String Theory[Modified Version]

[BronyPony 575]

CURRENT UPDATES: The LHC had detected a 'boson' at 125.6 GeV, which is consistent with this theory because the Higgs String is predicted to be 3.14 GeV and since there are on average 20 collisions of protons occurring and 2 protons colliding per collision.

 

Well, since I couldn't think of a better name for the theory, I decided to stick with the original title, BUT anyways...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8wFoJrNSBE

 

Since I didn't really want to spend so much room in a topic I decided to make a YouTube video AND a google document to give information so far on my modified version of String Theory. Sorry if the video is bad quality(even my voice sucks).

 

Here is the link to the google doc if anyone is interested: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UfXpfp1ckgCCDSzIsCPeBR2NrSJ1h4FSc8DLJZi2UD8/edit

 

I will be adding more information onto the topic once more data is collected,

 

NOTE: The language in the Google Doc may need changing to fit the current idea of the theory. If people want to contribute to the theory, you can PM me and maybe even gain access to the document to give both feedback and edit it if you see errors or want to contribute.

 

 

Update 1:
 

Why isn't this topic getting any attention? I worked hard and this is the amount of attention this thread gets. Huh...

 

But anyways, some new data has come in. A new "effect particle" has been added to the New Standard Model. Well, not added but changed. It seems gluons are different than what the original Standard Model predicts it to be. 

 

There is an equation being worked out to describe the properties of the new gluon. This standard model refers to the gluon as an Emitted Field particle, or emito particle. Basically, this particle is the result of the collision of vibrating strings at the same locations as the "effect particles". The particle, with a Hydrogen atom, is predicted to be 0.155 GeV, however the energy changes proportional to the amount of quarks formed. Again, there is an equation being formed to describe the emito's properties.

 

EDIT: Here are the equations for the emito partcles;

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2013 by BronyPony

[Dark Fox 151]

This is a pony forum bro, the reason you're not getting updates is because very few people have the interest/knowledge/time for a riveting discussion concerning particle physics. Especially when it requires 17 minutes of frankly droning commentary or at the least 5 paragraphs along with equations and figures that fly over the heads of the layman.

 

Not to be mean, I just don't see how I could personally contribute without a college level course, or at least a a considerable amount of time on wikipedia. But it looks nice and sciencey if that makes you feel better. sorry...

[BronyPony 575]

This is a pony forum bro, the reason you're not getting updates is because very few people have the interest/knowledge/time for a riveting discussion concerning particle physics. Especially when it requires 17 minutes of frankly droning commentary or at the least 5 paragraphs along with equations and figures that fly over the heads of the layman.

 

Not to be mean, I just don't see how I could personally contribute without a college level course, or at least a a considerable amount of time on wikipedia. But it looks nice and sciencey if that makes you feel better. sorry...

I really can't post this on any other forum because either most science forums are inactive or contain to many trolls to actually do something productive. When I saw "quantum mechanics" in the description of this category I thought maybe some people could contribute in comments about it, but I guess not.

 

What do you mean by droning? Do I seriously sound like a robot?

[Dark Fox 151]

I really can't post this on any other forum because either most science forums are inactive or contain to many trolls to actually do something productive. When I saw "quantum mechanics" in the description of this category I thought maybe some people could contribute in comments about it, but I guess not.

Haha, I actually never noticed that in the description, It sounds like a hyperbole to me, but whatever, maybe all the physics fans went to sleep for the night, lol

What do you mean by droning? Do I seriously sound like a robot?

Yeah, you do, it's cool though, just spice it up with some explosions and boobs, the video I mean, not your voice. Unless that sounds cool to you.

[BronyPony 575]

Haha, I actually never noticed that in the description, It sounds like a hyperbole to me, but whatever, maybe all the physics fans went to sleep for the night, lol

Yeah, you do, it's cool though, just spice it up with some explosions and boobs, the video I mean, not your voice. Unless that sounds cool to you.

I'll just keep the video the way it is for now. I am still waiting for some people to comment on the theory. Again, the problem is most science forums are either inactive or full of trolls, which just ruins things.

 

UPDATE: Some new diagrams and equations to describe the properties of the emito particle:

 

Basically, the idea is that muons and tau neutrinos are results of the emito particle, where the energy of the emito particle(caused by the formation of quarks and electrons) forms gluon(emito) particles which then allows a field to surround protons and neutrons. However, these emito(gluon) particles can only be formed inside the ? field, which is formed with the interaction of vibrating strings.

