String Theory General

Can anyone explain it to a brainlet in this topic like me?
Also I like examples, like with cats

>>8718394
String theory is basically a theory that talks about all particles being made out of these strings wade of energy, and depending on how they vibrate changes the particle it creates. The vibration of strings is what makes the difference between you and your cat.

>>8718393
In a 2 dimensional universe, beings would only see in 1 dimension, so if you placed your 3 dimensional hand in that universe, then the people would only see part of your hand appearing and then disappearing.

>>8718398
Oh, I see, domo thanks
But how and why do they vibrate? If I could vibrate my cat particles in another way I can change how he is "made up", or send him to another dimension? Everytime I see something about string theory, there is something else like another dimensions...

File: b0blyfw.jpg (281KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1920x1080px

I liked the elegant universe by Brian Greene

>>8718648
Yeah I liked it too.

>>8718405
As far as we know, there is no way to truly manipulate these superstrings. We do not even know if they exist, but the theory clarifies so much that scientists are trying their hardest to try to find the graviton particle, which if found, then it would be partial proof of string theory's existence.

>>8718393
>A membrane in string theory can be theoretically the size of the universe, so quantum fluctuations could be membrane movement
No, membranes in string theory are already quantum objects. They aren't actual rubber sheets, any more than a quantum particle is a single point.

>>8718393
Doesn't string theory rely on the assumption that 1+2+3+4...=-1/12?

>>8718685
Ok.

>>8718686
No more than the standard model does

>>8718686
I honestly don't know about the mathematical aspect of string theory, but probably not.

>>8718696
Aren't there 3 versions of the standard model so far (Standard Model, Antimatter Standard Model, and Supersymmetry Standard Model)?

>>8718393
If string theory includes 10 dimensional superstrings that vibrate to create particles, and the 5th or 6th dimension is about every possibility happening at once, wouldn't the strings vibrate in every possible way at the same time, therefore creating every particle possible at the same time, meaning that everything we see is every particle at the same time?

File: StringTheory.png (108KB, 610x935px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 610x935px

>>8718686
>>8718697

Here's page 22 of Polchinski's 'String Theory Volume I'. This is a pretty well regarded textbook on the subject.

>>8718719
So it does! Stringlets btfo

File: StringTheory2.png (187KB, 551x941px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 551x941px

>>8718719

And here's page 96 from 'Superstring Theory' by Green, Schwarz, Witten, which is another popular book on the subject.

So yes, String Theory does rely on the result, which itself rests on the mathematics of analytic continuation.

>>8718719
The symbol 'H' refers to the higgs boson correct?

>>8718724

No, it's the Hamiltonian.

>>8718700
The first two are the same thing (by which I mean the standard model explains both matter and anti-matter), the last is a possible extension to the first.

>>8718729
What is it?

>>8718734
The regular simple standard model makes no references to antimatter though.

>>8718737
What is the Hamiltonian in this case? or what is a Hamiltonian?

>>8718745
They do.

File: cuck.png (76KB, 375x282px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 375x282px

>>8718750

>>8718696
You can avoid the -1/12 in string theory by using cft, can't you?

>>8718751
In QFT antiparticles are interpreted as "normal" particles propagating backwards in time. That makes any reference to a normal particle automatically a reference to an antiparticle. There's a bit more to it than that, but I don't think there's much point in going into it.

>>8718755

Not the same anon, but yes, I believe that more modern approaches do away with the -1/12 methods. They give they same answer though (because the answers are supposed to be regularisation independent).

>>8718686
[math] \displaystyle
\zeta \neq \Sigma
[/math]

>>8718761
[spoiler] cuck [/spoiler]

>>8718674
Fabric was my favorite but it wasn't exclusively on string theory

>>8718756
What makes a particle an antimatter particle?

>>8719106
The subatomic charges are inverted. Hydrogen has a negative proton and a positive electron.

>>8719122
Yes I know, but what makes the antiquarks "anti"?

>>8719133
Invert all the quantum numbers.

>>8719136
Numbers are abstract. What are physical quantum numbers anon?

>>8719233
Wew lad.

>>8719233
Quantum numbers are like charge or mass. They're an inherent property of the particles that can only really be described with numbers. The numbers essentially dictate how the particles interact when described mathematically. There's no intuitive way to tell what exactly they mean.

