ok, posting this here because where i previously posted it, it simply hasnt garnered the attention i expected... and so, it's gonna be a bit on the long side, but of great interest and augmentation to those who make a start on it (i know some of this stuff has already been posted here already, but i think it wise to keep it all together). .... 1 2 3 4 5, in a fairly heated discussion involving string theory, i interjected to the group: it still stands as the most powerful, orginal thing i have ever said. i mean, even with the suposed closed loop, the "graviton" in theoretical particle physics, have you ever followed one long enough to see that it doesn't become something else through an eternity? we could all still be just the same energy, the one string, reforming itself exploring all being... though i did get back after saying "what if there is only one string", "Digit, do you realise what you're saying?" (I realised what he was saying by asking me that, and sure enough there came that bloody word again....) "God". oh well, i wanted the conversation to explore a little more, but when someone comes up with a closed loop one word answer like that, even if only suggesting it as someone elses answer (putting words in mouths)... it tends to kill the open free explorative discussion. anyways, do ignore my little trip down memory lane with my comentary on the 5th addition to these highly intreaging and interconnected topics... oh... one last one 6, i recall somewhere telling me that "god" had six wings. anyways, please do explore the first link given, as those chaps surely can show of that they know their stuff. remarkable evolution in universe mapping if you ask me (and you havnt, not that my ears heard anyway).
I find the most interesting thing about string theory is the religious sect that it has built up in the scientific commmunity. The idea that something outside of science could come and unify physics is a tasty thought, it could really be seen as one goal of science, unifying what we see with what is. Many scientists want this to be true, so much so that they are willing to throw away their lifelong conditioned need for rigourous proof in the framework of science. That fact speaks the loudest to me, as string theory it self is a stab in the dark.
outside science!? uhh, aren't they scientists? isn't it scientific theory? doesn't it still utilise the scientific models of due process that all other science has done before? theory, hypothesis etc... it's still science. it is a matter of making the models fit the observations, that is what they are doing. did you even look at the first link? indeed alot of the scientists would agree with what you say, yet still, there they are, beavering away at the concepts and so on. string theory has already had massive impact on many of the technologies we use these days. me personally, i bet i'd never have got to use softimage 3D if it werent for string theory. aaaaanyways, string theory was only the first of those. what of the rest?
If you watch that documentary, you'll hear one of the scientests say something to the effect of string theory being outisde science, and therefore safe from criticism. The problem with string theory is that it merely fits into the framework that already exists, but fails to make any testable claims, which is a failure of our technology. First the smallest unit of matter was the atom, then we found out it had protons and neutrons, then we found out that those particles were made up of 3 quarks each. That's as far as the scientific body of evidence takes you, it's put together in the Standard Model. There's some ideas out there that we can split the quark, and find some newer smaller fundamental particle, or something else... Also, the proposed Higgs Boson, which if found, could be the key to quantum mass, and at the very least would give us some idea about the nature of mass. String theory says that we've found THE fundamental 'particle', which is not a particle at all, the string. Instead of points, they're one dimensional objects. The combining energies of these vibrating strings goes on to account for all the fundamental interactions in the Standard Model. That's a pretty big claim, and so far, science hasn't shown the beef to back it up. That's not to say we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, no one believed Bohr's assumption of wave-particle (mono/du)ality at first, it took time for the proof to come to light. String theory is a guess, an educated-guess, as are all guesses. It's the start of a scientific theory, but as it stands it can't be accepted or thrown out. I don't get the softimage string theory tie-in. re: what if there is only one string? Think Fourier series. That would make a perfect model one string with a vibration complex enough to handle the goings on of the universe. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierSeries.html
string theory isn't just about getting smaller, the quantum universe has that one wrapped up pretty tight for a while. String theory can be used to express larger curves and wave forms also. it is somewhat contrary to the particle physics mentality that has been around since the greek atom. oh bohrs. gotta love that guy eh? probably my second favourite physicist ever. oh, a point of pedantism, string theory isn't "an" anything. String theory is plural. if we're talking about the unified string theories, we should probably switch to the correct term, M-theory. heh, just doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it. wikipedia does a great job of depicting the main branches of string theory (U, T, S, etc) and how they came together. i personally wouldnt ever want to call string theory a guess. it's a view. a model. even a map. but not a guess. it was built on observation, and the theory was created to explain the observation. much the same as alchemy. nature was observed, and so a theoretical map was created to describe the interactions. now, i know there are some scientists who lack abstract thinking and throw out such maps/concepts these days, but it can still be observed, and does, even today, still serve a function to aid our understanding of the universe. back to Softimage's relation to string theory... this may go for all 3D modeling/animation software, but Soft is the one i know the best, and the one that most often gets praised for it's f-curve features. wave forms. you can describe all manner of physical forms through a curve on a graph. also, you can use these same graphs to map out motion. and also relationships. and also well... pretty much anything and everything. riiight down to just energy. et viola. all there is described by a curve, a wave, a woble, a vibration, a string. regardless of size, even spanning to depict concepts, heck, even thoughts if you were to go as far as to depict that in softimage. ;D checking out that link just now (takes alot of going through the other links within to understand all the terminology). -edit- k. i've checked it out, and it just made me make a post about forrests and trees half way through and had a look at the rest, most of which went in me and straight back out again. however, reading "That would make a perfect model one string with a vibration complex enough to handle the goings on of the universe. " again, i can see where you're coming from.