http://superstringtheory.com/ is the official string theory website. M Theory and String theory may in fact be used interchangeably. The basic idea is that we have an 11 dimensional space with most dimensions (all except 3 + time - 4) rolled up. Particles arise because of the vibrations of strings in these dimensions. You should have this translated simply as a transliteration سترىنغ not خزم. String theory is something very specific.
Gravity may be explained in two ways, in General Relativity it is the result of curvature of space. There are gravitational waves with 5 planes of polarization. The graviton has a spin of 2 translating polarization in terms of particle physics. Gravity may also be explained in terms of the exchange of gravitons. Renormalization is required. To state the controversial nature of Hawking's work. String theory (or M theory) has within its structure variable values for physical constants. In M theory these are set by the gravitational renormalisation, which is in its turn set up be the way in which the Universe came into being. It is hard to visualise this, but this is the claim of the mathematics of M theory. Another prediction. Particle exchange in the multiple dimensions leads to an 8th power law for gravity at small distances. We may say that this is the only piece of String Theory that is experimentally verifiable. If CERN were to produce black holes (which would by the way decay pretty well instantaneously via Hawking radiation) only ST would explain it. The religious element comes in when we look at a multiverse. Some Universes (most in fact) will be completely devoid of life. A few though will have the "Goldilocks" set of constants which will lead to life. According to Hawking there is no need to invoke God. The argument against God, or perhaps I should say against Religion is not String Theory. It is the way in which religious people behave. The other day some 60 Shiite pilgrims were killed by a suicide bomber in Pakistan. I think the conclusion must be that if there is a God, organized religion has not met him/her. - Ian Parker On 5 Sep, 14:52, www.abuawad.com wrote: > Salah Ahmed from London > GMT 16:30:00 2010 Saturday, September 4th > > Raised the theory of the physical world famous English Stephen Hawking > about the absence of the Creator, a great deal of controversy among > scientists of the people of science and people of religion and public > alike, and not because they try to prove out of nothing (the absence > of the Creator of the universe) and by, but because success also meant > to blow up religions a culture had governed the lives of people for > decades. > > Read in ILLAFTrain: Stephen Hawking: modern physics denies the > existence of the Creator of the universe > > Lift the world famous English physicist Stephen Hawking temperature > of the debate between science and religion, saying that in his next > book «great project» that modern physics does not agree at all with > saying that the creator of the universe. > > He says in the book, written with the physical American Leonard > Mloddinao will be published in the ninth month, that, as removed > Darwinian theory need to Creator in the field of biology (biological), > the number of new theories referred to any notion of the Creator of > the universe without its meaning as it does not need to Creator in the > first place. > > Comprehensive theory > > What is the "M theory"? > > "M theory", which is based Professor Stephen Hawking in his claim that > modern physics denies the existence of the Creator of the universe > complex recognized by many physicists themselves and need a lot of > research and study so that it becomes possible to light all its > aspects. The following are the main points mentioned by the Arabic > version of the free encyclopedia «Wikipedia» to explain: > > Theory "or" one of the solutions proposed for the «theory of > everything» or «the overall theory» which is supposed to integrate > theories of tendons Superstrings high five with eleven-dimensional > super-gravity Supergravity. The American theoretical physicist, Edward > Witten, one of the leading developers through the theories of super- > strings. But he says it still needs a lot of mathematical work and to > find new mathematical tools to develop and understand the contents of > this theory. > > It is noteworthy that the string theory itself attempt to unify the > fundamental forces of the four (electromagnetic, nuclear strong and > weak nuclear and gravity) in ten dimensions and remains the only hope > for unification and integration between quantum mechanics that > describe the three forces and general relativity, which describes > gravity. > > But why have emerged, "M theory"? Came the "theory or" after the > emergence of five equations in the theory of strings thus five > theories of strings called super-string theory and every one of them > describe something specific. It was of itself a problem as the > optimization is to unite these theories into one theory: This theory > five are: the theory of strings the