'Superstring Theory Is A Bit Controversial,' Theoretical Physicist Mark Jackson

[James]

Cara Santa Maria

 
'Superstring Theory Is A Bit Controversial,' Theoretical Physicist Mark Jackson Explains (VIDEO)

Posted: 12/17/2012 3:41 am EST  |  Updated: 12/17/2012 11:55 am EST


Have you ever heard the term string theory and wondered WTF it means? When it comes to theoretical physics, it seems like there are a lot of larger-than-life concepts that have made their way into our everyday conversations. But how often do we stop to understand what they represent? What is superstring theory? What can it tell us about where we came from, where we're going? Why should we even care?

I had the opportunity to ask theoretical cosmologist and, as it happens, one of Chicago's most eligible bachelors (no lie!), Mark Jackson, to help me learn more about superstring theory. Watch the video above for a primer. And don't forget to sound off by leaving your comments below. Come on, talk nerdy to me!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/superstring-theory_n_2296195.html?utm_hp_ref=science

[James]

[James]

 Light is "according to theory" packets of photos that are released when an electron cools and drops to a lower orbital (or electron shell). So in order for anything to produce light, the quarks (or whatever) had to cool enough to form atoms Space itself would always be transparent as long as nothing is blocking the light.

So in short; before 380,000 years after the Big Bang, there was light being produced. Now if we figure out what EM fields Quantum particles put out, we could "See" to times earlier than that.

[James]

Sort of the same feeling physicists had when Einstein first proposed his relativity theories.
It took nearly half a century and several billions of dollars for the physical scientists to get up to the point of being able to test if he was correct. It has always amazed me that mathematicians can blaze so far ahead of the rest of us just by manipulating numbers and letters.

[James]

The "guitar string" explanation seems limited. I shows how different vibrations can be perceived differently, but it still seems vague. The way I look at it is in relation to a demonstration I saw a professor of mine do (no, not "that" professor).

To demonstrate energy levels, my first year chemistry professor took a rope and had a student hold one end firm. The professor then took the other end and shook it up and down. The result was a single oscillating wave in the rope. He then shook it harder and faster and the result was two oscillating waves, with a "non-moving" point in the middle. Faster still, and he got three.

Although it was an example of energy levels, it also demonstrated how a one-dimensional object could create the appearance of more than one dimension. During the vibration, the "one-dimensional" rope appeared to take on a second dimension in the form of the wave.

Imagine such a "string" vibrating billions of times faster and you might see how it can appear to look like a particle.

[James]

 VitriolAndAngst2006

My own theory of the double slit experiment is that light is a field, that "exchanges energy" as a packet. So it's forced to "contract" to one slit when a path must be taken, and propagates again as a field.

We have particles perhaps, because this is the manifestation in 4 dimensions of waves vibrating in 12 dimensions. The Photon exchanges energy only with the "peak" of another particle wave. Thus "quantum" is not a phenomenon of packets, but a phenomenon of resonance. Think of waves on water passing through each other; the only time they truly interact is if one wave is exactly in phase with another (amplification), or at their peaks (interference), or when one wave is exactly the opposite of another (reduction).

We use "three dimensional Universe" too often; it's really 4 dimensions with the last being time.