Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

String theory

MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 5:54:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What's everything you know about String theory and the multiverse and things of that nature?
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 6:10:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Like most "big scientific theories", there are multiple versions of the string theory.

You are probably thinking of multiple "dimensions", not "multiverse", which is something else entirely. In the context of string theory, it is referring to a mathematical dimension. Literally, spatial dimensions. Spatial dimensions which are not known to actually exist.

It's a very controversial theory in that regard. It leaves a lot to be tested and observed.

Science fiction and such has done a lot to confuse dimensions and alternate universes though, they aren't the same thing.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 6:21:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 6:10:25 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Like most "big scientific theories", there are multiple versions of the string theory.

You are probably thinking of multiple "dimensions", not "multiverse", which is something else entirely. In the context of string theory, it is referring to a mathematical dimension. Literally, spatial dimensions. Spatial dimensions which are not known to actually exist.

It's a very controversial theory in that regard. It leaves a lot to be tested and observed.

Science fiction and such has done a lot to confuse dimensions and alternate universes though, they aren't the same thing.

Very helpful. Although I would like more I appreciate it. Any websites you can point me to?
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 6:26:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This site comes up, but I haven't went through it thoroughly, so I don't know how reliable it is..

But it looks like a good start.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 6:28:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://superstringtheory.com...
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 6:29:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 6:26:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I bet Belle has alot of knowledge on it.

My bad, forgot the link. hah
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 6:40:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Michio Kaku has written a lot of books on string theory. He's one of my favorite (physics) authors, because he writes in such a way that I can actually understand what he's talking about despite having an extremely limited background in astrophysics. He has a website with some videos, though I'm not sure if they're any good or not (and I don't have time to watch right now). Take a look :)

http://mkaku.org...
President of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 6:44:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 6:40:21 PM, Danielle wrote:
Michio Kaku has written a lot of books on string theory. He's one of my favorite (physics) authors, because he writes in such a way that I can actually understand what he's talking about despite having an extremely limited background in astrophysics. He has a website with some videos, though I'm not sure if they're any good or not (and I don't have time to watch right now). Take a look :)

http://mkaku.org...

God I LOVED listening to his radio show!
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 10:48:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 10:47:53 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Hey i just wanted to thank everyone for their help.

I forgott to say thank you haha. Thank you.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 12:00:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Michio is probably the most entertaining physicist alive. The problem is figuring out where the entertainment begins and the physics ends. A lot of what he says doesn't seem like it is well founded in science... we can of course discuss the particular theories in another thread.

There are many different physical/philisophical realms to explore. Different universes could have formed independently of ours in separate big bangs that are unreachable by us through any hypothetical means. Physicists promise many more physical dimensions that are "curled up" really small, as if tiny particles can travel around in them independently but us conglomerates cannot. While small scales offer dimensional travel, large size offers us shear chance. In Michio's terms, if one were to travel a googolplex yards (the actual unit of measure is meaningless); then you would have traveled through so many different arrangements of possibilities that you would have met an exact duplicate of yourself. You can think of this idea in terms of alternate realities as well.

Lately I have been fascinated by the idea that all possibilities do in fact happen. At first I whipped out Occam's Razor and decided it was absurd,, but i'm starting to believe that my idea of "simple" is subjective. To an ancient Roman, counting the grains of sand on a beach was absurd. Now we can count (estimate) the atoms of a beach with relative ease, using the mole. If I existed in ancient rome, I might try to imagine the sand on a beach as infinite using this type of logic.
Rob
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 1:53:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As I understand it, string theory is an alternative quantum physics study. Much of quantum physics remains beyond our understanding, so we try to fill in blanks for forces that seem to exist, but that we haven't been able to isolate or control. One such theory, string theory, proposes that matter, when broken down further than subatomic particles, reduces to "strings." But, obviously, it's a lot more complicated than that.

To try to reduce it as much as I can, the big underlying issue behind all of these scientific/religious debates, even on this website, is the question, "why are things the way they are?"

