The universe on a string...

[Deleted]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaY...feature=fvwrel

^this

Interesting and pretty straight-forward videos. Thanks for sharing.

[Deleo]

He has alot of interesting videos. This one however might seem a bit confusing. You need to have a bit of background about both the string theory and the 11 dimensions (M Theory).

[Aquilesmagno]

Remember that string theory is just a conceptual framework. Is unlikely that the universe is composed by little strings and we might never corroborate that statement, the energy required to "see" things at planck's scale is so huge that it can actually create a black hole or a singularity.

[haxartus]

String theory is quite interesting, but all it has right now is the support of some very influential people in the scientific community. The only thing that saves it is the fact that something so beautifully supported by a mathematical model has never be proven wrong.
I personally would love for it to be true, and so does pretty much everyone familiar with it, but believing in something because we want to is not science.
Even the name is not scientific. It is a hypothesis, not a theory.

[Aquilesmagno]

Sorry, but String Theory is a theory, as its name says. Hypothesis comes from the greek "hypos" that means below, and "thesis" that means conclusion. String theory is elevated to theory just because the mathematical model used to describe it, its well fundamented. A hypotesis is unable to predict future results or phenomena, and a theory is pretty much capable of this. Also, we need to know thats theres not only one String theory, there are several (type Ia, heterotical etc) and each one has a co-relation with the other type. String theory is just a type of "Theory of Everything" and there are several of these theories.

that something so beautifully supported by a mathematical model has never be proven wrong.

Thats not true, classical physics are a beautiful mathematical model, but it has been proved wrong (as newtonian gravitation got destroyed by Einstein's relativity).

[haxartus]

String theory is elevated to theory just because the mathematical model used to describe it, its well fundamented. A hypotesis is unable to predict future results or phenomena, and a theory is pretty much capable of this.

And String Theory can't do this. This is why it's not a theory.
As for Classical Physics... String Theory is a lot more complex and more elegant than Classical Physics. And Classical Physics is not absolutely wrong. I don't see Relativity destroying Newtonian Mechanics, just... improving it and building on it. Explaining why it works and what happens when it doesn't work, as well as presenting a more accurate model for doing the calculations.
If Classical Mechanics is wrong, then Relativity is also wrong, but it's simply closer to reality than the previous one, and we don't have an alternative for it yet.

[Larynx]

Sorry, but String Theory is a theory, as its name says.

A law explains what happens, a theory explains why it happens, and a hypothesis is essentially a prediction and description of what you expect to happen based on logic, background knowledge, prior experiences, ect.

A hypothesis is never upgraded to a theory, and a theory is never upgraded to a law. They are all explanations that differ in breadth, not support.

Now this might not be directly related to your actual meaning, but it's a peeve of mine when people call them "just a theory."

[Deleted]

Comments like this really lead to nothing in the discussion.

I'd have to disagree. Whilst I love physics and the idea of cosmology, we are using human made measurements of accuracy to evaluate a non-human phenomenon. The math and equations might add up, but all that that can empirically prove is a plausibility for a possibly correct explanation for the universe, not an empiric fact.

I think science is the right direction to take to discover more about the universe in that sense, but I'm not totally sold on universal physics just yet.

[Larynx]

Thats not true, classical physics are a beautiful mathematical model, but it has been proved wrong (as newtonian gravitation got destroyed by Einstein's relativity).

Classical physics are not wrong. They are incomplete.

[Aquilesmagno]

Classical physics are not wrong. They are incomplete.

It's wrong because its not universally aplicable to all phenomena, you can catalog as incomplete too.

[haxartus]

It's wrong because its not universally aplicable to all phenomena, you can catalog as incomplete too.

Then everything we currently have is wrong, including Relativity and Quantum mechanics.

[Larynx]

It's wrong because its not universally aplicable to all phenomena, you can catalog as incomplete too.

Okay, I understand you then. In that sense, yes it would be wrong.

---------- Post added 2012-03-28 at 08:52 PM ----------

Then everything we currently have is wrong.

Well I think that's actually agreed upon. In fact the only reason String theory, I believe, is here is because people realized that.

[Aquilesmagno]

Okay, I understand you then. In that sense, yes it would be wrong.

---------- Post added 2012-03-28 at 08:52 PM ----------



Well I think that's actually agreed upon. In fact the only reason String theory, I believe, is here is because people realized that.

