Can somebody explain me the "strings theory" given by stephan hawking?
554170
Read Michio Kakuo's book.  He is the "inventor" of strings theory, not Hawking.
360519
String theory is the idea that everything in the universe is made out of tiny, vibrating loops of string that are far smaller than the size of an atom.\n\nIn string theory, there are currently believed to be ten dimensions (plus one for time).  A dimension is essentually just a direction:  Left-Right, Up-Down, Forward-Back.  Originally, all the dimensions were very small with little rooom for movement.\n\nAt the time of the Big Bang, the three dimensions I mentioned expanded rapidly to create the enormous universe we see today.  The other seven dimensions are still tiny.  There is not enough room in them for us to detect them directly, but they do influence the behavior of strings on very small scales.\n\nAn example of symmetry is that the rules of physics where you live are exactly the same as the rules of physics where I live.  In other words, the rules of physics are location symmetric.\n\nAnother example is that (by using the rules of general relativity developed by Einstein) the rules are symmetric for all observers, even if they are accelerating in opposite directions.  An interesting result of this symmetry is that gravity warps the fabric of space itself.\n\nSuper-symmetry is another example, like the two I just mentioned.  The details involve more math though, so I won't go into it.  It hasn't really been confirmed by experiment yet, by physicists have been using it to make predictions for years.\n\nCalculations show that the tiny strings of string theory follow the rules of super-symmetry.  That is one reason string theory is widely accepted.  Together, the two ideas predict that all particles we currently know (electrons, muons, quarks, etc.) have a matching super-symmetric particle.\n\nSince none of these have yet been found, they are thought to have much larger masses than the particles who know of.  With the next generation of particle accelerators (such as the Large Hadron Collider scheduled to start operation next year in Europe), it may be possible to test the existence of the matching super-symmetric particles.  That is one of the current ideas for providing evidence for or against string theory.
168536
There are two main kinds of strings: cosmic strings, and then strings that are postulated to be building blocks of matter.\n\nCosmic strings are attempts to explain the irregularity of matter in the cosmos.\n\nThe other string theory postulates that matter is not built out of zero dimensional objects (particles) but out of one dimensional objects (strings). These are very small and they vibrate to produce various effects. There are different varieties of these building block type string theories, which you can read about below.
489410
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.
233899
Laney, first of all allow me to say that I'm incredibly glad and pleasantly surprised to hear of your genuine interest in this field.   You are to be truly commended for your intellectual courage and abilities.  ...But to address your question, there are in fact thousands of great explanatory/layman-type books out there on Quantum Mechanics, Field Theory, Gravity, Philosophy, Reality, and associated topics like cosmology, etc.  Some of them even dating back to the mid 70's, that nonetheless are still wonderful reads.  ...Theoretical physics at the level that we are talking about here, though, is unfortunately a seven-headed exotic mathematical monster that is not even accessible to most physicists, much less the lay person.   Having said that, and as you know, there have been courageous attempts by talented physicist like Brain Greene (and many others before and after him) to make our latest theoretical/scientific visions of the physical world/universe available to the general public.   ...Since you mentioned that you are NOT mathematically inclined, but did enjoy Greene's The Elegant Universe, the first thing that came to my mind (and the book that I would recommend most) was in fact Greene's newer work called "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality" - in case you haven't read it yet.    \n\nAmong some of the other more recent titles worth mentioning also are:\n\nThe Great Beyond - by: Paul Halpener (A very nice book)\n\nThe Cosmic Landscape - by: Leonard Susskind\n\nHiding in the Mirror - by: Lawrence M. Krauss\n\nThe Road to Reality - by: Rofer Penrose\n\nA First Course in String Theory - by: Barton Zwiebach (This is a very nice book but a lil' more mathematically oriented than you might enjoy - let's say undergraduate physics level) \n\nI also highly recommend:  The Five Ages of the Universe - by: Fred Adams\n\nThat should keep you busy for a while - Good Reading!  ;-)
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
115347
I would highly recommend the last answer. BRIAN GREENE's\nThe Elegant Universe. Great Book, I read it and it explains a lot in real English. Also check out his other book, which is also a great book on string theory its call "The fabric of the Cosmos"(great title!), a little more complex but highly usefull. Or if you hate to read, then buy the Nova special on string theory, which is hosted by Brian Greene (the author). He is one the lead string theorists. Mabye the next Einstein? (Possibly). I would watch the movie first. Then read the book, you would understand the material better with visuals.
