pure nothing?
Another probably rediculous inquiry, but If strings vibrating makes up everything, then shouldn't there not be a nothing unless the strings aren't vibrating?
ReplyDeleteAlso, this could be really off topic, or right on, but I was thinking... How do we think? I understand that we have electrical impulses that make us move, and live, but how did I come up with this question, there was no reason for me to, not going off in LaLa land wouldn't be life threatening, so why do we do it?
I figured that discoverring this might help explain what happens in space as well.
The vibration of the string determines what type of particle it makes. I don't know if there are strings in the nothing or not. I am not sure what physicists think about that.
ReplyDeleteWow, that's a random topic. The complexity of the human brain is really a topic that we do not understand. As far as I understand, the brain is powered by electrical impulses and chemical reactions of many types. We do know that feeling happiness comes from a chemical called dopamine, which is triggered to be sent to the brain by electrical charges, I believe.
The brain is extremely complicated though, so appreciate it. It is quite amazing all of the things that are involved in making your brain work. I don't know if this will help at all with figuring out what happens in space. Probably not.
Yes, I agree with Shannon. If the strings stopped vibrating for some reason, it makes sense that there would be nothing at all remaining. In fact, how did they start vibrating at all, and when will they stop?
ReplyDeleteOkay, I can believe that quarks and electrons (or whatever the smallest particles are) are made of strings, but that still doesn't explain everything. How does a bump in string chemically bond to another bump? And how many different string oscillations can there be, so that we have different kinds of particles?
In answer to Shannon's rather off-topic but still interesting discussion of the brain, no, the human mind is entirely unrelated to physics. However, I find it disturbing that all my emotions, thoughts and memories are the sum of electrical impulses and chemicals. Makes me feel small and sad inside.
I sort of felt the same way as you Dorthea. That is why I asked. And I would also like to know about how stings start and stop vibrating, and If the string next to it is moving, it would probably make contact and force the other into vibrating as well, therefore there have to be everything or nothing at all, anywhere!! And since there is stuff, there can never be any nothing. I am pretty sure that that would be a problem with universes ending and having boundaries.
ReplyDeleteObviously there are quite a few questions about string theory, and many ideas that don't make sense. I'm not sure what happens to the strings' vibration if it collides another string. I don't know how that works. More questions that may become clearer in the future. Maybe more research would help, but looking up string theory is starting to get annoying, as it is quite vague.
ReplyDeleteThere could be a nothing, just where there are no strings. No strings, no stuff.
There wouldn't need to be too many different kinds of oscillations, because quarks and electrons supposedly cover matter, and then you would just need a few types of fundamental energy particles. I wouldn't think of this theory as out of question, but more information is certainly required.
It's not a bump in the string that is combining with another bump. The entire closed loop string would have to combine. Perhaps these strings have some kind of adhesive form, or maybe energy strings behave differently than matter strings to theoretically "tie" the two together. Good questions for sure, and it would be nice if we could talk to somebody like Stephen Hawking about it.
So matter is the _loop_ in the string, not just a bump? And yes, you can talk to somebody like Stephen Hawking. Search for college physics professors' email addresses. It's an idea.
ReplyDeleteThere are energy strings and matter strings? Two different kinds? What makes them different, besides what they produce?
No, the string is in a loop in order to form a particle, such as shown in the picture in the post. A closed loop = particle. It vibrates to appear as a quark or electron does. The entire string may have some sort of adhesive property with other strings of certain types for some reason.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what the difference is between them, probably just the way they vibrate, but I can't be sure. Maybe energy particles are made of what they call open strings, which are not in closed loops like the picture.
I'll have to see if college professors are open to discussion via e-mail. That would be awesome! If I can talk to any of them, I will share what I figure out on this blog.
Apologies for entering this conversation quite late, but I am here to propose a question that I haven't myself been able to fathom entirely:
ReplyDeleteI am assuming that strings have mass. Before string theory, we believed that the smallest particle possible was a quark. But now, we are lead to believe that quarks are even made up of smaller objects (strings). Does this mean that the strings are even made up of smaller pieces? And what makes up THOSE pieces? Does this process continue infinitely?
