Links and Refs
Below you find a few comments on my site that we were
sent to me by friendly readers. If you want to see yours removed,
just let me know. Thanks in any case to all my readers, from all around
the globe (and at least from the United States,
Belgium, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, India,
France, Japan, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Israel, Croatia, Jordan, Puerto
Rico, Algeria, Bahrain, Oman, Iceland, Portugal, Austria, Brazil, Slovenia,
Ukraine, Slovak Republic, Ireland, Finland, Greece, Romania, Columbia,
Czech Republic, New Zealand, Argentina, Luxembourg, Philippines, Puerto
Rico, Poland, Iran, China, Switzerland, Oman, Korea, Hong Kong, Malaysia,
Cyprus, Taiwan, Kuwait, Norway, New Zealand, Bulgaria, United Arab Emirates,
Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Denmark, Chile, Turkey, Fiji, Gibraltar, Macedonia,
Nederlandse Antillen, Bermuda, Vatican, Senegal, Syria, Armenia, Panama, Macau,
Virgin Islands, North Korea, Cocos Islands, Libya, Tunesia, Pakistan, Quatar,
Ethiopia, Trinidad, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Estonia
Serbia-Montenegro, and South Africa;
if your country is not amongst the listed ones, please let me know).
Encouragement, Questions, Comments
I am having much difficulty grasping the "basics"
behind String theory. I feel that one particular area I need insight into
is dimensions. When I think about the expanding universe as 3 space dimensions
and 1 time dimension, then it seems as if these space dimensions would
be as infinite as the universe itself, and not something to be measured
in length. But in your description of the "extra" six dimensions of the
string theories, you refer to their size as basically microscopic and
thus invisible. Maybe it is my pure lack of understanding that causes
me to shake my head and wonder how one can attribute a "size" to a dimension,
especially when compared to our normal three-dimensions. If upon reading
this you feel that trying to explain dimensionality to me would take far
too long, I understand completely. You need not bother responding in that
case and I thank you for reading this anyways.
Hi Anderson cmww, You assume first of all that the universe is infinite. That,
we are not sure off yet. (A nice and technically correct, but harder reading
on the subject you can find at NASA.
The universe can be finite both in the time dimension, and in the space-dimensions.
When the universe is finite in one of these dimensions, it makes sense
to measure it. (Otherwise not.) Suppose for a second (to follow up on
your notions), that the universe is infinite in the time-direction, and
infinite in the three space directions that we are familiar with (up-down,
left-right,far-near). Indeed, we would not talk about measuring those
Now, we could have extra dimensions. An extra dimension is a whole new
direction that opens up. A standard analogy is the ant, running along
a sheet of paper, perhaps for its whole life. The ant could describe its
world with two coordinates. But, when it falls off, it would suddenly
notice a third direction opening up -- the ant would have discovered an
extra dimension. Now, we won't fall off our universe any time soon :),
but nevertheless, like the ant, we may be unaware of extra dimensions.
Again, the extra dimensions can be finite or infinite. When they are finite,
and obey more or less standard laws of physics, we can measure them. For
instance by sending a light signal (or graviton) into the extra directions,
and waiting whether it will return after some finite time. Hope that answers
part of your questions ..
Great website! I have a B.S. in Physics, and have
read Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe", and am thinking about getting
Lisa Randall's "Warped Passages" Yet I'd appreciate any suggestions on
books that contain a much larger number of illustrations and graphic analogies.
This subject (strings to branes to hidden manifolds) simply screams for
more diagrams to help describe the concepts. "Scientific American" has
had a few good articles on M-theory, branes and string theory, with wonderful
illustrations. But are there comprehensive books with many graphics that
you would reccomend? (It would be a plus if said books had similar visuals
for Supersymmetry and other ideas about how to go beyond the standard
model.) Thanks for your suggestions,
Robert Kaiser Science Department Nashua High School
South Nashua, NH
Thanks for your support, and your query.
