What are your thoughts about The String Theory?
486183
I find it to be quite fascinating.  Although mind-bending as well (11 dimensions - my brain hurts just thinking about it).  I don't know if it is correct or not (well, no one knows for sure), but it seems to have potential, particularly with resolving the Relativity/Quantum Physics battle.
572522
dimensions used to explain the behavior of strings and subatomic particles in String Theory.\n\nbut to give you a basic understanding of what another dimension can be like, think about this for a moment, we live in a world limited to and guided by four dimensions, now they are \n1:up/down \n2:left/right \n3:backwards/forward\n4:time\nnow go outside take a look at an electrical feeder cable, from the ground it looks like a solid line, but if you get closer to it you'll notice that there is a line wrapping around the wire where the wire is braided, now imagine if you are an ant crawling on the wire, these braids will be a dimension to you, because you have to follow their path otherwise you'll fall off. that's a perfect example of what another dimension besides the four that you are familiar with can be like. now in string theory, in order to explain the very complex movements and behavior of the strings and of other subatomic particles, mathematics will include those  additional dimensions in the theory, the only problem is that its very hard to understand much less visualize these additional dimensions, because they can be extremely complex and twisted around all over the place.\n\nthe new M-theory includes as many as 11+1(that's 11 space dimensions and one of time)dimensions.
37257
i have to agree with absynthian.  if they are in fact "physicists" then that means they have doctoral degrees in physics and telling them about quantum entanglement or string theory is going to be like giving a bunch of senators a talk about legislative procedure.  \n\nchaos theory, quantum entanglement/teleportation, and string theory are all huge and hot topics these days in physics, and they'll all have read plenty about them in physics today, nature and science, even if they aren't active researchers in that area.  you are going to bore their socks off if you get up there and start telling them about how strings are 11-dimensional objects, unless you have some really seriously deep and intuitive observations on the subject that you can share.\n\nhere is some good advice:  physicists are always interested in the historical development of their field.  the work of the big-name scientists - newton, galileo, maxwell - is well-known.  but there are a lot of physicists from the annals of history who led interesting lives and who often worked on subjects ahead of their time.  if you can find a research topic and show how someone from the 18th century studied a related phenomenon, and give it a historical twist, i think THAT would be a hit talk.\n\nanother thing might be to discuss some weird little topic from the back waters of physics.  people do research on all kinds of crazy stuff that's fun and interesting, but doesn't get much press.  for instance, nasa does a buttload of research into weird little problems - an example is that nobody understood why ketchup flows so slow at first, and then comes pouring out, until nasa figured it out.  that's one of many examples from this great page that might help you get started:\nhttp://exploration.nasa.gov/articles/index.html#fris\n\nanother way to get into this stuff is to just start searching around the web and looking at the research pages of faculty at various universities.  many of them will be working on hot topics - high-temperature superconductors or quantum information theory or photonics or something.  but you'll probably find one or two old guys at every place who are working on some totally off-the-wall thing.  THAT kind of stuff will be much better than the talk that ends with "..but we still have no idea whether string theory is really correct or not."\n\ncheers
860696
Since String Theory is largely a mathematical foray into philosophy, I imagine that it could effect spiritual experience.  \n\nWhether it was supportive or antagonistic would depend upon one's interpretation of the "data."  Many of the mathematical findings and their accompanying explanations are unprovable in the concrete universe.  Whether one looked at these theories and saw the hand of God or an argument against the existence of the Divine would depend on the individual.\n\nAs with any study of theory or philosophy, a study of String Theory would no doubt complicate.  I think education gives us more sophisticated, and therefore more complicated, world views.
994795
No. Actually, the string theory is dominating physics. The string theory tries to combine the Theory of relativity and the quantum mechanics, forming the so-called " theory of everything". This theory should combine all the four elementary and fundamental  forces - Gravity, Weak Nucleur Force, Strong Nucleur Force, and the electromagnetic force. The String theory is still in progress. If you want to know more about this from me, e-mail me at supratim1_dey@yahoo.co.in.\nI am actually a theoretical scientist researching on the string theory. You have a very nice question. I will recomend you two books of Stephen Hawking - 1- Brief History of Time and 2 - Black Holes and Baby Universes.
51307
String theory is a physical theory that attempts solve several outstanding problems in modern physics.  One problem deals with the unification of the fundamental forces of nature.  Ever since electricity and magnetism were found to be different manifestations of the same force, people have wondered if all the forces of nature are related somehow.  We all know that Einstein's general theory of relativity describes gravity in terms of space-time geometry.  Wouldn't it be great if we could describe all the fundamental force of nature using geometry too.  This is one problem string theory is attempting to solve.  Another problem deals with fundamental particles.  We all know about protons, electrons, and neutrons, but there are also a lot of other particles that don't seem to have much to do with anything.  Why do they exist?  How are they related? Why do they have the physical properties they do?  These are all questions that will hopefully be answered by the string theory.  Lastly, the main reason the string theory was created was to solve a math problem in classical/quantum electrodynamics.  The equations describing the electric field end up with some technical problems that ultimately can be traced to the fact that we are trying to describe pointlike particles.  String theory just gets rid of the pointlike particles and replaces them with strings vibrating in extra dimensions of space-time.
