M-Theory

[Avatar]

Don't know what if anything anybody knows about this, but I remember that we were stalking about strings and super-strings not too long ago. This is what's blown the whole string-theory, well, not out of the water, but made it apparently clear that the seperate string-theories, (there were 5) could be unified as only part of a grander theory.

This article supposedly explains things in a lay fashion, but I see that it only mentions 11 dimensions as a possibility, whereas I was sort of under the impression that they were required in order to make this M-Theory (Membrane Theory) workable.

Oh wait, here's the Wiki article, and here's another that takes the 11 dimensions as given.

Anyway, thought some people might be interested. This is supposed to be another step toward the grand theory of everything.

--A

[Loredoctor]

One of the underlying bases for my sci-fi setting is membrane theory. Love it.

[Avatar]

I find it no more unlikely than any other theory. (What I understand about it anyway... )

--A

[Nathan]

I watched a TV programme about M-Theory, and from what I could understand (I find it very difficult to think in more than 3 dimensions) it seems to make sense, I hope if it all turns out to be correct, that we'll get some nice new inventions taking advantage of it.

[Loredoctor]

Interesting consequence of M-theory is that gravity is actually a force 'bleeding' off a nearby membrane-universe. Physicists think that explains why gravity is such a weak force in this universe.

[Avatar]

Hey, I think I saw that same documentary Nathan, some BBC thing, wasn't it?

Yeah, I dunno, I don't even come close to having a quarter of the math and physics necessary for this.

If our gravity is actually just a reflection of another places gravity, does that mean that really, we don't have any gravity at all?

And these alternate universes are really tiny right? Like 1^19 of a millimeter across. That whole thing about being an atom in the leaf of a weed in a cosmic vacant lot seems pretty great.

Thing is, is there any empirical proof of any of it? Mathematical proof is all very well, but it highlights my own math issues again.

They basically said, we've got X. Now, how can we show that we arrive at X? And nothing worked. Then they said, "Hey, wait a minute! If we postulate an 11th dimension, then our sums work out."

So they did.

Isn't there an equal chance at least that there is no 11th dimension, and their sum was just wrong?

--A

[Loredoctor]

The sum was performed nearly twenty years ago and they've had all this time to correct it? It works out, because most other theories tend to add up to infinities which is a sign the maths if wrong.

[Avatar]

Well yes, but they start with the answer is sorta my point. The only way that it gets shown right, as you yourself know, is that if it always remains true, no matter what else gets discovered.

But then, that's the beauty of science. They want to prove themselves wrong.

It's just that, by starting at an answer, you already know what's "right." According to your observation/whatever. And I mean, observations in this case means something like how numbers behave around each other or something. Not exactly something you can point out on safari, you know?

--A

[Loredoctor]

Ahh I see what you mean: they formulated the theory to answer the answer. Hmmm. Good question. I'll have to think on this one.

[Avatar]

Exactly! Please please do. This is my major problem with all higher mathematics. They already knew the answer they're trying to answer. Now they have to figure out the right question that'll end in the answer they already have.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this, because frankly, I can't get past it.

--A

[Loredoctor]

It's logical, though. Just sounds weird.

[Avatar]

It is weird.

Take, for example, something that we discussed before, that assumption, in one formula or another, that things must change instantaneously.

The formula doesn't work out, unless they make that assumption.

So they said, "we've got X, but we can't produce a formula that equals X unless we assume that things can change without interval, (even the smallest interval)."

So the question get's made up so that the answer comes out at what they already expect the answer to be.

There's just something fundamentally wrong there. "Oh, wait, it doesn't work out. What if we divide by this extra number?" Or "What if we just assume that a change occurs intstantaueuously?"

They're making up the question to fit their already chosen answer.

--A

[Loredoctor]

Yeah, I know. There's a thing in Quantum physics were, when faced with infinities in their equations, they simply change the numbers around to make the solution fit their theory. Now I know that sounds suspicious, however it may just be our understanding of physics is at fault. After all, it is accepted by them. Again, I will have to go through my books on quantum physics to check things out.

[Avatar]

Will be very interested to see if they provide an answer for this. We already know the question for a change...

And yes, suspicious is a perfect description. I'm sure my poor understanding of the subject is part of it, and my innate cynicism, but I can't help thinking, "they're conning us!"

--A

[I'm Murrin]

As for the thing about beginning with the answer, it's the best way to go about it. The 'answer' is how the universe appears to work. The theories they come up with to 'fit' the answer are models for why the universe works this way. If the math doesn't add up, or if the answer is not what really happens in experiment, then the theory is wrong.

[Avatar]

Right, I can see that. My problem is that because you have the answer, you can fiddle your theory until it fits that answer.

In other words, there's nothing to say that the theory is correct, except for the fact that it comes out at what you already know is the abswer. You can make up the conditions of your theory, and if it comes out with the already known answer, it's "right." (Admittedly, only until observation/experiment contradicts it, thankfully.)

Hell, I know this is the way it's done, it's just that, as LoreMaster suggests, it feels suspicious.

--A

[Loredoctor]

The problem is with Quantum physics is that theories tend to be 'blinded' (at least in the public's eyes) by metaphor. So theories tend to be an enclosed world, so to speak, where the language defines itself.

[Avatar]

Yep, because nobody actually knows what the hell anybody is talking about if they're not a quantum physicist themselves.

It's a good point though Lore...the physicists are incapable of explaining it to anybody except in terms of the math, so are reduced to inept comparisons that don't make good sense because they've actually got nothing to do with what you're trying to describe.

--A

[Loredoctor]

Case in point: the concept of 'spin' in Quantum mechanics actually has no relation to spin in the macro universe. Two entirely different elements. Same thing with space-time: people become confused with geometries. But all they are are metaphors. Ways to 'construct' concepts. But the relation to the maths can be untenable.

[Avatar]

Exactly. It's just the best approximation that they can make to explaining it to us in any sort of meaningful way. *sigh*

There should be words damnit!

--A