String Theory in Two Minutes 328
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. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Err. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Err. (Score:5, Funny)
Validity of online polls (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Err. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Err. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
physics vs. fiction (Score:2)
Never let physics get in the way of a good story.
awwww yeaahhhh (Score:5, Funny)
I can't, but MC Hawking can. [mchawking.com] And he can get the bitches at the same time.
String theory in haiku (Score:5, Insightful)
of beauteous harmony,
thou art String Theory.
Re:String theory in haiku (Score:5, Funny)
then 16 more are added.
The GUT grows like mine.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As a game, girls say it's fun.
Grownups, "Math is hard!"
Re:String theory in haiku (Score:5, Funny)
Left, Right, B, A, B, A. Wait.
That can't be correct.
Re:String theory in haiku (Score:5, Funny)
to describe the universe?
God needed six days!
Re:String theory in haiku (Score:5, Funny)
what's your take on string theory?
BRANES BRANES BRANES BRANES BRAAAAAANNEEES
Re: (Score:2)
We watch video. Think we understand strings now. Would faint at first equation.
Re:String theory in haiku (Score:5, Funny)
Strings, strings, and more strings, I say.
Strings, all the way down!
Re: (Score:2)
Genesis is all bullshit;
I've got all my ribs!
I'm only here for the string (Score:2)
The best way to popularize string, apart from having a theory about it, is to have a slogan.. like this selection by the Goodies [goodiesruleok.com]:
Or of course, the song:
String, string, string, string
Everybody loves string!
String, string, string, string
Everybody needs string!
Pull on your pants
S
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well? It serves god right for using Visual Basic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:String theory in haiku (Score:5, Funny)
hakius are simple
but sometimes they dont make sense
refrigerator
Re:String theory in haiku (Score:5, Insightful)
No measurements; not physics
But metaphysics.
Quote (Score:5, Funny)
I think this sums it up pretty well (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I could... (Score:5, Funny)
Here it is in less time: (Score:2, Funny)
sure why not (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:sure why not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sure why not (Score:5, Informative)
Re:sure why not (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
All the various frequencies seem to arrive together, as I recall. If string theory does indeed predict that the vacuum has some dispersion, then wouldn't GRB's be a good way to test it?
Or would we only see the dispersion by observing a region of spectrum many orders of magnitude wider?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please note: Everything below is just how I understand it with my very rudimentary understanding of the subject. I am likely to be extremely wrong, and if so, I'd appreciate being enlightened rather than modded down!
one of the major hurdles to string theory is gravity.
As I understand it, while gravity is a problem for string theory, it's more of a problem for pretty much every other theory. String theory seems to handle gravity MUCH more cleanly than other theories.
why is it as weak as it is?
The strings that form "gravitons" (elementary particles of gravity) are, due to their s
Re: (Score:2)
I watched the video. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(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... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Since this is slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
Who has time to RTFT title anymore?
I can explain it in two minutes.... (Score:5, Funny)
first explain it to physicists... (Score:5, Interesting)
Scientific value vs. politics = 0 - 1 this morning...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its a little difficult to prove stuff that small. Especially since there is (in theory) nothing smaller.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why to describe string theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Arguing about the obvious but I will because I'm still in my morning news reading break... No dear AC my problem is not about getting folks exited about science. My problem is getting folks exited about wrong science. There is plenty of right/verified science out there (quantum gravity being one of them) t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope there is a field called quantum gravity [wikipedia.org] as well which quantizes the classical Einstein general relativity equations and is the serious counterpart to the "string theory" crowds. In my humble opinion (my area is not cosmology or astrophysics) that is verifiable solid science, instead of beautiful but wrong ideas...
IT IS NOT A THEORY!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
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!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
String theory is a theory. A theory is a big old (mathematical, preferably) framework for explaining how something works.
I know a label that unifies both of these disparate ideas into one coh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd be in good company. A lot of people have thought that. Their track record for being right is pretty abysmal though.
Of course it's hard to think of specific examples of what a unified theory would allow. Who could have predicted what applications quantum mechanics would have before it was discovered?
Your argument has been used to dismiss ALL of basic science. It's not immediately obvious what it's good for, so why bother
No... (Score:2)
Don't confuse math with science. They are related, but not the same. Math is, as it has been said "rules without a game." It is simply discovering relationships in numbers. That's great, and it is a wonderful pur
Re:No... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Evolution is a theory--string isn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Evolution is a theory--string isn't (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, "obviously" a string theorist must study "string theory", right? And then that looked sexier on grant and job applications, and yet another bastardization of the word "theory" was born.
