M-Theory

Post by **Loredoctor** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:35 am

But how does one have words to describe something that is beyond normality?

Post by **Avatar** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:47 am

But if it's not normal, then how can we base a model of the universe on it? Surely we should be talking about what is normal in describing the universe?

Hell, there's no such thing as normal anyway, I think. What is this normality you speak of?

If the universe operates by it, I'd guess that's pretty damn normal... *shrug*

--A

Post by **Loredoctor** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:49 am

But what is normal is what is normal - perhaps we have no words to describe it or that our minds cant other than maths?

Post by **Avatar** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:56 am

But they should be able to. You can describe anything that you can percieve, can't you?

--A

Post by **Loredoctor** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:59 am

Yes, but we know relativity is a fact, how can you describe space-time in its true nature truthfully without resorting to mathematics? We havent perceived the big bang yet we can mathematically describe it.

Post by **Avatar** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:21 am

If relativity is a fact, doesn't that mean that FTL is impossible?

And as for the big bang, every new idea, (such as this M-Theory) means that we end up describing it differently.

Is mathematics merely another language then?

--A

Post by **Loredoctor** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:40 am

Language conveys ideas, but that does not mean it represents truth; mathematics is truth.

No, the prohibition against FTL is that as a ship approaches the speed of light relativistic effects make it harder to reach light speed. But it may be that FTL is possible (I doubt it), but we have to breach the barrier.

Post by **Avatar** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:05 pm

But how is mathematics truth if it merely describes what is observable? Does the fact that adding an 11th dimension to the M-theory math makes it all work out automatically mean that there must be an 11th dimension?

Maybe the fault in the theory lies in the fact that it can't be worked out unless you posit such an 11th dimension? Do you see what I'm saying? Because adding it makes the equation balance, it doesn't mean that there is an 11th dimension. It could simply mean that the equation is flawed, and we're making up things to make it balance.

--A

Post by **Loredoctor** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:46 pm

Mathematics is truth not because of what's observable, however because we know 1+1=2. If that makes sense.

As for m-theory - what makes it appealing is that it normalises equations and gets rid of those troublesome infinities. However, whether the maths represents truth in this case is if it can be supported - if the theory has predictive validity. For instance, whether the forces or particles predicted in the theory show up in experiments (such as high-speed accelerators), or in observations (for instance, particle measurement).

Post by **Avatar** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:02 pm

I'm gonna have to revisit this if I get a chance tomorrow...my head is starting to hurt, and work is picking up.

--A

Post by **Loredoctor** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:16 am

Sure.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:06 pm

Av, were you thinking of ZatAoMM?

"Well, it's quite a bootstrap operation. It's analogous to the kind of hang-up Sir Isaac Newton had when he wanted to solve the problems of instantaneous rates of change. It was unreasonable in his time to think of anything changing within a zero amount of time. Yet it's almost necessary mathematically to work with other zero quantities, such as points in space and time that no one thought were unreasonable at all, although there was no real difference. So what Newton did was say, in effect, 'We're going to presume there's such a thing as instantaneous change, and see if we can find ways of determining what it is in various applications.' The result of this presumption is the branch of mathematics known as the calculus, which every engineer uses today. Newton invented a new form of reason..."

Post by **Avatar** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:32 am

That must be where I picked it up, thanks Fist.

So in effect, if there isn't instantaneous change, then all their equations are screwed. But they just presumed it. They couldn't test it or know it or whatever. So maybe the equations are all wrong...

...See what I'm getting at? They "invented" instantaneous change to make their equations work.

--A

Post by **Loredoctor** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:18 am

Avatar wrote:So maybe the equations are all wrong...

Or maybe they are right. Regardless, experimental or observational studies will support or refute a hypothesis.

Post by **Avatar** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:25 am

Maybe they are. But it wasn't experimental or observational studies that led them to presume instantaneuos change. They presumed it because they needed something that would make their equation work.

--A

Post by **Loredoctor** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:47 am

Avatar wrote:Maybe they are. But it wasn't experimental or observational studies that led them to presume instantaneuos change. They presumed it because they needed something that would make their equation work.

--A

Sure, but physicists do it all the time, and as I said studies will support their theories or not. If they are right, well the alteration doesn't matter.

Post by **Avatar** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:19 am

But they made it up! :LOLS:

--A

Post by **Loredoctor** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:26 am

Avatar wrote:But they made it up!

--A

That doesn't matter. It shows their maths was accurate. So what if they skip something they don't understand at the moment. Such happens all the time in science. There are still some processes they don't understand in the workings of cells, but that doesn't stop their theories from being accurate nor undermining their theories for skimming over details. And it's not as if they made up the equations; they just tinkered with them. You seem unable to see the forest for the trees.

Case in point: some of the transformations in particle physics calculations were altered to deal with inherent problems. Yet some theories have predicted particles, and they find those particles in matter collidors - supporting their theories. Now how does that invalidate the theories if they altered equations?

Post by **Avatar** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:27 am

Their theory was wrong, so they tinkered with the postulates until it was right?

Haha, I'm never going to either understand or be able to explain this.

They made it up. They invented some postulate that would account for, and eliminate, the mistake in their theory. And their theory worked afterwards.

That doesn't mean that what they made up must be true, just that it should be true in order for the theory to be true.

I mean, I totally see your point about it then having to stand the test of observation, that's obviously a good thing. But my point is simply that they do make it up. *shrug*

Whether it gets proved over time or through experiemnt is beside the point, (for the purposes of my position here anyway.

)

--A

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:44 am

Well, they're not trying to say "this is exactly how the universe works and why it works that way", they're just trying to come up with a mathematical model that fits the real world as accurately as they can. This means their mathematics has to be modelled around what actually happens as well, because if maths doesn't match the results, then the model is wrong and the maths needs to be revised. The entire field of mathematics was put together by saying 'it needs to do this'.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

M-Theory