621133
Oh my, have you opened up a can of nightmarish confusion.\n\nYou are referring to String Theory, and it is way too complicated to describe here.  Here is an exerpt from an article on wikipedia of String Theory that describes these extra dimensions:\n\nOne intriguing feature of string theory is that it predicts the number of dimensions which the universe should possess. Nothing in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism or Einstein's theory of relativity makes this kind of prediction; these theories require physicists to insert the number of dimensions "by hand". The first person to add a fifth dimension to Einstein's four was the German mathematician Theodor Kaluza in 1919. The reason for the unobservability of the fifth dimension (its compactness) was suggested by the Swedish physicist Oskar Klein in 1926.\n\nInstead, string theory allows one to compute the number of spacetime dimensions from first principles. Technically, this happens because for a different number of dimensions, the theory has a gauge anomaly. This can be understood by noting that in a consistent theory which includes a photon (technically, a particle carring a force related to an unbroken gauge symmetry), it must be massless. The mass of the photon which is predicted by string theory depends on the energy of the string mode which represents the photon. This energy includes a contribution from Casimir effect, namely from quantum fluctuations in the string. The size of this contribution depends on the number of dimensions since for a larger number of dimensions, there are more possible fluctuations in the string position. Therefor, the photon will be massless - and the theory consistent - only for a particular number of dimensions.\n\nThe only problem is that when the calculation is done, the universe's dimensionality is not four as one may expect (three axes of space and one of time), but twenty-six. More precisely, bosonic string theories are 26-dimensional, while superstring and M-theories turn out to involve 10 or 11 dimensions. In bosonic string theories, the 26 dimensions come from the Polyakov equation (see technical details in the preprint "Quantum Geometry of Bosonic Strings - Revisited"). However, these results appear to contradict the observed four dimensional space-time.\n\n \nCalabi-Yau manifold (3D projection)Two different ways have been proposed to solve this apparent contradiction. The first is to compactify the extra dimensions; i.e., the 6 or 7 extra dimensions are so small as to be undetectable in our phenomenal experience. The 6-dimensional model's resolution is achieved with Calabi-Yau spaces. In 7 dimensions, they are termed G2 manifolds. Essentially these extra dimensions are compactified by causing them to loop back upon themselves.\n\nA standard analogy for this is to consider multidimensional space as a garden hose. If the hose is viewed from a sufficient distance, it appears to have only one dimension, its length. Indeed, think of a ball small enough to enter the hose but not too small. Throwing such a ball inside the hose, the ball would move more or less in one dimension; in any experiment we make by throwing such balls in the hose, the only important movement will be one-dimensional, that is, along the hose. However, as one approaches the hose, one discovers that it contains a second dimension, its circumference. Thus, a ant crawling inside it would move in two dimensions (and a fly flying in it would move in three dimensions). This "extra dimension" is only visible within a relatively close range to the hose, or if one "throws in" small enough objects. Similarly, the extra compact dimensions are only visible at extremely small distances, or by experimenting with particles with extremely small wave lengths (of the order of the compact dimension's radius), which in quantum mechanics means very high energies (see wave-particle duality).\n\nAnother possibility is that we
588286
i don't know... this is all theoretical, and i would guess that this either \na- does not and cannot happen, or\nb- happens all the time and is therefore not something to be concerned about\n\ndid you read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene? or Fabric of the Cosmos? (same author) \nI suggest these for further understanding of the string theory.... without having to consider the complexities of the mathematics behind it.
175717
I've heard of this parallel universe theory..well, it's not a theory really it would be like a conclusion if string theory is someday proved ; there may be infinite universes each with a different law of physics and ours will be just one of many others .\nsounds weird huh? that there are hidden worlds beyond ours, well, that's because there are particles like e- that can stay in more than one place at a time ..so one explanation could be that this particles don't exist just in our universe but in an infinite number of them ( parallel universes)..reality is even more amazing than fiction sometimes :P
214408
According to string theory, the strings are the universe's \nelemental material. They vibrate in different ways and can\njoin and break apart to form different elemental particles\nthat make up the universe. The strings exist in 11\ndimensions: time, which physicists consider a dimension, and\n10 spatial dimensions. Four of those dimensions are the ones\nwe are familiar with, three spatial dimensions plus time.\nThe other dimensions may be so small they're invisible to\ncurrent detection equipment and are only known to exist because they leave a "footprint" of where they have been.
