|
|
|
|
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/13/2008 2:27:59 PM | Ok everyone. Let me have a crack at this.
We can theorize all we want regarding dimensions, strings and anything quantum, but we have to take it allot farther than what I am reading in this thread. Atoms are way to large to even be in this topic, we must take it right down to the sub atomic particles that make up the none universe. Leaving the dark mater theory aside for now, there is a constant in the universe and is overlooked time and time again. That constant is Electro Magnetics. It is what binds all mater together and makes life possible. Everything gives off a magnetic field be it + or - it is still there. Disrupt this constant and all hell brakes loose. Thankfully we have not found a way to do this, YET. Given this constant we can calculate time and distance. By calculating time and distance we can almost calculate the event horizon of a black hole. It is known as the Calvin scale. The scale we use to try and calculate the exact moment all mater coexists, or the point where space and time change direction. Alternate universes. It is at the exact moment of an event horizon of a black hole we theorize that time and space are one. As fare as we know only the immense power of a black hole can disrupt the electro magnetic energy of the universe. There for creating Null space where time may be altered. Now this is purely theoretical mind you, we can not calculate exact 0 time. To do that we need distance the sub atomic particles are from each other. Even using the Calvin scale we have managed to calculate it very close. To the point that the distance is so small the math will not work. At this point they say that the sub atomic particles are occupying the same time and space. Maybe some day we will calculate the exact moment of Null space and open the window to other dimensions or more. Till then keep theorizing, maybe someone will hit it on the nose. God help us all if we do. lol
Now as far as sending an apple across the room electronically, this is possible but not yet. To do this you need to tag each subatomic particle in the apple and have a computer of such magnitude to track each particle and map it. Once that is done its a simple mater of basic Electro Magnetic Propagation. Something we do every day. | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/15/2008 4:40:04 AM | I posted this in another forum so I'm throwing it out here to see if anyone can help me.
I was wondering if the physical behaviour of the universe may simply be a system that is geared towards defining itself as a variable capable of upholding all possible relationships in the dimensions it's inhabiting.
Occuring through localized calculations of relationships between dimensions in systems, like stars for example, and while upholding laws of conservation, a cycle of progress utilizing conflict and equilibrium, will eventually account for all possible relationships, in a manner which dilates it's entirety into a variable capable of maintaining all those relationships.
And that variable will be considered locally to be an absolute. It will be given more weight in it's interaction with other local phenomenom in the system of systems it inhabits, so that ultimately all systems will allow relationships between themselves and the universe will be dilated into a single variable capable of defining all possible relationships in the dimensions it is using.
Then that variable will be compared to itself on some level which leads to a new dimension and new system of dimensional relationships.
Although I am no expert on anything. But is that what string theory is? | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/15/2008 12:51:34 PM | Here is an historical synopsis of string theory's development and modern approach:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9410046
Even if you aren't mathematically inclined, you can still get a lot out the article. | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/15/2008 3:07:48 PM | Theres a part of me that really loves the whole string theory thing, and I did try and learn about it a while back, but it just gave me a headache and lots of unanswerable questions, so I left it alone really...
Theres also a part of me that thinks that sometimes we should take a step back and stop getting lost in what we already know and trying to make it better or more accurate, and look into other places for answers...
I mean, we spend SO much time doing research into space and so little time looking into those giant ponds called oceans... where lets be honest, there are so many things that are just amazing, like fish that can withstand levels of pressure that even vehicles we've engineered out of extremely strong alloys cannot withstand!
Personally I think we should be spending more time observing nature rather than some of the things were wasting so much money on with research... like the large hadron collider... that things costing an absolute fortune, and most likely we'll get nothing meaningful from it, whereas I'm truely amazed by some of the great things I read about what scientists have discovered from things in nature.
Such as an article I read in New Scientist the other day about cuttlefish and their amazing ability to camouflage themselves, it was really amazing about how they've evolved to have all these various pigments in their skin and sensors that react to their surroundings... could lead to great stealth technology or something even better | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/16/2008 1:05:43 PM |
I think I may be understanding now.
Is that because it's encountering so little resistance, it is making the use of time in measurements more difficult?
Almost like it's jumping over points in time rather than traveling through all points?
This is probably the best interpretation of quantum mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pondicherry_interpretation
You can also follow the links to arxiv papers. | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/16/2008 2:53:33 PM | Almost as though it's attempting to adhere to dimensional conservation.
The more efficiently it uses dimensions to define everything there can be, the better.
Oh noes. We're all shrinking into a space-time singularity. Aiyeeeeeeeee! 
| |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/17/2008 3:13:33 AM | Personally I think we should be spending more time observing nature rather than some of the things were wasting so much money on with research... like the large hadron collider... that things costing an absolute fortune, and most likely we'll get nothing meaningful from it, whereas I'm truely amazed by some of the great things I read about what scientists have discovered from things in nature.
