ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2025
- John Schwarz
California Institute of Technology
July 13, 2008
First of two lectures where John Schwarz presents Some of the Basics of Superstring Theory at the Prospects in Theoretical Physics 2008 summer workshop.
Video can also be found here: video.ias.edu
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 96 | คู่เอก "คมอาวุธ vs พันฤทธิ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ofERaO0gOsE/mqdefault.jpg)
Easy to understand when he is explaining it 😁
Does anyone know a good vid to watch which might be a pre-requisite to watching this?
I've done a Physics degree but this looks very unfamiliar....
Just saying that labeling things doesn't actually explain the physical property or measurement it represents.
GREAT...
JOHN SWARZ...
The first 10 minutes were quite comprehensible.
Yes that basically sums up the first 6 chapters in his book, which is a good read, though I have only read the few chapters
"... string theory has lots of dimensions ... dimension 26 - that's the critical dimension for the bosonic string ..." Why are the higher dimensions of string theory controversial among several prominent critics of string theory? What is the main problem with string theory? Is MOND relevant to string theory?
arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3907v1.pdf “The failures of the standard model of cosmology require a new paradigm” by Kroupa, Pawlowski & Milgrom, 2013
No, it isn't.
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/139/meta McGaugh, S., & Milgrom, M. (2013). Andromeda dwarfs in light of MOND. II. Testing prior predictions. The Astrophysical Journal, 775(2), 139.
David Brown
No relevance for string theory.
darkmattercrisis.wordpress.com/author/pkroupa/
According to McGaugh and Kroupa, in all the empirical tests they have studied, MOND's predictions are better, or as good, as dark matter particle theory satisfying Newtonian-Einsteinian dynamics.
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2873/where-does-the-10500-estimate-for-the-number-of-stringy-vacua-come-from
The implication is that string theory as presently understood is wrong for every possible stringy vacuum - simply because Newtonian-Einsteinian dynamics contradicts (non-relativistic) MOND. It is an unsolved problem as to what relativistic MOND theory is.
It seems sad that there isn't a good starting point for this subject that is easily accessible to the average person, kind of like how you can find a general explanation on how to take a derivative in calculus that starts off with limits and then shows the general rules for different equations. It seems like there are just hard to understand explanations that never fully explain the basics and overly basic explanations that don't show any math at all! Neither one are very useful for someone just trying to understand the basics enough to understand how the theory even represents anything at all.
It kind of reminds me of a crazy person explaining some conspiracy theory, but it just sounds like gibberish because what all this math represents isn't explained or clear in any fashion to someone is just starting to learn about the subject. It seems like he would have pointed us to some basic explanations to start so we could understand what he's talking about. Maybe they shouldn't have put "Basic" in the title of the video.
Still pretending string theory isn't a disaster?
Dirac would not have liked this....
I'm afraid,that this 26 dimensions thing is not right...on the long run. The Heim theory will make the race...says a non physicians:(
Just because I get a better access to it...:)
what a bunch of scientific gibberish
Experimentation is not really an acquisition of science or of the scientific method by itself. It is an old acquisition of mankind one of whose expressions was the creation of technology, the gadgets we have learnt to make. Science is an structure on top that at certain point has pretended to be the last expression of all what lies underneath.... for example for example all the pretentions of this mathematical gibberish with little connection with nature: Theory of everything.. ....on what kind of nasty drug are they? EGOine?
I only believe science that I don't understand.