>>8718719
This isn't the only way to get the critical dimension. It's just one of the quickest.

>>8719555
What is the critical dimension?

>>8721044
Likely the 10th dimension.

>>8721044
>>8721054
You brainlets it says it's the second dimension learn to read.

>>8719524
nope thats what a QCL fag would say. But in reality it has more properties that can be changed with quantum effects but also without quantum effects therefor it's not one single variable. First year I assume?

>>8721075
cuck

>>8718393
>10D Superstrings
>their vibrations create particles
>5th dimension is all possibilities happening at the same time
>superstrings create every particle at the same time
>everything is every particle
really makes you think

>>8721172
String theory has some cancer in it

>>8718648
How many different types of calabi-yau manifolds are there in general?

But how do we know that there are more Dimensions than just our 3, they seem so certain that there are 10 but there isn't any substantial evidence

>>8721234
For string theory to exist, there must be 6 extra dimensions in addition to our 4.

>>8718393
Take your pedophile meme physics back to >>>/r/eddit.
/sci/ is a board for true physics

>>8721234
>>8721243
A good example would be this: Imagine you are looking at a telephone pole from a distance. From far away, it seems like a 1 dimensional object, but as you get closer, you see that actually there are 3 dimensions to it. You could get an ant to walk around it in all 3 dimensions. String theory suggests that there are an additional 6 dimensions, but are so small that we do not notice them.

>>8721247
BTFO brainlet

>>8721243
>>8721243
gotcha and so how did they go about determining what each dimension does? Also the only way to some what prove this theory is finding gravitons? I feel as if string theory can never be proven. It'll always just be a theory

>>8721251
do they know what every other dimension is?

>>8721252
>implying string theory is physics
>not mathematical philosophy
You're the brainlet for falling for the pseudoscience meme.

>>8721256
>how did they go about determining what each dimension does?
I honestly do not know, but they know what the other dimensions are. The 0th dimension is a dot. The 1st dimension is a line. The 2nd dimension is a plane. The 4th dimension is time. The 5th dimension is every possibility happening at once. I do not know the others.
>Also the only way to some what prove this theory is finding gravitons?
No, there are other ways, but finding gravitons will be a major milestone in string theory's existence. There is no physical way to see strings, as they are smaller than photons.
>I feel as if string theory can never be proven. It'll always just be a theory
Not even a theory. If there is no way to prove it, then it will remain as philosophy.

>>8721261
see >>8721271

>>8721269
String theory is more than mathematical philosophy because there are ways to test it that involve particle physics.

>>8721291
Oh trust us goyim we can prove it if you give us a trillion GeV particle accelerator. Oops it didn't work because its not enough energy. We need more the new LHC with 10000 gorillion PeV, that way will find the particle

Face it particle physics is delusional as fuck. Since cern was built the only thing they've found was the Higgs boson, and even if they didn't find it every physicist would continue to assume it existed.

>>8721305
Proving the existence of the higgs boson was a major accomplishment because now that the standard model's equation is proven to be correct, so are its calculations.

>>8721305
It's not that easy to find new particles. You don't expect to find a new one every month, as the main ones already have been discovered.

File: strings.png (51KB, 459x471px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 459x471px

There are closed strings and open strings. Open strings are attached to d-branes while closed strings are free to roam into other dimensions.The graviton is associated with closed strings.

>>8721322
rip headphones

>>8721383
this

>>8718705
>>8721172
s u c c

>>8721322
So the graviton is created by a closed string vibration?

>>8721443
Pretty much

>>8718393
Is string theory really that important tho?

>>8721487
>Is string theory really that important tho?
Well many physicists do consider it as the theory of everything.

autosage

>>8721443
Gravitons escape into other dimensions, and closed strings are not attached to the D-brane, unlike the open string (so they are free to roam into other dimensions), meaning that gravitons are created by the vibration of a closed string.

>>8718719
Is the point particle a 0 dimensional particle? The 0th dimension is just a point.