I suppose it's one example
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
MoND explains why there are quarks, electrons etc.? It can explain why the proton has exactly the opposite charge of an electron? I must admit, I wasn't aware of the far reaching possiblities of MoND.
(OK, I know - "explaining" is a bit too much when talking about String theory, as not much of concrete information could be drawn
MOND and string theory are very different. (Score:3, Interesting)
String theory on the other hand is just a mathematical framework which tries to build reality from a single basic structure
The Elegant Universe (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite telling how "good" this movie
As a representative of New Mexico Tech... (Score:2, Funny)
In addition to quirky physics videos (seventh one down on the list) we do thrown and pirate flag relocation [youtube.com], have the blow shit up [nmt.edu], cheapest tuition / worst food [wikipedia.org], and wicked rock climbing routes.
We also have girls^H^H^H^H^H a girl.
(PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE come to our school if you are a girl. Naked Sam (per video) is usually kept indoors.)
Screw explanations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If we ignore for a moment the technical aspects of model theory and consistency questions (as I don't believe that's what you were talking about), the usually understood idea of a mathematical model in applied mathematics or physics is an abstraction of something that DOES make sense. There would be no practical value in modelling nonsense.
There are of course always difficulties with visualisation, but it's oft
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can explain it in one word (Score:2)
Or I could do it in three words: Religion for Physicists.
But if they really want a little more, I guess I could say the following:
A idea which cannot be tested in any known scientific manner at the moment and has yet to demonstrate anything new and relevant. It is an interpolation of existing data into an exceedingly and overly complicated mess of mathematics. The only good that has come out of string theory thus far is that it has generated some interesting maths. Peter Woit's description (quot
2000 called, they want the complaint back (Score:3, Interesting)
Einsteins theories couldn't be tested 'at the moment' either.
That fact in no was discredits the theory.
In fact a predictions from string theory has come true. Yes it's only 1 data point.
Test for string theory have be proposed, but those kinds of tests take a lot of time to set up. Many years.
As for Peter Woit:
"First, string theory predicts that the world has 10 space-time dimensions, in serious disagreement with all the evidence of
wow (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why Heim Theory is better then Strings (Score:3, Interesting)
- 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]
- Succesful prediction of masses of neutrinos.
- 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]
- 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].
- EHT explains why it appears that there is not enough mass observable in the Universe without using Dark Matter [wikipedia.org] concept.
- 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].
- 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.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]
These effects are in agreement with Martin Tajmar findings, see: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806 [arxiv.org]
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
No. (Score:2)
No.
Narrative History of String Theory: 2 min, no math (Score:2)
In November 1986, a young 9th grade Junior High student read Discover Magazine's cover article about String Theory, in the school library, and his horizons were expanded by the possibilities and such an impression was made on him that he never forgot it and has since been curious about science. But he did not understand it.
Twenty years later, remembering String Theory from his youth, he read Brian Greene's book on String Theory, thinking that now, after having been college educated and taking science class
Wrong approach (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Zero Punctuation (Score:2)
Re:A modern day fairy tale (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A modern day fairy tale (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem being that SuperSymmetry is not observed in reality. But still nobody talks that 10/11 dimensions are actually not allowed and string theory will need 26 dimensions.
Why is nobody working on finding M-T
Re: (Score:2)
It must be the truth, why else would he say "seriously". I mean it's not a jest, so much is certain!
ID is ridiculos and I'm soooo tired of seeing it dragged into every single discussion about any science.
Re:A modern day fairy tale (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every theory has to fight with data which don't seem to fit. Theories are rejected, when the problems become overwhelming or if somebody comes up with an alternative, which has the at least the same power and can explain some of the difficultiers. Seems this didn't happen up to now.
Re: (Score:2)
Any time is too long if you consider the current theory that nothing can escape the event horizon of black holes AND that everything inside will be squashed into a singularity within a finite, short time. This is hard to reconcile with a claim that the universe itself started from a singularity. Certainly we have no experimental
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, then please explain why the universe should have been inside a Schwarzschild-radius or point me to a source where this is explained. As I said: I never heard about this claim before.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not religious, but your observation is just an observation, not an argument. It's like saying "A coctail has the following ingredients. Therefore, the concept of a bartender is ridiculous." Or even "The experience of drinking a cocktail is just originated in your mouth. Therefore, there is no cocktail, and certainly no bartender."
How did th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not religious, but if I were, I'd be strongly inclined to agree.
Mods: Even if you don't believe in God (like me), please mod the parent up as Insightful - because it is, even if he's wrong!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)