String Theory and Big Bang theory.?

Oh... you're in for a treat as you learn real stuff instead of religion garbage.

Yes, Big Bang is still doing pretty well as a theory. String theory is having some trouble these days. There's lots of theory and not enough facts.

Somewhere near the bottom of this pile is the truth.... and when the truth is found, it will perhaps change the entire world - like the discovery of the electro-magnetic field theory did.

Our modern world - everything we wear, eat, use as tools - is all created for us through the elec-mag field theory. So you can imagine what new things will come to mankind when more of the forces of the universe are gathered into a Grand Unified Field Theory. We will know about Life, the Universe... and Everything.

The Big Bang explains the origin of the universe and still has success. String theory however is about linking quantum gravity to general relativity. The two don't compete with each other. String theory is having issues. There Quantum Electrodynamics is somewhat of an alternative and is more accepted.

<QUOTE>Do they both explain origin of the universe? </QUOTE>

Brian Greene explains this succinctly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P3iymn1yzc#t=3m07s

<QUOTE>If string theory doesn't explain the origin, then what does it explain?</QUOTE>

Now Lawrence Krauss: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo#t=32m38...

Now on a side note. Regardless of your academic background, you *must* gain a solid background before diving into the more complicated stuff. You have gain a solid background in mathematics, you have to gain a solid background in mechanics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics. When you get well-versed on those, the remainder sounds familiar and you already have the agility to grapple with the more difficult stuff. So prepare yourself in school with what you have so that you're solid when you enter college.

properly, that's the project: there is not any solid evidence against the super Bang thought. after all, the thought (the genuine one) is very common: it describes the habit of a universe the place the means content textile is persevering with, and the place the means density decreases as area expands. The universe does incorporate means and area is increasing (those are observations that have been shown earlier the thought grew to become into formulated). people who declare to have evidence against the super Bang thought, in many cases make up some ingredient, then declare that it comes from the super Bang thought, then say that there is evidence against it. to illustrate, some human beings say "the super Bang thought says the universe grew to become into made from not something". fake. the thought says not something approximately how the universe started. it could purely be used after a 2nd we call the Planck Time. At that 2nd, the means already existed and area grew to become into already increasing. in spite of "led to" the universe to exist would have befell earlier the Planck Time (for this reason, it could not join the super Bang thought). the guy who got here up with the unique hypothesis (Father Lemaitre, in 1927) thought the unique means got here rapidly from God. we can not instruct him incorrect... and we can not instruct him suited. because of the fact even in his interpretation, God's creation of the means would have come earlier the Planck Time (for this reason, not area of the super Bang thought). distinctive human beings describe the super Bang thought as an "explosion"; it relatively is not. it relatively is the expansion of area itself. considering that's still happening now, it relatively is totally complicated to disclaim.

String theory doesn't explain squat. It is CLEAR BS. Not many people take that crap seriously anymore, besides BBC, Discovery, and PBS.

You may find the following useful:

MathTutorDVD.com

http://mathtutordvd.com/

and

The Great Courses

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/

-----------------------

Best regards