KipIngram Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 For anyone who's interested, I stumbled across this during the weekend: https://cquest-studygroup.wikispaces.com/file/view/A+First+Course+in+String+Theory.pdf I'm finding it very clear, very informative, and very enjoyable. Maybe it just happens to be at just the right "level" for me, given my prior knowledge. I just thought there might be others out there it would be suitable for as well. So, hope it's helpful to some folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity_Boy Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) Shouldn't String Hypothesis be more like it? I don't believe it has been proven in enough tests and observations to really qualify as a theory in the scientific sense of the word. To me all that stuff peaked and had it's fifteen minutes with Brian Green and his Elegant Universe. Are not the string apologists just using QMs probability waves as evidence for their hypothesis? And they've nothing else from observations or experiments to base ST on? Maybe I'm overly cynical but to me it's all part of Pop Physics. Or even philosophy? As posited here........ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-theory-science/ Edited April 17, 2017 by Velocity_Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) Reported. It is against SF rules to hinge a thread on only a video link. This is done in an effort to prevent trolling. Besides, String Hypothesis is more like it. I don't believe it has been proven in enough tests and observations to really qualify as a theory in the scientific sense of the word. Since when did a pdf become a video? It doesn't have an iota of proof or evidence yet but quite a few of the brightest scientists are working on it, not least Edward Witten. Edited April 17, 2017 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity_Boy Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 Since when did a pdf become a video? It doesn't have an iota of proof or evidence yet but quite a few of the brightest scientists are working on it, not least Edward Witten. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/#3f4595c06524 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipIngram Posted April 18, 2017 Author Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) I'm not sure exactly what is up here, but I was just trying to share what I found to be a very readable book about a subject I've found it very hard to "crack into," so to speak. I can't tell from the above if it was my original post that was a possible rules violation, but if so I'm extremely sorry. I didn't have any intention of trying to advocate for or against string theory / string hypothesis or whatever - I just thought the material was presented in a very understandable way. I don't know nearly enough about it to be taking a position on it - I'm just trying to learn. Just to be totally clear (maybe I should have said this better in the original post), my reasoning for pointing out the book was not to promote string-related stuff. What I found praise-worthy was the manner of presentation (the step-by-step building up of the apparatus, such that even a complete novice in the subject like me was able to follow along). Edited April 18, 2017 by KipIngram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) I'm not sure exactly what is up here, but I was just trying to share what I found to be a very readable book about a subject I've found it very hard to "crack into," so to speak. I can't tell from the above if it was my original post that was a possible rules violation, but if so I'm extremely sorry. I didn't have any intention of trying to advocate for or against string theory / string hypothesis or whatever - I just thought the material was presented in a very understandable way. I don't know nearly enough about it to be taking a position on it - I'm just trying to learn. Just to be totally clear (maybe I should have said this better in the original post), my reasoning for pointing out the book was not to promote string-related stuff. What I found praise-worthy was the manner of presentation (the step-by-step building up of the apparatus, such that even a complete novice in the subject like me was able to follow along). He's just being pedantic over a word. He has a problem with abiogenesis as well. Llke dark energy and dark matter were thought of as placeholders, string theory is being worked on because there's a problem with GR. Edited April 18, 2017 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Its a good book thanks for sharing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Shouldn't String Hypothesis be more like it? Theoretical physicists use the word "theory" rather differently than experimental physicists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now