Well I was having a good conversation about string theory yesterday and found it amazingly stimulating for my mind. So I figure, lets continue this conversation. For those not understanding String theory too much heres a string theory site that may help <a href='http://superstringtheory.com/basics/' target='_blank'>http://superstringtheory.com/basics/</a> Do you think this will lead us to unification?

A great thread i found on string theory It is against the philosophy of string theory to imagine that the worldsheet is "made of" individual worldlines. This would mean that on the two-dimensional worldsheet, there is a preferred direction of time at each point - this direction would describe the direction of the worldline of the point-like particle. On the worldsheet of a string, all directions are treated democratically. In fact, the two-dimensional theory that describes the internal dynamics of the worldsheet has a much bigger group of symmetries: the general diffeomorphism symmetry: this theory is a two-dimensional counterpart of general relativity and implies that all "reference frames" are equally good in formulating the physical laws. Any extra structure of lines (or choice of coordinates) that you imagine on the worldsheet is unphysical. If we look at a particular point P of the string at time t_2, it is not possible to say where this point of the string was at time t_1. In fact, this feature helps string theory to regulate short-distance divergences because it is also impossible to say exactly at which point of the stringy worldsheet (imagine the pants diagram) the interaction occured. The string worldsheet has another symmetry - the Weyl symmetry that allows one to multiply the worldsheet metric by an arbitrary scalar function of the worldsheet coordinates. This symmetry, together with the diffeomorphism symmetry, forms "conformal symmetry" - and therefore the two-dimensional theory describing the worldsheet is a "conformal field theory", a theory whose local dynamics only depends on the angles, not the distances. The Weyl symmetry guarantees that the string carries no information about its "density" of particles - it only matters which curve (or worldsheet) it spans in spacetime, but it does not matter how you parameterize the string or the worldsheet. All these things mean that you should be very careful when you try to imagine the string as a family of point-like particles. Despite all these facts, we can often encounter situations in string theory that allow us to describe the string as a composite of point-like particles called the "string bits". String bits can be identified in Matrix string theory or the PP-wave limit of AdS/CFT correspondence. There are other extended objects in string theory - such as D-branes - and the discussion would have to be changed a bit for them. For example, they are not invariant under conformal symmetry, and on the other hand, a D-brane of dimension "p" can be usefully imagined as a bound state of D-branes of smaller dimensionalities p-2k.

Hmm... string theory seems rather interesting... I wonder if it ultimately takes into account chaos theory, post modernism, shroedinger's cat (did I spell that right?) and Dirk Gently....

Well actually Zap i can program in some software. But most of it is for solving mathamatical problems using matlab, fortran, C++ and Maple. Not quite the programming your thinking of but it is programming none the less.

Chaos theory is complete BS. And Fluffy, what exactly do you do by "solving the mathematical equations" are you a game designer or something? I can program in VB, C sharp and C ++, once you learn one langauge its all relative

no, not that sort of thing but engineering solutions, basically repetitive complicated mathematical equations.

oh i get you. Screw that. i prefer simply to work around parts i dont understand by piecing together with what i do understand

lol, doesnt work for me unfortunatly. I have to design things that wont fail cause if they do its my head in the chopping block. Good news is i get to spend lots of money. circa $1 million a year

lol Well in programming general programs you tend to figure things out by just splitting it into smaller parts. before you know it you solve that little bastard of a problem you couldnt get around. Kind of like unification. I believe string theory could be solved quicker, not by trying to go directly to the base but instead trying to look at each part seperately. TWe have used calculous etc to map how starts, the sun etc move But I have yet to see the mathematical equation for how a human moves, breathes, or does much.

I do know the fundamentals of programming and can indeed program at a basic level in that way, just never have had a need to do any of it. But thats why your the programmer and im the engineer. as for string theory we could also solve it easier using basic KT methods of PA, PPA, SA and tool such as wishbone charts. But easier isnt easy still. lol

We're all individuals!!!! So it's a bit tough to find mathematical equations for human beings... You're getting very much into Douglas Adams here... if only he were alive to solve the whole thing, eh? And chaos theory is great... brilliant. Something you can't explain? Chaos theory! I guess you guys are looking at it in a logical perspective. I'm not... I guess I'm more the analogous thinking. However, one must understand that humans are not logical creatures.

However what is the idea of string theory? Unification! How can you have unification if you cant explain humans, or even their movement. I suggest you start explaining the things you cans ee and know about before trying to tackle something we do not know about

Ok... have you read The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul and Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency? For some odd reason it takes all the time travel stuff, a close approximation of string theory and a little chaos and comes out with a fabbo story... Ok, maybe not pertinent to the discussion but still worthwhile mentioning. Well, you can't explain humans... so therefore you can't have unification... so string theory is a theory. A nice one but still a theory. And totally incomprehensible when taking into account chaos and post-modernism.

I couldnt really get into any of Adams other books, just hithikers. I think you can explain humans, we arent talking about explaining the mental capacity, volume or structure of anyone. Unification does not aim at the emotional. It is an attempt to unify an explanation of the universe and everything in it on a structural level via mathematics. Explaining a human on the emotional level will be a very difficult thing to completely achieve. But I think you were thinking of the explantion of an emotional creature as compared to the movement or structure there of. Through unification you should be able to predict certain movements, the chemistry and make up of all things in the universe