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!"

Err.

The winning video is "The Problem with Math.", according to the site. "Ducky" placed fourth.

Re:Err.

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

Re:Err.

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

Validity of online polls

I used to love segfault.org with their countless polls offering "Natalie Portman's X" as a choice.

Re:Err.

So the real winner was Cowboy Neal?

Re:Err.

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:

The winning video is "The Problem with Math.", according to the site. "Ducky" placed fourth.

Not in this universe... or is that a different theory

awwww yeaahhhh

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

Stretched analogy
of beauteous harmony,
thou art String Theory.

Re:String theory in haiku

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

Re:

Open strings and closed strings
As a game, girls say it's fun.
Grownups, "Math is hard!"

Re:String theory in haiku

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

Re:String theory in haiku

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

Re:String theory in haiku

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

Re:String theory in haiku

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

Re:

Describing and implementing are two completely different problems.

Re:String theory in haiku

personally my favorite

hakius are simple
but sometimes they dont make sense
refrigerator

Re:String theory in haiku

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

Quote

"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

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

Re:

Relax, it's just a comic.

I could...

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

sure why not

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

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

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.

Re:sure why not

The sibling post to this one may be correct and I may be flat out wrong, but my understanding was that a "string" can be described as a one dimensional object that has the ability to move through (probably) 11 dimensions.
Similar to how a "2 dimensional" object such as a piece of paper can happily be folded in 3 dimensions while still itself being 2 dimensional.

I watched the video.

I'm a string theory expert now. not really, but I found the video informative.

Re:

Good for you. I didn't get a thing about it.

(Yes, I know you were being sarcastic, but it seems the mods didn't get it and I'm just following them.)

Since this is slashdot...

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

Re:Since this is slashdot...

...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....

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...

...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...

IT IS NOT A THEORY!!!

String "theory" is not a theory at all, it is merely a hypothesis. It will not become a "theory" unless and until it can be tested by experiment! Come on, people! I am not nitpicking: the scientific among you know the difference. Do not accept the name "string theory" at face value. That is just String Propaganda.

And if that were not bad enough, there are other hypotheses, such as MoND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) that explains most if not all what is explained by the string hypothesis, without having to imagine all those other dimensions. In fact, it is so much simpler than the string hypothesis that Occam's Razor is practically screaming, "No! Over here, you idiots!"

Yes, there are problems with MoND, but there are very big problems with strings as well. The fact that an idea is popular in the media or has been around longer is not evidence that it is true, any more than the others.

Re:IT IS NOT A THEORY!!!

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.

Evolution is a theory--string isn't

We're having enough trouble convincing the public that when we say "evolution is a theory," we really mean "evolution is a set of statements that have each been experimentally verified multiple times." Let's not make it easier for ID nuts to confuse the public about what scientific theories are. A theory must be something that has overwhelming empirical support. Under this definition, string "theory" isn't a theory--it's a set of hypotheses.

Re:Evolution is a theory--string isn't

You're suggesting we should change the scientific method because of a bunch of religious nuts? Or is it we should just lie to the public because of a bunch of religious nuts?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the next step is recantation and house arrest, isn't it? Followed by burning at the stake if that doesn't work?

The solution to attempts to pervert science like ID is for scientists to be open and honest about what they do, and educate the public, NOT to obscure what actually goes on and only present finished, polished, masterpieces at the base of the ivory tower. The key difference between science and religion is that science IS provisional. Everything is our best interpretation, subject to change whenever some new evidence contradicts it.

Re:No...

I agree with most of what you said, but with a couple of modifications.

A scientific theory is falsifiable, yes, but not necessarily easily falsifiable with current technology. If we need a bigger particle accelerator to falsify it then it's still a theory. Things like ID are non-falsifiable under any circumstances because no matter what you observe there's always an escape hatch -- God is screwing with you.

It's pretty hard to think up an experiment to test the "macro"-evolution that creationists are always harping about, and most of more general evolution is pretty hard to test as well. That doesn't mean evolution isn't a theory.

