This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
i recently went to a maths lecture to find out about university and one of the talks was oon this. do any of you know anything about it? or where i can find out more, as although i found the talk a bit dull, it seems like the subject could be really fascinating.
thanks
holly
thanks
holly
In reply to Jenn:
no, it was something to do with that i think, but the talk was definatley called 'know theory' and he talked about knots and tangles in string, and some rules about when things were knotted
no, it was something to do with that i think, but the talk was definatley called 'know theory' and he talked about knots and tangles in string, and some rules about when things were knotted
In reply to holly:
It is some of the basic mathematical tools in the more general area of topology, so look for topology if you want to know more.
Topology is directly connected to the research within the area of strings and it gives you a physical connections, still I do not believe in the therory of strings.
It is some of the basic mathematical tools in the more general area of topology, so look for topology if you want to know more.
Topology is directly connected to the research within the area of strings and it gives you a physical connections, still I do not believe in the therory of strings.
In reply to chrtur:
its still interesting though isnt it? even if you dont believe it
>
> still I do not believe in the therory of strings.
> still I do not believe in the therory of strings.
its still interesting though isnt it? even if you dont believe it
In reply to holly:
Not really a case of belief...
Hang on what did my therapist say about not engaging in on-line debates about the nature of scientific proof?
Not really a case of belief...
Hang on what did my therapist say about not engaging in on-line debates about the nature of scientific proof?
In reply to TRNovice:
i dont know that its counted as debate when your discussing it with a not very clever 17 year old who dosent really have a clue what she is talking about.
but im definatley going to the library tomorrow
i dont know that its counted as debate when your discussing it with a not very clever 17 year old who dosent really have a clue what she is talking about.
but im definatley going to the library tomorrow
In reply to TRNovice:
LOL!!!
> (In reply to holly)
> Hang on what did my therapist say about not engaging in on-line debates about the nature of scientific proof?
LOL!!!
In reply to holly:
No it is not, I am sitting in the office with five people who are stringist So far they have not given some good reasons for a belief
No it is not, I am sitting in the office with five people who are stringist So far they have not given some good reasons for a belief
In reply to chrtur:
well, the whole day was a bit dull really. because i read too much i had come across most of the problems discussed (problems in statistics, pepsi challenge, monty hall problem, modulus strip etc) i knew what they were explaining, and it jsut seemed to drag on a lot and not really give me anything to think about. and the knot theory talk was ok, but was demonstraighted by things like 'tie a fig 8 in a rope and loop the ends around your wrists, then remove the fig 8 without taking it off your wrists', all things i have done before messing about with rope. They spent about 20 mins showing and explaining fig 8's, they arent difficult to tie, so it was quite boring
well, the whole day was a bit dull really. because i read too much i had come across most of the problems discussed (problems in statistics, pepsi challenge, monty hall problem, modulus strip etc) i knew what they were explaining, and it jsut seemed to drag on a lot and not really give me anything to think about. and the knot theory talk was ok, but was demonstraighted by things like 'tie a fig 8 in a rope and loop the ends around your wrists, then remove the fig 8 without taking it off your wrists', all things i have done before messing about with rope. They spent about 20 mins showing and explaining fig 8's, they arent difficult to tie, so it was quite boring
In reply to holly: There is a 'new'theory - first developed by Gert Muttlieber and his colleagues at Frankfurt - called Loose End Dynamics - it uses the analogy of a knot to conceptualise some very 'knotty' (pun intended!) problems in astrophysics. Some believe the Universe is best represented as a Figure of 8 (a central belt with spiral galaxies), others lean towards the Flying Sheepshank with Two Half-hitches model. I'm more of a Oh No! Not the Unravellable Giant Snarled Spaghetti Knot?! man myself.
In reply to holly:
http://www.realknots.com/knots/
You're welcome,
HD.
> where i can find out more, it seems like the subject could be really fascinating.
>
> thanks
> holly
>
> thanks
> holly
http://www.realknots.com/knots/
You're welcome,
HD.
In reply to holly:
Oh, thanks. I feel left out now!
Was mine not (ho ho) what you were after? It looked relevant...
Oh, thanks. I feel left out now!
Was mine not (ho ho) what you were after? It looked relevant...
In reply to TN:
moreso than the others, that was what the talk was about. do you know any other sites which have more detail?
thankyou
> It looked relevant...
moreso than the others, that was what the talk was about. do you know any other sites which have more detail?
thankyou
In reply to holly:
No problem
I have no idea where else to look I'm afraid - I know nothing about this stuff. I just googled and found it and it looked nice and basic - well, I understood it anyway... (It's a LONG time since I did any maths or physics!)
No problem
I have no idea where else to look I'm afraid - I know nothing about this stuff. I just googled and found it and it looked nice and basic - well, I understood it anyway... (It's a LONG time since I did any maths or physics!)
In reply to holly: Pepsi challenge?!?
In reply to Jenn:
Don't you mean string theology?
> (In reply to holly)
>
> Do you mean string theory?
>
> Do you mean string theory?
Don't you mean string theology?
In reply to holly:
Sting theory is a description of how some people think the universe works at a very small level. It ties together relativity and quantum mechanics, and it is not universally believed. I read a book on it once, and found it quite difficult.
Knot theory is a branch of topology, which is in turn a branch of pure mathematics, and as such is fascinating.
(Topology is a sort of geometry, to do with how spaces connect, without reference to measurements of angle and length)
Y.
Sting theory is a description of how some people think the universe works at a very small level. It ties together relativity and quantum mechanics, and it is not universally believed. I read a book on it once, and found it quite difficult.
Knot theory is a branch of topology, which is in turn a branch of pure mathematics, and as such is fascinating.
(Topology is a sort of geometry, to do with how spaces connect, without reference to measurements of angle and length)
Y.