Its not supossed to be right, it just needs to describe the all related phenomena. Right, wrong, true and so on are HUMAN SUBJECTIVE CONCEPTS. As Carl Sagan said,science has the virtue to be autocritic, to subsists, sciences needs to reconsider every law, theory or hypotesis and submit them to a series of test 'till the end of time xD

[WoOmbat]

That pretty much what it is, everything we know now is absolute wrong. Physics as a science is way at the beginning. If we look at all modern theories they are "work Hypothesis"(not a native speaker here hope it´s the right word) that cant explain nothing to its core. You can use some to explain some stuff and work with it, but as a matter of fact u can be pretty sure that they arent describing realitiy by its true nature just as far as science can by now. And thats not bad at all, it just means that theres a lot of space to develope on and a lot stuff to work with (quantum computing/ space exploration etc etc). What people need to stop asking for is a godlike total explanation, thats not what this pretty startoff science can do by now. I dont say its bad to try because it can lead to some pretty interesting insights but theres no way to come up with a serious "god formuar" by now and every try to come up with one is condemned to fail but still pretty interesting. (i hope you understand what i mean but i didnt speak no english for about 4 years and i never learned this science stuff for real :> )

[haxartus]

Well I think that's actually agreed upon. In fact the only reason String theory, I believe, is here is because people realized that.

People realized that we need an unified theory, and String theory just happens to fit the description nicely. However, inventing imaginary solutions to fix problems is an inherent property of the human brain, so we should be cautious with anything that has no actual representation in the real world.
On the other hand, on more than few occasions in the past, something has been predicted mathematically first, and then actually discovered decades later, because people knew what to look for and where to look for it.

[Larynx]

People realized that we need an unified theory, and String theory just happens to fit the description nicely. However, inventing imaginary solutions to fix problems is an inherent property of the human brain, so we should be cautious with anything that has no actual representation in the real world.
On the other hand, on more than few occasions in the past, something has been predicted mathematically first, and then actually discovered decades later, because people knew what to look for and where to look for it.

I think the biggest issue with String Theory is that is basically impossible to prove at this present time, isn't it? Because the Strings are well beyond our ability to measure them.

That's kind of a shame. But at least it gives us time to ponder potential alternatives if String theory doesn't work out when we actually are able to prove it.

[youngfool]

very interested video links, thanks for sharing!

[Gheld]

http://bigthink.com/ideas/26653

One of our most brilliant minds discusses the nature of our universe as he see's it.

Do you feel that quantum physics and our studies of reality as whole is moving in the right direction?

Or, do we have have it all wrong? If so, please explain.

I do believe there are some inherent flaws with the whole "string theory" direction that quantum physics have taken.

Mostly with the whole idea of hyperdimensionality.

It seems like a cop out.

"We can't explain these phenomenon in a 3d+T(3 dimensions + Time) universe, so let's invent an unprovable, unknowable factor that adequately explains it." Sound familiar?

Or worse than String theory, is M theory, the universe is made of universes, and to make a universe you just need to put a universe in a universe and it creates a universe. and the reason gravity is so weak is that it is leaking into our universe from another universe. Yo dawg...

As an agnostic skeptic type any theory that involves explaining the unexplainable with anything beyond perceptibility (and thus knowability) makes my eye twitch.

Dark matter. *twitch*. Hyperdimensional geometry. *twitch*.

Now don't get me wrong, I love Michio Kaku; forget the universe, his voice is a soothing symphony, and anything he narrates I'll gladly watch; but I think theoretical physicists have a tendency to embellish and sensationalize ideas that they are working on; because if the public loses interest, their funding is cut.

Here's the parts they don't tell you:

Hyperdimensionality, strings, dark anything, etc. is all unknowable; and thus the mathematics behind them can't truly be tested or proven.

I'm a unified field guy. Albert Einstein ftw!

[buck008]

The part Ghled left out is "yet".

See physicists are never going to tell you that gravity comes from another dimension and we never have to prove this because it's impossible. They look at the math as it develops, and draw conclusions. They say that certain things are possible that we may have only previously dreamed of. They say that we can't prove it knowing what we know now, with the technology we have. So maybe we, in our lifetime, will never know if it's true or utter shit, but the framework is there for future generations to work on.

You want to compare theoretical physics to religion because they both require a suspension of disbelief and a little faith. One is diligently working to remove those obstacles, one isn't. They aren't the same. No real scientist says, "Trust me, I'm definitely right. This is the unquestionable truth of the universe". If they do, punch them in the dick and disregard everything else they say. They build a framework for understanding the universe around us. So I think your premise is flawed.

[Deleted]

I'm on a post a meaninful topic binge. trying to counter whats already posted and live...

so you ask questions like this on a gaming forum where 99% doesn´t know anything about the subject?