I'm not going to address whether string theory is over hyped or over funded. That's a political question. It is a theory, actually a collection of theories. Falsifiable predictions are also starting to be made using it. Some members of the string theory family have been pretty much discarded because they don't hold up, and other members of the family are being tested by experimentalists as we speak. They predict photons of different wavelengths will travel at slightly different speeds, and some versions predict that the extra dimensions are big enough to be observed by recent attempts to measure the gravitational constant for very small objects.

Re:

I think the problem is mainly that people who study the "string hypothesis" are theoreticians and applied mathematicians. They generally refer to themselves (and are referred to by others) as "theorists", so naturally when they focused on strings they acq

Re:

Since the OP was lazy ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics [wikipedia.org]

MOND and string theory are very different.

MOND predicts Galactic Rotation curves very well. That is all there is to it. It is a law not unlike Kepler's laws and must be explained by any gravitational theory, just like Newtonian theory did for Kepler's Laws. It doesn't work very well on larger than

The Elegant Universe

The 3 hours video of The Elegant Universe [pbs.org] by Brian Greene also explains String Theory pretty well. Although the video is quite old, it was the first video that made me feel so interested and excited about String Theory.

Screw explanations

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.

wow

Until now hearing "string theory" made me think of infinitely long, parallel strings that run through the entire cosmos. Then, since that seemed to reduce our 3 dimensions to 2, I thought every string had an infinite "resolution" as well, holding different particles/energies at different parts of it. I *think* A Brief History of Time used a similar explanation, but more probably I'm remembering it wrong.
What the videos told me:
"Protons are made up of something smaller, which doesn't look like a ball, but like a vibrating loop of string. This may mean the world is 11-dimensional."
I was quite off the beat, then :)

Great Idea

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).

Why Heim Theory is better then Strings

Achievements of Heim theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory [wikipedia.org]

1. EHT (Extended Heim Theory) allows to easily calculate particle masses using only some physical constants. You can check this Heim Mass Calculator: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/HeimCalculator [daimi.au.dk]
2. Succesful prediction of masses of neutrinos.
3. Prediction of Heim-Lorentz force which most likely is being observed in ESA experiments performed by Dr. Martin Tajmar. During these experiments artificial gravity is being created.
   • ESA news about Tajmar experiments http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html [esa.int] and some other news [newscientist.com].
   • M.Tajmar recent papper which references EHT (Droscher&Hausner): http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806 [arxiv.org]
   • Theoretical explanation of Tajmar Gravito-Magnetic experiments by Droscher&Hausner: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/LauncherSymPaper2007-0-42JHCorrected22April.pdf [hpcc-space.de]
     This paper also contains proposal of modified experiment which will allow to verify if EHT is true and also allow to build very effective propulsion engine for spaceships. See this article: http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200 [newscientistspace.com]
4. Reasonable explanation why CMB Cold Spot [space.com] appears to be cold without mumbling about Dark Matter/Dark Energy, thanks to Heim's corrected gravitional law [engon.de].
5. EHT explains why it appears that there is not enough mass observable in the Universe without using Dark Matter [wikipedia.org] concept.
6. EHT most likely explains weird effects measured during Gravity Probe B [wikipedia.org] experiment, see: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/FieldPropulsion.pdf [hpcc-space.de].
   These effects are in agreement with Martin Tajmar findings, see: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806 [arxiv.org]
7. Droscher&Hausner paper about space propulsion based on Heim theory http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf [hpcc-space.de] was awarded by AIAA in 2004.

Now, I would like to ask a question.
Are there any similar achievemets of Strings Theory?
If you want to know more about EHT please refer to wiki page [wikipedia.org] and this huge discussion thread [physorg.com].
/Z

Wrong approach

Perhaps explaining String Theory (or Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or QCD, or etc..) in any amount of time is pointless. It takes longer to explain relativity and quantum mechanics; so explaining any of the theories which try to tie them together will be out of context and not many people learn things when out of context, even if they understand.