>>8721256
>>8721251
>>8721271
Clarification of the dimensions:
>The first dimension, is that which gives it length (aka. the x-axis). A good description of a one-dimensional object is a straight line.
>Add to it a second dimension, the y-axis (or height), and you get an object that becomes a 2-dimensional shape (like a square).
>The third dimension involves depth (the z-axis), and gives all objects a sense of area and a cross-section. The perfect example of this is a cube, which exists in three dimensions and has a length, width, depth, and hence volume.
>The fourth dimension is time, which governs the properties of all known matter at any given point.
>If we could see on through to the fifth dimension, we would see a world slightly different from our own that would give us a means of measuring the similarity and differences between our world and other possible ones.
>In the sixth dimension, we would see a plane of possible worlds, where we could compare and position all the possible universes that start with the same initial conditions as this one.
>In the seventh dimension, you have access to the possible worlds that start with different initial conditions. Whereas in the fifth and sixth, the initial conditions were the same and subsequent actions were different, here, everything is different from the very beginning of time.
>The eighth dimension again gives us a plane of such possible universe histories, each of which begins with different initial conditions and branches out infinitely (hence why they are called infinities).
>In the ninth dimension, we can compare all the possible universe histories, starting with all the different possible laws of physics and initial conditions.
>In the tenth dimension, we arrive at the point in which everything possible and imaginable is covered. Beyond this, nothing can be imagined by us lowly mortals, which makes it the natural limitation of what we can conceive in terms of dimensions.

>>8719280
cuck

>>8721075
I have no fucking clue what you're trying to say.

>>8718722
Why -1/12 tho?

>>8722023
Anon's trying to say that thats what a QCL fag would say, but in reality it has more properties that can be changed with quantum effects but also without quantum effects therefor it's not one single variable.

>>8722027
this

So much hate in this thread.

String theory is a perfectly acceptable field of mathematics.

>>8722100
Indeed, and it also has nice theoretical physics

>>8722114
Not theoretical physics.
Mathematics.

Theories are supportable with experimental evidence.
The only evidence supporting string theory is that math usually works.

>>8718747
What is a hamiltonian?

>>8718818
>>8721083
>>8721247
>>8721269
>>8721383
>>8721420
>>8721566
>>8721732
this

>>8722137
The thing you should learn about before posting in this thread, brainlet.

>>8722167
No, actually.

>>8722137
>>8722208
Hamiltonian mechanics.

We've gone from Electron Microscopes to Proton Microscopes and increased the power by orders of magnitudes. It's only a matter of time until someone figures out a way to make a Quark Microscope or a Lepton Microscope so that we can see individual strings.

>>8722027
Thanks, Reddit.

>>8722024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww&feature=youtu.be

>>8722027
>QCL fag
wut

>>8722228
Heavy lepton/quark microscopes probably won't ever exist since quarks have to be in bound states and heavy leptons aren't stable. Imaging using Scanning tunneling microscopes or atomic force microscopes can get you atomic lattices but not really deeper. Direct imaging of strings is probably something that will never happen.

>>8718393
i'm pretty sure string theory is a pile of shit and any self-respecting high energy theorist focuses on supersymmetry. And SUSY itself isn't even that good, but there aren't any better alternatives.

>>8722304
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww&feature=youtu.be
This makes zero sense. It seems iffy because the answer to the first sum is actually a non answer. It can't be 1/2 because it is either 0 or 1 it can't be anything in between, 1/2 is just a way of notating that we don't know which one it is, it's noting uncertainty not that the actual answer is 1/2.

>>8722228
Strings are smaller than photons, so we will never be able to see them.

>>8722351
Yes but what if we compress a photon to the size of a string so that we can see strings?

>>8721308
The standard model can't calculate gravity though.

>>8721308
What does the standard model calculate, exactly?

>>8722529
Mostly cross sections for scattering experiments, so how certain particles are scattered when they hit other particles.

>>8721308
The problem now is the mass of the Higgs seems to be far too light, and no new particles that would support supersymmetry have been found. The standard model has some pretty big problems and we haven't found anything that would help guide us to a better theory.

>>8721700
any recommendations for further reading? (accessible online and not too long or complex)

>>8721224
This is the question. It is an example of something called a Moduli Problem in Algebraic Geometry.

The Moduli Problem for 1,2 dimensional calabi-yau's is solved, but for calabi-yau 3-folds (the ones that appear in string theory) it is open.

>>8722228
theres proton microscopes now??

>>8723228
Yes. Protons have a red tint to them. I'm not sure about electron microscopes though.

>>8723087
If you are referring to books, there is this book that explains string theory really well, called The Elegant Universe. See >>8718648

>>8723386
There is an e-book version I think.