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.
34046
I think M-theory stands for Mother theory and it's like a union of different string theories that differ a little among them ( I heard there are 5 theories of strings..each one is sort of complicated but there is some knowledge of them and they actually show different aspects of the same theory; the M-theory is like an attempt to join them somehow) ..anyway, string theory predicts 11 dimentions wich is a lot! ( I guess now is down to 6 ..has anyone heard of it?) so it's still a theory like Quantum gravity and some others trying to join QM with relativity ..I just hope they succeed.
1164474
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., physical processes in a dimension of size R match those in a dimension of size 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 will be able to describe a universe with the precise collection of forces and matter that is observed, nor how much freedom to choose those details that 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. Hence critics of string theory occasionally remark that the theory "... is not even wrong," quoting a quip attributed to Wolfgang Pauli.\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.
1043582
M-Theory\n\nThere are an infinite number of alternate realities which are integrating. Space-time distortions are occuring. For those who are clear, the observation and experience of these happenings is breathtaking. For others who are experiencing 'blindly' - to be 'out of phase' will cause confusion and fear.\n\nM-Theory unites the 5 superstring theories. According to M-Theory there are 11 spacial dimensions that exist in parallel with our physical reality. That goes along with the theory of 12 or 12 around 1 yet M-theory is not complete as all expands in reality and consciousness.\n\n      M-theory (sometimes also called U-theory) is a theory of physics, which is believed to incorporate and generalize the various superstring theories. Edward Witten proposed the existence of this physical model at a conference at USC in 1995, explaining a number of previously observed dualities and sparking a flurry of new research in string theory.\n\n      What does M stand for?\n\n      When Witten named M-theory, he did not specify what the "M" stood for, presumably because he did not feel he had the right to name a theory which he had not been able to fully describe. According to Witten himself, "'M' stands for 'Magic,' 'Mystery' or 'Membrane,' depending on your taste." Also suggested, has been 'Matrix' and 'Mother of all theories'. Cynics have noted that the M might be an upside down "W", standing for Witten. Others have suggested that for now, the "M" in M-theory should stand for Missing or Murky.\n\n      The name M-theory is slightly ambiguous. It can be used to refer to both the particular eleven-dimensional theory which Witten first proposed, or it can be used to refer to a kind of Uber theory which looks in various limits like the various string theories. Ashoke Sen has suggested that more general theory could go by the name U-theory, which might stand for Ur, or Uber, or Ultimate, or Underlying, or perhaps Unified. (It might also stand for U-duality, which is both a reference to Sen's own work and a kind of particle physics pun.) M-theory in the following descriptions refers to the more general theory, and will be specified when used in its more limited sense.\n\nIf you recall, I have written that the 'M' and the 'W' reverse at the end of time. Some see it as Man and Woman. They will rotate 180 [9] degrees - a 'U'. The 'M' and the 'W' can also be brought together - their ends meeting - then rotated 90 [9] degrees to form an hourglass. The possibilities are endless and will be studied until the end of time.\n\n      M-theory is not complete. It can be applied in many situations (usually by exploiting string theoretic dualities), but the full theory is not yet known. The theory of electromagnetism was also in such a state in the mid-19th century. There were separate theories for electricity and magnetism, and although they were known to be related, it was not clear until Maxwell published his equations just what the relationship was. Witten has suggested that a general formulation will probably require the development of new mathematical language.\n\n      It was shown in the early 1990s that the various superstring theories were related by dualities, which allowed physicists to relate the description of an object in one string theory to the description of a different object in another theory. These relationships imply that each of the string theories is a different aspect of a single underlying theory, which has been named "M-theory".\n\n      More from Wikipedia \n\nM-Theory was the underlying theme in the film, What the Bleep!\n\nM-Theory by George Minaya\n\nThe merging of dimensions integrates your consciousness and expands your awareness to the next level of understanding which will be followed by the merging of your soul aspects with other realities in which it experien
669660
its actualy String-theory that proposes the existance of many other universes. the theory proposes a so called "Landscape of probabilities" with probabilities of as many as 10 to power of 500 universes, and with that many probabilities it is very likely that some of them will be similar to or just like our own universe.\n\nif you would like to know more about this facsinating subject, i would suggest this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316155799/104-3626905-5554311?v=glance&n=283155\nits a great and easy to understand book.