26254
first of all 4 dimentions is true because there are 3 spacial dimentions and the 4th is time.\n\nand we dont know if superstring theory is true, it's still just an idea, and hasn't been proven, nor has any evidence been shown for it, we just like it because it can be used to explain certain things if it were true.  in string theory, there are 11 dimentions, its not crap, why dont you read "the elegant universe" by brian greene, or at least do some type of reading on it before you call it crap.  the dimentions are interwoven in our own universe, just like the 4 that are already proven.
1118502
I might be able to answer more fully if you reword your question and put some thought into exactly what it is you're looking for.  For example, string theory predicts extra dimensions beyond the four we experience.  Is that it?  Or are you referring to the Branes explanation, where there are extra dimensions as well as additional universes removed from our own?  Get some additional details and I'll edit.
157131
Bosonic string theory was the first version of string theory. Bosonic string theory, which dealt with string’s vibrational patterns, emerged in the 1970s. This was replaced by supersymmetrical string theory. M-theory in 11 dimensions gives rise to five string theories in 10 dimensions.
85053
consult the below link...very brief...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
370209
Okay I'm sure that there is more than a four dimensions out of this well known reality (real life).\n\nabout that string theory I have read a little from wikipedia and it says something, that maybe, the Universe was caused or founded pherhaps by a big Crunch.\n\nTo simplifies it for myself, I think that every Dimension is a continuing line. String is a very small thing that exist only in that dimension and not just one string but millions of it, but only that type or kind of string, for example a flashlight in a dark room you can see those particles of dust BUT refering the -strings- are actually those specific Lumens or Lux that are producing light and interacting in a very small subatomic scale, and refering -dimension- are that beam coming out from that flashlight all the way long to the wall.\n\nYou see only those lumens are interacting in the beam which is the well known Dimension, (we live in it) The Universe.\n\nBut there is fourth Dimensions apart that Can not even touch the beam of light wich represent the dimension or universe we are talking about, because the other Dimensions acording to this theory are beams (lines) but not of light for example another dimention could be as a water fall that comes out of spout (sink dishwasher). curiously that flow of wather is very similar to the beam of light.\n\nOkay I'm sure that this a very deep thing to think about it but friendly I advice you to not get more further because we are just humans and those are very Interesting themes or topics that we can not reach or complete understud \n\nI always have thought that the universe is spheric very similar like that crystal spheric snow ball present or souvenir they give you on birthdays maybe like a Marble.\n\nBut serious talking againg about Dimensions. you know, The Book talk about it, a dimension of living creatures and you know the other dimension of people that is not here anymore We can Not interact each other. \n\nLUX OR LUMENS (a Small Portion from Wiki)\nAchieving an illuminance of 500 lux might be possible in a home kitchen with a single fluorescent light fixture with an output of 12000 lumens. Lighting a larger area with the same number of lux requires a larger number of lumens.
62175
Actually, the wiki on this one is unusually good (and right, for once):\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_string\n\nCosmic strings are sometimes confused with the strings of string theory.  There's considerably more observational evidence for the former than the latter. \n\n(I say they're different things, but every time someone like me says something like that, some party-pooper like Bohr comes along and makes a liar out of us.  There's a chance, in my mind at least, that they could be closely related somehow since, supposing either of the things even exist, they're both topological defects in space.  But, that's pure conjecture on my part).\n\nMichio Kaku of the City College of New York has written on both.  If you're looking for something on string theory, and not cosmic string theory, Barton Zwiebach has written the only introductory book worth reading.  If you really did mean cosmic strings, there are several recent journal publications listed in that wikipedia article (and they're all, for once, actually referreed journals).\n\nAs an aside, I see a lot of people posting on both of these around here as though they were somehow proven fact.  There is almost no observational evidence for cosmic strings, and there is none at all for string theory.  There isn't anything wrong with thinking about things like this -- that's where new answers come from.  It's just that I'd like to see the certainty levels turned down a bit.  In the case of string theory, the theory is in much better shape than it was a few decades ago, but it still has no real central theme, it has no real sharp predictions (like the Higgs-Boson, for example, of the standard model of particle physics), and absolutely no experimental verification or support of any kind.\n\nIt just kind of torques me a little that so many people run around on these boards decrying the theory of evolution as unproven, wild-ass conjecture (when, in fact, the evidence supporting the theory of evolution has been more exhaustively catalogued than it has been for probably any other theory in history), while still others are lauding string theory as something as sure as Maxwell's equations.  String theory is a fun idea, and probably a necessary one, but it isn't a sound idea just yet.
953227
Because a 1 dimensional string solves many of the problems associated with 0 dimensional point particles of the Standard Model.\n\nGuys, M-Theory isn't different from string theory, it just combines all the string theories into one.  There are actually many string theories and superstring theories.....