Established Member
what exactly happens within the 11th dimension? what is it? I have heard, according to string theory, that within the 11th dimension strings turn into membranes and can collide, bringing about another universe, though I'm not sure if that is correct.
Order of Kilopi
I am not able to answer this question in any detail, but I believe that in string theory the 11 dimensions of our universe exist within one more dimension called "the bulk" where the branes of 11 dimensions could collide and bring about other universes.
I am certain someone will answer with better/more correct information, but in the meantime, there is an excellent show called The Elegant Universe (based on the book of the same name) here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
The link below allows you to watch all three hours, but its the third hour has a short overview of "the bulk"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...imensions.html
This show was on in 2003 as does give a good overview of String theory.
Solfe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'That was tops! Who's not good at math? I was all, "Four!"' - Finn, Adventure Time.
Established Member
If you can gain access to a copy of the November 2010 -Issue of Physics Today has a report on String Theory----it has seemingly made some progress in the real world---I have yet to read it---but if I have time---I will try to post a summary of the salient points.
Physics Today is published by the American Institute of Physics
Last edited by John Jaksich; 2010-Nov-23 at 02:21 AM. Reason: correction to publication source in bold
Established Member
Are you referring to this?
Established Member
Originally Posted by Schneibster
I don't believe anyone can get access without paying or violating copyright law by posting the actual publication? I clicked on your link and it asked for my user name---which is mine alone
I have started to wade my copy --and despite it being a general consumption article --it is quite difficult!
Moderator
I have the pdf of that Physics Today paper "String Theory and the Real World", if you would like to have it, send me a PM with email.
Here is the Physics Today website
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Banned
Am I the only voice of reason... or am I wrong again ?
What is this multi dimensional string thing doing here ?
I can draw, see, feel and experience a three dimensional reality.
and will still contemplate time as a forth dimension.
Would or, could someone please guide me through the
5th, 6th, 7th, 8th .... or is this just the want of some to imagine what might not be real as to be ?
I have a want to argue that I can have a perfect understanding of spatial depth and distances from all things within the Universe...
From where and for why is the thought of 5 to 11. Other dimensions even tolerated as science ?
Established Member
Pardon my speculation----
It is--granted--a mathematical construct of "reality"---but IMHO---mathematics is but one language for science---that is all---
However, it is true that the Universe is--and can be more easily described---in simpler terms.
I am not an expert on Strings nor M-Theory---but to me at least, they have a beauty of mathematics that is rarely found in science. Perhaps experiment must catch up with theory.
Purely speculative, though!
Established Member
Here is a fairly good link from Univ of Calif at Santa Barbara from a lecture presented by Dr. Ed. Witten ---he is one of the developers of M-Theory-http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/plecture/witten/
He is a very good presenter.
Established Member
Apparently your browser is holding cookies that cause that- I didn't have to log in by following that link, and all I saw was a one-paragraph blog post about using one string theory solution that forms a gravitic singularity to describe high-temperature superconductors.I don't believe anyone can get access without paying or violating copyright law by posting the actual publication? I clicked on your link and it asked for my user name---which is mine alone
Apparently, looking at tusenfem's following post, that is in fact not the article the OP referred to.
It would be rather clueless to call something a blog (readily determined from the text of the URL) and then charge to see it.
Good, perhaps it will also be informative.
Established Member
Schneibster,
I really don't understand your attitude---if you can't be polite --don't insult me
The link which I provided in the subsequent post ---is a good background for the subject
Administrator
John Jaksich - You obviously know if you have concerns about a post that you report it. Commenting about it in-thread is not appropriate. I don't think Schneibster was calling you or your post "clueless".
Schneibster - I believe John Jaksich was commenting that the linked article required a payment, not the blog entry about it. And I sincerely hope your use of "clueless" was not aimed at any member of this board.
Now, let's all be nice.
Established Member
This is a fairly common and quite unfounded objection to string physics. In fact, the additional dimensions are both small and closed; that is, they loop back upon themselves and do so in a very small space, on the close order of the Planck length. In addition, the individual string theories, heterotic E8xE8, heterotic SO(32), types Ia and Ib, and types IIa and IIb, as well as the supersymmetric theory called "supergravity," all actually are ten-dimensional theories; it is only when they are connected together through an eleventh dimension, however, that the full flowering of M theory is seen, as each theory becomes dual to at least one other when the expansion into the eleventh dimension is calculated.
It is not well known among those who have not looked much at string physics, but the original idea was proposed by Theodor Kaluza, a mathematician and schoolteacher, to Albert Einstein in 1921: if one uses the methods that led to General Relativity in a five-dimensional manifold, one derives Maxwell's field equations to describe distortions of the manifold, in exactly the same manner as one derives the ten Einstein field equations that describe gravity in the four-dimensional manifold. This is a known mathematical fact. Einstein couldn't see how a fifth dimension could be accommodated; among other things, if energy moved in that fifth direction, from a four-dimensional point of view it would appear to disappear into nothing, violating the law of mass-energy conservation. In 1926, a physicist named Oskar Klein suggested that the additional dimension could be small and closed, which removed the energy-conservation objection and the other inconsistencies Einstein saw, but no one paid much attention. This is unfortunate, because it appears at this time that this was the grand unification of electromagnetism and gravity that Einstein would waste the end of his life searching for fruitlessly.
They're too small. The Planck length is to the size of an atom as that atom is to the Solar System. We can get several orders of magnitude below the nuclear size scale, but that's about it- you'd need an accelerator the size of the galaxy to investigate things at the Planck length.
