String Theory

[randman]

Let's suppose we live on a straight line, or that is all we generallyerceive scientifically. The reality though is that we exist on a flat plan (2 dimensions instead of one). Well, if we finally detected perhaps that there was this other dimension, say height instead of width, we might actually think it is extremely small. The reason is that where we seem to detect it, where we might think it exists, would be at an intersection with the flat line, and such it would appear to be a very, very, very small dot.

Could string theory be mistaking very large dimensions as very small ones due to our limited frame-work?

 

[randman]

No takers. Well, let me elaborate. String theory is a scientific theory advocating reality consists of more than the dimensions we are aware of, which dimensions appear to validate the Creationist/biblical idea that there are spiritual realms, and that we exist in these realms, and there may be creatures, for lack of a better word, that occupy and live in that realm in a manner that is similar to the way we live in the physical realm. String theory of course doesn't address the existence of angels and demons, but it does provide a scientific basis for other realms, realms that appear very small, but may in fact be quite large. This reminds me of how the Holy Spirit can come and abide in the physical body of a person despite the fact He is larger in a sense than the creation itself.
Moroever, since time is relative and related to the speed of light, it may be the substance of this realm lives and operates related to time in a different matter.

 

[Morat]

  From what little I know of the mathematics, the other 6  dimensions have to be small, or else string theory collapses. Specifically, that observers at large (macroscopic or non-quantum distances) can only see 4, and that the other 6 (or 7, depending on which string theory you like) can only be seen at close distances.

  They're tiny, not large.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I believe there are 26 dimensions, based on Hebrew numerology and the name they had for God. That just a belief, and could be wrong.

-Science of God

 

[randman]

"They're tiny, not large."

Not necessarily. The intersection with the dimensions more commonly known are small, but they could be infinitely huge. They may be tiny according to our perspective, and perhaps according to our sense of matter, but at the same time, the dimensions we normally think of could be just a small if we were looking at them from the string theory dimensions.

Remember that these are dimensions that are not hieght, width, and depth. Think about it.

Maybe it  would help to realize that they cannot be "small" in themselves since "small" is an adjective to describe the qualities of width, height, and depth. and by definition,  they are "other."

 

[Morat]

  If they are huge, and not small, then you are talking about something else that isn't string theory. In string theory, the other 6 (or 7) dimensions are small, all on a quantum scale.

   If you postulate that they are not, then you cannot use any of string theory to support yourself, because you are not discussing string theory.

 

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Simple answer, sure it could.

Could the interpretation of the Bible that people adhear to be mistaken due to our limited understanding?

Simple answer again, sure.

How do we find out in both cases. Testing.

 

[randman]

Maybe it would help to realize that they cannot be "small" in themselves since "small" is an adjective to describe the qualities of width, height, and depth, and by definition, they are "other."

String theorists may call them small, but use your mind, they are not little curves inside of height, width, and depth.

 

[randman]

Or, think of it this way, height and width and depth could also be very tiny strings as well.

If you are examinging them from the inside, of course, they look infinitely vast, but from the outside, they could likewise appear like tiny vibrating strings.

 

[Morat]

  At this point: Sure, and elephants can be bright pink. Okay. So?

 

[randman]

No, string theory is a scientific theory with some credibility, and it posits that there are other dimensions. That has relevance. Obviously, these strings are not within height, width, and depth, or only partially within that, and our math is based upon observations of the current accepted dimensions so mathematical constructs would appear to show them as infinetely small, though perhaps the other extreme of showing them very large could have occurred as well.
Either way, science here appears to validate the biblical idea of extra-dimensions. It has been said that angels, or the spiritual, or supernatural are inherently non-falsifiable, but actually evolutionists are clearly wrong in making such statements.

 

[Morat]

  Math is a very relevant field. It uses "=" and "+" signs all the time. Thefore, since math says 2+2=4, then 4+9 = 5.

  That's your link with string theory, Randman. You're borrowing terminology.

 

 

[randman]

Math still is based on observations of our 3 dimensions.

 

[Morat]

  Hehe! How clever! Ignore the point. Keep borrowing terminology from string theory and pretend it gives validity to your points.

   It's the very definition of pseudoscience. You're in excellent company.

 

 

[randman]

Morat, I can't help it if your IQ does not permit you to grasp higher concepts. I suggest you reread the entire thread, and sit down, and just think about it a little. You obviously have no diea what is being discussed here.

Let me give you an example. In a 3-dimensional world, a physical object cannot be in 2 places at once, but it is possible that the intersection of one of the dimensions of string theory does intersect in more than one place and thus what appears to be an impossibility, that something could exist in 2 places at once, is possible depending on the nature of the extra-dimensions.

Math is giving us a glimpse into the reality that there are other dimensions, but the math is still built upon 3 dimensional constructs, such as an idea of "small" which really not an applicable term for these extra-dimensions except as describing their appearance from the 3-dimensional world.

Maybe this can help. These strings are not just really small things as you state. If they were, they would not be other dimensions.
Capische?

 

[Morat]

  Nice ad hom. Did it help you ignore the point?

  You are taking string theory, and the work and effort that went into it. Then you are contradicting string theory, making some wild claims, and claiming it's all part of the work and effort that went into string theory.