I'm afraid you have dug deep enough to understand that there is not much
out there in terms of visualizing string theory, supersymmetry, and other
ideas beyond the standard model.
It seems to me it is hard to recommend anything, and that there is really
a big hole in the bookmarket here, that you have fluently identified.
It remains to fill it.
You're probably used to comments and questions
from crackpot laymen. Well, here's more. I'm an old trooper retired from
a huge telecommunications company who admire the thoughts of theorists.
Do I understand this correctly::: The answer to all
physical phenomena we behold can be explained with String Theories? And
are these strings simply energy rather than matter? Although I try to
absorb the words of the great physicists, I'm handicapped by a lack of
talent in intricate mathematics. So here's what I probably incorrectly
understand: Strings make up every particle in the universe. Strings are
vibrating loops of energy an octillionth of fempto meter in length. (+or-
a couple of atto meters) A string, or for that matter all that's a result
of string activity' exists in 10 rather than three spacial dimensions.
Even the most brilliant amongst us struggle visualizing that, although
I guess it's necessary to theorize the extra dimensions to satisfy the
arithmetic. I have little doubt that String Theory will prove to be the
Grand Unified Answer. I hope you and your brilliant colleagues continue
with your great work.
Hi John, Your summary is accurate, in fact. Most of your statements describe
correctly what we believe to be a consistent picture of our universe.
(Yes, every particle is a vibrational mode of a string, which is pure
energy, and the extra dimensions do exist, and are difficult to visualize,
etc.) However, professional string theorists are less certain than you
are that this is a correct and final theory of nature. Some do, some don't,
and only experiment can tell. That's why we're all curious to see whether
it will be confirmed by experiment in the coming decades, or not. (These
could be either experiments done in accelerators, as in Cern (in Geneva),
or cosmological observations.)
And, thanks for your contribution to telecommunication !
I visited your website explaining string theory
for the layman such as myself, and was definitely impressed. I should
probably mention that I am a Christian. This may cause you to wonder why
I would chose to read material concerning string theory. However, I believe
that I should examine all explanations for the creation and operation
of the universe, for I expect for my beliefs to hold up to rigorous testing.
If what I believe is proven to be less likely than another explanation,
then I should change my views.
I mentioned my religious and scientific views because
in spite of our differences I found that your site was polite and considerate.
In your responses section you replied to an e-mail from and individual
who was having difficulty with someone who believed in creation. I was
again impressed with your response to that person. While I am obviously
on the other side of the debate, I completely agree that it is far better
to define you own beliefs rather than try and argue someone else out of
theirs. I also thoroughly agree with your comment about being nice and
polite rather than using insults or mockery when debating or arguing.
Nothing is gained for anyone when people on either side of the argument
Also, I admire your acknowledgement that while
string theory is persuasive, yet is not full backed by data and proof.
To be willing to say the truth, even when not all of it supports your
case, is an attribute to be respected.
Finally, your choice not to give your name or credentials
on the site is also deserving of respect. Again I agree that what should
be considered is the facts, the content of your site, not who wrote it.
In summary, while I doubt that our beliefs coincide, I am pleased and
impressed with your polite, reasonable and respectful writing. While I
did not get the opportunity to fully explore your explanation of string
theory, I fully intend to return to your site and continued reading the
material. -Aubrey R.
P.S. Having nearly an unlimited desire for knowledge,
I went looking for who wrote the site after having read it. While I found
your name and such, I still have no knowledge of your credentials (though
they are clearly respectable) and still intend to judge the site only
on the merits of the content.
Thanks a lot for you inspired encouragement. Indeed, though few scientists tend to address the issue in public, there is a moral
aspect to science, to practicing it and to
teaching it. The reasons for not addressing the issue too often, are sound, in my opinion, but they should not stop us from raising moral
issues on occassion. In some passages in my site, indeed, I have consciously made reference to particular moral issues implicit in certain
debates (-- whether having an impact on the content of the debate or on the methodology to be used in the debate --). I have tried to do
this politely and sincerely, and I am glad that you who hold different views have found the way I present my beliefs reasonable.
