String Theory and the Multiverse

[mark kennedy]

This is just a general question about a subject I know almost nothing about. I was wondering how scientists came to the conclusions about multiple universes and the various elements of String theory. All I really know is it's an attempt at a unified theory and from Einstein to Hawkins physicists have lamented the failure of science to produce one.

Your thoughts...

 

[[serious]]

The short answer is they had to add dimensions to make the math for a unified theory work. The long answer is out of my depth.

 

[juvenissun]

The string theory demands multi-dimension. So where is, for example, the 5th dimension? And the 6th? And eventually the 11th dimension. And the Membranes?

 

[loveiseverywhere]

One of my favorite books is The Black Hole War.

The Black Hole War | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

 

[[serious]]

The string theory demands multi-dimension. So where is, for example, the 5th dimension? And the 6th? And eventually the 11th dimension. And the Membranes?

Well, they are coiled about them selves. Of course, this is difficult to visualize, but imagine trying to explain a 3rd dimension to a 2 dimensional creature.

 

[Penumbra]

Well I'm no physicist.

For string theory, advocates of it believe that using the math behind string theory can predict certain things. So for example, certain frequencies produce certain particles that have certain characteristics, which scientists know are already around. But it's incomplete and speculative at this point.

For parallel universes, I think there are various reasons for their concept. Part of it is because of quantum mechanics, where everything is just a probability. In that way, each probable event occurs, but in a different universe. From what I've read, the concept of parallel universes often arises from thought experiments when physicists are trying to understand what would happen in a weird scenario.

Then there is relativity. I read that parallel universes are understood to correct the grandfather paradox. That is, where you go back in time and kill your grandpa, but if you kill your grandpa, you wouldn't be born, so you wouldn't kill your grandpa, so you would be born, so you'd kill your grandpa, and so forth. With parallel universes, you kill your grandpa in one universe, but it doesn't affect your own existence because in the universe you are from, your grandpa is alive and well and lead to your birth normally. By killing your grandpa, you only affect the universe you traveled to, and not your own. Though there are other theories about solving this paradox, such as saying that if one travels back in time, the timeline is fixed, and they can't do anything that will affect that fact that they time traveled.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, they are coiled about them selves. Of course, this is difficult to visualize, but imagine trying to explain a 3rd dimension to a 2 dimensional creature.

The best way to start is to think about the 4th dimension. Time is said to be that. But time only goes one way. So half of the 4th dimension is unknown.

Now, image what would the universe be like if we can go back in time. And that strange universe is only in the 4th dimension.

 

[[serious]]

The best way to start is to think about the 4th dimension. Time is said to be that. But time only goes one way. So half of the 4th dimension is unknown.

Now, image what would the universe be like if we can go back in time. And that strange universe is only in the 4th dimension.

Well, there is a certain necessity to the directionality of time for both entropic changes and the directionality of experienced time. I'm tired right now so I'll try to stop back in tomorrow when i may be able to do justice to an explanation.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, there is a certain necessity to the directionality of time for both entropic changes and the directionality of experienced time. I'm tired right now so I'll try to stop back in tomorrow when i may be able to do justice to an explanation.

If time is one of the dimension, then all dimensions higher than 4 demand the warp of time.

If time is not one of the dimension, then what is the role of time in dimensions?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The best way to start is to think about the 4th dimension. Time is said to be that. But time only goes one way. So half of the 4th dimension is unknown.

Now, image what would the universe be like if we can go back in time. And that strange universe is only in the 4th dimension.

Assuming you believe in time. I don't.

 

[Chesterton]

Assuming you believe in time. I don't.

I don't believe in length. I do believe in width though - I have a terrible fear of widths.

 

[[serious]]

If time is one of the dimension, then all dimensions higher than 4 demand the warp of time.

If time is not one of the dimension, then what is the role of time in dimensions?

Not demand, allow. A cube is a 3 dimensional object that is not a warped 2 dimensional object. A tube, however, is a deformed 2 dimensional sheet. If we could bend space/time through a 5th dimension would could potential travel through space and time instantaneously.

 

[juvenissun]

So, the simplest example to me on the multi-verse is that if we go back in time, we could not change the history, but entered into "another" universe. I don't understand it. But I think it might be true.

 

[[serious]]

I don't understand it. But I think it might be true.

This right here sums up string theory better than anything else. String theory is a rather interesting mathematical solution that solves what we want it to. In the past, mathematical solutions have advanced physics substantially even when they were not at first understood.

 

[Hespera]

This is just a general question about a subject I know almost nothing about. I was wondering how scientists came to the conclusions about multiple universes and the various elements of String theory. All I really know is it's an attempt at a unified theory and from Einstein to Hawkins physicists have lamented the failure of science to produce one.

Your thoughts...

Here are some thoughts, not that i claim to understand it..

YouTube - Imagining the Tenth Dimension part 1 of 2

 

[shinbits]

physicists have lamented the failure of science to produce one.

"Lamented the failure"?

There's no need for that kind of wording. this wording has a lot if implied meaning, like scientists are wrong. I hate it when anyone from either side of crevo debates use this tactic.

Just because science hasn't produced something yet, doesn't mean it never will. What's important is that there is logical reason to think science can produce what you're looking for. One example is Pangea. When it was first proposed, it was basically laughed at. But then plate techtonics were discovered, and suddenly those people had to eat thier words.

 

[Naraoia]

For parallel universes, I think there are various reasons for their concept. Part of it is because of quantum mechanics, where everything is just a probability. In that way, each probable event occurs, but in a different universe. From what I've read, the concept of parallel universes often arises from thought experiments when physicists are trying to understand what would happen in a weird scenario.

Careful, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is not the same thing as the multiverse.

Hespera: I was going to post that video

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

March '09 SciAm Scientific American: Scientific American Magazine

SciAm also had a supplemental article a few months ago talking about the four different multiverse theories.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well, they are coiled about them selves. Of course, this is difficult to visualize, but imagine trying to explain a 3rd dimension to a 2 dimensional creature.

Better than imagining, read Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott.

 

[mark kennedy]

"Lamented the failure"?

There's no need for that kind of wording. this wording has a lot if implied meaning, like scientists are wrong. I hate it when anyone from either side of crevo debates use this tactic.

Why did you have to do that, I was enjoying the discussion. I was reading how Einstein was working on the unified theory on his death bed and in an interview with Stephen Hawkins he said one of the things that most disappointed him was the failure to produce a unified theory. Sometime later I was watching Letterman and a scientist was on there explaining how he was sure they were close so I took a casual interest.

This has nothing to do with the crevo debate, just something I'm curious about.

YouTube - December 1999 -Stephen Hawking talks to Larry King

If you watch the interview Stephe Hawking was asked what we know the least about, he said the Unifed Theory. My interest is simply String Theory and how it relates.

A Theory of Everything? NOVA

Just is just idle curiosity, nothing more.