Superstrings and NOVA

[Seth Miller <stmiller@NYX.NET>]

Incidentally, there was just recently a NOVA program (3 episodes) on string
theory hosted by Brian Green of 'Elegant Universe' fame.  Did anyone happen
to record these?  I would like to show them to one of my science classes,
but was unable to record them.  I called PBS - they are only available in
January, and I would like to show them much sooner.  No local station will
send me a copy either... :-(  Any help would be appreciated!!

Thanks-
-Seth Miller

p.s. The videos are available online, but we don't have access to a
projector to make this viewable for the whole class - video would be much
better.

-----Original Message-----
From: Forum for Physics Educators [mailto:PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu] On Behalf Of
Tom Manz
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:05 AM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: superstrings

Thanks for the links.

I have been interested in reading about string theory.

However, I do not believe it will turn out to be the next great physics
theory. I think that it has some fundamental problems. I think other
theories superior to string theory will emerge.


----- Original Message -----
From: "John S. Denker" <jsd@AV8N.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 8:27 PM
Subject: superstrings


> A very readable introduction to string theory:
>    http://theory.tifr.res.in/strings/dmw.html
>
> The next level of detail, still quite readable, by
> somebody who, shall we say, knows what he's talking
> about:
>    http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/
>
> ====================
>
> In case you are wondering whether I take string theory
> seriously:  I draw an analogy to the early history of
> quantum mechanics
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/The_Quantum_age_begins.h
tml
> -- In 1900, how many correct predictions did QM make?
> None.  There was one correct postdiction, about the
> blackbody spectrum.
>
> -- In 1905, there were still no correct predictions.  The
> number of postdictions increased to two, including the
> photoelectric effect.
>
> -- In 1913 we got the Bohr model of the atom.  It made
> some predictions.  Some of them were more-or-less right,
> but many of them were wrong.
>
> -- The Schrödinger equation didn't come along until 1926.
>
> ===========
>
> This analogy connects to string theory as follows:  Right
> now string theory has been around for about 35 years.  It
> is currently in the state that QM was when QM was 10 or 12
> years old.  String theory makes no correct predictions,
> but it makes some rather profound postdictions:
>   -- Gravitation is not inconsistent with QM.
>   -- The self-energy of the electron is not infinite.
>
> String theory is so inchoate that one may reasonably
> question whether it is a scientific theory at all.  But
> it might turn into a scientific theory one of these
> days.  I wouldn't be surprised to find that the first
> predictions to come out of string theory are wrong, in
> analogy to the Bohr atom.
>
> One must not imagine that string theory is the "theory
> of everything".  Right now it is a theory of nothing.
> It might remain so forever, or it might turn into
> something important.  Most likely there will be some
> progress, then some backtracking (discarding some ideas
> and recylcing others), and them some more progress, et
> cetera.
>
> I'm not putting all my eggs in this basket.  But I'm
> not giving up on string theory, either.  After all,
> QM turned out OK after a few decades of work.