Does anyone have a problem with he Big Bang "Theory"?
- Thread starter NoExpert
- Start date
qwe
Bluelight Crew
^i know the feeling. i have to use my crowbar especially often here with all these christians around
"entropy increase prevents evolution from being a possibility"
look at your fucking crops, theyre growing!
"entropy increase prevents evolution from being a possibility"
look at your fucking crops, theyre growing!
i just re-read this. could it be that we live in a flat, 1d universe, composed of lattice points and line-connections between them? because of the way the points are arranged, any-dimensional representation could be built..qwe said:
"I'm Ron Burgundy?"nuro said:
Not quite.qwe said:
There's time, 3 large spacial dimensions and 6 (or 7, if you're working in M theory) spacial dimensions which are curled up. A lattice implies there's a non-zero spacing between these folded up dimensions, there isn't. Pictures you see of the compact dimensions in things like The Elegant Universe are not literally true because it's hard to show a continuum of multidimensional objects on a TV screen.
The simplest (and pretty much only) example of a continuum of compact spaces would be a cylinder. You have an open dimension, which is the line which makes up the length of the cylinder. At each point along the line you have a circle. There's no gap between the circles, it's a smooth system. As Green described in TEU, if you view a cylinder from far enough away it looks like a line, so you can see how the compact dimension, ie the circle, works.
The branes are not seperated by different kinds of dimensions either. They are at different points in the compact space. To use the same cylinder example (but it's not visualisable in the same way), suppose you have a circle and at opposite sides of it you have a 3d 'sheet' (or volume or whatever geometry noun you feel comfortable with). One of the sheets (or 3-brane) will be our 'universe', where all the particles we see, including the particles which carry the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces, are stuck to. The other sheet will be a similar setup with similar matter. But matter from one brane cannot leave another, unless the branes collide. This is because all matter and forces, other than gravity, are formed by open strings and they must have their ends stuck to a brane. Gravity, however, is the result of graviton exchange and gravitons are closed strings and they can leave a brane, travel through the circular dimension and reach the other brane.
I've used a circular compact dimension as an example but you can construct models with as many branes as you like in the 6 or 7 dimensional compact spaces. The number of branes can have an effect on the properties of matter for reasons I can go into.
Oh and it's 'Calabi Yau'. And technically (and this is something I actually corrected Wiki's string theory page on), Calabi Yaus are approximations to the real string theory compact dimensions, because CYs have very symmetric properties and lack particular kinds of fields. Current development is to work out what happens when we no longer assume those kinds of fields are 'off' and unfortunately the mathematics we have is nowhere near as powerful as we need it to be. It's something I plan on getting into this year.
I can provide links to specific relevant papers if needs be.
vegan
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2003
- Messages
- 6,398
people have already corrected it in this page
but i'm starting to fucking "hate" the "ten dimensions everything" video that was linked here
because it's always posted as mistaken for spacial dimensions or something related to string theory
i've seen it posted almost 10 times in this forum, and not once with a good understanding of what it described
plus, i won't spend time watching it again, but i remember that some of the shortcuts used were way too dodgy for my tastes
but i'm starting to fucking "hate" the "ten dimensions everything" video that was linked here
because it's always posted as mistaken for spacial dimensions or something related to string theory
i've seen it posted almost 10 times in this forum, and not once with a good understanding of what it described
plus, i won't spend time watching it again, but i remember that some of the shortcuts used were way too dodgy for my tastes
The_Idler
Bluelighter
now that's cool,qwe said:
i'd never even considered that...
just like a 3d game, encoded in binary on the "1D" harddisk.
qwe
Bluelight Crew
the distance would be related to how easily a 'particle' or fundamental entity could traverse the links between the points, and how many links it must travel to its destination. every lattice link could be the same 'distance' if that term has meaning on that scale, or could have varying distances
i dont understand what you are implying that i implied
qwe
Bluelight Crew
^i'd bet that spacetime is a quantized "entity" moving amongst other entities (braneworld) attached to background links between all lattice-points (bulk of which it is a part). i'd have to wait 50-150 years to get my money (or pay someone it), but i cant wait. vote obama so we get more serious about science 
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
re: qwe's idea:
This along with the commentary on it is like the holographic universe idea. Perhaps dimensionality is a perceptual 'artifact'.
ebola
This along with the commentary on it is like the holographic universe idea. Perhaps dimensionality is a perceptual 'artifact'.
ebola
DarksidePharmacist
Bluelighter
qwe said:
Sorry just to chime in out of nowhere on this one. But the universe we live in is governed by a set of fundamental rules by which everything must adhere to. These include the simplest mathematics. 1+1=2 right?
Well to even begin to understand a universe before/after/separate to our own would, i believe, be impossible as the very rules that make our existence possible may not apply there. What if 1+1=3 in the universe that preceded ours? There simply would be no reference point to work with when trying to understand something that does not follow the rules our universe exists by.
im no physicist, and im a bit stoned, so sorry if thats completely nonsensical.
DarksidePharmacist said:
Including Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?
While it is not my personal opinion, there is a possibility that the universe is more complex than we are capable of understanding. Even now, QM models would take ages to build without large amounts of processing power. Right now, to be on the forefront of research, you generally need to be either working on your PhD, or already have one. Including primary school, that means 19-21 years of education before you can start to push the boundary of what we currently know back. And this only counts for the 1.5% or so of people who are able to get their PhD.
On average, intellectual creativity tends to decline after the mid 30s, and historically most people's best known work is done in their late 20s. So we're already within sight of an intellectual limit. Perhaps the age of the world-shattering discoveries is closing, and we'll have to content ourselves with refining and further refining existing models. Diminishing returns seems to apply to research as well as everything else.
That said, I think that this is a spectacularly exciting time to be alive from a research standpoint. Not only in the realm of fundamental physics, but biology, chemistry, earth sciences, and art. While art seems to be stuck in a post-modern quagmire, there is still a great deal of good work being done, and insights to be had. We're still very capable of asking the big questions and finding answers-- it's just going to be a lot trickier to find out which answers describe our universe.
The_Idler
Bluelighter
interesting post,
dont forget nanotech.
dont forget nanotech.