a delayed response to String Theory expert - theoretical physicist Michio Kaku
in [Physics]
|
Prev: UNDERSTAND: China, India, Africa, Araby, they hold NO SECRETS
Next: Kip Thorne. Objects do not fall faster than light in a black hole
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Aug 2010 22:00 On Aug 3, 9:49 pm, fitz <zeus...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Do the strings of String Theory act like standing waves or waves that > transmit energy? ------------------------------------------ As Zippy said long ago: 'They act like furiously vibrating bed springs". So I guess they transmit energy. Or Not. Anything goes these days.
From: spudnik on 4 Aug 2010 15:50 may depend upon whether open or closed strings, like in musical instruments. thus quoth: Do the strings of String Theory act like standing waves or waves that transmit energy? thus: how many points on your little star, fool?... seriously, numbertheory is the only place where numbers are dimensionless, and a lot of us prefer to stay with rationals, like Fermatttt.... though fine scientists like Bellman assert that matrices (linear algebra) is the "higher arithmetic," it is numbertheorie, or Gauss's "queen of the sciences," with the consort being left to implication. (for instance, look at Stevin's _The Decimals_ .-) one has only to look at the Fermat curves, to see that his "last" theorem is indeed geometrical, as also seen in teh abstruse Wiles proof using "elliptic curves." > There is a new sheriff in town and he's bringing the New Math. thus: the climate is changing rapidly, and, yet, "glasshouse warming" is totally differential from front to back w.r.t Sun, or from poles to equator, "globally." thus: I've read of Muslim places where deforestation is a nearly totalistic endeavor, for lumber, and that's a big factor. and, "global" warming actually is predominantly tropical, and that is just a big, fat Duh. thus: no; I want to know what they say about it, not the "yeah or neigh" and the CVs -- lies, polls, statistics. > Anyone wants to guess who the 3 dissending climatologists are ? thus: there is no such a thing as a Nobel in econ., probably for the same reason that there isn't one for math, but I don't know that Krugman knows this, or that his editor would allow him to publish it. however, the official title is "the Swedish Bank Prize [etc.]." --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net --Light, A History! http://wlym.com
From: Raymond Yohros on 8 Aug 2010 13:49 On Aug 3, 8:49 pm, fitz <zeus...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > a delayed response to String Theory expert - theoretical physicist > Michio Kaku > > Do the strings of String Theory act like standing waves or waves that > transmit energy? > this is the true nature of strings. strings (or strands) give structure to waves and particles in 3 dimensions. they themselfs are waves and the intersection points are what we call particles r.y
From: Darwin123 on 8 Aug 2010 15:42 On Aug 3, 9:49 pm, fitz <zeus...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > a delayed response to String Theory expert - theoretical physicist > Michio Kaku > > Do the strings of String Theory act like standing waves or waves that > transmit energy? > I don't know string theory and have only read popularized summaries. However, I think the heuristic "trick" with string theory is not what carries the energy. The strings can be standing or traveling waves. My conjecture: The trick is that the amplitude of the wave in one dimension is proportional to the wave vector of the wave in another dimension. Hence the total energy, not just the energy quantum, is proportional to a frequency. Yep, this is something I don't know very well. Comments by people who study strings, mathematically, would be helpful.
From: Raymond Yohros on 8 Aug 2010 16:18
On Aug 8, 2:42 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 9:49 pm, fitz <zeus...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> a delayed response to String Theory expert - theoretical physicist > > Michio Kaku > > > Do the strings of String Theory act like standing waves or waves that > > transmit energy? > > I don't know string theory and have only read popularized > summaries. However, I think the heuristic "trick" with string theory > is not what carries the energy. The strings can be standing or > traveling waves. > Standing Waves? all i know are traveling waves. > My conjecture: The trick is that the amplitude of the wave in > one dimension is proportional to the wave vector of the wave in > another dimension. Hence the total energy, not just the energy > quantum, is proportional to a frequency. > Yep, this is something I don't know very well. Comments by people > who study strings, mathematically, would be helpful. > waves are always traveling and they exist in 3 dimensions. the confusions comes in terms of properties, harmonics, etc. properties of matenergy dont count as x-tradimentions. r.y |