Welcome, Dante. Strings are supposedly the smallest things that exist. They are infinitely small because they are one dimensional. I don't know if they can have mass considering they are one dimensional. Nothing else is supposed to make up strings. In other words, they are the final straw.
ReplyDeleteDante: Just to clear some things up, electrons are the smallest known partical at ~66.66... times smaller than quarks.
ReplyDeleteDorthea: going back to your first comment, how can you have a one-demintional string? I thought that every thing was eather 2, 3, or 4 dementional. One dementional would mean that the strings have only one side thus making it two demetional because it would have another side on the oposition of the first side.
Dan: if this so called string is one dementional then it must be energy and no mass. thus making everything just energy not matter. which is eteresting in the way that i did not know that energy had mass. and if strings were energy then that would explain the "ripples" in that energy flows in flux not a constant.
Also, i forgot, Shannon's topic wasn't too random seeing how you guys were talking about P-Branes.
ReplyDeleteand also if these strings are one dementional and are energy. this energy could be flowing in a state of flux in a curcuit thus making a loop that has ripples. if strings incapsolate particals then that can determine how atoms are constucted depending on the type of string negitive or positive. also if these strings colide and are the same polarity the reaction could be catastophic. thus speeding up expantion and/or creating the big bang. I also thing that these strings deside the polarity of the partical it is around so strings are mearly the bonds to hold together particals not a "smallest partical"
Aaron: Just to clear some things up, quarks are ten times smaller than electrons according to the Standard Model of Fundamental Particles and Interactions.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that strings are one dimensional makes it harder to believe string theory. We cannot see one dimensional objects. To us they are infinitely small, which basically means we will never be able see them.
Strings are not necessarily energy. In the closed loop form as shown above they form quarks or electrons. They are matter particles in this case, not energy.
Sorry, Aaron, but your second comment does not work with string theory at all. Strings do not have a polarity as far as I know. If strings colliding was catastrophic, that would mean if two quarks hit each other it would explode or whatever. Or if two electrons hit each other there would be problems. The fact is that particle accelerators collide electrons with each other all the time! These particle accelerators do not explode, so it must not be that bad.
Dude what are you smokeing!!
ReplyDeletean electron neutrino is about 2.2 ev and the electron is .511 Mev when an up quark is 2.4 Mev and a down is 4.8 Mev. Get a reliable sourse!!!
On the other part I was merely stating a thought that had no scientific reason other than the waves and the closed loop.
Finally partical exelorators don't fuse particals, and they shoot protons (they are easier to handle) so you won't get your catastrophic explosion that you want. they also don't fire fast enough to fuse them seeing how particals are the toughest things on the planet.
Aaron, that's mass, not size. There is a difference between mass and size as you very well know.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize you were talking about fusing particles. If the particles are just strings then they shouldn't have to be fused, just collided.
Some particle accelerators do accelerate electrons, though. Electrons accelerators will collide electrons and/or positrons.
OK I see where you were going. I ras relating size to mass not nessecerily volume. and the word small is also relitive to the unit. in fact I could compress a proton to be just as big as an electron or any other lepton.
ReplyDeleteYou also cant colide a string in the form of an electron and make a boom. you would have to accelerate it to the point that is won't just collide but to have enough velosity to do something. also you would have to fire a string not an electron. also partical exelorators shoot these particals at whole atoms to try to split them up in smaller peices. so the head on collision of 2 particals is like finding and treading a needle in a hay stack while doing a hand stand and playing the fiddle at the same time. and there is no mechanical devise to help with the task!!
and also apartical exelerator can shoot evry thing from positrons to spounge bob but the only way you will make a boom is if two strings hit head on. and by the way we don't even know if strings are even particals or another hokey theory.
Dan, Make A New Topic. This is getting noone anywhere, and half of us are biased against it.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and also you spelled "NoOne" wrong it is No one
ReplyDeleteDan do a topic like what happens to information when it get to the event horizon or farther into the black hole. and ways to destroy a black hole or get rid of it in some way. Another is can information be destroyed. if not can we use data to construct the big bang and other things like explosions and supernovi
ReplyDeleteThanks for the suggestions, Aaron. The next topic is somewhat of a spin off of your information being destroyed idea.
ReplyDeleteIf anybody wants to have certain topics up on the blog, I don't mind suggestions.