I became interested in string/superstring theory
about five years ago. However, what got me hooked on string theory was
something I learned in high school many years ago, a something that has
stayed with me to this day. The atom and its subatomic particles appear
to mimic the galaxy and its planets. That held my imagination. It truly
was the music of the spheres: everything was intertwined. Then came quantum
mechanics v. Einstein's theory. It begged the question: why do cosmology
and subatomic studies find essentially the same outward appearances and
yet their laws are incompatible. String theory looks like the leap of
our time. As a layperson interested in what things are all about, I am
searching out explanations that will not require great mathematical or
physics acumen. Your site is great, the best I have found; but I think
you could simplify it still. Thank you so very much, however, for realizing
that the world needs/wants to see what string theory is unveiling. Jane
Hi Jane. It's good to hear you kept some of the initial enthousiasm that grabs us all when we start
to appreciate in how wonderful a manner nature operates. It's great that you could partially satisfy
your quest for further understanding by browsing through my site -- and yes, you are certainly right
that large parts can be simplified further. Gradually but surely I try to fill the large gaps between
the bones of the skeleton
that has been put into place -- it takes more time than I have ..
Your story about relativity, found on the web,
is nice. I like it very much, clear and intuitive. However, I miss an
explanation of what are really space and time? Could You help me with
this intricate question? In my view it is the bodies themselves that define
space and time, their location and their motion. Saying that their motion
is caused by curved spacetime, appear to me as a reason in circle. I would
like to understand gravitation as corrections to Newton's gravitation
law. Is that possible? Cheers, Kjell
Hi Kjell, Thanks for your encouragement. It's a difficult question to
describe "space and time" as derived concepts, i.e. to explain there existence
in terms of other quantities. There are ideas on this, where space-time
emerges as a coherent state of elementary particles or strings (that form
a vacuum that Is space-time -- this mechanism would be a special manifestation
of a technical phenomenon called 'spontaneous symmetry breaking'.), but
none of these ideas is quite convincing as yet. That leaves us with the
possibility to just postulate the existence of space and time, and then
to analyze objects in them, which are made off excitations of space-time
(e.g. matter, gravitons, etc). That this may leave you unsatisfied is
normal. Your feeling is shared by experts who have the tools to judge
possible solutions -- none of the possible solutions that we have come
up with convincingly answers your question. However, your other question
has been answered in textbooks on general relativity. Indeed, it is possible
to calculate that general relativity gives a correction to Newton's law,
from first principles (in general relativity). The calculation is slightly
non-trivial. You can find example calculations in Wald's book on GR, or
in Weinberg's book (i guess). They require a considerable amount of math.
I found your site linked from a link-sharing site
(linkdump.be), and I enjoyed it very much. I even sent the link to a friend
of mine who is very interested in physics, and I'm sure he'll enoy it
as much as I did.
I feel I should mention to you, however, that your site is riddled with
numerous spelling errors. I understand that what I read is a work in progress,
but the errors are very distracting. Of course, as an English teacher
in an American high school, I may just be especially sensitive to such
things, but besides the spelling problems, there were also several punctuation
and grammatical errors, and there was also a very serious two-part factual
Before I was an English teacher, I was a Music teacher. In your Introduction
section you use the example of music as a way to show how mathematics
can be used to explain the world. You mentioned a string on a violin that
sounds the note C. Well, there is no C string on a violin, at least not
in standard tuning. The strings go (from low to high pitch) G, D, A, and
E. There is a C string on a cello, so perhaps you could change your example
to name that instrument intead of the violin, or perhaps you could simply
change the C string in your example to a string that actually exists on
That would only fix the first part of the error, though. The second mistake
is where you said that a C string with one quarter of its length removed
would produce the note E. This is simply not correct. Shortening a string
by 25% raises the pitch one major fourth, so your C string with one quarter
of its length removed would produce an F, not an E.