In reply to Yrmenlaf:
Funny use of the word "believed" there. Either the maths makes sense or it doesn't. You may disbelieve the assumptions of string theory, or think it's wrong in some other way, but the theory definitely exists.
> Sting theory is a description of how some people think the universe works at a very small level. It ties together relativity and quantum mechanics, and it is not universally believed.
Funny use of the word "believed" there. Either the maths makes sense or it doesn't. You may disbelieve the assumptions of string theory, or think it's wrong in some other way, but the theory definitely exists.
In reply to Richard Bradley:
its a stats type thing:
pepsi commisioned a blind testing of pepsi compared to regular cola. each tester was given 3 drinks either 2 pepsi, 1 cola or 2 cola 1 pepsi, ina random order.
each tester had to pick out the odd one, say whether or not it was pepsi, and whether or not they preferred it.
pepsi then used all of the results to write something rediculous like 80% or people could taste the difference, and preferred pepsi.
this is because if the person correctly identified the pepsi, they were added to the percentage, if they said they preferred pepsi they were added, if they wrongly identified the pepsi, but said they preferred it, they were added, if they wrongly identified, and said they didnt prefer it,they were still added, plus loads of other bariations which let pepsi give a completely wrong statistic, which sounded impressive. (i think thats what it was about)
its in a book i read called '200% of nothing'
at the talk, we didnt do the work on the statistics (although it was a maths conference, we did no maths) just the explriment, so some sutudents could use the data.
its a stats type thing:
pepsi commisioned a blind testing of pepsi compared to regular cola. each tester was given 3 drinks either 2 pepsi, 1 cola or 2 cola 1 pepsi, ina random order.
each tester had to pick out the odd one, say whether or not it was pepsi, and whether or not they preferred it.
pepsi then used all of the results to write something rediculous like 80% or people could taste the difference, and preferred pepsi.
this is because if the person correctly identified the pepsi, they were added to the percentage, if they said they preferred pepsi they were added, if they wrongly identified the pepsi, but said they preferred it, they were added, if they wrongly identified, and said they didnt prefer it,they were still added, plus loads of other bariations which let pepsi give a completely wrong statistic, which sounded impressive. (i think thats what it was about)
its in a book i read called '200% of nothing'
at the talk, we didnt do the work on the statistics (although it was a maths conference, we did no maths) just the explriment, so some sutudents could use the data.
In reply to Yrmenlaf:
so to study something like this at uni do would i have to be something special and stupidly clever? or can just anyone do it?
> (In reply to holly)
> Knot theory is a branch of topology, which is in turn a branch of pure mathematics, and as such is fascinating.
>
> (Topology is a sort of geometry, to do with how spaces connect, without reference to measurements of angle and length)
>
> (Topology is a sort of geometry, to do with how spaces connect, without reference to measurements of angle and length)
so to study something like this at uni do would i have to be something special and stupidly clever? or can just anyone do it?
In reply to holly:
Anyone can do it with more or less work. The most important thing is to have an interest in it, then you can do whatever you want.
Anyone can do it with more or less work. The most important thing is to have an interest in it, then you can do whatever you want.
In reply to Richard:
The maths makes sense, but since there doesn't seem to be any connection between the maths of string theory and the physical world, nor any prospect that such a connection might be made, maybe "believe" isn't such a funny word after all.
Knot theory, of course, has some relevance to string theory, but is an independent piece of mathematics (famously associated, for example, with the work of Michael Atiyah). I guess you might come across it in the topology parts of a pure maths course.
The maths makes sense, but since there doesn't seem to be any connection between the maths of string theory and the physical world, nor any prospect that such a connection might be made, maybe "believe" isn't such a funny word after all.
Knot theory, of course, has some relevance to string theory, but is an independent piece of mathematics (famously associated, for example, with the work of Michael Atiyah). I guess you might come across it in the topology parts of a pure maths course.
In reply to holly: Do you have an aptitude for maths type things? If so go for it!
In reply to Richard:
Look, I'm trying very, very hard to not get into this and you have to go and post something like that - where are my tablets?
> (In reply to Yrmenlaf)
>
> Funny use of the word "believed" there. Either the maths makes sense or it doesn't. You may disbelieve the assumptions of string theory, or think it's wrong in some other way, but the theory definitely exists.
>
> Funny use of the word "believed" there. Either the maths makes sense or it doesn't. You may disbelieve the assumptions of string theory, or think it's wrong in some other way, but the theory definitely exists.
Look, I'm trying very, very hard to not get into this and you have to go and post something like that - where are my tablets?
In reply to holly:
I didn't do Topology formally until the second year of Uni. But I'd read about a number of things with a topological flavour many years beforehand (e.g. knot problems).
> (In reply to Yrmenlaf)
> so to study something like this at uni do would i have to be something special and stupidly clever? or can just anyone do it?
> so to study something like this at uni do would i have to be something special and stupidly clever? or can just anyone do it?
I didn't do Topology formally until the second year of Uni. But I'd read about a number of things with a topological flavour many years beforehand (e.g. knot problems).
In reply to Richard Bradley:
thats the thing, i dont know about 'aptitude' or not. i enjoy maths, it makes sense, partucularly pure. but i dont find it easy. i have to do the work, but i dont know how well im doing at it, because i have no one to compare myself against (im theonly person who does further maths im my school)
i lot of people i have spoken too said they found maths a level really easy and a waste of time. i dont find it really easy, i have to work at it. it makes me worry whether or not im good enough to be able to do it at uni.
thats the thing, i dont know about 'aptitude' or not. i enjoy maths, it makes sense, partucularly pure. but i dont find it easy. i have to do the work, but i dont know how well im doing at it, because i have no one to compare myself against (im theonly person who does further maths im my school)
i lot of people i have spoken too said they found maths a level really easy and a waste of time. i dont find it really easy, i have to work at it. it makes me worry whether or not im good enough to be able to do it at uni.
