NOVA Reminder - String Theory

[Supercharts]

On 10/28 NOVA [a well respected PBS Science program] will feature a report by Brian Green discussing his 1999 book "The Elegant Universe". It's a 3 hour program in, I believe, 2 parts.
I found Greene's writing to be very good in explaining physics. I will admit that his explanations of string theory are the best I have read but it still confuses me to no end. I'm looking forward to the visual explanations on the program especially 11 dimensions.
This subject was also the cover story in this months Scientific American - but it was more of an interview of Greene rather than a further explanation of his book.
The PBS web site will make available streaming video of the programs as they are broadcast so if you miss this program it's available on the web.

edited to correct date

 

[bignickel]

I believe the program is on Tuesday of next week ie 10/28.

I marked it on my calender a month ago.

 

[davefoc]

Thanks for the info. I'm going to try to remember to watch it.

I read the interview, but I was disapointed that Scientific American devoted there cover which was as you said nothing more than an interview.

 

[espritch]

I'm looking forward to the visual explanations on the program especially 11 dimensions.

I'm kind of thinking that they're not going to be able to give you a visual explanation of 11 dimensions.

But thanks for mentioning the show. It sounds interesting. I'll have to try to catch it myself.

 

[tracer]

An old Scientific American article I saw had a pretty neat way of representing more than 3 dimensions.

They showed a 2-dimensional graph, foreshortened as though you were looking at it edge on, and at every intersection point on the graph they drew a sphere with latitude and longitude lines on which they plotted actual data points. The caption read, "Each sphere is tangent to the main graph at every point on the sphere."

 

[xouper]

Supercharts: The PBS web site will make available streaming video of the programs as they are broadcast so if you miss this program it's available on the web.

Here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

 

[RussDill]

I hope its not during the joe schmo special

 

[espritch]

I hope its not during the joe schmo special

Well, if it is, I can pretty much garontee it will get lower ratings.

Sigh. I weep for the species.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

bump

 

[EdipisReks]

ooh! ooh! it's about to come on. if it's as interesting as the Archimedes Palimpsest espisode, it should be great.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I know all that trivial kindergarten string theory stuff and can do the calculations in my head.

I don't know how Joe Schmoe will end, however.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I taped it, so don't tell me how the universe ends.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Can superstring whatever theory predict the outcome of reality tv shows? I think not!!!!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, at first I was concerned. Seemed like it should be subtitled "Disco String Theory and Overdone Graphics." But it got better and the second half was quite interesting.

Edward Witten is an absolute kick. You gotta love the guy. I also liked Glashow wondering whether string theory is physics or philosophy.

But what was up with the scene where they were calculating a number for each side of the board? They got 462 on one side and really needed to get the same number on the other. Bingo! But I thought the answer was 42.

~~ Paul

 

[EdipisReks]

that wasn't as good as i was hoping. the constant repitition and the fact that it was all stuff i knew already wasn't quite balanced out by the neato visuals. hopefully the next part gets into more theoretical meat and potatoes.

 

[T'ai Chi]

When will people learn there is no 'final description'?

Some thoughts:

How many years until they come up with another candidate theory of everything?

The universe might really be 'turtles all the way down' if one can keep probing further and further and further. They'll always keep finding smaller parts.

What makes up a string? What causes a string's vibration? What note do they make?

The 'Newton came up with the theory of gravity after an apple fell on him' is probably one of those lovely myths of science.

From the program, the statement "The universe is not nonsensical. It has got to make sense." is a purely human view. The universe is not required to bend to our will. In fact, it might not make any sense in the big picture, despite making sense on smaller mathematical scales.

In fact, as someone on the program states, if you can't test it, it isn't science, it is probably philosophy. That is a major point: In science, what happens when we get, for example, to smaller and smaller scales where we get to a point where we can't test for things?

Where are the experiments that back up string theory?

Talk about story-telling animals...11 dimensions... sheesh!

What is more probable, at super super super small unobservable scales there are
extra dimensions we can only hint at mathematically, or there is only x,y,z and time, which are proven for certain?

 

[Dylab]

Re: When will people learn there is no 'final description'?

Some thoughts:

How many years until they come up with another candidate theory of everything?

Considering the general lack of success except for maybe one theory then I'm guessing it will be a while.

What makes up a string? What causes a string's vibration? What note do they make?

I'm no expert but it seems to me that asking what makes up a string is no different then asking what makes up a electron in the more traditional science. From what I read of Brian Green's book the uncertainty principle causes the string to vibrate although I can't give a complete description of how. I could be mistaken though.

In fact, as someone on the program states, if you can't test it, it isn't science, it is probably philosophy. That is a major point: In science, what happens when we get, for example, to smaller and smaller scales where we get to a point where we can't test for things?

I'm sure there are many theories in the past that could not be at first supported by direct evidence. String theory right now predicts the existance of large particles as a result of supersymetry which could be tested even now if the US wasn't so cheap and stopped making the SuperCondcting Super Collider. Furthemore as the theory progess it ought to make more testable predictions.

What is more probable, at super super super small unobservable scales there are
extra dimensions we can only hint at mathematically, or there is only x,y,z and time, which are proven for certain?

What is more probable that atoms are immutable undividable particles or that they have smaller constituents.

P.S. The roll-eyes icon makes my blood boil. See for yourself.

 

[Quasi]

Well, at first I was concerned. Seemed like it should be subtitled "Disco String Theory and Overdone Graphics." But it got better and the second half was quite interesting.

~~ Paul

Heh,

My brother did the graphics for the show, I will pass the message on.

 

[EdipisReks]

Heh,

My brother did the graphics for the show, I will pass the message on.

if that is the case, tell him he did a very good job. the Quantum Cafe, in particular, was very cool.

 

[bignickel]

I thought the show kicked ass. It's about time that someone was willing to spend this kind of money to bring advanced science to the public (and yes, the show was advanced. basic science would be a 'planets in the solar system' show).

All those UFO shows on the SciFi & Discover channels regularly get this kind of money and production values. It's about time that science shows did to. The usual way that this thing would have done would be them showing a bunch of interviews with people and a few leftover CGI graphics from other shows over the past 5 years.

I tried to look at the show from the perspective of someone who's not overly familiar with science: you can't just toss them in, sink or swim. I thought the first hour was a good intro, and from there on I think the representations of the 'quantam world' were terrific: there to hook the viewer with the bizarre world of the micro, and keep them coming back for more.

I'm not sure what else you could ask for. Teaching Quantum theory? In 2 2hour episodes? Ain't gonna happen. You'd lose most of your audience in the first 10 minutes. The show was an overview: designed to get people intrigued enough to buy some books on the subject if they wanted to know more.

Considering the lack of appeal of science to today's students, I think it's a great approach to bring more people into the sciences rather than the humanities. Although some scientists on this board urge youngsters to get a stable 'real' job, as an English major, I urge just the opposite: Learn how the universe works! Don't waste your college career reading endless amounts of fiction!

Can't wait to get home tonight and see the rest.