first model, and the theory of > strings form the second A, and string theory, the second model B, and > the theory of strings HE, and the theory of strings HO. > > At first it was believed that each equation is the fact that the > independent and each one of them has its own system. Another question > puzzling the weak force of gravity? How can a small magnet nail > lifting from the ground, despite its small size compared with the > Earth? Found later that the equations five equal and the advent in > 1995 put Edward Witten theory of M, after summing up the relations > between the theories of the five so-called Balazdwageat or binaries > that removes differences such as: Dual T to remove difference between > the distances of small and large bilateral S removes the distinction > between strong interactions and vulnerable until the appearance of the > theory of gravity is high, and then was born the theory of M which > unites the five species of the theory of super strings. > > With the addition of yet another has become the number of dimensions > of 11 dimension. But there was a strange result of this added > dimension, it allows water to be shaken and grows to be a membrane. > This is also believed that the letter M «M-Theory» means the membrane > membrane. This is also called the theory of M theory membrane. > According to a world we live in the membrane of 11 dimension in the > fact that the author of several membranes in greater dimensions. > > This membrane is moving very complex movement, we can not feel it. In > fact, which are comprised of particles that can not move and access to > several other membranes because the composition of the words of Uttar > Jsimatna open, unable to move, even though the membrane (as believed), > all interconnected and interdependent. > > However, there is no real meaning to the letter M. Even Edward Witten > himself does not know exactly mean with that, he joked once that the > letter M may indicate mystery and magic and suspense mystery, which > bear the word in English. > > In his book, which monopolized the newspaper «Times» British > publication of extracts from his job last Thursday, Hawking also > announced the death of philosophy as a science. He says that physics > is about to write «the theory of everything» or «the overall theory» a > position to explain the properties of all nature. For as long as such > a theory, goes on to say, a dream for physicists since Einstein's > time, but the problem has been the reconciliation between quantum > theory quantum theory, which explains the world under the corn, with > gravity, which explains how that interfere with things on a global > scale. > > Hawking says that «the theory of M» M-theory (described in the > window) - It is located between the so-called «String theory» - that > will achieve this objective. He writes: «M-theory is a unified theory, > which Einstein hoped to find. There is a great victory is the fact > that we, the people - and being a mere collection of fundamental > particles of nature - able to become all of this proximity to > understand the laws that govern us and control the universe around us > ». > > Hawking goes on saying that "the theory or" more than just being the > Chairperson of the equation to become «an entire family of theories > that live side by side within a coherent theoretical framework .. > Quite as distinct political maps, geographical and topographical > describing the patch on the earth in their respective areas of > specialization, but without that contradict each other. This is the > case they point to the theory of M when it comes to different aspects > of the physical world ». > > It is recalled that Hawking had said before about the potential for a > contract to that theory, comprehensive as possible during the next > twenty years by 50 percent. It seems that, after ten years, is about > to be submitted in writing, which will see light during the day. > > The creation of non- > > Based on all this says Hawking: «because there is a law like > gravity, the universe became able to create the same failure. > Spontaneous creation and this is why there is something rather than > nothing, and in the existence of the universe and our presence we ». > And goes on to say: «it can be argued that the universe did not need a > god to ignite the fuse for his creation», but what is known as «Big > Bang» not only the inevitable consequences of the laws of physics. He > adds that most likely is the existence of other universes called > «multiverse» outside our solar system. «If God's intention is to > create the human race, it means that that the universe without the > multi-purpose play and it is therefore unnecessary. > > Maatardon > > It is imperative for such statements give rise to an enormous amount > of controversy among scientists of the people of science and people of > religion and public alike. Hzl and not because they try to prove out > of nothing (the absence of the Creator of the universe) and by, but > because its success also means to blow up a basic religion had > governed the lives of human beings since their appearance on the > ground. > > It was only natural to welcome someone like British biologist > Professor Richard Duquengs, best known for his book «They are > God» (2006), the theory of Hawking from atheism advertiser. But other > intellectuals, scientists, writers entered the arena of controversy > between the conservative and exhibitions and drummer for the alarm > bells. The excerpt in the following range of views: > > * Write Galidail Roth, editor of the religious affairs newspaper > «Times» since 1989, which provided excerpts from the book to the next: > When it comes to religion, the Stephen Hawking is the voice of reason > (as opposed to the type of controversy that has thrown Duquengs > Pritchard to the forefront of the polemics on the Creator). Therefore, > the argument of Hawking, in the long run, are likely to be the most > dangerous to religion because of his calculations, quiet and > thoughtful way better than Hopkins in his book «They are God». > > It goes on: «In the past, was Hopking wonder if science could one day > be lifted the veil on the mind of the Creator. But he now says that > religion and science are opposites is impossible to reconcile them. > That is because religion is based on the power while the science of > observation and analytical mind and is therefore the only way ahead. > > Galidail and concludes by stating: «believers around the world Siqrwon > book with interest and perhaps a bit of wonder and admiration. But, if > the completion of reading, will go to the prayer ... Because faith is > not logical, but because it is the only way for them ». > > * George Ellis, Professor at the University of Cape Town and the > President of «International Association of Science and Religion» says > that the question is not a question of if Hawking is wrong or right. > And declares: «major problems with the view of him is that it provides > to the public one of two options: Science on the one hand and religion > on the other. Most people will say: «Well .. Choose religion », and so > find it Science losers». > > * Frank Claus, who, like Hawking is a theoretical physicist at the > University of Oxford, goes on to say: «Given the enormous number of > stars and planets in the universe known to us may be questioned about > the effectiveness of any creator of it. But if the only purpose is > moral and attitude and the creation of Stephen Hawking, and a group > photograph, and one is enough for that? M theory (which is built upon > the results of Hawking) does not rise to the controversy about the > Creator did not subtract from, at least as much as an iota ». > > * Graham Varmelo, Brofficer Theoretical Physics at the University of > Northysturn American and senior research fellowship at the Science > Museum in London says: «seems that Hawking believes that M-theory > possible to adopt instead the idea of a Creator of the universe. And > we were assured by the experts to the enormous possibilities opened up > by this theory, I am willing to believe them. But one of the major > problems concerns on this theory is that the test remains a very > special hardship to be able to build accelerator physicists of the > particles in the size of a galaxy full ». > > He adds Varmelo saying: «Even if they managed to find a replacement > for the accelerator and successfully M theory all the tests, the > reasons for the order will remain in the heart of the underlying > mathematical order of the cosmic mystery is not subject to > interpretation. It is natural that attracts the subject of religion, > science, huge numbers of people, and therefore the best kind of > publicity and fastest way to sell a book ». > > * Ben Miller, the representative of the British comedian is physically > as well. It addresses the matter from the angle of light somewhat, > saying: «M-theory vague to the extent that no one knows what he was > referring to the mother of this letter. (...) It suggests that there > are 11 time dimension - a spatial universe, and that these dimensions > is determined by the order of fundamental constants in nature ... But > what is the way to understand these dimensions and this arrangement? I > have no idea! ». > > It goes on saying: «Physics has Tjtzbni because I have a ravenous > bears, including the great minds involved in this field. But I do not > want to understand the details and quantum gravity Doakhlha. I want to > enjoy the reflection on the difficult and intractable as to understand > and remote from us ... Like a child looks to the stars in the sky. > This will remain the secret of the universe as it is regardless of > human attempts to lift the veil on the issue of creation. And the > ratio for most of us, the secrets of nature is useless in our hands > anyway ». > > No creator of the universe according to Hawking > But the universe he created himself > > | More | | | | | | | | | Print -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "General" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-translate-general?hl=en.
