Could Someone Please Explain Exactly What String Theory and LQG Are Trying To Do?

[astro]

Could Someone Please Explain Exactly What String Theory and LQG Are Trying To Do?

I have recently had the opportunity to ask this question to a couple prominent physicists, and they could not answer it.

What is the purpsoe of these theories? What do they explain that is not explained by SR, GR and QM?

What are the postulates of String Theory? Are there any? Is there any premise as simple or beautiful as Einstein saying "The speed of light is constant in all frames," or "energy is quantized," or Bohr stating, "The electron orbits the nucleus at only discrete energy levels."

Does String Theory or LQG have any simple forumlas associated with them, such as E=mc^2, E=hv, or something like Shroedinger's Equation?

Do they account for non-locality as demonstarted in EPR, Bell's Theorem, and Aspect's experiments?

Does either theory unify Rel. and QM?

Finally, why should we have to unify relativity and QM?

Must we also unify Hiphop and Classical Music in some new musical genere? Or can we realize that each works in a given venue, and that music and the human heart underly both?

[astro]

Thanks for all the feedback here, but all I'm looking for is one or two papers we could discuss.

If nobody else suggests a couple papers, or if nobody knows of any, then I will introduce a couple papers to discuss, which I believe are the leading papers/definitive papers on String Theory.

But it seems very strange to me that nobody can name a definitive paper.

When we discuss Relativity, be it SR or GR, there are a couple of very definitive papers, written by an Individual--Einstein.

When we discuss QM, there are perhpas more definitive papers, but there are definitive papers, written by Bohr, Planck, Einstein, Debroglie, Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, Shrodenger.

But somehow String Theory seems to get by without any definitive papers or individuals. I know there's Brian Greene and Edward Witten, and I've read some of their scholarly work, but I wouldn't call it definitive, as it doesn't add up--it's more of a promise and a request for faith.

Thanks again for all the feedback, and I hope I'm not stepping out of bounds, but to have a proper discussion of string theory, it seems we would need to start with string theory's central postualtes, which would be in a definitive paper somewhere.

Thanks!!

[astro]

I move that we discuss Witten's foundational paper which includes Witten's postulates of String Theory.

After that I propose that we discuss Brian Greene's revolutionary paper on String Thoery and the Laws of String Theory he lays out.

I suppose we can continue the discussion in this thread. I have the papers--can anyone find any online copies or online descriptions of the central postulates of String Theory?

Feel free to post away concerning Witten's and Greene's postulates.

Here's the wikipedia page on Witten:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten

Here's the wikipedia page on Brian Greene:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene

Unfortunately neither of these pages describe their postulates of String Theory, nor link to any of Greene's nor Witten's definitive papers. Perhaps we could add that information--wikipedia is "open source."

[astro]

I apologize if I have done anything to inhibit this thread.

I agree that we should only discuss theories here, and not personalities. I am sorry for bringing up Brian Greene and Edward Witten. From hereon out let us discuss only their postulates and laws, but not their names, quotes, tv shows, assertions, musings, opinions, promises, nor personalities. Physics, after all, must be based in physics.

Let us only discuss String Theory's leading postulates, laws, and predictions in the perfect vacuum it deserves.

Thank you.

Please feel free to post a postulate, law, or prediction of String Theory, but nothing else.

[astro]

Could someone please post a postulate, law, or prediction of String Theory?

We would all very much like to discuss it!

Thanks!

[astro]

MDT actually states that time is an emergent property of a a fundamental postulate: the fourth dimension that is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Thus time has inherited certain aspects of a fourth dimension, but it is not the fourth dimension. But we are not allowed to discuss MDT here: please see http://physicsmathforums.com if you wish to speak of it.

Note to moderators: I apologize for broaching the topic of MDT, but it was only in response to the above post, and for the purpose of illustrating a postulate in a modern theory, and I now return to String Theory.

It seems that String Theory has no postulates nor laws. Does it even want postualtes or laws?

If someone could please name some postulates of String Theory, we would very much like to discuss them. Thanks! I would very much like to comprehend String Theory's beauty that I have oft heard of, and the best place would be to start with its postulates or laws.

When we learn classical physics, we start with Newton's Laws.

When we learn relativity, we start with Einstein's postulates.

So it makes sense that to learn String Theory, we should start with its postulates and laws. Would someobody please post them? Thanks in advance!

[Epsilon=One]

Could someone please post a postulate, law, or prediction of String Theory?

We would all very much like to discuss it!

Thanks!

As I understand ST its current postulates are assumptions.

ST assumes that fundamental energy evolves and manifests in the form of strings of varying or unknown definition, in an unknown manner, from an unknown source.

These strings are usually said to vibrate; however, the better string theorists realize that they oscillate; though, I am not aware of anyone that has described the geometry or relativity of said oscillation in detail. From what I understand the only validity of ST is the assumption of oscillating energy. If the internal structure of this energy was understood and all else thrown out, ST might have some redeeming merit.

Then, ST attempts, with the “vibrating” strings to explain the etiology of light and gravity from the coalescence, or whatever, of said string phenomena. Thus, light and gravity would have a common foundation; and thus, be unified. At present ST depends on conventional theory to explain the process of “whatever” and that which is being unified.