That isn't true. What non-physics types will get from the large hadron collider is the technology that has to be developed to build the collider and perform experiments. If you'll recall, the world wide web started as a means of efficiently keeping track of experiments at CERN (the same lab, in fact, as the LHC). The first mass manufactured, 5T superconducting magnets were developed for the supercollider. The image intensifiers in low light level cameras and night vision were a spin off of microchannel plates used for position sensitive phototube based particle detectors which in turn were a spin off from photomultiplier tubes. Back in the 1930's people probably said the same thing about studying the hyperfine structure of hydrogen, but that resulted in the invention of magnetic resonance imaging 50 years later. You can't decide to study something in isolation, since you need the technology developed in other fields (perhaps for different reasons) to do it. As a comparison of expenditures however, the cost of one B-1 bomber would cover the high energy physics budget in the US for 3 years. | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/17/2008 3:31:42 PM | Abelian, you seem knowledgeable about this so I will direct this question to you. I've heard that there is something of a controversy in physics, with some complaining that string theory is not really science. I can understand the criticism if it is anything like the Kaluza-Klein theory, and simply the creation of a new model that may reduce or cut away or combine various components of a dominant theory without much observational criteria. If that is ALL the theory does, and it offers no empirical predictions that can be observed that would support the theory, I'd have to agree that it is not real science, and it is something more akin to the mathematical rationalist tradition you'd find in the good old days of philosophy, where observation didn't play much of a role. With relativiy, at least, there were various observations that could were made to confirm it in some scientific manner.
So, given your knowledge, what would you say arethe observational predictions of string theory? Are there any? Do you think verified predictions are necessary, or do you think the shaving away of entities with Occam's trusty razor is enough to construct a solid theory? | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/18/2008 1:23:29 PM |
I've heard that there is something of a controversy in physics, with some complaining that string theory is not really science.
There is a lot of criticism in that direction being leveled at string theory these days. The reason for that is that string theory has failed to produce any testable predictions, which is considered essential for something to be considered science. (Actually, it's made one of which I am aware. It provided an alternative (possibly simpler) derivation of an obscure sum rule for nuclear scattering which had already been derived from quantum field theory.)
Generally programs which do not lead anywhere eventually die because physicists realize it's a dead end. However, string theory addresses a regime that is very difficult to test and the only competing theory is Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), which has also made no testable predictions. The biggest objections to string theory are that it attracts the best students who want to become theorists in quantum gravity and it gets most of the funding to the exclusion of other possible approaches. See the blog ``Not Even Wrong,'' for detailed criticisms given by a field theorist who has written a book by the same name. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ ) Another objection to string theory comes from the so-called Landscape, which the entire set of possible universes from which this one was selected by nature. The number is so large that it is impossible to check them all to see if this one is among the possibilities.String theorists tend to assume that it is and invoke the ``Anthropic principle'' to explain why this one was selected by nature. That goes against the tradition of proving a theory is at least plausible in that it definitely could explain this universe. On the other hand it does manage to combine all known forces into a single theory, although it doesn't offer any reduction in the number of parameters required by the theories it subsumes.
In my opinion, string theory is more of a mathematical framework for a theory than a theory at this point. It's hard to say whether or not it's justified, since it hasn't really been around that long. We can compare string theory to the development of E&M though. In 1861 (I think) Maxwell published the paper (more or less) containing the equations which bear his name. He actually had more than was necessary and the four to which these were eventually reduced were already well known except for one term in Ampere's law which Maxwell added, thereby unifying electrical and magnetic forces into a single force. He also mistakenly attributed the vector potential to properties of an ether. It took another 30 years to demonstrate a physical effect in the form of radio waves, from the term he added. It took about 70 years before a satisfactory quantum theory was initiated (qed, by Dirac) and almost a century to demonstrate that the vector potential was more than a mathematical artifice (the Aharanov-Bohm effect). What string theory is intended to accomplish is orders of magnitude more difficult, hasn't been around as long and lacks the mathematical understanding of simpler theories, so it's not clear what to think about it at this time.
String theory has dies and been resurrected a number of times since the original Kaluza-Klein theory and my guess is that it unless it produces a testable prediction in the near future, it will probably languish for lack of progress unless and until someone makes another breakthrough that leads to resurrecting it again. | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/25/2008 5:48:39 PM |
i'll not waste too much of my "time" with this but... some of the people on here need to study before they post ... and not just fanatical sites...
time is a marker that we have come to use as a "dimension"
this "marker" is much the same as taking your pulse or or the calvin scale...
.... it is a misleading step in the wrong direction for humanity to understand it in the wrong fashion...
... my "time" is not wasted if you decide to study and "prove me wrong" ... THAT IS A CHALLENGE!!!
as well as prove einstein right with his twin theory
Time is a marker, just as points in all other dimensions are markers. But none of those points in any dimension can be found without the dimension of time, this is why its a dimension.
And if your talking about the Twin paradox, that experiment has been done several times and it does work... | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