I mean, sure, we have subatomic particles, which cluster to form atoms, which cluster to form molecules, which cluster to form compounds, etc etc until we have matter and life and existence. However, of all the potential ways these things can be arranged, why this way? Funny, it's a question I proposed in the Intelligent Design conversation, and although it's one of the fundamental premises for both physical and metaphysical study, no one seemed interested. XD

Anyway, scientists currently reduced the arrangement of matter that we know as reality to an interaction between two primary forces -- weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Weak nuclear force, interestingly, relates to nuclear forces we actually consider strongest and most influential -- i.e., gravity and magnetism. Strong nuclear force, however, is what holds everything together inexplicably, including atoms. I mean, sure, we adhere to the planet because it generates gravity and electromagnetism, but why does the planet adhere to itself?

In fact, this strong nuclear force is so powerful, that breaking a single link resulting from that force -- something we know as nuclear fission -- causes the greatest burst of energy that we can currently produce (an atomic explosion). However, establishing a connection through strong nuclear force -- fusion -- is even more powerful; it is the energy released from fusion that generates energy release from stars, including our sun (in this case, hydrogen fusion). This is why helium is among the most abundant elements in the universe.

I digress. When scientists began studying this strong nuclear force, they noticed that it appears matter has a sort of pattern to it, which later became more of a rhythm of frequency. This resonance seemed to take several different forms, one of which being in a collection of relativistic strings (relativistic, as in, in succession relative to the arrangement of matter around it, rather than something like a shoelace). From this supposition that matter results from subatomic particles arranging in a series of resonating "strings" gave birth to what we know as "string theory."

Pretty intense stuff.

Btw, since it seemed unclear in the convo -- a multiverse is the supposition that our universe is only one of many, and the arrangement of matter is actually by chance, resulting as a statistic inevitability due to the sheer magnitude of variation that exists.

Theories of multiple dimensions, on the other hand -- which have a rather strong mathematical foundation, I might add, even more so than the multiverse theory, which is really just a supposition -- are the suggestion that there are varying stages of existence that can only contain matter in its native arrangement. However, it remains up in the air whether we live and interact in the 3rd or 4th. Mathematically speaking, there is no 0 dimension, so the dimension that we consider ourselves, such as in the spacial differentiation equation, is 4. For more info on that, look up the Poincare Theory. The case is very compelling, and has also led us to realize that he Universe has both a margin and a shape.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 2:02:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Another neato little fact is that both fusion and fission as we most commonly interact with it deal with hydrogen.

Likely because it's otherwise so simple and stable.
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 3:34:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 5:54:05 PM, MarquisX wrote:
What's everything you know about String theory and the multiverse and things of that nature?

String theory is founded on the idea of incorporating quantum mechanics--the subatomic world-with general relativity--the best explanation for gravity.

String are thought to be extremely stiff and have different vibrational patterns that give rise to different masses and force charges. And these strings that make up everything soften the chaotic quantum undulations by smearing out the short distance properties of space.

The impetus for studying string theory is that there might be a theory that can explain all natural phenomena, but Gödel's incompleteness theorems ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) would suggest otherwise...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 5:26:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 10:48:31 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 11/25/2011 10:47:53 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Hey i just wanted to thank everyone for their help.

I forgott to say thank you haha. Thank you.

string theory is so complex and confusing that I doubt that anybody on DDO has a strong understanding on it. It's not that it isn't interesting, its just that the effort it would take to learn it would outweigh the benefits.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 6:30:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 5:54:05 PM, MarquisX wrote:
What's everything you know about String theory and the multiverse and things of that nature?

Pretty much what I've read in Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe"
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 10:48:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/26/2011 5:26:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/25/2011 10:48:31 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 11/25/2011 10:47:53 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Hey i just wanted to thank everyone for their help.

I forgott to say thank you haha. Thank you.

string theory is so complex and confusing that I doubt that anybody on DDO has a strong understanding on it. It's not that it isn't interesting, its just that the effort it would take to learn it would outweigh the benefits.

Seems that's a common perspective. However, I if you don't consider a television show watched purely for its entertainment value time wasted, then perhaps you should look into this further, as at least you'll understand the natural world a little more.