Assuming that the problems of paragraph one and two can be resolved (they should require little more than a desktop computer, philosophical logic, and a day or so to reconcile with current observation.); ST still can not achieve its goal. You cannot reconcile ill-defined forces that are currently defined such that they are little more than metaphysical (requiring much faith to accept) concepts.

Understanding nature cannot be accomplished from the “top down.” A good beginning would be to agree on a most fundamental concept and then determine its source and evolution. I know of nothing that “exists” that does not have motion; so motion of “nothing” would be a good starting point. Next its source, geometry, and “nothing” must be pinned down. Once this is done, the other parts of the jig-saw puzzle should quickly fall into place, as we have observation to guide the procedure.

One must be careful not to go astray because of the influence of current academic theory.

And, of course, as Astro is aware, the puzzle’s solution should not be rushed, as it will detrimentally influence many grants and consequent sinecures.

Imagine, if metaphysical gravity waves were shown to be a hoax how many jobs would be lost. Caltech, alone, is approaching a billion dollars on a single gravity wave seeking experiment.

[Epsilon=One]

I move that we discuss Witten's foundational paper which includes Witten's postulates of String Theory.

After that I propose that we discuss Brian Greene's revolutionary paper on String Thoery and the Laws of String Theory he lays out.

There is so much confusion and incompleted thoughts to Greene's and Witten's (and Schwarz's) work on ST that a proper discussion would require at least a semester course in . . . LOGIC.

... neither of these pages describe their postulates of String Theory, nor link to any of Greene's nor Witten's definitive papers. Perhaps we could add that information--wikipedia is "open source."

I agree with your general arguments concerning ST; however:

From ST, that is, the logic of the geometry of their formation and coalescence, Pauling, shortly before his death, indicated that he agreed that one might predict the mechanics of bonding . . . as applicable to subatomic bonds, atomic bonds (5 chemical bonds), including the Bjerknes hydrodynamic “action-at-a-distance” effect, van der Waals forces, and the Casimir force.

[paintzee]

Imagine a length, any length, approaching zero or infinity. Define this length as one unit. This is the x axis now imagine a second length, the only criteria be that it is exactly equal in length to the first length. This is the y axis. If we use Pythagoras the length between the two ends would be in-determinate. Since this length would represent all lengths it stands to reason that “Loop Quantum Gravity” is on to something.

In a nutshell singularities cannot exist, hence no breakdown of physics.

[Epsilon=One]

Imagine a length, any length, approaching zero or infinity. Define this length as one unit. This is the x axis now imagine a second length, the only criteria be that it is exactly equal in length to the first length. This is the y axis. If we use Pythagoras the length between the two ends would be in-determinate. Since this length would represent all lengths it stands to reason that “Loop Quantum Gravity” is on to something.You have the right idea; however, your details are a little off.

What you define as "one unit" must be shown to be the radius of Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/ROI) (ROI), which is the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC), εpsilon = One.

It can then be easily shown that the application of said ROI evolves with the dynamic separation of a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere (www.CQthus.com/PT/DS) (each being a manifestation of Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I)) creates a vector that is the "second length"; it is these "lengths/units" that are manifestations of seminal motion (www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) that create the quanta of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), which are the Pulsoids (www.CQthus.com/PT/P) of Pulsoid Theory (www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) (PT).

The pulsating, hyper-relativistic, Triquametric motion (www.CQthus.com/PT/TM) that heuristically is described as an Emergent Ellipsoid (www.EmergentEllipsoid.com) manifests as Pulsoids (www.CQthus.com/PT/P); and, said motion is analogous to the complex oscillations of the "strings" of string theory (ST).

LQG and ST, unlike PT, incorporates reconciliation with the metaphysical forces of the Standard Models; and, thus LQG and ST are irreconcilable with observed Reality (www.CQthus.com/PT/R).

[socratus]

Could someone please post a postulate, law, or prediction of String Theory?

We would all very much like to discuss it!

Thanks!
===========================
I read what string theory acts in 11- D space.
But if we dont know what 1+1=2
how can we know what 5+4=9 ?
And if we dont know what is 4-D space (+ Mincovski space )
how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?
=====================

[Epsilon=One]

Could someone please post a postulate, law, or prediction of String Theory?

We would all very much like to discuss it!A postulate of String Theory (ST) is that all that exists evolves from complex oscillating "string-like" motion.

I predict the day will soon come when ST, from such a postulate, will bring about a "new physics" that will involve a paradigm-shift in the worldwide disciplines of Science, Theology, and Philosophy.

[HarleQuin]

I believe that String Theory aims for a coherent explanation of everything observable. This includes equations linking the fundamental forces. Gravity seems to be an exception.
If String Theorists add dimension upon Dimension forever, the only outcome I can see would be to have a Sphere of axes..that you can 'add' stuff to. Imagine plotting perfection, if you add specifically the right ingredients in the right place you cant avoid a coherent whole.I think.

[chrisforbes]

Basically string theory means that there are many universes and they are all interconnected. String is the connection between the universes.