>>8722535
Thanks, anon.

>>8722539
The Higgs Boson is the particle that gives mass to particles right?

>>8723087
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

>>8718685
Could you go into depth about membranes? I only know that they are stretched out superstrings, and can be the size of a universe. Open strings are attached to membranes, but closed strings are free to roam around into other dimensions.

>>8718394
Honestly it's a theory that resulted after decades of attempts in understanding of quantum world, it's just a theory for now - but a good one, hopefully with accelerated progress of science and technique of testing theories more will come or we will find which parts of string theory are actually fact.

>>8723402
Also, string theory would explain the major incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

>>8723402
A way we can test string theory is finding the graviton. We will never be able to see strings as they are smaller than photons. Are there any other ways to test string theory's existence?

>>8723402
How? It is not even a theory. It is just a bunch of self-inconsistent matheatically nonsound ideas

>>8723414
>How? It is not even a theory. It is just a bunch of self-inconsistent matheatically nonsound ideas
It actually is a nice theory that proposes a sensible solution to many things. Right now it seems crazy, as it talks about the need for extra dimensions (see >>8721251), but there are ways to test it such as finding the graviton.

>>8722453
Idiot.

>>8723422
Superstrings you retard.

>>8723420
>It actually is a nice theory
It is NOT. Don't you read?

>>8723420
>Right now it seems crazy, as it talks about the need for extra dimensions
Isn't that a huge tip off that it's full of shit? Just because you can make something work if you arbitrarily assume there are x dimensions doesn't mean that's a reflection of how reality works. We have no proof of any other spacial dimensions and string theory cranks it up to 10 for no reason other than it needs to to make the math work.

>>8723399
A p-brane is just a higher dimensional analog of a particle.

i.e. A particle is a 0-brane, A string is a 1-brane, and then so on.

The term membrane generally refers to a 2-brane, which cannot be spacetime filling for obvious reasons. These appear in M-theory in the sense that what you see as a string in usual 10-dimensional String Theory, is supposedly a membrane wrapped around an 11th dimension.

A special type of p-brane is a Dp-brane. Dp-brane are the objects which open strings end on. D stands for Dirichlet because if you model string motion with a typical wave equation, the Dp-branes act as your Dirichlet boundary conditions.

Branes can carry charge, couple to gauge fields, interact, decay, etc.


Mathematically Dirichlet Branes are usually modeled by vector bundles over the spacetime manifold. (Although in more serious mathematical descriptions they are complexes of coherent sheaves)

>>8723436
I know that you think it is not a nice theory, but I believe that it is.

>>8723440
Yes. There are many cancerous aspects to the physical side.

>>8723447
Thanks anon

>>8723476
> Believe
Lol

Meanwhile, mathematical soundedness is quite a rigorous notion. And, currently, string "theory" does not qualify for it. Not even once. On the other hand, physicists are sceptical towards it because it does not qualify as a scientific theory either. It is not falsifiable.

>>8722304
a fag that studies QCL

>>8722304
Wouldn't the sum of S only equal -1/12 if you subtract it by S2?

>>8723494
>mathematical soundedness is quite a rigorous notion. And, currently, string "theory" does not qualify for it


This very much depends upon which String Theory you are talking about.

The mathematical rigor of any String Theory (or QFT) can essentially be determined by whether there exists:

i) An action

ii) A rigorous description of the Functional Integral for the action.

A typical Nonlinear Sigma Model (w/ the structure of a SCFT) is quite mathematically sound.

>>8723509
No, it is bullshit. You can define whatever actions you like, it's not a big deal. What counts is concrete numerical predictions. You can't do this in string "theory" because it is based on pulled-outa-ass perturbations which don't even admit renormalization yet. And probably never will

>>8723512
What the actual fuck are you saying

>>8723512
You seem to be equating mathematical rigor with exact solvability, which isn't true for the vast majority of physics.

>based on pulled-outa-ass perturbations
This is pretty much all QFT calculations

>don't even admit renormalization yet.

The RG flow equation for a nonlinear sigma model is actually a Ricci flow. So the issue here is not a String Theory issue, it is a issue for people doing Geometric Analysis.

>>8722304
Quantum Cascade Laser fag

>>8723518
What part you don't understand?

>>8723522
>This is pretty much all QFT calculations
Yes, but QFT is renormalizable. Surprise!