There's a whole lot of astounding things happening there at the subatomic level. Quantum physics is like whoa. For example, there are apparently little wrinkles, or rips, or striations, or whatever you want to call it, that appear and disappear constantly at the quantum level. If it were possible, passing through one of these would likely put you at a completely different time and place in the Universe.

Quantum physics is still purely theoretical, though. But, as history has shown, if things make mathematical sense, they likely exist somewhere...
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2011 12:15:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There seem to be at least several instances where the laws of physics change dramatically. At very small sizes, the universe is a seething foam of particles appearing and colliding perpetually. At very low temperatures, particles, instead of standing still, start to lose their spatial identity and become smears across space. At very small time intervals the uncertainty of a particles position starts to fluctuate wildly; if one were to stop time, things wouldn't stay still- they'd be in a chaotic flux. At very large scales we have the expansion of the universe.
Rob
Leftii
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2011 12:01:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ren:
Although your information is accurate, the theory behind it is regularly incorrect, for example, when you say, why this theory?, why are things the way they are?, etc., you imply physicists do not yet know the answers. But we do. Although, in scientific terms, the following is a mere theory, it is an accepted theory which is reinforced by more evidence than any alternative theory for it and no valid evidence against it. We can assume from this that, much more likely than not, we do know the answers. You assume the multiverse theory here is confused with dimension theory, but this too is incorrect.

Both assumptions here are conveniently linked:
There is a concept of the multiverse theory of which our observations, physics and its necessity reinforce. Quantum physics is, itself, a multiverse theory, leading us smoothly to the former assumption. Quantum physics states that there is not just one universe, but an infinite number of universes, thought of in M-Theory as probabilities. We are of this universe, not because God created this universe to be perfect for our existed as is supposed of many religious quantum cosmologists, but because, as observers, we can only possibly exist within, although infinite, a limited number of possible universes. This is a strange concept that infinity can exist among finite numbers, but physicists overcome this (obviously with physics behind it) by stating that there is a constant, called Planck's Constant, which cancels infinite numbers to finite numbers, so the infinity which is caused when one divides x by 0 is not equal to the infinity which is caused when one divides y by zero, thus rendering x and y unequal to prevent contradictory possibilities within physics and observations. To be blunt, our universe was not chosen by us, but it chose us.
The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2011 4:25:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/28/2011 12:01:46 PM, Leftii wrote:
Ren:
Although your information is accurate, the theory behind it is regularly incorrect, for example, when you say, why this theory?, why are things the way they are?, etc., you imply physicists do not yet know the answers. But we do.

I think you misunderstood me. That question wasn't meant to be a generalized "what is the nature of the Universe," but rather, "why is the Universe this way, rather than any of the other potential ways it can be?" For example, the chemical basis for all organic matter is carbon. Why, though? Why not silicone? Morphologically speaking, everything seems pretty similar. Why? Why is everything mostly bisymmetric? Why do leaves form in spirals, while humans and other animals form in halves?

Although, in scientific terms, the following is a mere theory, it is an accepted theory which is reinforced by more evidence than any alternative theory for it and no valid evidence against it. We can assume from this that, much more likely than not, we do know the answers.

Ehhh, that doesn't sound like a very scientific stance. We can only be certain that we know the answers when we apply those answers to manipulate the natural world in a way that we predict.

You assume the multiverse theory here is confused with dimension theory, but this too is incorrect.

Well, there are theories pertaining to both that coincide, but generally speaking, the multiverse school of thought subscribes to the concept of parallel universes, which remains conceptual rather than truly theoretical, to my knowledge. Multiple dimensions, on the other hand, has a much more solid mathematical foundation -- scientists have the sort of certainty about that specifically that you opened your post with.

