An Invitation to String Theory

[neutralino]

I noticed this paper this morning, whilst looking through the arxiv, and thought it may be useful to some people. It's rather technical, but the introduction and conclusion should be accessible to all. Here's the abstract:

It is hoped that these lectures will give a point of entry into that vast web of related ideas that go under the name "string theory". I start with a more or less qualitative introduction to gravity as a field theory and sketch how one might try to quantize it. Quantizing gravity using the usual techniques of field theory will turn out to be unsuccessful, and that will be a motivation for trying an indirect approach: string theory. I present bosonic string theory, quantize the closed string in the light cone gauge and show that one of the states in the closed string Hilbert space can be interpreted as a graviton. I will end with some general qualitative ideas on slightly more advanced topics.

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks N,what I like about string theory is that it is elegant,whether it is a real portrayal
of how it really IS,well that's another story!




regards michael.

[Lakshya]

Sorry to mind you people but why don't we support WSM as a TOE and it has experimental proofs also? ST doesn't have any proof!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[neutralino]

Sorry to mind you people but why don't we support WSM as a TOE and it has experimental proofs also? ST doesn't have any proof!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is it published in a peer reviewed journal?

[Profpat]

Sorry to mind you people but why don't we support WSM as a TOE and it has experimental proofs also? ST doesn't have any proof!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually Lakshya I believe some of our members are supporters of the WSM model, others are supporters of the Standard Model, and some, like myself have their own unique models.

Vive la difference!

Best to you,

Pat

[Lakshya]

Is it published in a peer reviewed journal?

It's a TOE founded by many physicists mainly Milo Wolff and Daniel Fitz Patrick. It has many proofs. Not much research is going on this topic. That's my main question that why are we not supporting a model which has evidence but we are supporting a truly meta-physical model. See these:
Quantum Matter
Space And Motion

[SCarter]

You all have a lot of knowledge on this subject- sorry to interrupt- but how much of this knowlege you show is based only on the understanding of the math in string theory?

[jag]

I noticed this paper this morning, whilst looking through the arxiv, and thought it may be useful to some people. It's rather technical, but the introduction and conclusion should be accessible to all. Here's the abstract:

An observable state in a string cannot be a graviton. The best we can do is see some string stuff that is made of gravitons. Strings are made of vortexes of ether and the stuff in the ether is made of gravitons. Gravitons are the particles that all things are made of...It's a continuum...Gravitons are as close to infinity or God as we can imagine. We will never actually see a graviton.

From the string to the graviton is like from the earth to the far reaches of the outer universe.