That may seem like a relatively small error, and I suppose it is, since
the example you used was only that, and your main point is not really
affected by it. However, as soon as someone with a musical background
comes along and reads that section, you immediately lose credibility with
that reader. Compounded with the spelling, punctuation, and grammatical
errors, your work begins to take on a decidedly amateurish aspect, and
I know that's not what you want. You have a wonderful ability to explain
complicated ideas in a simple way, and that is a rare gift among scientists.
Correct language mechanics and a correction of the music example's errors
would enhance that gift, and make your explanations much more clear to
laymen such as myself.
Again, I enjoyed your site very much. Folks like you are what make the
Sacramento, California USA
Thanks a lot for your constructive comments, Derek. I spellchecked all my
files (but did not upload them yet) and corrected the musical mistakes you patiently
pointed out. Your message is a shining example of useful feedback.
This really does help a layperson like myself
to get to grips with this
fascinating theory. However, can you change the grey background behind
which makes it rather hard to read?
Ok, thanks, I tried to improve the colors. (Although I noticed the phenomenon
on certain monitors, on particular platforms and with some browsers, I
did not think it was gneric. But you are right in insisting on this point,
since it is essential to me that I do not loose readers due to thoughtless
great website …
lets assume that we have a microscope capable of probing well into an
atom … trillions of time more powerful than any microscope today
… and we're able to observe a "string". What's the next
logical question … "what makes up this string", right?
when does this process sub-dividing stop?
Hi Tom. Up until now, we always had a reason to think that this subdivision
would never stop. That
has changed. In string theory, there is no reason (yet) to believe that
strings are made of smaller
components still. That does not imply that we will not find smaller components
though. We might.
(For the technical experts: what I'm referring to is, amongst other ingredients,
the Landau pole of QED, the fact that GUTs do not incorporate gravity, and the
indications that string bits exist as well as a description of an M-theory vacuum
in terms of D-particles.)
Hi! I enjoy your
web site about String Theory. I'm an artist but I'm interested in
understanding the universe that serves me so well in my paintings.
My question is: Can you brand a particle or series of particles
before they develop a high uncertainty in momentum and then track
where they are at all times? >hank you, I'm enjoying reading your
site. Victor M, Peapack, New Jersey
No, you cannot, unfortunately. Any type of "branding" would
subject to the same principle of uncertainty that does not allow us
to determine momentum and position of a particle simultaneously.
Note that implicitly, you are assuming some magic property of
the "branding" that will allow this procedure to escape from
laws of physics (as we know them at this time). "Branding" of
cell, or molecule in a cell, for instance (in biophysics) is
typically done with another atom. The branding is useful in that
context because it suffices to determine the position of the cell
(or molecule) within a particular uncertainty which is much larger
(!) that the fundamental bound described somewhere in my site.
Have fun painting, J
Thank you for your response, that spurs me know more about the
subject. I think I understand your point but I'm also reluctant to
implicitly assume that the laws of physics as we know them now are
unchanging therefore precluding any thinking outside probability. I
guess I'm a hopeless optimist.
My name is Michael, and first Id like to
tell you how much Ive enjoyed your web site Ive found it to
be most informative, well laid out, and very easy to read. Great job!
While reading your web site, a question occurred
to me that I feel I should already know the answer to, but I dont.
So Im hoping you can point me to further reading material on this
subject. My question roughly is this: The second law of thermodynamics
tells us that energy/matter will tend towards disorder over time. As far
as I am aware, the second law transcends the boundaries of scale from
the classical world into the quantum world. So if, for instance, an electron
is to be considered a probability cloud, and is also considered a quanta
of energy in its own right, would it be fair to say that the electron
is merely energy that has reached the most disordered state allowed by
its surroundings (i.e. the discrete energy levels of the electron
To put the question in another form, do things
tend towards disorder because that is the state in which the most states
are available to them? Does the universe on every scale of physics yearn
to allow for the broadest set of available states, and therefore the broadest
set of possible futures?
