does anyone know anything about the string theory?
91646
String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles) that are the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics. For this reason, string theories are able to avoid problems associated with the presence of pointlike particles in a physical theory. Studies of string theories have revealed that they require not just strings but also higher-dimensional objects.\n\nThe basic idea is that the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of energy of the Planck length (about 10-35 m) which vibrate at resonant specific frequencies[1]. Another key claim of the theory is that no measurable differences can be detected between strings that wrap around dimensions smaller than themselves and those that move along larger dimensions (i.e., effects in a dimension of size R equal those whose size is 1/R). Singularities are avoided because the observed consequences of "big crunches" never reach zero size. In fact, should the universe begin a "big crunch" sort of process, string theory dictates that the universe could never be smaller than the size of a string, at which point it would actually begin expanding.\n\nInterest in string theory is driven largely by the hope that it will prove to be a theory of everything. It is a possible solution of the quantum gravity problem, and in addition to gravity it can naturally describe interactions similar to electromagnetism and the other forces of nature. Superstring theories include fermions, the building blocks of matter, and incorporate supersymmetry. It is not yet known whether string theory is able to describe a universe with the precise collection of forces and matter that is observed, nor how much freedom to choose those details the theory will allow. String theory as a whole has not yet made falsifiable predictions that would allow it to be experimentally tested, though various special corners of the theory are accessible to planned observations and experiments.\n\nWork on string theory has led to advances in mathematics, mainly in algebraic geometry. String theory has also led to other theories, supersymmetric gauge theories, which will be tested at the new Large Hadron Collider experiment.
246328
String theory is still quite new in the world of physics, but it has drawn tremendous attention to all physicists around the world. \nFor the last 80 years or so physicists have been trying to find a theory that will combine the theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity. These two theories describe everything in the universe. General relativity does this on the scale of the very large e.g. planets, galaxies and so on. When it comes to subatomic scale, like protons, quarks etc. general relativity breaks down. This is where quantum mechanics is very accurate, but quantum mechanics does not work when applied to the very large objects. \nGeneral relativity basically deals with gravity and has a calm feeling to it. The predictions it makes is always sort of neat and precise.\nQuantum mechanics on the other hand deals with the uncertainty principal and has a very chaotic feel to it.\n\n\nString theory is what physicisits hope and believe might be the theory combines these two super theories. String theory predicts that every particle (even quarks) are made up of much, much smaller particles called strings. They are not really particles, they are actually vibrating strands of energy. Each of these strands vibrate in a different way. \n\nThe mathematics behind string theory works so well that many believe string theory has to be true, but unfortunately there is currently no way to prove string theory with experiment. If string theory is true, then some of our notions of the universe will have to change dramatically. We will have to accept that we actually live in an 11-dimensional universe.
306890
They have no names, we have the 4 most known which involve space and time... then we have 6 more to explain the superstring theory (curly dimensions) and the eleventh which was added to be able to explain the M-Theory.  Now, honestly I haven´t studied all of them and as a Mechanical Engineer my knowledge belongs to Newton so i stay with 4 of them only heheheh. However, check out these websites.
71475
Well yes and no, Albert Ensitie composed a theory "The Theory of Unification" that his theory of reltavity and Electro Magatism could co-exist in ont theory this was in the 1930s. Now there might be something Enstine never thought of, tiny string inside quarks that could explain the entire universe in a single equation The Theory Of Everything. Later in the 1940s quantime mech where discorvered. This was much stronger than gravity and in which consists the strong force and the weak force, The strong holds the atom thogther and the weak lets protrons and newtrons attach to is leaving off radition a sit dose so. But every time we try to put Quantime mech and The Theory of reltavity, nothing makes is reasonable. Thats where string theory comes in, that this might link Quantime mech and Reltivity. So no the Theory is not being disproven but proven.
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.
328729
Well, if you want to break it down even more, the universe only consists of minscule, vibrating strings.  At least, that's the most widely accepted theory in fundamental physics right now.\n\nThe beauty of it all is how much complexity can arise from such simple fundamentals.
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
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.
