Dimensions?

[armofreek]

well the dimension's go up to 24 to be exact...............

 

i ask, how can you be exact in a theory?

[armofreek]

420 posts mr. ewright! good job!

[EWright]

but wouldn't it be possible?

consider the distance between things as close together as the planets in our own solar system. and yet, this is still a great distance, but amounts to squat in comparison to the distances between our galaxy and others. isn't it entirely possible that the lack of evidence of multiple universes could be due to the inability to see the gargantuan distances away that these universes might exist?

i suppose this isn't a very educated guess, its just a thought

 

Interesting thought, but a flawed one. If it's simply a matter of distance to another universe, what exists in that distance if not the space-time of our universe? If something else, then where does the space time of our universe end and the next begin, and what separates the two? And if, then, it is our own space time, anything existing within it must be considered to be contained within the same universe. For another universe to exist, it would have to exist outside of our space and time, and thus does not exist.

[lindagarrette]

Lack of evidence gives SciFi writers the freedom to speculate on an almost endless number of theories. Some of them turn out to be real but most are just entertainment. My own preference is for the type of writing that doesn't call for pure fantasy so, since anything is possible within the realm of physical laws as we know them, the notion of multiple universes makes for a good story.

[Loricybin]

that makes sense

but i need cents.

 

and could anybody provide a good source for studying dimensions,

or further resources on dimensional theories?

[Tarantism]

well, loren, the book that i am reading "the Eligant Universe", by Brian Greene, is an exellant read.

 

and i am sure that you already know about the Stephen Hawking book that jason has, though i have never read it myself.

[EWright]

well, loren, the book that i am reading "the Eligant Universe", by Brian Greene, is an exellant read.

 

and i am sure that you already know about the Stephen Hawking book that jason has, though i have never read it myself.

 

Greene has a newer book out called "Fabric of the Cosmos," which is also excellent. You can actually get it free on audiobook at audible.com. You get two free audiobooks for checking out the site.

[coldcreation]

Greene has a newer book out called "Fabric of the Cosmos," which is also excellent. You can actually get it free on audiobook at audible.com. You get two free audiobooks for checking out the site.

 

His prior novel is basically a sales-pitch for string theory (I've glanced at his revised version: it's more of the same). Unfortunately it fails. Why?

 

The totality of string theory's separation from nature would hardly be fulfilled had the universe not concealed a key ingredient: additional curled-up spatial dimensions. As it turns out, string theory cannot do without extra space dimensions. Why not, articulates Greene, “so long as they are small enough, nothing rules them out.” The problem with this conjecture is that nothing rules them in either. This is a case where nothing is more real than nothing.

 

Greene spans on to say; “But extra dimensions may strike you as an artifice. Our inability to probe distances smaller than a billionth of a billionth of a meter permits not only extra tiny dimensions but all manner of whimsical possibilities as well-even a microscopic civilization populated by even tinier green people. While the former certainly seems more rationally motivated than the latter, the act of postulating either of these experimentally untested-and, at present, untestable-possibilities might seem equally arbitrary.” Clearly string theory is a mathematical oasis, separated from the rest of physics.

 

Greene's position is clear; it is our inability to investigate, which enables us to “postulate” whatever we like. In other terms, if we cannot prove something, anything goes, including men in green, or, on a more solemn level; extra dimensions. Accordingly, in addition to the no-lose situation that shelters this theory, a considerable doubt weighs heavily on the no-win counter-part. Nothing forbids it, but nothing permits it.

 

If you want great entertainment, buy the book(s). If you want science, look somewhere else.

 

Coldcreation

[EWright]

His prior novel is basically a sales-pitch for string theory (I've glanced at his revised version: it's more of the same). Unfortunately it fails. Why?

 

The totality of string theory's separation from nature would hardly be fulfilled had the universe not concealed a key ingredient: additional curled-up spatial dimensions. As it turns out, string theory cannot do without extra space dimensions. Why not, articulates Greene, “so long as they are small enough, nothing rules them out.” The problem with this conjecture is that nothing rules them in either. This is a case where nothing is more real than nothing.

 

Greene spans on to say; “But extra dimensions may strike you as an artifice. Our inability to probe distances smaller than a billionth of a billionth of a meter permits not only extra tiny dimensions but all manner of whimsical possibilities as well-even a microscopic civilization populated by even tinier green people. While the former certainly seems more rationally motivated than the latter, the act of postulating either of these experimentally untested-and, at present, untestable-possibilities might seem equally arbitrary.” Clearly string theory is a mathematical oasis, separated from the rest of physics.

 

Greene's position is clear; it is our inability to investigate, which enables us to “postulate” whatever we like. In other terms, if we cannot prove something, anything goes, including men in green, or, on a more solemn level; extra dimensions. Accordingly, in addition to the no-lose situation that shelters this theory, a considerable doubt weighs heavily on the no-win counter-part. Nothing forbids it, but nothing permits it.

 

If you want great entertainment, buy the book(s). If you want science, look somewhere else.

 

Coldcreation

 

Siting page numbers with your quotes would help us to put Greene's comments into context. Granted, he takes the ideas behind string theory and "elaborates" on them a bit, but that doesn't mean the fundamental ideas behind the theory are flawed. I'm sure the primary reserachers in the field would not suggest that there are little green men curled up in the extra dimensions necessary for the theory. And the theory, from my understanding, fits mathematically (formulaically?) with the relativity theories. I believe it's also widely accepted that it is a rather speculative theory and not yet provable, but that it currently offers perhaps the greatest likelihood for a unified theory between relativity and the quantum.

[lindagarrette]

Siting page numbers with your quotes would help us to put Greene's comments into context. Granted, he takes the ideas behind string theory and "elaborates" on them a bit, but that doesn't mean the fundamental ideas behind the theory are flawed.

Greene is attempting to explain a very complex mathematical concept in lay terms so it can be visualized. Personally, I think he just confuses the issue. I don't know the math but if I did, it would probably be very clear. There are no fundamental ideas anyone can formulate without using complex equations which very few understand. If you aren't one of those few, then you don't have much ground to dispute what's presented by the scientists.

[Tarantism]

i disagree, i believe that Greene explains very complex theorys and ideas rather nicely,and someone such as myself, with almost no experience with the study of string theory, can follow quite nicely, as i have been.

 

but opinions will be opinions.

[lindagarrette]

i disagree, i believe that Greene explains very complex theorys and ideas rather nicely,and someone such as myself, with almost no experience with the study of string theory, can follow quite nicely, as i have been.

 

but opinions will be opinions.

Good, then maybe you can explain the Kaluba-Yau model to me. Because I don't get it.

[Tarantism]

haha well then- havent finished the book. perhaps i should clarify. at the point that i am at in the book, i have not yet been confused to the point where simply going over what i have read wouldnt clear things up. maybe i will get confused later in the book...maybe not...but i havent gotten particularly deep into the literature.