Thank you for your very valuable time!
Thanks, Michael. It needs to be said though that
you mix up a few things in your involved question. Let me just point out
that thermodynamics teaches us properties of systems of a huge number
of particles, and that its laws will not apply to single particles. (The
discipline of statistical mechanics teaches us a lot about how to move
from laws governing single particles to thermodynamical laws. It deserves
a few sites of its own.) So, the scaling you apply to thermodynamical
laws is not quite correct, and any conclusion you draw from them has to
be taken with a few grains of salt.
Hello, my name is Dennis. If other dimensions do exist what are the possibilities
of other worlds
or other universes?. Is it possible that there is a parallel world (for
lack of a better term) that exists in
the same space as ours.
Thank You, Dennis H
Hello Dennis. Extra dimensions have nothing to do with extra universes.
These issues may sound related, but are really quite distinct. Extra universes
might exist but they are (when interpreted in a particular sense) of no
consequence to us, so
perhaps we should not inquire into them. Extra dimensions are of great
consequence to us: their consequences are measurable and may or may not
be measured in the near future (e.g. in particle accelerators). As far
as other civilizations are concerned: I' ld be happy to meet them.
I found your site after seeing a tv program (UK tv) on the subject. I've
always been interested as a layperson in anything that helps me to imagine
how the universe works & I find this latest theory extremely interesting,
fascinating, real food for thought, despite my complete lack of any higher
mathematical knowledge. I intend to read & re-read your writings until
I can properly grasp the idea as images in my mind rather than just words
(my own field of expertise) which are a poor substitute for the visual.
Thanks a lot for what you've done, I'm sure many more people around the
globe feel the same.
Thanks a lot, Colin. Personally, I've always find it more instructive
to consult more sources than to keep re-reading a single one, so that
is what I recommend you to do. Have fun visualizing our crazy universe
Very nice site. A few corrections: Standard Model:
Photon spin is 1!
Nobel Prize! ( Not Price!)
There are numerous grammatical errors, but in general very readable!
You might mention how the beautiful conservation laws of 3+1 dimensions
extends into the extra dimensions as explanations of such mysteries as
charge conservation. I recommend the site to any one interested in a simple
but basically correct translation of the frontier of physics. Marvin
Hi Marvin. Oops ! Did I really write something different than that the
photon spin is 1 ? That was most definitely a typo. I cannot claim the
same for the prizes, unfortunately -- I'm not a native speaker. Anyway,
thanks for the suggested improvements, the corrections and the encouragement.
Would you like support for your web site?
I would love to take this opportunity to give you just that. I find
your site very informative and well written. I am one of your intended
readers too, a laymen. I have a technical background, however, lack
the mathematical understanding to truly understand it all. For that
I am saddened. In any event, I am grateful someone like yourself has
taken the time to convey the material directly to me. (...)
I will however ask this of you now. In no
way am I questioning your credibility with respect to the subject
material (I have read enough to know you are not making things up),
but who are you exactly? I think you should put that in bold letters
on the home page. This is who I am, these are my accomplishments and
this is why you should feel confident reading these pages--something
to that extent. I think you should do this for two reasons: one, it
gives your site credibility and two, you deserve the acknowledgment
for doing this work. (...)
Adam D'Agosto Phoenix, Arizona
Thanks a lot for the encouragement, Adam. I trust in the judgment
of my readers as far as my credibility or acknowledgements go. My
credentials are in fact of no importance -- you should judge the site
by content, not by the credentials of the author. And the only acknowledgement
I'm after is mails like yours, and a simple link on your web site
if you have one. Enjoy the rest of the text.
- Another message from Adam:
In any event, I am currently reading The Elegant
Universe by Brian Greene. I am sure you are familiar with it. Anyway,
as you can imagine, a slew of questions come up in reading the text,
but this is one that I am particularly interested in.
That book is the best introductory text available now. A more
technical introduction is on the way, but it still won't answer all
questions. (End 2004 (?), by author B.Z.)