518055
Ever since man took an interest in the sciences, from perhaps the time of Aristotle onwards, from time to time great ideas have been put forward. Some of these have seemed initially ludicrous, and turned out to be so. Others, with a little development, have given us a great insight into the way that the world works and enabled us to move on. \nAt a given moment of time, it may appear that what we know is fairly correct and will correct timelessly. However, history has shown that this is not the case. Eventually, perhaps, we will know everything, but right now this is far from the case. \nTake one of the fundamental aspects of physics, for instance. For a long time now people have thought that the matter is made up of tiny, invisible particles; atoms and their sub-components. This is the model we learn and that everyone worked around. \nYet in recent times, this has been challenged, by what is known as string theory - and it now seems that this is a better model, perhaps the more 'correct' one. \nString theory, against the traditional theory of matter, says that matter is caused by the vibrations of a string-like structure. These are the fundamental building blocks of matter. It is a bizarre sounding radical theory at first, but now has much support. \nJust like a violin string when plucked will produce sounds, and different sounds when plucked in different ways, so it is with the universe - with string theory, the fluctuations give rise to matter. On this view, the universe may romantically be described as a symphony. The framework of the vibrating string causes the song that we see around us.
763015
It is a theory that looks at physics differently to try and combine General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, something the Standard Model (the most widely accepted theory of how the universe work) has not been able to do.  Instead of using zero dimentional point particles, it uses one dimentional strings which cleans out some of the complications with the Standard Model.  However, most of its predictions have yet to be verified, so its not as widely accepted or as successful as the Standard Model.  The amazing thing about String Theory (actually, it is a whole bunch of theories) is that it predicts Gravitons, something the Standard Model has been trying to do for very long but hasn't been able to.
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.
1016999
Actually string theory is a special case of M-theory (M for membrane). It's not a question of "give everything about it," it's more "how much can you understand." Not all of us are capable of understanding this stuff. This page will give you a non-mathematical taste but if you really want everything, you'll need an advanced degree in mathematics.\nhttp://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3015388/
812292
You have gotten some great answers up to this point.  I'd like to add yet another one...the pre big bang scenario re string/M theory.\n\nOne spin off of string/M theory is that parallel null universes are feasible.  Brian Greene pictures them as slices of bread in a cosmic, N-dimensional loaf of bread. [See source.]\n\nThese are "null" universes because, as far as we are concerned, from our myopic four dimensional world (the metric, observable universe one answerer talked about), these universes exist only in higher dimensions and cannot be observed in 4D.\n\nAccording to one hypothesis, based on string/M theory, two of these slices of bread collided.  That collision point is called the singularity where the big bang originated.  The energy such a collision could generate is one way to account for all the mass-energy postulated for our own known universe.\n\nOf course, as pointed out by other answerers, time and other physics phenomena in null universes may not exist as we know them in metric space.  Null universes are beyond our ken to understand and explain...now.  But who knows, with people like Hawkings, Witten, and others attacking the cosmos and its mysteries, we might just yet unlock the nature and existence of null universes and our own.\n\nPS:  Not all explosions are chemical explosions requiring air (oxygen) to work.  The atomic bomb, for example, does a really nice explosion by simply splitting atoms.   The sun makes spectacular explosions by fusing (putting them together) atoms.  Bottom line, the big bang is not a chemical explosion requiring oxygen.