>So the issue here is not a String Theory issue, it is a issue for people doing Geometric Analysis.
Sure :3 Why even bother, right?

>>8723536
>Sure :3 Why even bother, right?
People do bother. My point is that things in String Theory are often much more complex then in QFT. Like studying a specific part of String Theory, renormalization, can be equivalent to studying a topic mathematicians dedicate their career to.

>>8723543
>>8723532
What is normalization?

>>8723543
>My point is that things in String Theory are often much more complex then in QFT.
Nice excuse.

> Like studying a specific part of String Theory, renormalization, can be equivalent to studying a topic mathematicians dedicate their career to
Do this. Don't find excuses. And come back when you've done this.

To summarize, everything I said in my original post, holds.

>>8723550
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group

>>8723422
Photon ≈ 10^−17 cm
Superstring ≈ 10^−33 cm

>>8723555
Thanks anon

>>8723554
>To summarize, everything I said in my original post, holds.


Not it doens't. Because some String Theories can be phrased in a completely mathematically rigorous way.

ex. Action a Nonlinear Sigma Model, Corresponding Functional Integral well-defined (all be it via a quite complicated measure on a moduli space), Renormalization Flow a Ricci Flow, etc.

>>8723562
>Not it doens't
Yes, it does. Where does it not?

>Because some String Theories can be phrased in a completely mathematically rigorous way.
There is no rigorous way to make it deliver predictions like in QM and QFT. Just defining a background manifold and an action does not suffice for a physical theory to be mathematically sound.

What you say amounts to the fact the functional integral is well-defined which is not even an achievemnt of string theory. It's inherited from pure math. I doubt it suffices for a physical theory in any way.

>>8723573
First of all it does deliver predictions, they just aren't useful because we don't have technology to probe relevant scales.

Second, making accurate physical predictions is irrelevant of the math being consistent.

N=4 SYM is mathematically consistent model, but it has nothing to with actual physics.

>>8723577
>First of all it does deliver predictions
No, it doesn't. You start contradicting yourself. How can you deliver predictions when you can't even renormalize theory?

>Second, making accurate physical predictions is irrelevant of the math being consistent.
We are talking about mathematical soundedness of physical theories, not pure math. But, yes, mathematical rigor is sometimes absent in working physical theories. Classical example: Dirac's delta. However, contrary to string "theory", those things were introduced to work out computations in the first place. In string "theory, everything is vice versa.

>>8723577
>implying supersymmetry isn't physics

>>8723582
>You start contradicting yourself. How can you deliver predictions when you can't even renormalize theory?

I didn't say it can't be renormalized, I said it can be boiled down to a Ricci Flow problem. Whether that problem is solvable depends on the specific conditions of the specific theory.

>We are talking about mathematical soundedness of physical theories

Ok, how do you define mathematical soundedness?

>>8723583
No, N=4 SYM is specifically a toy model. I am not saying all supersymmetric theories are toy models.

>>8723584
>I didn't say it can't be renormalized, I said it can be boiled down to a Ricci Flow problem. Whether that problem is solvable depends on the specific conditions of the specific theory.
This phrase is vague and doesn't address my comment. You know it.

> Ok, how do you define mathematical soundedness?
The most important thing: a coherent framework to make quantitative predictions. Hell, I didn't even start mentioning the landscape!

>>8721700
Im dumb but wouldnt a straight line be a 2d object as well, it still has height

>>8723590
>Hahahahahaha!
It is not the worst reaction you can imagine. Refer to Feynamann's quotes. But, the physicists got used to live with it.

>>8723594
>This phrase is vague and doesn't address my comment. You know it.

Ok, so the RG flow is a Ricci flow as I said. But the solvability of the Ricci Flow depends upon what the background manifold is. If the background is flat like in QFT, the theory is easily renormalized.

But String Theory deals with gravity, so choosing a flat background is stupid. So whether RG flow equation can be solved depends on whether mathematicians have studied the Ricci Flow problem on whatever the specific background manifold is.


>a coherent framework to make quantitative predictions

Specific string theories can do this, the predictions are just made at energy scales not probable by our current technology.

> Hell, I didn't even start mentioning the landscape!