In reply to TRNovice:
If you do not want to get into this why not go and play on the TR thread, unless it has been zapped already.
Do the one that says four minutes to the pub thread, then sod off there.
If you do not want to get into this why not go and play on the TR thread, unless it has been zapped already.
Do the one that says four minutes to the pub thread, then sod off there.
In reply to TRNovice:
Nerd!!!
> (In reply to holly)
> [...]
>
> I didn't do Topology formally until the second year of Uni. But I'd read about a number of things with a topological flavour many years beforehand (e.g. knot problems).
> [...]
>
> I didn't do Topology formally until the second year of Uni. But I'd read about a number of things with a topological flavour many years beforehand (e.g. knot problems).
Nerd!!!
In reply to Richard:
Quite a correct use of the word "belived" however given that string theology has more in common with invisible pink unicorns than anything discribable as science.
Quite a correct use of the word "belived" however given that string theology has more in common with invisible pink unicorns than anything discribable as science.
In reply to Richard J:
I don't think that's entirely true. I understand, for example, that relativity drops out of modern string theory quite nicely, and relativity is certainly a connection to the physical world.
The fact that string theory does not make any (currently) testable predictions that other theories don't already make doesn't mean that it doesn't predict anything.
> The maths makes sense, but since there doesn't seem to be any connection between the maths of string theory and the physical world, nor any prospect that such a connection might be made, maybe "believe" isn't such a funny word after all.
I don't think that's entirely true. I understand, for example, that relativity drops out of modern string theory quite nicely, and relativity is certainly a connection to the physical world.
The fact that string theory does not make any (currently) testable predictions that other theories don't already make doesn't mean that it doesn't predict anything.
In reply to holly:
It depends: proper topology is a very strict academic discipline. But I (in a past life) have taught some of the principles to primary school kids.
For example, the sort of problem "can you draw this shape without taking your pencil off the paper (or going over a line twice)" is a topology problem. Or "can you go for a walk round Durham crossing each bridge exactly once" is a topology problem (you have to assume the market place is a bridge)
Or colouring problems. If I want to colour a design on a peice of paper such that no two touching areas (its OK if they touch at a point, but not along a line) are the same colour, how many colours will I need?
Y.
> (In reply to Yrmenlaf)
> [...]
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> so to study something like this at uni do would i have to be something special and stupidly clever? or can just anyone do it?
> [...]
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> so to study something like this at uni do would i have to be something special and stupidly clever? or can just anyone do it?
It depends: proper topology is a very strict academic discipline. But I (in a past life) have taught some of the principles to primary school kids.
For example, the sort of problem "can you draw this shape without taking your pencil off the paper (or going over a line twice)" is a topology problem. Or "can you go for a walk round Durham crossing each bridge exactly once" is a topology problem (you have to assume the market place is a bridge)
Or colouring problems. If I want to colour a design on a peice of paper such that no two touching areas (its OK if they touch at a point, but not along a line) are the same colour, how many colours will I need?
Y.
In reply to Yrmenlaf:
its also decision maths, is that a form of topology?
because i find that really intersting aswell
> "can you go for a walk round Durham crossing each bridge exactly once" is a topology problem (you have to assume the market place is a bridge)
>
>
its also decision maths, is that a form of topology?
because i find that really intersting aswell
In reply to Richard:
Obviously, a great number of very smart theoretical physicists have put a big bet on string theory coming up with something. But for a contrary view, take a look at http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18638, an entertaining article entitled "Is string theory even wrong?"
Holly, sorry for temporarily hijacking your thread for something with nothing to do with the very interesting bit of mathematics you asked about.
Obviously, a great number of very smart theoretical physicists have put a big bet on string theory coming up with something. But for a contrary view, take a look at http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18638, an entertaining article entitled "Is string theory even wrong?"
Holly, sorry for temporarily hijacking your thread for something with nothing to do with the very interesting bit of mathematics you asked about.
In reply to Richard J:
quite all right. it hought it did have something to do with knot theory, albeit very little. but then again i know almost nothing about either, so any information about anything i might fnd interesting is greatly appreciated.
i was told last week i have to choose what i want to do at uni soon, and its all very frightening
quite all right. it hought it did have something to do with knot theory, albeit very little. but then again i know almost nothing about either, so any information about anything i might fnd interesting is greatly appreciated.
i was told last week i have to choose what i want to do at uni soon, and its all very frightening
In reply to holly:
If you have a look for it, there is a book written about tie knots - the ones men wear with shirts - by 2 PhD students. Analyses the unpteen ways of tying it and which ones are actually aesthetically worth tying.
If you have a look for it, there is a book written about tie knots - the ones men wear with shirts - by 2 PhD students. Analyses the unpteen ways of tying it and which ones are actually aesthetically worth tying.
In reply to Richard J:
'The asset you have attempted to view is not currently available.'
how else can i find the article?
'The asset you have attempted to view is not currently available.'
how else can i find the article?
In reply to holly:
Sorry.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18638
It gained an extra comma on the end.
Sorry.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18638
It gained an extra comma on the end.
In reply to Petzl:
i think my dad said somehting about that once, but i jsut used to think it was him eing sad when i was younger. should i look at it then?
i think my dad said somehting about that once, but i jsut used to think it was him eing sad when i was younger. should i look at it then?
In reply to Richard:
er I thought that was the definition of a prediction was that you could test it. Or at least that is the meaningful definition. Right now it is a peice of fluff to be removed by occums razor.