In a very basic sense of String Theory, my
question pertains to our perceptions of stings and point particles.
My current view of electrons, protons
and neutrons is that they are little "balls". Electrons are really
little balls and the protons and neutrons are much larger balls.
That's roughly right.
Should I now replace that visual concept with
a new picture that is something like this: an electron is a single
string, and protons and neutrons are actually made up of several strings.
Strings combine to make the quarks and the quarks combine to make
Is that the gist? Or is a proton just one
string like an electron?
Yes, that is the gist. One "mode of vibration" of a string is
an electron, and another mode of vibration of the string will be a
quark. (In fact, these particles are not supposed to be that different
from the viewpoint of GUT's, Grand Unified (field) Theories (theories
that do not include gravitation). -- you can try to find out more
about these GUT's on the web, although I'm afraid not many good explanations
are freely available.)
Thus, a proton will be a "bound state" of three quarks, i.e.
of three strings (or, slightly more precisely, of three endpoints
of open strings). Just like a hydrogen atom is a "bound state" of
an electron and a proton.
- I've read and referred your site to friends
so many times I can no longer count. I am an avg. 28 y/o who has a passionate
but purely layman appreciation for physics. I find your site fascinating
and thought provoking, a true token to your ability to explain these
complex concepts very well. It has also made me look at my particular
focus at the moment with new eyes. Of late I have been researching something
called Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge reactors, an over-unity electrical
power generation system. I am continually awed by all the new things
that are being theorized and discovered. Thanks for helping me get even
a glimpse of how cool string theory is.
Keep up the good work.
Jamie Wilson Toronto, ON Canada
Thanks a lot Jamie, that's a powerful compliment you give me.
Keep referring to my site (:)) and always realize that for instance
in the building of particle accelerators the tiniest of technological
advances can sometimes save the day for the whole machine.
- "Thank you for the work you have done so far
on this web site I can grasp much of what you are saying and look forward
to further detail.
Thanks ! I hope to satisfy your curiosity in the future.
- " Hello,
I am Stephen Currier. I have found your web site discussing the String
Theory. I find this fascinating. I am enjoying your writings very much.
I am an electrical engineer of average intelligence I suppose. I find
the String Theory difficult to understand. (10 dimensional hyper space???)
I haven't run across that type of description on your site yet. I find
your straight forward style to be very informative. I will continue
to read your page until I have seen all of it and established a good
understanding of what you are sharing.
Thank you very much for putting together a
description of the String Theory that the more average person can
appreciate. Keep up the great work!
Thanks ! We all find String Theory fairly difficult to understand.
- "Looks good, interesting, I'll see if you are
successful (I've recommended it to a couple of people w/o math backgrounds).
One suggestion, if the main text area can be expanded - make the "Table
of Contents" of variable width or minimizeable - on a laptop its distracting
to have to scroll the lines back and forth. Good Luck From Steve Cohn"
Thanks ! My design is not easily adapted to your needs, unfortunately.
I'll keep your remark in mind when I redesign the site.
- In what kind of maths should one specialize
in order to understand string theory ? CVK
Good question -- difficult to answer.
All elementary math is mandatory (including functional analysis, linear
algebra and geometry -- for example, differentiating and integrating
functions, diagonalizing matrices, and euclidean geometry). After
that, differential geometry, Lie group theory, algebraic geometry
and e.g. theory of modular functions comes in handy.
In general, I would say that the more math you know, the better, but,
at the same time it needs to be said that the best way to learn all
this math may be to face the physics first, and then see what math
Good luck !
- I am currently on a debate site with a creationist.
I have had no problem disputing his "evidence" that evolution is false,
a global flood and the like. Recently, no matter what question someone
asks him...he resorts to math as an answer.
Ask him what color his car is, and you get
a math equation. (Not really an example, but you get the idea).
Recently, he posted this. I have no idea what
he is talking about, but I was hoping you could shed some light on
"There is a beginning to time that emerges
especially from more complex derivatives of this and that beginning
of time suggests something far different than a Big Bang, but not
different from Strings.