Which boils down to a rigorous mathematical problem. A moduli problem of calabi-yau 3-folds. Now this problem definitely is not solved. In fact to even get a good grip on solving it, we would probably first have to prove HMS for general calabi-yau 3-folds (which is not likely to be done anytime soon). But still, it is mathematically rigorous.

>>8723596
What I mean is a straight line with no height at all.

>>8723607
>Specific string theories can do this
Show me.

> Ok, so the RG flow ...
Simply. Solve. This. Problem. And. Only. Then. You. Can. Call. It. A. Physical. Theory

> Landscape
> Which boils down to a rigorous mathematical problem
Sure it may. But it doesn't help the "theory" to become physical anyway.

What's the quickest, math-focused introduction to this topic I could have as a maths major?

File: dimensions.gif (2KB, 456x248px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 456x248px

>>8723615
>>8723596
At plank length, a 1 dimensional line has no height.

>>8723625
>Show me.
Go open a String Theory textbook.

>Simply. Solve. This. Problem. And. Only. Then. You. Can. Call. It. A. Physical. Theory

That is a retarded mindset. Einstein's field equations do not admit a general solution, does that mean General Relativity is not a physical theory?

>Sure it may. But it doesn't help the "theory" to become physical anyway.

I am not arguing physical relevance, I am arguing mathematical self-consistency.

>>8723633
>https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Symmetry-Clay-Mathematics-Monographs/dp/0821829556/

For a lower-level introduction.

>https://www.amazon.com/Dirichlet-Branes-Symmetry-Mathematics-Monographs/dp/0821838482

This if you already know your geometry.

>>8723650
>Go open a String Theory textbook.
Ok, you failed.

> That is a retarded mindset. Einstein's field equations do not admit a general solution, does that mean General Relativity is not a physical theory?
Einstein's equations admit uniform approximate solutions. In QFT, the workaround is renormalization. In string "theory", there is no way to make computations whatsoever. Nobody has figured out it yet. It's not even clear whether it's possible at all.

> I am not arguing physical relevance, I am arguing mathematical self-consistency.
No way. No physical theory can be mathematically self-consistent whenever it includes arithmetic. I've already given a definition of mathematical soundedness of a physical theory to you.

>>8723661
>Ok, you failed.
I am not going to type up an entire renormalization computation for a 4chan post.

>there is no way to make computations whatsoever

For the 100th time, this depends on the specific string theory. It is possible in the easier models, and the computations are readily available if you actually bother to look them up.

>No physical theory can be mathematically self-consistent whenever it includes arithmetic

Wtf are you talking about

>>8723666
It's funny how you keep contradicting yourself.

> Wtf are you talking about
Google incompleteness theorems

>>8723676
Gödel's incompleteness theorems do not state that axiomatic systems containing arithmetic are inherently inconsistent. Are you dumb, or just trolling?

>>8723686
> inherently inconsistent
Oooops. Seems like you shit in your pants. You said "self-consistent". Now, you say "inherently inconsistent". So who is dumb here?

>>8718394
>>8723402
>>8723420
>>8723436
>>8723476
>>8723494
>>8723509
>>8723512
>>8723522
>>8723536
>>8723543
>>8723554
>>8723562
>>8723573
>>8723577
>>8723582
>>8723584
>>8723594
>>8723607
>>8723625
>>8723650
>>8723661
>>8723666
>>8723676
>>8723686
>>8723690
/thread

File: 10d.jpg (8KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 220x220px

How are superstrings classified as 1 dimensional strings if they take up 10 dimensions?

>>8723705
Are you retarded?

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-05 at 14.58.38.png (278KB, 1220x683px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1220x683px

In bosonic string theory, what are the 26 dimensions?

>>8723706
String theorists say they are 1 dimensional because of how small they are.

>>8723707
see >>8721700

>>8723735
But those only explain 10 dimensions. What about the other 16?

>>8723736
Wew lad

>>8718393

I know nothing about string theory. Does string theory have any proposed explanation for probabilistic distribution of particles in quantum mechanics?

>>8721700
>People are actually falling for the 10 dimension bait
Come on guys, this is a really old meme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4Gotl9vRGs

>>8718398

So basically energy states dictate the behaviour of some uniform material? Everything is a string just at a different energetic state?

>>8723740
String theory suggests that the standard model particles are created by these small vibrating strings of energy, and depending on how they vibrate changes the particle they make.

>>8723745
Well kinda. Look over some other posts in this thread to give yourself a better understanding.