> The fact that string theory does not make any (currently) testable predictions that other theories don't already make doesn't mean that it doesn't predict anything.
er I thought that was the definition of a prediction was that you could test it. Or at least that is the meaningful definition. Right now it is a peice of fluff to be removed by occums razor.
In reply to holly:
Bought the book for my Dad for christmas a couple of years ago - kept him amused for hours, but then he's into knots and lashings (sailor, Scout leader and so on)
Bought the book for my Dad for christmas a couple of years ago - kept him amused for hours, but then he's into knots and lashings (sailor, Scout leader and so on)
In reply to holly:
If you consider doing studies in fields such as theoretical physics or pure mathematics my advice to you is that you should really be interested in that field, otherwise to motivate all the hard work can be tough.
If you go torwards theoretical physics you would need a strong background in mathematics, it will help, thus taking several courses in mathematics is good. But, maybe you do not need to know everything in depth, just knowing how to use it.
Well, pure mathematics is just mathematics and can be very interesting depending in which field you are working.
Note still that from my experience it is easier to get money for doing research later in theoretical physics then pure mathematics, but stilll very difficult for theoretical physics. I hope you get the point.
If you consider doing studies in fields such as theoretical physics or pure mathematics my advice to you is that you should really be interested in that field, otherwise to motivate all the hard work can be tough.
If you go torwards theoretical physics you would need a strong background in mathematics, it will help, thus taking several courses in mathematics is good. But, maybe you do not need to know everything in depth, just knowing how to use it.
Well, pure mathematics is just mathematics and can be very interesting depending in which field you are working.
Note still that from my experience it is easier to get money for doing research later in theoretical physics then pure mathematics, but stilll very difficult for theoretical physics. I hope you get the point.
In reply to Richard J:
It's an interesting article, but it's hard to take seriously as a piece of criticism, because it opens with:
"First, string theory predicts that the world has 10 space-time dimensions, in serious disagreement with all the evidence of one's senses. Matching string theory with reality requires that one postulate six unobserved spatial dimensions of very small size wrapped up in one way or another. All the predictions of the theory depend on how you do this, but there are an infinite number of possible choices, and no one has any idea how to determine which is correct."
There are many, many, many successful theories that make (correct) predictions that are in "disagreement with all the evidence of one's senses". At least until one knows how to look - the wave/particle nature of, well, everything springs to mind.
"The second concern is that even the part of string theory that is understood is internally inconsistent. This aspect of the theory relies on a series expansion, an infinite number of terms that one is supposed to sum together to get a result. Whereas each of the terms in the series is probably finite, their sum is almost certainly infinite."
The Standard Model is internally inconsistent, and so is relativity. This does not mean that they are useless theories.
I'm not trying to claim that string theory does anything it doesn't do; I was just intrigued by the use of "believed".
Um... yes... sorry.
> Obviously, a great number of very smart theoretical physicists have put a big bet on string theory coming up with something. But for a contrary view, take a look at http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18638, an entertaining article entitled "Is string theory even wrong?"
It's an interesting article, but it's hard to take seriously as a piece of criticism, because it opens with:
"First, string theory predicts that the world has 10 space-time dimensions, in serious disagreement with all the evidence of one's senses. Matching string theory with reality requires that one postulate six unobserved spatial dimensions of very small size wrapped up in one way or another. All the predictions of the theory depend on how you do this, but there are an infinite number of possible choices, and no one has any idea how to determine which is correct."
There are many, many, many successful theories that make (correct) predictions that are in "disagreement with all the evidence of one's senses". At least until one knows how to look - the wave/particle nature of, well, everything springs to mind.
"The second concern is that even the part of string theory that is understood is internally inconsistent. This aspect of the theory relies on a series expansion, an infinite number of terms that one is supposed to sum together to get a result. Whereas each of the terms in the series is probably finite, their sum is almost certainly infinite."
The Standard Model is internally inconsistent, and so is relativity. This does not mean that they are useless theories.
I'm not trying to claim that string theory does anything it doesn't do; I was just intrigued by the use of "believed".
> Holly, sorry for temporarily hijacking your thread for something with nothing to do with the very interesting bit of mathematics you asked about.
Um... yes... sorry.
In reply to Richard:
dont worry, this is interesting aswell.
not sure id like to go on to study it though
dont worry, this is interesting aswell.
not sure id like to go on to study it though
In reply to Richard:
Did you see the recent piece in Nature about the use of anthropic principle in string theory?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7072/full/439010a.html
It quotes the theorist (and Nobel Laureate) David Gross criticising the Susskind multiple universe picture in these terms:
"It's an intriguing idea with just one problem, says Gross: "It's impossible to disprove." Because our Universe is, almost by definition, everything we can observe, there are no apparent measurements that would confirm whether we exist within a cosmic landscape of multiple universes, or if ours is the only one. And because we can't falsify the idea, Gross says, it isn't science. Or at least, it isn't science in any conventional sense of the word. "I think Gross sees this as science taking on some of the traits of religion," says Carr. "In a sense he's correct, because things like faith and beauty are becoming a component of the discussion."
Did you see the recent piece in Nature about the use of anthropic principle in string theory?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7072/full/439010a.html
It quotes the theorist (and Nobel Laureate) David Gross criticising the Susskind multiple universe picture in these terms:
"It's an intriguing idea with just one problem, says Gross: "It's impossible to disprove." Because our Universe is, almost by definition, everything we can observe, there are no apparent measurements that would confirm whether we exist within a cosmic landscape of multiple universes, or if ours is the only one. And because we can't falsify the idea, Gross says, it isn't science. Or at least, it isn't science in any conventional sense of the word. "I think Gross sees this as science taking on some of the traits of religion," says Carr. "In a sense he's correct, because things like faith and beauty are becoming a component of the discussion."
