String Theory General

Ok.

No more than the standard model does

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

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

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?

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

So it does! Stringlets btfo

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.

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

No, it's the Hamiltonian.

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.

What is it?

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

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

They do.

...

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

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.

Not the same user, 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).

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

[spoiler] cuck [/spoiler]

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

What makes a particle an antimatter particle?

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

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

Invert all the quantum numbers.

Numbers are abstract. What are physical quantum numbers user?

Wew lad.

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.

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

What is the critical dimension?

Likely the 10th dimension.

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

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?

cuck

>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

String theory has some cancer in it

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

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

Take your pedophile meme physics back to .
Veeky Forums is a board for true physics

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.

BTFO brainlet

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

do they know what every other dimension is?

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

>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.

see

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

rip headphones

this

s u c c

So the graviton is created by a closed string vibration?

Pretty much

Is string theory really that important tho?

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

autosage

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.

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

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.

cuck

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

Why -1/12 tho?

user'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.

this

So much hate in this thread.

String theory is a perfectly acceptable field of mathematics.

Indeed, and it also has nice theoretical physics

Not theoretical physics.
Mathematics.

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

What is a hamiltonian?

this

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

No, actually.

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.

Thanks, Reddit.

youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww&feature=youtu.be

>QCL fag
wut

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.

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.

>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.

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

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

The standard model can't calculate gravity though.

What does the standard model calculate, exactly?

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

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.

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