>>8723745
Basically depending on how they vibrate changes the particle that they will create

File: diagram.gif (15KB, 400x190px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x190px

>>8723745
>>8723740
This diagram might help.

>>8723447
What's the difference between a brane and a D-brane?

>>8721700
This sounds something like the Japanese seven levels of hell lol

>>8723802
What the fuck are you saying

>>8723802
What are the japanese 7 levels of hell?

>>8718393
So basically strings vibrate on these calabi-yau manifolds, and if we can calculate the size and state of the calabi-yau manifold we could calculate the vibration of a string, therefore calculating the particle it creates, right?

>>8723832
I'm saying that the anon's description of the dimensions (which was copied from this crackpot website: http://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/12/16/heres-visual-guide-10-dimensions-reality/) sounds similar to the descriptions of different levels of hell in Japanese folklore. How the fuck could you not understand that.

>>8723875
https://www.tofugu.com/japan/japanese-hells/

>>8723946
Ultracuture is such a shitty ass website. I got it from here you fag http://www.universetoday.com/48619/a-universe-of-10-dimensions/

>>8723946
>ANIMATRONIC HELL
kek

>>8723744
What a shitty meme

>>8723961
>universetoday
Doesn't make it any less bullshit.
>dimension of all imaginable possibilities
topkek. You would have to be a retard to believe that the author knew what he was talking about.

>>8723969
ok anon you've made your point

>>8723969
kek

>>8722535
Is that all the standard model can calculate?

>>8723402
Scientists are hyped about string theory because if it exists, a shit ton of science shit will start making sense.

>>8723644
Yes. It would be 1 particle high.

>>8723607
>Specific string theories can do this
Which ones exactly?

>>8724283
Wrong

>>8724288
A 1 dimensional line would still have height technically.

What's the best book to start learning String Theory for someone who has had QFT but forgot most of it except the most important stuff?

>>8724389
If you want to learn string theory I would recommend briefly reviewing QFT before reading any books.

A first course in string theory by Zwiebach is probably the simplest undergraduate textbook on the topic.
Though it goes too slow for someone who's already learned some QFT.

A nice introductory set of lecture notes on bosonic string theory are done by Tong (just google "tong string theory"). Its first chapter has a page with his opinions on different references which I mostly agree with.

>>8724612
Ok, thanks. I was going to just speed through Zwiebach, review Schwartz again for QFT, and I guess I will use Tong's lecture notes and then maybe move on to Polchinski and/or B/B/S afterward. Do you think this is something you could get through in a year and a half or so? I'm a NEET at the moment.

>>8724389
A good book would be The Elegant Universe. For the basics.

>>8724612
Any other books on the QFT subject?

>>8725545
It also has some interesting ideas.

>>8725546
my favorites are Schwartz's book and also Duncan's Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory, which helped me to understand why a lot of things are the way they are in QFT.

>>8724612
the textbooks that these came from might teach you the mathematical aspect: >>8718719 >>8718723

>>8721687
Yes

>>8722539
What other particle could prove supersymmetry's existence?

File: Susy-particles.jpg (67KB, 579x333px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 579x333px

>>8725588
Proving the existence of sparticles (supersymmetry particles).

>>8723447
>itt: a buncha p-branes

File: cern.png (151KB, 488x723px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 488x723px

>>8722539
>>8725588
>>8725605
Page 83 of the book PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WORKSHOP ON
PHYSICS AT FUTURE ACCELERATORS

>>8721687
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

ok so what i dont get about string theory is that past the 4th dimension into the 5th, things get so messy that my mind has difficulty imagining that the 5th dimension is even a real thing.

>>8725588
The theoretical counterparts to the particles of the standard model. Haven't found any yet which is a blow to the theory because they should be around the same mass as their counterpart

>>8725651
yes, indeed. This might help: >>8721251

>>8725662
like in here (>>8725605)?

>>8725673
Yes

>>8725693
Do sparticles exist or are they purely theoretical?

>>8718686
Lol that's a fucking meme

>>8725799
Its not an meemay you degeneratefag >>8722379

>>8723396
It doesn't go into depth about dimensions though.

>>8725753
Pure theory for now. Supersymmetry is one of a few proposed theories that would plug some gaps in the standard model. We expected to find some sparticles when the LHC started doing experiments, haven't found anything yet.