In reply to Richard:
Still a prediction you can't test is the dream of theologists everywhere and isn't actually a meaningfull prediction. BTW it also has to be a prediction not made by other simpler theorys otherwise your 6 extra diminsions are 6 perfect "entities" as far as the definition of occums razor is concerened. There are other compeating thories out there and most of them make predictions. String theology isn't a scientific theory because it doesn't make testable predictions untill it does I won't take it seriously. Wave partical duality explained things not explainable by the previous model and made predictions that were rapidly confirmed by experiment. QM was an emperical driven theory, relativity was driven by the maths but was accepted only after experimental test. Untill you can design an experiment to test the existance of those extra dimensions they are just invisable pink unicorns and deserve as much respect. string theology gets so much hammer because it doesn't do the core things that a sceintific theory has to do to gain respect. you get a lot of geeks looking at it and showing off there clever maths and thinking it must be true without thing about whether the whole edifice actually means anything at all
Still a prediction you can't test is the dream of theologists everywhere and isn't actually a meaningfull prediction. BTW it also has to be a prediction not made by other simpler theorys otherwise your 6 extra diminsions are 6 perfect "entities" as far as the definition of occums razor is concerened. There are other compeating thories out there and most of them make predictions. String theology isn't a scientific theory because it doesn't make testable predictions untill it does I won't take it seriously. Wave partical duality explained things not explainable by the previous model and made predictions that were rapidly confirmed by experiment. QM was an emperical driven theory, relativity was driven by the maths but was accepted only after experimental test. Untill you can design an experiment to test the existance of those extra dimensions they are just invisable pink unicorns and deserve as much respect. string theology gets so much hammer because it doesn't do the core things that a sceintific theory has to do to gain respect. you get a lot of geeks looking at it and showing off there clever maths and thinking it must be true without thing about whether the whole edifice actually means anything at all
In reply to Richard J:
Hah, yes, I've come across that a few times.
This is all Popperism, of course.
As long as the language used is correct (and conversely, any claims for the theory), I don't see the problem. There're, to my mind at least, differences between, "I believe that string theory is right" and "I believe string theory is wrong", and "I believe string theory" and "I don't believe string theory".
The first imply that something is correct or incorrect but is manipulable; the latter seems to elevate (again, to me at least) the theory to something that manipulates.
> Did you see the recent piece in Nature about the use of anthropic principle in string theory?
Hah, yes, I've come across that a few times.
> "It's an intriguing idea with just one problem, says Gross: "It's impossible to disprove."
This is all Popperism, of course.
As long as the language used is correct (and conversely, any claims for the theory), I don't see the problem. There're, to my mind at least, differences between, "I believe that string theory is right" and "I believe string theory is wrong", and "I believe string theory" and "I don't believe string theory".
The first imply that something is correct or incorrect but is manipulable; the latter seems to elevate (again, to me at least) the theory to something that manipulates.
In reply to davidwright:
Yes, I mentioned that.
> BTW it also has to be a prediction not made by other simpler theorys
Yes, I mentioned that.
In reply to holly:
ergh.
degree level maths.
ergh.
*breaks into a cold sweat and remembers his degree*
ergh.
degree level maths.
ergh.
*breaks into a cold sweat and remembers his degree*
I would photocopy some more pages for you, holly, but I'm still suffering trauma from the mathematical analysis book you asked me to photocopy before :P
In reply to holly: Ask you careers or maths teacher? they will know if you are likely to do well in maths. you seem to be interested which is a good start! I struggled with pure maths as it always seemed to go from a starting point I didn't understand to an answer I still didn't understand via a method I could not comprehend, but I'm thick.
Show me an insolvent balance sheet and ask me to work out the likely fees in it though.....
Show me an insolvent balance sheet and ask me to work out the likely fees in it though.....
In reply to Richard Bradley:
my careers teacher said i can do it, my maths teacher say i can. but i get the impression they would say it regardless, in that they dont want to discourage me, and they need me to do well as im the only one.
i think i *could* do maths, but i dont want to do it if ill hate it and fail, i want to do well, and i want to go to a good uni, not jsut go for the sake of going
my careers teacher said i can do it, my maths teacher say i can. but i get the impression they would say it regardless, in that they dont want to discourage me, and they need me to do well as im the only one.
i think i *could* do maths, but i dont want to do it if ill hate it and fail, i want to do well, and i want to go to a good uni, not jsut go for the sake of going
In reply to holly: Shit, you sound like me thirty years ago! I finished up not going for other reasons.
Not sure what to say but hope it works out whatever you do...
I'm off to bed now.
Not sure what to say but hope it works out whatever you do...
I'm off to bed now.
In reply to Richard Bradley:
i have to decide whether i want to do maths or chemistry or engineering in the next few weeks, and i really dont knwo what to do. im leaning towards maths because i like it, but i find them all interesting, and have no idea what to choose.
i have to decide whether i want to do maths or chemistry or engineering in the next few weeks, and i really dont knwo what to do. im leaning towards maths because i like it, but i find them all interesting, and have no idea what to choose.
In reply to holly:
Hello, I did knot theory in the third year of my undergraduate course after having studied topology here and there in the 2nd and 3rd years (although personally I found knot theory pretty dull and uninspiring).
Actually a friend who works in mathematical biology told me that it once came in useful to him since proteins are long chains that can tie themselves in knots and so the type of knot can influence which, um, bits of the proteins can interact with other bits (you can tell I'm no biologist).
There are also interesting (but difficult) applications in theorectial physics/applied maths in which you can do cunning and abstract things with knot theory which have nothing to do with bits of string but I can't remember what the area is called.
I know plenty of people who went on to do BSc's and MMaths who found A-level hard (or non-trivial as you'll call it if you become a mathematician) - after all everyone finds degree maths hards and has to work for it, especially at first.
Hope this helps.