Considering that they're writing articles in physics journals at the rate of thousands per year regarding string physics, all of which assume extra dimensions, asking whether they're "tolerated as science" seems somewhat arrogant. Maybe it's just me.
Good luck with the whole "understanding of spatial depth" thing.
Established Member
What insult do you accuse me of? Looks to me like you read something quickly without paying much attention and are throwing accusations around. I'm not much in favor of that, and I'm going to report your post for a false accusation. Have a nice day.
Administrator
Maybe it is you. That is not what I meant by be nice. Please, educate other members and correct their misunderstandings. But don't accuse them of arrogance or any other flaws.
P.S. - Now, no more meta-discussion, nor trading of insults or accusations, or I'll close this thread.
Established Member
It's not a blog entry about the article, I think- just a blog entry with a similar subject (string theory) and from the same source (Physics Today).
I am appalled that you find it necessary to issue threats. I have had major issues with this forum before now and have abandoned it multiple times in disgust for precise the type of harassment you are aiding and abetting here. Anyone who can read written English clearly would be not merely mistaken but enough to prevent correctly writing your message in the first place if they thought I was slinging insults. That you are gives me major pause in considering whether I wish to contribute here or not.
Ummm, you're supposed to take care of that, and you're not doing a very good job IMHO. You've just harassed me.Now, let's all be nice.
Order of Kilopi
No more in-thread meta discussion.
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Established Member
If you can gain access to a copy of the November 2010 -Issue of Physics Today has a report on String Theory----it has seemingly made some progress in the real world---I have yet to read it---but if I have time---I will try to post a summary of the salient points.
Physics Today is published by the American Institute of Physics
The author and his co-workers (and I believe there may be some consensus among theoreticians, in general) seemingly have reached some conclusions in the field of cosmology.
The author cites the use of compactified string theory ( warning: my understanding will sound weak ) where -- in one case--- they attempt to explain neutrino masses. The author explains that a group of workers from Cal--Berkeley --Mary K. Gaillard and her PhD students --Giedt and Nelson were able to understand one certain--compactified theory.
Because String theory and M-theory seemingly occur within the realms of very high energy and Planck scale distances--it is often argued that it can not be easily tested by many of its critics---compactified string theory is the means by which it is tested. The author (Dr. Gordy Kane) ---states that it is analogous ( in formulation) to the Hamiltonian or (Lagrangian)--
And as is done in QM ---through the computation of an Expectation Value---this is a method in which String Theory is and can be tested ---
To directly quote Dr. Kane---"The key point is that solutions to the theory are the things tested. It's a point that is often ignored, even by experts, in popular discussions"
In regards to the neutrino masses----the results of the Berkeley group: the ability to identify all particles which could be neutrinos
In the Standard Model---proton decay can be explained through QCD
In this vein---it is questioned by the author:
Could a compactified version of a String Theory perform the same as QCD---but with "very-light" neutrino masses---there results were in the negative:
(Giedt, Kane, Langacker, & Nelson---Physical Rev--D
Volume 71, p 115013)
Established Member
Further ramifications to the question: What can be done by String Theory?
A persistent opportunity ----that the author proposes the following solution to a problem in String Theory---because of the fact of there ---being so many varied solutions to the "Theory" ---it is because of this fact that it is only to be tested through 4-dimensional space in a "complex" 11 or 10 dimensional mathematical framework--
It is a testable theory--which appears much too difficult ----and is "one" coherent method in which science may be and can be practiced
Established Member
Because ---at this point in time--M Theory or String Theory--can not readily test whether or not it is within one or another "brane" of a Universe or is among many others---it is not experimentally verifiable.
Banned
They ( those ) might be very good points and founded on excellent science...but,
What... ? The shutters go up and the blinds come down. Throwing my arms in the air does not seem to help...
That seems to frighten the cat....
I asked for a explanation and have understood some parts of the answer given.
Plankt length realities and explaining energies appearing and vanishing. Great.
That some great minds found any of this expectable ... I refute.
As a collective group you have failed. There are lies and imagining hitherto unseen. The cats looking at me 'funny'
Because a mathematician can make it so is NOT good enough for me... science and the methods of it.
Do not conform to this well. That there is some more to learn. That there is something ugly and wrong. I smell a rat.
Show me. Explain why this is not ATM... What other dimensions ? Where is a model.? What is this theory ?
M-Theory, brans, strings,... My neural pathways are not finding connections that close this subject for me...
Back a few threads (posts) ago, I was told that because a group publish countless papers... It must be so... Yea-right.
On that basis Astroligy is fact... and we know thats not true. I do not want to rattle any cages here but, can you show me proof of fact.
I do not do the faith thing so its to science I look. What do I need to read that might open my closed mind. ?
Established Member
If this was astrology I would not bother----given that is a highly mathematical construct---I do not deny---but I do admit it is a work in progress--
It may seem like poetry ----but I am a poor expositor of the subject---
I am unsure if you have ever studied how some aspects of science have progressed---it is definitely non-traditional.
String Theory is just a one method--that has the ability to be tested--not just bantered as cocktail physics . . . . IMO--that speaks well of it. Mathematics is the language of science--
Do you understand what I am driving at?
Banned
Yes I do. , and agree. That mathematics is part of science at this level I accept.
It's when it becomes a discussion of what ifs... it looses me. Physics and maths are all part of the real world. Its philosophy I have issues with...
The conversations of string theory seem to lack any real science... It looks like fiction. BUT I must add that it might yet be proven as such.
... As we extract every nuance of understanding we may yet find a better description of the Universes expansion. Inventing dimensions is not the answer I seek.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
