String Theory in Two Minutes

An anonymous reader writes "Most of us have heard of string theory, many of us know what it is and some of us may even be experts in the field. But could you explain it in two minutes? Discover Magazine recently had a contest to do precisely that: create a two minute or less video of everything you need to know about string theory. You can view some of the best entries (video) as well as the winning video: String Ducky!"

awwww yeaahhhh

[User 956 (568564)]

Most of us have heard of string theory, many of us know what it is and some of us may even be experts in the field. But could you explain it in two minutes?

I can't, but MC Hawking can. [mchawking.com] And he can get the bitches at the same time.

String theory in haiku

[BadAnalogyGuy (945258)]

Stretched analogy
of beauteous harmony,
thou art String Theory.

Re:String theory in haiku

[BadAnalogyGuy (945258)]

First ten dimensions,
then 16 more are added.
The GUT grows like mine.

Re:String theory in haiku

[BadAnalogyGuy (945258)]

Top, Bottom, Up, Down,
Left, Right, B, A, B, A. Wait.
That can't be correct.

Re:String theory in haiku

[BadAnalogyGuy (945258)]

Only two minutes
to describe the universe?
God needed six days!

Re:String theory in haiku

[BadAnalogyGuy (945258)]

Richard P Feynman,
what's your take on string theory?
BRANES BRANES BRANES BRANES BRAAAAAANNEEES

Re:String theory in haiku

[BadAnalogyGuy (945258)]

What makes up all things?
Strings, strings, and more strings, I say.
Strings, all the way down!

Re:String theory in haiku

[Entropius (188861)]

But what's it predict?
No measurements; not physics
But metaphysics.

Quote

[cashman73 (855518)]

"It is said that papers in string theory are published at a rate greater than the speed of light. This, however, is not problematic since no information is being transmitted." - H. Kleinert.

I think this sums it up pretty well

[Chlorus (1146335)]

http://xkcd.com/171/ [xkcd.com] So true!

I could...

[monkeySauce (562927)]

I could explain it in two minutes, but I would need A LOT of silly string...

sure why not

[wizardforce (1005805)]

string theory in less than a paragraph. strings "vibrate" in higher dimensional space. [specifically M-theory suggests 11 dimensions] energy states are quantised, including mass at some level. String theory's ultimate goal is to eliminate infinities and non-sensical probabilities that result from the current standard model. Also, at some level the forces merge into a single force, this force splits at lower energies which may cause some very interesting phenomenae [spatial expansion for one] one of the major hurdles to string theory is gravity. why is it as weak as it is? what are the consequences of higher dimensions to its relative strength etc. [even some theoretical work suggests gravitons leak between dimensions] very little of it is testable at the moment, one major prediction that could in principle be tested is that of varying velocities of photons according to energy/wavelength. the models suggest that a lag of around a minute or less over a distance of several billion light years while this isn't unique to string theory.

Re:sure why not

[iluvcapra (782887)]

If it needs 11 dimensions in which to vibrate, how is it still a "string," or how is the model of a string still descriptive?

Re:sure why not

[wizardforce (1005805)]

that is correct, it seems to be more of a formality. in fact, it really can't be pinned down to a finite position or even a real "shape", its wavefunction is smeared across space. there is a finite proability of it being in a certain position at any given time just like electrons "going around" an atom. these strings can even "tunnel" bridging gaps that mathematically have exactly zero probability of the particle being there. an example of this is the electron cloud in p-orbitals in a Benzene ring. there is exactly zero electron density between the top p-orbital overlap ring and the lower one and yet electrons constantly interchange between the two in less than a trillionth of a second. blackholes exhibit peculiar behavior that can more easily be described by equations more fit in higher dimensional space in regard to spin and charge. higher dimensions have very interesting theoretical consequences [altered gravitational constants, mini blackholes accessible to high energy particle accelerators etc.] although theoretically these dimensions fold back on themselves so these "strings" are wrapped as well because their geoetry must also follow the space in which they inhabit.

Since this is slashdot...

[efence (927813)]

...we need someone to explain string theory in TFS. Or, better yet, in the title.

Re:Since this is slashdot...

[Actually, I do RTFA (1058596)]

...we need someone to explain string theory in TFS. Or, better yet, in the title.

Who has time to RTFT title anymore?

1. In Soviet Russia, a beowulf cluster of our new uninformed overlords welcomes you.
2. ?????
3. Profit!

I can explain it in two minutes....

[HeadlessNotAHorseman (823040)]

I can easily explain string theory in less than two minutes, but the explanation can only be heard in 6 tiny dimensions that nothing larger than a small flea can fit into. And the fleas didn't seem all that interested.

first explain it to physicists...