Hello, I did knot theory in the third year of my undergraduate course after having studied topology here and there in the 2nd and 3rd years (although personally I found knot theory pretty dull and uninspiring).
Actually a friend who works in mathematical biology told me that it once came in useful to him since proteins are long chains that can tie themselves in knots and so the type of knot can influence which, um, bits of the proteins can interact with other bits (you can tell I'm no biologist).
There are also interesting (but difficult) applications in theorectial physics/applied maths in which you can do cunning and abstract things with knot theory which have nothing to do with bits of string but I can't remember what the area is called.
I know plenty of people who went on to do BSc's and MMaths who found A-level hard (or non-trivial as you'll call it if you become a mathematician) - after all everyone finds degree maths hards and has to work for it, especially at first.
Hope this helps.
In reply to crossdressingrodney:
PS If you decide to go to warwick there is an excellent climbing wall 5 mins walk away!
PS If you decide to go to warwick there is an excellent climbing wall 5 mins walk away!
In reply to holly:
If you really want to design skis and stuff (other thread) then consider Materials Science (basically the science behind engineering) or Engineering. Mat Sci is only available at a few universities (Oxford, Sheffield, Surry, Swansea come to mind).
Maths at university is not like GCSE or A-level, and although possibly not compulsory, can involve logic, theoretical physics and computer science. I you like Mechanical Maths, then engineering is more up your street.
Chemistry at university is great, and spans a much wider range than the A-level syllabus would suggest.
Finally, off topic but amusing, is the fact that String Theorists - struggling with a 4 dimensional universe have sought to simplify things using 26 dimension.
If you really want to design skis and stuff (other thread) then consider Materials Science (basically the science behind engineering) or Engineering. Mat Sci is only available at a few universities (Oxford, Sheffield, Surry, Swansea come to mind).
Maths at university is not like GCSE or A-level, and although possibly not compulsory, can involve logic, theoretical physics and computer science. I you like Mechanical Maths, then engineering is more up your street.
Chemistry at university is great, and spans a much wider range than the A-level syllabus would suggest.
Finally, off topic but amusing, is the fact that String Theorists - struggling with a 4 dimensional universe have sought to simplify things using 26 dimension.
In reply to Richard:
What I meant to say is that there are some respected experts in the field that do not hold the view that string theory offers an accurate model of the universe.
The maths is OK: whether it applies or not is still debated, I think
Y.
> (In reply to Yrmenlaf)
>
> [...]
>
> Funny use of the word "believed" there.
>
> [...]
>
> Funny use of the word "believed" there.
What I meant to say is that there are some respected experts in the field that do not hold the view that string theory offers an accurate model of the universe.
The maths is OK: whether it applies or not is still debated, I think
Y.
In reply to Yrmenlaf:
Yes, I find it astounding that so many people assume that to study string theory means you must 'believe in it' wholeheartedly. I find the field (at least the basics) intriguing; the maths would be worth doing even if there was no chance of a physical theory.
> What I meant to say is that there are some respected experts in the field that do not hold the view that string theory offers an accurate model of the universe.
Yes, I find it astounding that so many people assume that to study string theory means you must 'believe in it' wholeheartedly. I find the field (at least the basics) intriguing; the maths would be worth doing even if there was no chance of a physical theory.
I think a lot of scepticism over string theory is that the maths is so complicated, that the consequence of dimesnions above 4 is explained with the hand waving argument that they don't interact enough to detect them by other means.
More than 4 dimensions introduces the prossibility that 4 quantum numbers is not enough. Does a 26 (or 10) dimensional matrix mechanics (Schrodinger/Dirac -like equations) have different solutions for the energy levels of the electron in Hydrogen to those in 3 (or 4) dimensions.
More than 4 dimensions introduces the prossibility that 4 quantum numbers is not enough. Does a 26 (or 10) dimensional matrix mechanics (Schrodinger/Dirac -like equations) have different solutions for the energy levels of the electron in Hydrogen to those in 3 (or 4) dimensions.
In reply to Philip:
Yes, I sometimes wonder if my careers teacher knew this or not.
> (In reply to holly)
> Maths at university is not like GCSE or A-level,
> Maths at university is not like GCSE or A-level,
Yes, I sometimes wonder if my careers teacher knew this or not.
In reply to Richard:
which of course means they are not predictions of string theology mearly the constraints that were used to derive string theology. Whether you belive the extra dimensions exist is just as much a point of faith as the belef in a supernatural being. It is just that this religion is unique in being subscribed to more or less only by people who hold higher degrees in mathamatics.
which of course means they are not predictions of string theology mearly the constraints that were used to derive string theology. Whether you belive the extra dimensions exist is just as much a point of faith as the belef in a supernatural being. It is just that this religion is unique in being subscribed to more or less only by people who hold higher degrees in mathamatics.
In reply to holly:
I never found math interesting until I did calculus. Unfortunately, that is a s far as I got with math.
I fully appreciate that choosing what you do at university is a major decision, especially in the UK, where, for the most part you do little else other than your chosen subject.
Just another factor to consider is what type of career each area might lead to - in my experience, math can help with a career in financial services, if that is something you are interested in - just something to think about.
I never found math interesting until I did calculus. Unfortunately, that is a s far as I got with math.
I fully appreciate that choosing what you do at university is a major decision, especially in the UK, where, for the most part you do little else other than your chosen subject.
Just another factor to consider is what type of career each area might lead to - in my experience, math can help with a career in financial services, if that is something you are interested in - just something to think about.
In reply to Jenn:
i havent the slightest clue what i want to do after uni - except that i want to be a ski instructor for a few years.
is financial services things like accountancy? because origonally thats what i wanted to do, btu sice then a few of my teachers, my parents and the careers advisor have all told me that i wouldnt suit a job like that and would get bored.
i havent the slightest clue what i want to do after uni - except that i want to be a ski instructor for a few years.
is financial services things like accountancy? because origonally thats what i wanted to do, btu sice then a few of my teachers, my parents and the careers advisor have all told me that i wouldnt suit a job like that and would get bored.