My approach would be to explain (as Brian Greene does in T.E.U.) what the fundamental problems are with current theories: primarily is the glaring difference between gravity and the 'other' fundamental force -- the strong/weak-nuclear-electromagnetic force; however you want to call it, electroweak etc... but the other fundamental forces have been united and this leaves gravity by its lonesome. (Inject public interest with the mention that Einstein was trying to do unite gravity and electromagnetism before he died, if you so wish.)

That covers motivation uno and I think most of the public would be able to understand what gravity and EM are; you may be able to get away with saying the strong nuclear force is 'what holds atoms together', but I don't think you would have any way of explaining the weak nuclear force as it isn't relevant to Joe Public's day-to-day activities.

Then you would need to teach them the teeniest bit of science: namely, the point-particle approach. If you could get them to understand this then you may be able to impart that as you get smaller and smaller, the point particle is still infinitely small, and that there is a very clear problem with anything being infinitely small when you get to as small as you can get. String theory thus, instead of treating everything as infinitely minute 'points' _with no dimensions_ (a previously pointed out LIMIT - not flaw - to current models/approximations), takes the next obvious step and says okay, so instead of no dimensions we will have one dimension: a 'string'. Then you can cut to the XKCD comic, which someone linked to above :)

This is of course a heuristic explanation for the general public and in no way to be used as actual science, which most will not be able to understand due to missing four + years of solidly studying physics. It would be seemingly too hard to explain the Gamma function, super-symmetry, and crazy amounts of dimensions, all of which are academic. Note, I didn't need to explain quantum mechanics or relativity in the two minutes.

I don't want to start any flame wars; my belief is that there are _too many_ fundamental gaps in knowledge required to understand string theory, even on a qualitative level, for an average person. I argue that to teach one of these gaps would take more than the two minutes allowed.

Re:A modern day fairy tale

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.

Re:A modern day fairy tale

if we're wrong, we learned from it and can better understand the universe because of it.

This is the point the grandparent poster completely doesn't get. Science is about creating theories based on experimentation and observation. Once a hypothesis has been proved to predict outcomes consistently, we say "That's got a really good chance of being true." and we run with it. That doesn't mean it's not wrong, and that's just *fine*.

If we learn something new that blows an old theory away, we start with new hypotheses and continue from there. We use it as a learning experience to continue exploring what makes things tick. The anti-science rhetoric of the creationists think this is a flaw, which always confused me. Creationists want everything to start and stop with the idea of god, which isn't even a hypothesis (it's totally untestable!). How a creationist can be happy with such a non-answer as 'god' is astounding to me, personally. The concept of god answers no questions, and encourages us to stop looking for answers.

Re:A modern day fairy tale

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

That's simply not true. A theory has to explain observations. This is what current cosmological theories do. It is an observation, that galaxies seem to fly away from us, the faster the farer away they are. The standard cosmological theory with its Big Bang can explain it. One of the predictions of this theory was, that there should be a background radiation. That radiation was found and its temperature is in accordance with the calcualations. The theory of inflationary universe, which is an extension to the standard theory can explain why the radiation is so homogenous, why the world is more or less flat and it even can explain to some level the observed distribution of galaxies.

Can the cosmological theories explain everything? No. Have they gaps? Definitely. But this is something nearly every theory has to live with. When Newton came up with his theory of gravitation he also could give absolutely no explanation for the source of gravitation, he himself was not happy with the fact that a body has an influence at a place where it is not present.

Certainly for long time after big bang the universe was inside its own Schwarzschild Radius.

I never heard about that. I am not an expert in cosmology, so I would be interested if you could point me to a source to read about this claim. And what do you mean with "long time"?

Re:

This is simply not true. There is plenty of observational evidence that does not fit current (Big Bang) cosmological theories. They should have been rejected a long time ago.

Every theory has to fight with data which don't seem to fit. Theories are rejec