   And I'm pointing it out, which must be personally upsetting to you. It's hard to perform a magic trick when that guy in the audience points out he can see the strings.

 

 

[randman]

Um, why don't youn address the specifics of what I posted, show you actually grasp the ideas, and then try to put them down. Right now, there is no way to tell what in the world you are talking about.

How do I contradict string theory?

I've addressed the issue of smallness, and I think quite well. What is it that you don't understand?

 

[Morat]

  The other dimensions exist on a quantum level. Not a macroscopic one. That is a specific claim of string theory, and the math falls apart if it is not so.

   Play "Flatland" all you want, but you're ignoring that 2D beings can do 3D math. We're not equipped for multiple dimensions, but our math can handle it.

   You're making claims that violate the math that supports string theory. Ergo, if your claims are right, string theory is completely wrong, and you shouldn't use it as support.

 

 

[randman]

No, string theory predicts exactly what should be observed by our mathematical constructs if there were other dimensions. The other dimensions intersecting would indeed appear to be very small like a plane intersecting with a straight line, but that does not mean within the dimension itself that it is small.

Also, we live in 3-d. So yeah, our math can handle that, but that doe s not mean math is adapted to handle the paradoxes which can be created by extra-dimensions.

For instance for a simplified example, let's say a = 34 with 34 being equal to the 34th point on a line. "X" is in "a" so by our math "X" is at 34, but "X" if it is in a different dimension could also be at point 1 and 2 and 34 at the same time.

Let me ask you something. Are the strings within or without our 3-dimensions? Think about it a little. Calling them very small on a quantum level still doesn't address the point that is they are outside of our 3 dimensions, what we see or mathematically perceive as small could just as easily be the window into a universe as vast as our 3 dimensions. It seems as if you are trying to place these strings strictly withing our 3 dimensions, and if that is the case, then they are not dimensions at all, but very small particles.

Is it your position they are just very small particles, or energy patterns?

 

[npetreley]

http://staff.science.uva.nl/~rhd/review.html

Nonperturbative String Theory

Some interesting stuff from the page:

String duality

Unfortunately, until recently, the formulation of string theory was necessarily only perturbative in nature where the Feynman diagrams correspond to surfaces. As is also the case for many quantum field theories, this perturbation expansion is only asymptotic, so that the theory was at best incomplete. There is also no a priori reason to assume that the string coupling constant, which controls the expansion in terms of surfaces, is small. Furthermore, there seemed to be five independent perturbative string theories, that differed dramatically in their basic properties, such as world-sheet geometry, gauge groups and supersymmetries.

However, in the last two years we have witnessed dramatic developments bringing for the first time nonperturbative questions into reach. In a confluence of a wide variety of ideas involving supersymmetry, solitons and nonlinear symmetries, many of them dating back to the 70s and 80s, the structure, internal consistency and beauty of string theory has greatly improved. We have now a much better and clearer picture what the theory is about.

Crucial in all this has been the concept of string duality. In fact, duality has been a powerful idea in physics for a long time, both in statistical mechanics and field theory. The transformation to a dual set of variables can translate a difficult question (such as strong-coupling behaviour) into a much more accessible one (weak-coupling behaviour). String duality is the statement that all five diffferent perturbative strings are related in such a fashion and are just expansions of one single unified theory around different backgrounds. In many respects duality can be used as an organizing principle. In a collective effort during the last two years a mass of evidence for these proposed dualities has been found. In particular the so-called S-dualities that relate strong and weak couplings, can be used to probe the nature of quantum gravity at strong coupling, a unicum in history.


D-branes

One of the consequences of all this has been the realisation that string theory does not only includes strings but also various higher dimensional objects, known as branes. After compactification these solitonic objects can be thought of as black holes in the four-dimensional world. In particular the description of these branes as exact string solitons in the form of D-branes by Polchinski has been one of the most important developments.

The D-brane is simply a place in space-time where the string can begin or end. The resulting open strings lead to world-volume theories for these D-branes that involve nonabelian gauge theories. This allows us to translate actual nonperturbative computations, such as the determination of soliton spectra, into the language of the dynamics of nonabelian gauge theories. Vice versa string theory can be used to derive new exact results in (supersymmetric) gauge theories, such as the mysterious dualities of Seiberg. It also has brought us a dramatically different outlook on the space-time singularities, where on short distances the space-time coordinates become non-commuting matrices.


M-theory, matrix models and fivebranes

At this moment there are many open questions. Particularly important is the determination of the correct degrees of freedom that can give an ultimate fundamental, nonperturbative description of string theory. It is clear that such a formulation will go beyond strings, that only capture the perturbative physics. It should make the large hidden quantum symmetry groups (U-duality groups) more manifest.

A good starting point for such an approach is the eleven-dimensional formulation, so-called M-theory. M-theory should reduce to eleven-dimensional supergravity in weak coupling and reduce upon compactification of one dimension to the ten-dimensional type IIA superstring. Recently, there have been more concrete proposal that M-theory should be formulated as a matrix model, incorporating the non-commutativity and the relation with nonabelian gauge theory dynamics from the start. At present this is one of the main themes in research.