In reply to holly:
I am 28 and I still don't know what I want to do
Financial Services includes accountancy, insurance companies, investment banks (ugh - my current "career" area, not recommended!), brokerages, retail banks and such. It is a pretty broad ranging area. Also worth considering is TRNovice, who has (several!) maths degrees, but now works in IT in financial services.
What I am trying to say is that a Maths degree is can lead to a lot of different careers.
I am 28 and I still don't know what I want to do
Financial Services includes accountancy, insurance companies, investment banks (ugh - my current "career" area, not recommended!), brokerages, retail banks and such. It is a pretty broad ranging area. Also worth considering is TRNovice, who has (several!) maths degrees, but now works in IT in financial services.
What I am trying to say is that a Maths degree is can lead to a lot of different careers.
In reply to Philip:
The number 26 is introduced because it is _only_ 26-dimensional spacetime in which the (bosonic) string is Lorentz invariant after quantisation. Similarly 10 dimensions for the supersymmetric string. This is definitely not hand waving.
> I think a lot of scepticism over string theory is that the maths is so complicated, that the consequence of dimesnions above 4 is explained with the hand waving argument that they don't interact enough to detect them by other means.
The number 26 is introduced because it is _only_ 26-dimensional spacetime in which the (bosonic) string is Lorentz invariant after quantisation. Similarly 10 dimensions for the supersymmetric string. This is definitely not hand waving.
In reply to crossdressingrodney:
I don't understand it well enough, I am afraid
I do have a fond memory of a course in relativity, which the Prof. decided to teach by means of the invariances of the wave equation.
He went through reams of pure maths, and finished with the rather lame statement that "the constant "c" has been found by experiment to be numerically equal to the speed of light"
Y.
> (In reply to Yrmenlaf)
> [...]
>
> I find the field (at least the basics) intriguing; the maths would be worth doing even if there was no chance of a physical theory.
> [...]
>
> I find the field (at least the basics) intriguing; the maths would be worth doing even if there was no chance of a physical theory.
I don't understand it well enough, I am afraid
I do have a fond memory of a course in relativity, which the Prof. decided to teach by means of the invariances of the wave equation.
He went through reams of pure maths, and finished with the rather lame statement that "the constant "c" has been found by experiment to be numerically equal to the speed of light"
Y.
In reply to Yrmenlaf:
I believe it's also an old joke amongst theoretical physicists that c is equal to 1, as that's close enough for many purposes and it makes the maths easier.
> He went through reams of pure maths, and finished with the rather lame statement that "the constant "c" has been found by experiment to be numerically equal to the speed of light"
I believe it's also an old joke amongst theoretical physicists that c is equal to 1, as that's close enough for many purposes and it makes the maths easier.
In reply to davidwright:
Do you have any idea how string theory is derived? The whole point is that the predictions are emergent from the theory, not put in at the outset.
I very much doubt you will find reams of people who work in the field who have a belief in string theory akin to religious belief. Everyone I've met who works in it thinks that it might be the answer; no-one claims that it is. Do you see the difference, or do you want to stick to beating your strawman?
> which of course means they are not predictions of string theology mearly the constraints that were used to derive string theology.
Do you have any idea how string theory is derived? The whole point is that the predictions are emergent from the theory, not put in at the outset.
> Whether you belive the extra dimensions exist is just as much a point of faith as the belef in a supernatural being. It is just that this religion is unique in being subscribed to more or less only by people who hold higher degrees in mathamatics.
I very much doubt you will find reams of people who work in the field who have a belief in string theory akin to religious belief. Everyone I've met who works in it thinks that it might be the answer; no-one claims that it is. Do you see the difference, or do you want to stick to beating your strawman?
In reply to holly: Holly
It seems to me that your real decision, about what to study at university, is not really much to do with knots and strings. Hence most of the discussion on this thread is irrelevant (though maybe interesting).
I was the only mathematician in my year, was very good at applied maths, but enjoyed pure maths more, although not as good at it. I studied maths at uni (which did include a small amount of topology) but found it was completely different to any maths I had done before and I didn't enjoy it as much.
That was all many years ago. Personally I wish I had done something different, like Materials Science, but that's just me. (Or even something like Law, which is all about clear, logical thinking and a subject that never even appeared on my horizon at the time!)
Don't get hung up on what your final career might be. Any 'real' degree is a good qualification to most careers, and your ideas will almost certainly change anyway.
Best of luck with your decision, whatever it is.
It seems to me that your real decision, about what to study at university, is not really much to do with knots and strings. Hence most of the discussion on this thread is irrelevant (though maybe interesting).
I was the only mathematician in my year, was very good at applied maths, but enjoyed pure maths more, although not as good at it. I studied maths at uni (which did include a small amount of topology) but found it was completely different to any maths I had done before and I didn't enjoy it as much.
That was all many years ago. Personally I wish I had done something different, like Materials Science, but that's just me. (Or even something like Law, which is all about clear, logical thinking and a subject that never even appeared on my horizon at the time!)
Don't get hung up on what your final career might be. Any 'real' degree is a good qualification to most careers, and your ideas will almost certainly change anyway.
Best of luck with your decision, whatever it is.