[presarioD (771260)]

...I'm a physicist and frankly I don't see the reason why should somebody waste time explaining a theory to the vast public that hasn't been proved right for over than 30 years now. It's quite beautiful (from the seminars I have attended) but... not verified by experiement...so... let's create some hype for the masses to consume and maybe publish a book or two and some opeds with the NYT!

Scientific value vs. politics = 0 - 1 this morning...

Screw explanations

[0xC2 (896799)]

In my experience, a major obstacle to a proper "relationship" to fundamental physics is the idea that somehow it can be understood in a visual or sensory way. Mathematics can model things that just don't make any sense. Our sensory organs are not equipped to experience fundamental reality. Possibly after studying mathematics long enough, the brain grows a sensitivity to the math. But trying to visualize this stuff is ultimately an exercise in frustration. What happens is that you risk taking that flawed visual model seriously, and trying to extrapolate. Which gets in the way of learning the math necessary to solve the problems.

Great Idea

[totallygeek (263191)]

I really enjoyed the entries and think that many topics can be discussed/taught in such a way. Topics can be offered to people whom otherwise would not read up on that subject. Imagine a combo of How Stuff Works [howstuffworks.com] and Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. A video information site would be one step closer to Vox of the future (from the movie The Time Machine).

Re:Err.

[cashman73 (855518)]

No, "Ducky" was the official winning video. The viewers have selected "The Problem with Math." Big difference there.

Re:Err.

[NoTheory (580275)]

Because we all know that online polls are reliable. Just look at slashdot's.

Re:Err.

[niktemadur (793971)]

I understand why "Ducky" won, but how could "The Problem with Math" win the polls? It wasn't really that good...

Because even when video/audio quality is subpar, with a grating Crystal Method style soundtrack, little kids waxing erudite about particle physics are soooo adorable. It's no contest - "Ducky" is clearly the superior work here.

Re:IT IS NOT A THEORY!!!

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

String theory is a theory. A theory is a big old (mathematical, preferably) framework for explaining how something works.

The hypotheses of which you speak are little, testable, predictions that you make based on a theory which tend to test it. You can also make hypotheses based on gut instinct, or something fuzzier than a formal theory, in which case they help guide your theory-making.

String theory is still in the fuzzier stages when compared to things like relativity, the standard model and quantum mechanics, but there are some testable hypotheses coming out of it. One is the different speeds of photons mentioned in an earlier post. Another is the multiple dimensions. According to some string theories these dimensions are small, but large enough that some current or near future experiments should start seeing them.

Competing theories are GOOD. I'm not sure MOND is really a direct competitor to string theory, but the more ideas the better.

Re:A modern day fairy tale

[wizardforce (1005805)]

Cosmological theories are currently not much better than intelligent design - you just have to take them on faith.

except string theory is based on some very complicated math and heavily encrusted in physics, intelligent design on the other hand is an attempt to justify the writings of biblical authors over 2,000 years ago there is a clear difference.

Different versions of the string theory can not even agree on the number of physical dimensions that exists. They are basically just playing with numbers to try to match the observed strength of gravity.

after you do the math it works out that if you don't have supersymmetry you need precisely 26 dimensions to fit what we observe, with supersymmetry you only need 10 or 11, the 11th unique to M-theory seems to explain phenomenae predicted by the 5 major string theories common a few years ago. it does make predictions although at the moment the number that we can test are very small, this will change as we get better at observing higher energy events and work out more of the math.

Not to mention that our existing physics only explains 10% of gravity in the universe. Talk all you want about dark matter, but this leaves the possibility of pretty dramatic flaws in our current theories.

except that we have observed objects in the universe that seem to have wrenched dark matter out into the open, free of most of the visible matter. we still see the gravitational lensing effect of this matter which allows us in effect to map dark matter in that region.

The biggest flaw in current cosmology is why we are not trapped in a singularity of a universe-mass black hole. Certainly for long time after big bang the universe was inside its own Schwarzschild Radius. Why didn't it just collapse right back after the big bang? After all, it would take an infinite force to escape the event horizon. Oh right, something caused "space" to mysteriously expand, just like now some unspecified dark matter keeps stuff from expanding. It sounds like we need more work to get to the standard of scientific theories.

space is in fact expanding, not only that but the expansion is accellerating over time. space isn't theoretically expanding, it litterally is expanding at great velocity. although at the same time, there is growing evidence that certain higher dimensional phenomenae could be responsible for this expansion and even the kind that caused the big bang [if causality even means anything at that point] but there is a very important thing to learn here, there is never ever an infinite force, there is a limit to the magnitude of a force, gravity is likely to be quantised as well, which probably means that there is a finite limit to spatial curvature. the concept of an infinitely dense mass may also not even exist if there is a finite quantised limit to spatial curvature. we have a few years or less before we can start really testing some of the predictions of quantum gravity and string theory in general, if we're wrong, we learned from it and can better understand the universe because of it.