Both assumptions here are conveniently linked:
There is a concept of the multiverse theory of which our observations, physics and its necessity reinforce. Quantum physics is, itself, a multiverse theory, leading us smoothly to the former assumption. Quantum physics states that there is not just one universe, but an infinite number of universes, thought of in M-Theory as probabilities. We are of this universe, not because God created this universe to be perfect for our existed as is supposed of many religious quantum cosmologists, but because, as observers, we can only possibly exist within, although infinite, a limited number of possible universes. This is a strange concept that infinity can exist among finite numbers, but physicists overcome this (obviously with physics behind it) by stating that there is a constant, called Planck's Constant, which cancels infinite numbers to finite numbers, so the infinity which is caused when one divides x by 0 is not equal to the infinity which is caused when one divides y by zero, thus rendering x and y unequal to prevent contradictory possibilities within physics and observations. To be blunt, our universe was not chosen by us, but it chose us.

I think that stance is drawn from mathematics and statistics rather than physics. Rather, there is only so much diversity something can entertain before it begins repeating itself. I forget which mathematician said it, but Alfonzo sure loves quoting it -- "if you travel a googleplex yards, you will have transversed through so much variability that you will have met an exact copy of yourself." That, of course, was a paraphrase, but I'm sure the concept translated.

On the other hand, in terms of mathematical proofs of physical properties, we only figure that there might be multiple universes, and that does not coincide with the Poincare Theory of Multiple Dimensions. This is because you can presumably live in at least some of the other Universes that exist, but you can only live in this dimension.
Leftii
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 5:48:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ren: "I think you misunderstood me. That question wasn't meant to be a generalized "what is the nature of the Universe," but rather, "why is the Universe this way, rather than any of the other potential ways it can be?" For example, the chemical basis for all organic matter is carbon. Why, though? Why not silicone? Morphologically speaking, everything seems pretty similar. Why? Why is everything mostly bi symmetric? Why do leaves form in spirals, while humans and other animals form in halves?"

I think you misunderstood me. My intentions weren't concentrated on the assumed generalisation. I have produced an ultimate theory which explains why our universe contains the physics that it does.

"We can only be certain that we know the answers when we apply those answers to manipulate the natural world in a way that we predict."

My explanation does not defy modern definitions of science, as every theory in which certain rules are accepted is a valid theory and none can be said to be more correct than another. However, the concept may be more useful of one than another. Here, you agree with my claims, as the evidence is not all necessity, theoretical or mathematical evidence. The theory contains physical evidence.

"I think that stance is drawn from mathematics and statistics rather than physics. Rather, there is only so much diversity something can entertain before it begins repeating itself. I forget which mathematician said it, but Alfonzo sure loves quoting it -- "if you travel a googleplex yards, you will have traversed through so much variability that you will have met an exact copy of yourself." That, of course, was a paraphrase, but I'm sure the concept translated."

It is drawn from mathematics, statistics, physics and observations. A theory is not valid unless it follows certain rules. A theory must:
1) be elegant,
2) contain little or no adjustable elements which one can manipulate at one's will for the benefit of the theory's acceptance,
3) agree with and explain existing observations,
4) make detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

Dream theory, for example, is therefore an invalid theory, as it disobeys rule 4. If physics is pseudo and our universe is a product of an alternative reality, then how is one able to test this theory?

M-Theory, however can make detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out. It is the most tested theory, yet all tests and observations reinforce the theory. An American physicist, whose name I forget, tested the theory over 200 times in an effort to disprove it. As she learned increasingly more about the theory, she finally concluded that M-Theory was the ultimate theory which, along with the three base dimensions, speed, length and mass, explains every area of physics yet breached.

An example of the observational evidence is the Double-Slit Experiment, in which molecular particles are fired through two slits and are then detected by a screen behind. They create an interference pattern, due to the physics behind Planck's Constant*. This is both mathematical and observational evidence. This proves that our universe is not defined, as there is uncertainty even in the determination of mass, velocity and position of objects equal to Planck's Constant. Another experiment was then introduced where the molecular particles were fired between two slits in the exact conditions other than that a detector observed the particles before they were detected. The interference pattern remained, thus proving that the which-path information was "decided" before observation, thus rendering the past uncertain. Therefore, there are an infinite number of universes, as only an infinite number can supply an infinite number of probabilities.

*If I could be bothered to expand, I would be here for hours. If anyone wants an escalation of my points, read, "The Grand Design", by Stephen Hawking.