In reply to Richard:
however the result is known before you start and the theory is adepeted to match that result. you chose the properties of the strings to make the conclusions of QM and relativity work. The maths looks neat it is however still theology not science as there are no testable experimental conditions therefore it is NOT a theory. A theory would have to have been tested against experiment, string theology hasn't been and so far can not be. Not even does it not say anything that was previously unknown it doesn't even explain anything known but currently inexplicable. QM did just that, as did general relativity both at the moment they were proposed. Other GUT's out there don't have the mathmatical eligance they do how ever have more explanitive power. Unless you can come up with an experimental test off your ideas the extra dimensions remain as invisible pink unicorns and should be dismissed as such. This is not setting up a straw man it is just insisting on applying the rigourous methedology that has alowed science to get rid of a lot of ideas that were just plain wrong, facilitated the development of relativity and drove the development of QM.
unless and untill it is moved from pure maths into the relms of experimental and emperical test it will remain a system of theology NOT a scientific theory.
> (In reply to davidwright)
>
> [...]
>
> Do you have any idea how string theory is derived? The whole point is that the predictions are emergent from the theory, not put in at the outset.
>
> [...]
>
> Do you have any idea how string theory is derived? The whole point is that the predictions are emergent from the theory, not put in at the outset.
however the result is known before you start and the theory is adepeted to match that result. you chose the properties of the strings to make the conclusions of QM and relativity work. The maths looks neat it is however still theology not science as there are no testable experimental conditions therefore it is NOT a theory. A theory would have to have been tested against experiment, string theology hasn't been and so far can not be. Not even does it not say anything that was previously unknown it doesn't even explain anything known but currently inexplicable. QM did just that, as did general relativity both at the moment they were proposed. Other GUT's out there don't have the mathmatical eligance they do how ever have more explanitive power. Unless you can come up with an experimental test off your ideas the extra dimensions remain as invisible pink unicorns and should be dismissed as such. This is not setting up a straw man it is just insisting on applying the rigourous methedology that has alowed science to get rid of a lot of ideas that were just plain wrong, facilitated the development of relativity and drove the development of QM.
unless and untill it is moved from pure maths into the relms of experimental and emperical test it will remain a system of theology NOT a scientific theory.
In reply to davidwright:
I understand that you're very proud of your pun, but there are no gods in string theory, therefore it cannot be decribed as "theology".
> unless and untill it is moved from pure maths into the relms of experimental and emperical test it will remain a system of theology NOT a scientific theory.
I understand that you're very proud of your pun, but there are no gods in string theory, therefore it cannot be decribed as "theology".
In reply to crossdressingrodney:
I believe I could cite myself as a counterexample to half of that statement. I found it hard, but I didn't do any work and still passed. This is because I am a jammy bugger rather than an international supergenius, but hey.
I thought knot theory was ace, but then at the end of the course they revealed that it was actually Algebra/Group Theory in disguise and I liked it significantly less after that.
In reply to somebody else:
If I recall correctly, physicists have a habit of asssuming all constants are 1, because they only affect the magnitude of the result linearly, which isn't that important in their eyes. But these are the same people who will claim 1,000,000 and 9,999,999 are "of the same order of magnitude" and thus essentially the same number.
> after all everyone finds degree maths hards and has to > work for it, especially at first.
I believe I could cite myself as a counterexample to half of that statement. I found it hard, but I didn't do any work and still passed. This is because I am a jammy bugger rather than an international supergenius, but hey.
I thought knot theory was ace, but then at the end of the course they revealed that it was actually Algebra/Group Theory in disguise and I liked it significantly less after that.
In reply to somebody else:
If I recall correctly, physicists have a habit of asssuming all constants are 1, because they only affect the magnitude of the result linearly, which isn't that important in their eyes. But these are the same people who will claim 1,000,000 and 9,999,999 are "of the same order of magnitude" and thus essentially the same number.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
With regard to physicists and constants, there are two slightly separate habits here. Firstly, theorists often choose a set of units in which the relevant constants, like c and hbar, are defined to be unity, which is entirely correct and logical (you can always convert the units back to something physical later if you need to work something out). But physicists also have a habit of assuming that all definite integrals are 1, which is just idleness really.
With regard to physicists and constants, there are two slightly separate habits here. Firstly, theorists often choose a set of units in which the relevant constants, like c and hbar, are defined to be unity, which is entirely correct and logical (you can always convert the units back to something physical later if you need to work something out). But physicists also have a habit of assuming that all definite integrals are 1, which is just idleness really.
In reply to Richard:
I don't know why you are so defensive about this. Of course nobody who works in string theory think of themselves as pursuing a faith-based subject, but as the references I quoted yesterday make clear, there are some very serious physicists who are uncomfortable about how far some developments in string theory are moving away from generally held views about what makes a theory scientific.
I don't know why you are so defensive about this. Of course nobody who works in string theory think of themselves as pursuing a faith-based subject, but as the references I quoted yesterday make clear, there are some very serious physicists who are uncomfortable about how far some developments in string theory are moving away from generally held views about what makes a theory scientific.
In reply to Richard J:
I think I'm mainly being defensive in reaction to the silly "string theology" thing. I think my responses to davidwright differ markedly in tone to my other responses...
> I don't know why you are so defensive about this. Of course nobody who works in string theory think of themselves as pursuing a faith-based subject, but as the references I quoted yesterday make clear, there are some very serious physicists who are uncomfortable about how far some developments in string theory are moving away from generally held views about what makes a theory scientific.
I think I'm mainly being defensive in reaction to the silly "string theology" thing. I think my responses to davidwright differ markedly in tone to my other responses...
In reply to davidwright:
You mean they're trying to construct a theory which explains experimental evidence? How unscientific!
It is currently a mathematical theory and a scientific hypothesis.
> however the result is known before you start and the theory is adepeted to match that result.
You mean they're trying to construct a theory which explains experimental evidence? How unscientific!
> unless and untill it is moved from pure maths into the relms of experimental and emperical test it will remain a system of theology NOT a scientific theory.
It is currently a mathematical theory and a scientific hypothesis.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...