Twenty Years After

Intersting article, Mr. Gill.
Some more references for people interested-
http://superstringtheory.com/ is a good site. I remember seeing an interview of Brian Greene . He seemed pretty funny and intelligent. I would pick his book if this subject ever moves me enough.Also sci am articles are fantastic.
Shobig, I think modern physics is mostly mathematics,isnt it?

Mr. cayenna:

Did I say something funny?

According to Webster`s Unabridged Dictionary, a compeer is ``an equal; a peer; a person of the same rank or status.`` This is exactly what I meant. So, what is so funny about compeers?

I wish you had made some comments on the article rather than worrying about my ``own good.`` The article is much more interesting than our persona.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 11

You are hilarious.You have reinforced everything i think about you in your response.`String Theory` indeed!!.

and among my compeers.

.............compeers????.......haha.....have a good one.

Don`t worry Amrita. Very few truly intelligent people are condescending, so if someone is, it`s more than likely he/she is making up for some real/imagined inadequacy ;-)

M G - thank you! will look them up.

irfan - thanks for the links and carl sagan too... i keep eyeing him, maybe now I`ll buy him.

shob - :(.. :((... meanie!!

Very right Dr. Gill,

String theory is actually the only `pure` theory in Physics these days, rather, its more mathematics than physics. But to say that it has failed in achieving its goal would be a bit too early. It is still a work in progress. And more and more young physicists are being attracted to it, on account of its mathmatical intuitiveness and beauty. It may not be highly predictive a theory, but provides a good mathematical tool to get rid of the various physical and mathematical anamolies that the particle physicists come across every now and then, and to answer the various questions other theories fail to address. Besides, as you mentioned, Supergravity is the only model that `naturally` incorporates gravity. Something that the Standard Model does not even bother to accomodate. So, shunning string theory, and relying only on phenomenologically viable models and theories, would simply drive us away from the big question of GRAVITY, and close the doors to further amelioration in Physics.

#2 Warpster, that`s true. India is home to some of the leading string theorists at present. I recently attended a short course given by one of them, for which he was specially invited to the UK, and I must say, It was one of the best courses I ever had in a respective field, from every aspect! India also hosts a few international conferences on String Theory annually.

#3 Amrita, to develop a know-how of the string theory, you need to develop an understanding of the group theory first, along with general relativity and special relativity, for which quantum mechanics is a pre-requisite, along with quantum field theory. And for that you will first have to learn calculus and a bit of algbra and symmetries. And so you`ll need ....hey wait, you running? :)

amrita:

One of the good books to start developing interest and some background information about the string theory is ``Superstrings: A Theory of Everything,`` by Paul Davies and J. Brown. The book was published in 1998 and is thus not quite up to date. It contains interviews with the leading physicists of the time. It`ll surely spark readers` interest in the topic. Another good book which includes some valuable and more recent information is ``The Elegant Universe: The Superstrings, Hiddien Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory,`` by Brian Greene. There are a number of other books on the subject but Davies` book, I think, will captivate you and set you on the road to understanding the outlines of the string theory from a populist view-point.

Warpster:

You`re right, there are some Indian physicists who have made some notable contributions in the field.

BeeJay:

Thanks for your interest.

cayenna:

Thanks for your concern for my ``own good.`` I assure you that I`m fine and in good (physical and mental) health. Although I don`t use Detroit Public Library these days, I have good memories about it. I came to the solution of a difficult mathematical problem in that library. I am proud of that work which gained me some significant recognition in my field and among my compeers. These days, I usually use ``Canton Public Library.`` I suggest you should also frequent some good libraries; it`ll broaden your horizon. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

@amrita,
I don`t think there are any layman`s books for string theory. It usually takes a while for experts to absorb a sophisticated subject like string theory to produce works accessible to laymen. On the other hand there are numerous layman books on quantum mechanics and general relativity. You might want to try some of Carl Sagan`s books. But you might try http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375708111/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/002-9591281-9431241?v=glance
Or you might try http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553342533/002-9591281-9431241?v=glance
this does not deal with string theory but is very interesting.

@Gill Saheb,
Maybe you should try and explain more of what (super)string theory is than to present the tug of war between the various parties. Just my two cents.

Irfan.

Dr. Gill:

I have heard the term “String Theory” a number of times, and wondered about them, but never had the time to sit down and locate the information to develop a better understanding. Thank you for this abbreviated and lucid summary, which is just the right kind to stimulate further interest into those who want to then go and seek on their own. (I will definitely try.)

Notes:

[To start with, they realized that the theory required 26 dimensions, which appeared totally outlandish.]
Also, since there weren’t that many powerful computers back in the 70’s, it would perhaps make the computational difficulties insurmountable!

[The theory is thus polemical and attracts passionate views from both sides.]
But not violent reactions, thank God! (In the lighter vein, have you noticed that the cartoonist Gary Larson has tried to imply otherwise in some of his works!)

[It went through a second revolution in 1995 with the advent of the M-theory (M for Magic, Mystery, or Matrix), which is the extended version of the string theory.]
Was there a particular logic or methodology behind adopting this nomenclature?

[‘it’s not even wrong’.]
Very intriguing! How DOES one prove the negative? (A rhetorical question, of course.)

[Glashow is dismayed that most of the young physicists have left the theory which deals with experimental data (standard model).]
Not talking specifically about string theory, roughly what would be the breakdown between sizes theoretical vs. experimental Physics research communities?


Note to #1 Cayenne
Man, don’t you know when to hold it? (Or would you like me to send TAhmed (you know the gentleman (with eleven fingers, three eyes, or two heads)) after your case?

I just saw a documentary on the BBC on this very subject a couple of weeks back and I was really excited by it! But I think the problem with write ups about such subjects is that most of it has a tendency to go right over most people`s heads. There were a whole bunch of things i didnt understand [or would have liked to know more about] in this article for example, and some of what I did understand was based on simpler explanations learnt before.

Physics is something that is deeply interesting but not all of us possess an easy understanding of it. I would like to see more such articles but I`d like to see them simplified a bit so that its more accessible even if it ends up sounding infantile and obvious to Mr. Gill and others like him who have a greater knowledge of the subject.

In the meantime, who would you recommend I read on the subject? Hawking remains the only physicist I have ever read and I`d like to expand my horizons a trifle. I`m also hampered by the fact that I dont possess an in depth knowledge of the subject and therefore need books written for the average jane rather than a physicist writing for another physicist. Thank you.

http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/programs/scientific/04-05/string-theory/strings2005/panel.html

of the top 10 ``leaders`` in this area, two are Indian (or at least have Indian names)

Dear Sir,
I think you are spending too much time at the Detroit Public Library for your own good.Why??.There are many other ways to combat loneliness and rejection.Please consult a good psychiatrist or your physician for referrals.I thank you.


Sincerely,

A well wisher.


P.S.I am not being facetious.I am concerned.