-Wp -Qh = T = Mc6 where Q is less than 0.
- W = negative pressure x infinity -Q = -1/heat x infinity T = Time
+ Gravity + Energy in three coexisting levels (That's where we must
use some imagination at first) Mc6 = the total content of mass per
quanta, including the warping of gravity and time, and the maximum
relative velocity prior to the threshold of infinity manifest in the
From T emerges G then from G emerges E and
all that we know to be manifest. A Big Banger will contest this and
if unable to do so with math itself, will do so with derogative remarks.
Nobody has asked in the related thread for me to expand on this. All
I've received is "idiot" remarks, but nothing demonstrating an anti-equation."
He has been called every single name in the
book by others also debating him (not proper debate "etiquette" I
suppose), but if you have read some of this guys posts, you can understand
Hi Eric. My advice is not to waste your time on trying to convince
this particular wo/man that s/he is talking nonsense. You will be
much better off spending your time on studying more of the physics
you like, and the math that is necessary to comprehend it. It will
then be obvious to you which arguments to ignore, and which ones to
Of course, if you struggle with determining your attitude in
these kinds of debate, you may want to delve in to science philosophy
or philosophy in general. You can try reading Kuhn and Feyerabend,
for instance, or Descartes and Hume, or Derrida and Bricquemont-Sokal,
and determine your own attitude in the (largely futile) debate on
how to make strong arguments. Finally, you should read Wittgenstein,
and throw his book away after finishing it.
Furthermore, it certainly is not a good idea to call the person
in question all the names in the book. It is more important to act
as a nice person than to win a particular argument, it seems to me.
So, don't follow that unpleasant strategy that your fellow-debaters
embrace. Keep the debate civil, or choose to withdraw from the debate
at an opportune moment. In this particular instance, this moment would
occur fairly early.
More references ?
- Good morning sir,
I'm a young student and I'm attending to university
(physics).I'm interested in this subject. I've read an article about
M-Theory and I'd like to know more about it. Could you suggest to
me any books or pamphlets in which the matter is explained better,
please? I thank you for your time and I beg your pardon for the disturbance.
- Hi. i was wondering if you could tell me if
you know of any books published this year on m theory? I am fairly up
to date with string theory, for a layman......and want something that
details more about m theory itself
Hi Valentina and Hayati. Unfortunately, books or articles on
M-theory for the layman are hard to come by. Indeed, that is one of
the reasons for me to have created this site. In other words, I have
no good answer to your question (except for the ones already given
in my reference section).
Let me give a few unsatisfactory answers. The main source for
papers on M-theory is
SPIRES, the high-energy physics papers data base maintained by
SLAC at Stanford university. Go to the search engine, learn the search
commands, and improvise. (E.g. search term "t M-theory".) What you
will find are extremely technical and mathematical papers on M-theory.
You can also look in New Scientist, Nature and Science for slightly
more accessible papers on the subject -- you may need to go to your
science library to obtain these papers, since, in contrast to almost
all of our community's recent papers, they are not available for free.
Rumor has it that there will appear a nice book on string theory,
accessible even to undergraduate students in physics, authored by
BZ, in (the beginning of) 2004. Keep an eye out for it.
- " Hi,
I came across your site doing some research. I am a student interested
in modern physics. I was curious of what your purdentials were and your
The first criterium to judge my site on is its contents. It is
not easy to do this, but you can take many approaches. For instance,
you may wish to consult experts whom you trust on their thoughts on
the explanations presented here. Or, with considerable effort, you
may acquire sufficient expertise to judge it by yourself. Or, you
may require credentials. The latter method is not my favorite, since
it cannot be viewed as an intrinsic approach to the question: how
do I carefully judge the content of the site ? It does of course provide
an extrinsic approach to your evaluation problem. So, let me say that
my credentials are okay: you can find them through some ingenious
googling, which I leave as an exercise.