289604
String Theory is only a theory of description of elementary particles based on one-dimensional curves, or "strings," instead of point particles, given by from some theoretical Physicist.\nThe energy-scale at which the stringlike properties would become evident is so high that it is currently unclear how any of the forms of the theory could be tested.\nSo it has not been tested yet and I think it will remain a theory not reality in near future.
704220
String theory is just a theory.  It was made up to try to explain physical phenomena.  Scientists are still trying to prove or disprove it.\n\nThe infamous Einstein theory of relativity, is still that:  a theory.  It did not explain everything in the universe, either.
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.
1131781
Superstring theory is an attempt to explain all of the particles and fundamental forces of nature in one theory by modeling them as vibrations of tiny supersymmetric strings. It is considered one of the most promising candidate theories of quantum gravity. Superstring theory is a shorthand for "supersymmetric string theory" because unlike bosonic string theory, it is the version of string theory that incorporates fermions and supersymmetry.\n\nThe deepest problem in theoretical physics is harmonizing the theory of general relativity, which describes gravitation and applies to large-scale structures (stars, galaxies, super clusters), with quantum mechanics which describes the other three fundamental forces acting on the microscopic scale.\n\nThe development of a quantum field theory of a force invariably results in infinite (and therefore useless) probabilities. Physicists have developed mathematical techniques (renormalization) to eliminate these infinities which work for the electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces, but not gravity. Thus the development of a quantum theory of gravity must come about by different means than were used for the other forces.\n\nThe basic idea is that the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of the Planck length (about 10−35 m) which vibrate at resonant frequencies. The tension of a string (8.9×1042 newtons) is about 1041 times the tension of an average piano string (735 newtons). The graviton (the proposed messenger particle of the gravitational force), for example, is predicted by the theory to be a string with wave amplitude zero. Another key insight provided by the theory is that no measurable differences can be detected between strings that wrap around dimensions smaller than themselves and those that move along larger dimensions (i.e., effects in a dimension of size R equal those whose size is 1/R). Singularities are avoided because the observed consequences of "big crunches" never reach zero size. In fact, should the universe begin a "big crunch" sort of process, string theory dictates that the universe could never be smaller than the size of a string, at which point it would actually begin expanding.
408267
Quantum theory accurately describes the way things in the universe behave on small scales.  General relativity does the same for large scales.  However, combining the two theories to find equations that work for things like black holes doesn't really work.\n\nString theory is an attempt to find something that accurately describes interactions on both large and small scales.  Another idea is loop quantum gravity.  Neither idea has really been proven yet, although useful insights have been gleaned from both.\n\nThe hope is that future research at places like the Large Hadron Collider that is scheduled to begin operation soon in Europe will eventually prove string theory correct.  Even if that does happen though, the equations for string theory are actually still too complex for mathematicians to accurately solve them.  Currently, physicists use estimates instead of the true equations.  There will need to be a lot of work done in that area as well before string theory will really replace quantum theory.
1057662
I-LIKE-A-DA YO-YO!!\n\nshort version:\n\nneutrons & protons have arcs of electricity between them. or, "strings"\n\nstrings sometime break off and just disapear.\non occasion, a rouge string will become a worm hole (about a 20-25% chance)\nvery rarely, a wormhole will become a "membrane" or a small pocket of energy. (4-8% chance from worm hole stage)\n\nthe thoery is that these membranes, or "branes" for short(mem"brane"), colected together to eventualy form a bubble of energy the size of a universe. and that two of theses monsters slamed into each other to create the "big bang" theory we know today.\n\nyep, still a nerd.\n\nStargazer.
985630
11 dimensional string theory has not produced anything.\n\nIt is possible that the 7 dimensions that are not perceived are mathematical deception, and therefore string theory is a theory of nothing, as you will find if you read the wikipedia article on string theory.
191997
The very best explanation to this is a video I watched in my Philosophy class called "The String Theory" - it is amazing, and makes complete sense. If you looked it up on the internet, it goes into deep detail and is confusing. The video is by Nova (the science channel), and maybe someone else, but it is perfect. Unexplainably mind boggling and amazing.
115605
Very simply put, string theory (now most often called "M" theory) is an attempt to unite quantum physics with relativity; we hope that by doing so we can develop a set of equations that will tie together the four fundamental forces of nature. The direct relationship of three of those forces have been linked, but gravity so far remains the "outsider."