I do not know if you are inferring from my former post that the infinite universes refer to infinite variation (or maybe a finite but large number of universes inferred), or whether you are using the variation as an argument against M-Theory. I hope I answer whichever implication with that, yes, I am referring to parallel universes, known in quantum physics as probabilities.

Also, as String Theory is part of the M-Theory network, I believe I have the upper hand here.
The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 9:30:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sigh. At first glance, it looks like this reply might take a while. :\

At 11/30/2011 5:48:17 AM, Leftii wrote:

I think you misunderstood me. My intentions weren't concentrated on the assumed generalisation. I have produced an ultimate theory which explains why our universe contains the physics that it does.

If you're referring to M-Theory, I think you might be misinterpreting the theory.

My explanation does not defy modern definitions of science, as every theory in which certain rules are accepted is a valid theory and none can be said to be more correct than another. However, the concept may be more useful of one than another. Here, you agree with my claims, as the evidence is not all necessity, theoretical or mathematical evidence. The theory contains physical evidence.

I'm not sure I follow what you're talking about here...

It is drawn from mathematics, statistics, physics and observations. A theory is not valid unless it follows certain rules. A theory must:
1) be elegant,
2) contain little or no adjustable elements which one can manipulate at one's will for the benefit of the theory's acceptance,
3) agree with and explain existing observations,
4) make detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

Dream theory, for example, is therefore an invalid theory, as it disobeys rule 4. If physics is pseudo and our universe is a product of an alternative reality, then how is one able to test this theory?

M-Theory, however can make detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

I think I understand what you mean -- it makes mathematical sense?

It is the most tested theory, yet all tests and observations reinforce the theory. An American physicist, whose name I forget, tested the theory over 200 times in an effort to disprove it. As she learned increasingly more about the theory, she finally concluded that M-Theory was the ultimate theory which, along with the three base dimensions, speed, length and mass, explains every area of physics yet breached.

An example of the observational evidence is the Double-Slit Experiment, in which molecular particles are fired through two slits and are then detected by a screen behind. They create an interference pattern, due to the physics behind Planck's Constant*.

Now, see, this I'm familiar with. But, it seems as though you're making a false correlation. The Double-Slit experiment evidenced that photons behave as both particles and waves--it was the first conclusive evidence of particle-wave duality. However, photons are not the only particles to exhibit this duality, and the reasons behind it remain a mystery.

On the other hand, Planck's Constant is a short equation suggesting that radiating energy releases in, er... "packets" relative to that frequency. It's like, 6.08 times 10 to the negative (some three digit number) Joules times frequency.

Lol, let me look it up. >.>

OH, okay, it's (6.626 * 10^-34J) s. Lol, alright, so I was off.

Anyway, that could perhaps explain a given rate of energy output for photons when they appear as waves, but not when they appear as particles.

This is both mathematical and observational evidence. This proves that our universe is not defined, as there is uncertainty even in the determination of mass, velocity and position of objects equal to Planck's Constant.

...what? Please explain; I don't understand.

Another experiment was then introduced where the molecular particles were fired between two slits in the exact conditions other than that a detector observed the particles before they were detected. The interference pattern remained, thus proving that the which-path information was "decided" before observation, thus rendering the past uncertain. Therefore, there are an infinite number of universes, as only an infinite number can supply an infinite number of probabilities.

...???

M-Theory proposes either 10 or 11 dimensions, not an infinite number of dimensions...

*If I could be bothered to expand, I would be here for hours. If anyone wants an escalation of my points, read, "The Grand Design", by Stephen Hawking.

What, Planck's Theory? Hehe, well, I'm glad it didn't take me hours...

I do not know if you are inferring from my former post that the infinite universes refer to infinite variation (or maybe a finite but large number of universes inferred), or whether you are using the variation as an argument against M-Theory.

I think more the prior. But, I also now realize that you're completely misunderstanding Planck's Theory. It doesn't propose an infinite number of dimensions, but only 10, or arguably, 11.

I hope I answer whichever implication with that, yes, I am referring to parallel universes, known in quantum physics as probabilities.