 

EDIT: An edit was done to the equation describing the Emito particle because instead of the decay of Tau Neutrinos and muon, there is a decay of the Muon Neutrino and the Muon. That is what differentiates the two particles. Emito particles are responsible with quarks and positive particles while antiemito particles are responsible for the opposite particles, such as electrons.

Edited April 1, 2013 by BronyPony

[Evilshy 5,090]

I could just be flattering myself, but I honestly think the "Quantum mechanics" in the section description was a result of me and a few others often getting into arguments/discussions over weird theoretical physics stuff in the really early days of the forum. We had more than a few sciency people, and not a lot to talk about. Now that it's grown, anything sciency is quickly overshadowed by more accessible topics. But I feel your pain; I want my freaky science back

 

While I did understand a lot of what you said (or at least, more than most people would), a lot of the equations were over my head.

 

Although, in response to your video: you said you didn't know if there was a way for elements heavier than hydrogen to form naturally? The vast majority of them (up until #92) form from extremely high energy fusion in the cores of stars (the more massive the star, the higher the energy in the core, and the heavier elements it can fuse), supernovae, and other such high-energy things. Elements up to #99 can be found in nature, but it's really hard because they all have short half-lives (on a geological time scale), and I'm not sure how they are formed.

Elements over #100 are all synthetic, as far as we know. Most have a half-life of less than a day, too, so it's really hard to study them.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Evilshy

[BronyPony 575]

I could just be flattering myself, but I honestly think the "Quantum mechanics" in the section description was a result of me and a few others often getting into arguments/discussions over weird theoretical physics stuff in the really early days of the forum. We had more than a few sciency people, and not a lot to talk about. Now that it's grown, anything sciency is quickly overshadowed by more accessible topics. But I feel your pain; I want my freaky science back

 

While I did understand a lot of what you said (or at least, more than most people would), a lot of the equations were over my head.

 

Although, in response to your video: you said you didn't know if there was a way for elements heavier than hydrogen to form naturally? The vast majority of them (up until #92) form from extremely high energy fusion in the cores of stars (the more massive the star, the higher the energy in the core, and the heavier elements it can fuse), supernovae, and other such high-energy things. Elements up to #99 can be found in nature, but it's really hard because they all have short half-lives (on a geological time scale), and I'm not sure how they are formed.

Elements over #100 are all synthetic, as far as we know. Most have a half-life of less than a day, too, so it's really hard to study them.

Thank you, that actually supports my theory. The idea is velution, which is vibrational evolution, is caused by energy fluctuations and changes within the "frequencies" of these strings. The short-living of these elements is due the instability of velution itself at such high levels, especially with emito particles and the way quarks and electrons work.

[One 498]

Your voice in the video is "boring", and the "accent" makes it just slightly difficult to understand exactly what you're saying. Other than that the video is intriguing, but I found it not well layed out and at some parts it sounded as if you weren't too sure with yourself.

 

On the theory itself, I found nothing wrong with it, as you did have, as much as I could figure, viable reasons to back it up. Although I am only 15 so don't except me to be educated even slightly in areas such as quantum mechanics or general relativity. (I will admit, however, I know more about those subjects then most others of my age.) The last thing I want to say is that the theory is wrong, because I am not well enough educated to do much of a debate on this matter, but some other theory's out there seemed more plausible; that may just be how they were presented to me however.

 

You also said that you were going to explain other things that you "didn't have time for" in another video; so quick question, is that video out yet, and if so could you possibly post it? Thanks.

[BronyPony 575]

Your voice in the video is "boring", and the "accent" makes it just slightly difficult to understand exactly what you're saying. Other than that the video is intriguing, but I found it not well layed out and at some parts it sounded as if you weren't too sure with yourself.

 

On the theory itself, I found nothing wrong with it, as you did have, as much as I could figure, viable reasons to back it up. Although I am only 15 so don't except me to be educated even slightly in areas such as quantum mechanics or general relativity. (I will admit, however, I know more about those subjects then most others of my age.) The last thing I want to say is that the theory is wrong, because I am not well enough educated to do much of a debate on this matter, but some other theory's out there seemed more plausible; that may just be how they were presented to me however.

 

You also said that you were going to explain other things that you "didn't have time for" in another video; so quick question, is that video out yet, and if so could you possibly post it? Thanks.

I suck at presenting things pretty much. Also, if it is wrong, what is the problem? I don't really accept those kind of answers because there is no evidence backing them up.

 

Videos are coming soon.

[stainesbrony 219]

The string theory should be called "the annoyingly complicated theory" because it is annoyingly complicated. Also, it's hard to believe, because nothing actually exists.