Making sense of string theory | Brian Greene
Why Physics Stack Exchange recommends it
Physics Stack Exchange users link it as an accessible introduction to string theory and its extra dimensions, and as a reference point for claims about string theory and the LHC.
Recommended by 1 people across 1 different months, 2010 to 2016.
What it is
A 2008 TED talk in which string theorist Brian Greene traces physics from Einstein's gravity and space-time to superstring theory, where tiny vibrating strands in extra dimensions make up all particles and forces. It is pitched in non-technical language for a general audience.
What people said
Recommends pablasso · 2010-11 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “What is your simplest explanation of string theory?”
Just to complement "The Elegant Universe", a quickstart. A talk in TED by Brian Green "The Universe On A String" [this video]
Cites aditsu · 2013-02 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “What is the current status of string theory (2013)?”
@Vibert some string theorists have (or at least had) no problem making links with LHC physics: [this video] (although he's talking about proving rather than disproving something)
Cites Symmetry · 2014-02 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “What Does it Mean for an Extra Dimension to Have Size?”
Recently I watched this [this video] presentation by Brian Greene on string theory. In it he describes how the reason we don't observe the extra dimensions required by string theory could be because they are very small and "hidden" from us. He uses an analogy of looking across a parking lot at a telephone wire. From our vantage point the wire seems flat. However, to an ant crawling on the wire, it would not seem flat at all. The ant can see this clearly, though the fact is "hidden" from us in our vantage point. I can see how this crude analogy can provide a conceptualization of why possible other dimensions cannot be seen, but I don't see how this can in any way hint toward the extra dimension be
Cites SchrodingersCat · 2016-01 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “Precision of the Gravitational Constant”
There are $20$ numbers which are of maximum importance in physics. Well, $20$ is probably not going to do it these days (maybe you were reading something written before the neutrino oscillation discovery of the late $1990$'s). Before the Super Kamiokande experiments in the $1990$'s, we all thought that neutrinos were massless and didn't mix with each other, and that reduced the number of parameters. Here goes a tabulation of the parameters: masses of electron, muon, and tau leptons (3) masses of six quarks: up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom (6) Mixing matrix of the down-type quarks, which is parameterized by four independent angles. To find out more, look up " CKM Matrix " or " Cabibbo-K