There are infinite probabilities, but not infinite universes. Probabilities and actual Universes are not the same thing, and neither are parallel universes and dimensions. All 10 or 11 dimensions that M-Theory proposes (which is really just a summary of all contrasting perspectives blanketed under string and superstring theory that treats them as corresponding, though differing aspects of the same theory) exist in this Universe. Folded into each other tightly so that every single dimension contains all the rest of the other dimensions, but matter cannot interact with all of the dimensions at once. Moreover, only some matter can interact with some of the dimensions, but not all matter... ohhhh. I think that's what you were talking about before. Well, yeah, that's true for dimensions, but not for parallel universes.

Also, as String Theory is part of the M-Theory network, I believe I have the upper hand here.

Hehe, network. Well, yeah, all theories pertaining to string and superstring theory fall under the M-Theory umbrella. However, I never intended to contradict M-Theory, although it seems as though you have the theory misconstrued.
Leftii
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 2:04:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I shall expand tomorrow, as I am tired, but for now, not dimensions but probable universes.
The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible
Leftii
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 3:31:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I really don't have time today, what with homework and all that. Hopefully tomorrow.
The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible
prephysics
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 5:34:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2011 5:54:05 PM, MarquisX wrote:
What's everything you know about String theory and the multiverse and things of that nature?

In order for a theory to be a theory is must be testable otherwise we are talking conjecture, a.k.a. an allegory.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 1:16:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ren is correct: M-String involves 10 or 11 dimensions (10 + Time.) It is highly speculative and there is ZERO experimental evidence to support it. It is an orgy of mathematical elegance, but has nothing in the empirical department. It is the epitome of "fine-tuning" and in being so, actually predicts nothing. It is also an extremely "attractive" theory and that's why so many physicists, futurists, etc, have jumped on the bandwagon. There are still many hold-outs.

Q: Why 10 geometric dimensions? Why not 9 or 135 or infinite?
M-Theory's Answer: cause the math works out that way.

On another note, I think there is a misconception here about dimensions. As far as we know, we occupy 3 spacial dimensions and 1 temporal for a total of 4. But putting time aside for a bit, let's look at our 3D universe and how dimensions can play a role in parallel universes.

Let's start with the 1st Dimension. We can think of an imaginary line extending infinitely in 2 directions. We can think of this imaginary line as a 1-D universe (if we think of it as a "clear" color line, it will help with the story.) In this 1-D universe can exist beings called Linemen. Of course, Linemen can only be lines of any length (from 0 to practically infinity.) These Linemen can also be thought of as having a color, so as to distinguish them from the "empty" 1-D universe they live in. They might have eyes on either end or both ends of their bodies and all they can perceive are different distances, but that it all.

As you can see, to a Lineman his 1-D universe is quite infinite and yet to us it is quite limited. We could stand right next to a Lineman and so long as we are not occupying HIS 1-D universe (ie touching the 1-D line that is his universe) he would never know of our presence! Why, there could be another 1-D universe 1" away from his 1-D universe and neither inhabitants of respective 1-D universes would know about each other!

Of course, this can be scaled up to a 2-D universe with Flatlanders (btw, Flatland is an awesome book written in the late 1800s. It pretty much covers these concepts an many more!) Flatland consists of a 2-D plane that can stretch infinitely in 2 dimensions. In this 2-d universe can exist 2-D creatures like say a 1" square. We can look at that square and see how small it is but how many 1-D universes does that 1" square occupy? An infinite amount! The smallest 2-D area occupies an infinite number of 1-D universes.

We can of course scale things up again, but this time to our 3-D universe. You see, the smallest of 4-D hyperspaces take up an infinite amount of 3-D universes! So we could have an infinite number of parallel 3rd dimensions right next to us...only an infinitesimal distance away! That small distance being in the 4th dimensional direction, of course. On and on this can be scaled up to infinity dimensions: there is no "mathematical" limit.

Fun stuff: if you took your left shoe and "flipped" it 4th dimensionally, it would become another right shoe! If you "flipped" yourself 4th dimensionally, your heart would be on your right side (mirror image of yourself)!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.