The Superstring, can it be?

[Hank]

I forgot who it was but one guy wanted to discuss Superstring theory. :o
I did a google and found this brief report which is four years old.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9709/9709062.pdf

I am only asking who accepts the superstring and why, and can they give other more up to date papers. I am open to this and but have not much thought about it. - Sure if you don't accept superstring you should post here too. Also, are there more than one superstring theories out there? Again papers please.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I doubt that anyone here has the physics or math training to discuss superstring theory. I know that I don't.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I'm no expert. Morat is the physics buff here. If I'm not horribly mistaken, though, there is no "superstring theory." Supersrtring theory (in the abstract) shows promise, but no solutions yet that are completely consistent with the construction of the universe as we observe it. Superstrings equations can be solved many different ways, representing different string geometries, and each giving different predictions about the strength of fundamental forces, number of fundamental particles, etc. So far no solution has been found that answers the goal of unifying the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces satisfactorily - and the goal of unifying gravity with them seems almost out of reach. Most scientists seem to think that they will work out a superstring type theory that does accomplish this and does match observation.

That much said, take it all with a grain of salt - 'cause I just don't know that I'm right about any of it.

 

[David Gould]

The most current theory is M Theory (M is for Membrane or Mystery)

The Official String <B>Theory</B> Web Site

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml

http://fisica.usac.edu.gt/public/curccaf_proc/quevedo1/

&nbsp;

Some of it is too technical for me, but the BBC thing was pretty interesting and relatively easy to understand.

 

[Morat]

There is, IIRC, a difference betwee string theory. which is a competing (if woefully incomplete) model with the Standard model, and superstrings.

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by Morat
There is, IIRC, a difference betwee string theory. which is a competing (if woefully incomplete) model with the Standard model, and superstrings.

You are right - my bad. Bloody scientists not naming things better, I don't know, &lt;grumble, gripe, whinge, complain&gt;

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Hank
I forgot who it was but one guy wanted to discuss Superstring theory. :o
I did a google and found this brief report which is four years old.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9709/9709062.pdf

I am only asking who accepts the superstring and why, and can they give other more up to date papers. I am open to this and but have not much thought about it. - Sure if you don't accept superstring you should post here too. Also, are there more than one superstring theories out there? Again papers please.

I accept string theory I am not saying I understand all of it I am only know starting to study it and to understand a little bit of the theory. And why I accept it cause I am trying to learn as much as I can about physics.

 

[Morat]

I don't accept String Theory. Despite the name, it remains a hypothesis. I'm withholding judgement for the time being. Now, if they can show gravity leakage....

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Morat
I don't accept String Theory. Despite the name, it remains a hypothesis. I'm withholding judgement for the time being. Now, if they can show gravity leakage....

Well so far I don't know either way. Still having a hard time imagining multiple dimensions.

Me being the resident ignoramus, as we all know, am asking,: what on earth is gravity leakage?

 

[Morat]

One of the predictions of brane theory (the current top dog in string theory), if I remember correctly, is that the reason gravity is so weak compared to the other fundamental forces, is because gravity "leaks" into a host of other dimensions, besides the obvious three we live in.