What's up with the theory about Super Strings? We can kiss the atoms goodbye? Please explain more...:)?

Question

There are even smaller things called Super Strings and the whole atoms concept is wrong? Or incomplete...?

Answer 1

All what I know is that this theoryaims to unify the different forces in the universe. Electromagnetic forces ,feableinteractino force , strong interaction forces and gravity. As yetonly the three first had been unified;Gravity is not explained. The basis is that all is acombination of very tny and dense strings in a space of 11 dimensions.

If you want to know more go to the site

Answer 2

As everyone has said, string theory aims to unite the forces of nature and create one unified theory spanning relativity and quantum mechanics. Is the atom concept wrong? Well, yes. The atom is a model:

When I studied for my GCSE's it was clear that the atom has a nucleus containing hard spherical particles (neutrons and protons) both of similar masses but the proton was positively charge. Around this atom whized electrons (again, solid sphere's with a charge but much less mass). These electrons existed in orbitals or 'shells' and couldn't exist in between the orbitals. Great, that was right at the time and it is right now for simple experiments that need to be done. However, as I learned more, this model became insufficient and a better model had to be built:

When I studied for my A-levels, this model was that the protons and neutrons contained quarks (again, solid spheres but with non-integer quantised charge and a property labelled 'colour') and the electron was actually a wave not a particle whose orbital radius depended on standing wave being existant. This theory worked great until, again, it wasn't sufficient.

Then, in the last year of our A-levels, we learned that actually the orbitals of the electrons wasn't always spherical (although we weren't given a reason) and that some exotic orbital shapes existed. Fine. Now this model was right and it was fine for how we used it.

Then, I started my degree and it became clear that this model of the atom was, again, insufficient. We learned that all particles were in fact wavefunctions and the positions of the 'electrons' were simply the areas of the probability functions with the highest probability. This was true for all the particles that made up the atom. We learned that electrons continually emit synchrotron radiation and yet don't fall into the nucleus because of quantum field theory. We learned that when atoms bond, the Fermi exclusion principal prevented certain electrons remaining in their orbitals. We learned why the orbitals contained the number of electrons that they do. We learned about spin and parity. Surely this model HAD to be right. Of course it was right.

Then, when I was studying for my masters it became clear yet again that this model wasn't sufficient! We learned that the nucleus was a dynamic entity and that these protons, and neutrons (or indeed quarks) didn't exist as isolated entities but as a field of probable entities. We learned from uncertainty principal that, if the position of a particle was exactly known it was forbidden for the velocity of the particle to be known etc. We learned about hyperfine splitting. We learned about why the neutron has a magnetic moment if it's not electrically charged etc. This new model worked and was fine. Yes, the model was correct.

Now I'm studying for my PhD and again the model is insufficient.

So, what am I saying? All the models were right to the degree of accuracy required at the time. The concept of the atom is something that, through the ages, as changed and improved but it is no-way perfect and never will be. Physics is about experiments and proof. At first the Bohr model of the atom was fine because it was proved by scattering and emission of radiation. As more experiments didn't support Bohr's model, new models were devised.

Importantly, do not think of the model you are using as 'wrong'. It is either sufficient or insufficient. And it will always be a model.

Answer 3

string theory is tied in with cosmology I don't understand it myself yet but have been trying to get a basic idea for about the last 9 months all I can suggest is get some good books on the subject and start reading as anyone hear won't know the way I understand it only 8 people in the world are capable of even working on the subject !

Answer 4

far as i understand there is major issues getting the theory of relativity and quantum physics to not conflct. Einstien worked his entire life trying to find a uniform field theoy that explains the whole universe and died without it. I read something that said there are 7 dimensions, space folds back on itself. Remember the heavy duty stuff is all theory, science is always theory as it is usually impossible to prove(shroedinger's cat). Give it a year or two they will have it all worked out...remember, electrons were a big deal once....