|
Khonga
Shpongled


Registered: 08/18/10
Posts: 267
Loc: The Quantum Matrix
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
M-theory
#14247275 - 04/06/11 12:46 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I've been very interested in quantum mechanics and string theory recently and just the other day started to get into M-theory. It a newer idea and evolved out of superstring theory.
Three wikipedia pages that cover the basics, first link being the simplest and third being the most in-depth... http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
There are some youtube clips about it and it is also found in many science shows that talk about parallel universes and string theory. I was wondering if anyone knows of any other good resources to learn more about this (websites, documentaries, etc). Also any discussion on the topic would be interesting. Of course, it's still an unproven area of science and shouldn't necessarily be taken to be true yet, but they are continually making advances in the theory and if they eventually do prove it to be true, it would be IMO the largest discovery ever made. Very interesting stuff...
-------------------- all i've had is 3 cups of coffee 50mg of MXE and a banana...
|
Chespirito
Stranger



Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
|
Re: M-theory [Re: Khonga]
#14248011 - 04/06/11 03:18 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
|
cortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ


Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
|
Re: M-theory [Re: Khonga]
#14248243 - 04/06/11 03:55 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Not sure exactly what kind of coverage on the subject you are looking for, mathematical or popular. If it's the latter then Brian Greene's books are very popular, and people who aren't looking for a mathematical, in-depth analysis seem to like it. Although M-Theory is ALL math (and not so much physics, it seems), so I'm not sure how much a metaphorical description like Greene presents can really describe the theory in any real way. Personally, I've never been a fan of his or his books, but many people enjoy them.
I don't think it's really a scientific theory in the strictest sense of the phrase though. I could be seriously mistaken, but I'm pretty sure String Theory is totally UNprovable, which rules it out as a scientific theory and makes a philosophical creation that involves a lot of interesting math.
--------------------
Signature (up to 750 characters).
|
Khonga
Shpongled


Registered: 08/18/10
Posts: 267
Loc: The Quantum Matrix
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: M-theory [Re: cortex]
#14248306 - 04/06/11 04:04 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
cortex said: Not sure exactly what kind of coverage on the subject you are looking for, mathematical or popular. If it's the latter then Brian Greene's books are very popular, and people who aren't looking for a mathematical, in-depth analysis seem to like it. Although M-Theory is ALL math (and not so much physics, it seems), so I'm not sure how much a metaphorical description like Greene presents can really describe the theory in any real way. Personally, I've never been a fan of his or his books, but many people enjoy them.
I don't think it's really a scientific theory in the strictest sense of the phrase though. I could be seriously mistaken, but I'm pretty sure String Theory is totally UNprovable, which rules it out as a scientific theory and makes a philosophical creation that involves a lot of interesting math.
Yea, at this point I'm looking for a more popular look at it, although in the future I would like to get more into the math and physics side of it. I'll definitely check that out. And I believe you are correct, nothing can be proven so far with string theory, although they seem to be getting closer to proving it.
-------------------- all i've had is 3 cups of coffee 50mg of MXE and a banana...
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: M-theory [Re: cortex]
#14248586 - 04/06/11 04:51 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Those kinds of theories are more an interpretation or an elegant model of existing knowledge, right?
I don't know enough about physics to have a learned opinion on it, but it seems that's what the criticisms essentially point to: something that takes all that we know about "stuff" and puts it into a package that is conceptually appealing but with the actual science all shoehorned together post-facto rather than actually describing anything new that's falsifiable- essentially differing from the underlying science only in concept- like describing f=ma to really be a function of a much more complicated process with unobservable components that produces f=ma but that manifest no other phenomena able to be falsified, tested.
Is this correct? Can anyone more knowledgeable comment?
|
cortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ


Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Those kinds of theories are more an interpretation or an elegant model of existing knowledge, right?
Same thing I was thinking. But I can't honestly make an informed opinion of it either. Hell, I am still plowing my way through basic QM, and it gives me a hard time. I sometimes envy the people that seem to pick up advanced physics and math so easily. And I hate them when they fuck up the curve on a test.
--------------------
Signature (up to 750 characters).
|
darkczar
The Stage Whisperer


Registered: 08/17/08
Posts: 218
Loc:
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
Re: M-theory [Re: cortex]
#14262785 - 04/09/11 11:51 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'm about 1/4 of the way through Brian Greene's "the elegant universe". I love it. I'm often disappointed with popular science books, but he avoids silly metaphors. It beats sitting through 6 years of physics lectures! I like to get all the mind bending stuff, without heavy math, or silly simplifications.
I wish i had my own 2 cents to add to the nature of reality, but I got nuthin'.
-------------------- God is my designated driver.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Those kinds of theories are more an interpretation or an elegant model of existing knowledge, right?
I don't know enough about physics to have a learned opinion on it, but it seems that's what the criticisms essentially point to: something that takes all that we know about "stuff" and puts it into a package that is conceptually appealing but with the actual science all shoehorned together post-facto rather than actually describing anything new that's falsifiable- essentially differing from the underlying science only in concept- like describing f=ma to really be a function of a much more complicated process with unobservable components that produces f=ma but that manifest no other phenomena able to be falsified, tested.
Is this correct? Can anyone more knowledgeable comment?
Theoretical physicists try to create a working mechanical model of the known universe by creating "laws" of the physical universe by combining all observed and inferred relationships between cause and effect applicable to our universe according to our laws of its nature. At least thats my take on it.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
Re: M-theory [Re: Khonga]
#14275634 - 04/11/11 11:07 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Khonga said: I've been very interested in quantum mechanics and string theory recently and just the other day started to get into M-theory. It a newer idea and evolved out of superstring theory.
Three wikipedia pages that cover the basics, first link being the simplest and third being the most in-depth... http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
There are some youtube clips about it and it is also found in many science shows that talk about parallel universes and string theory. I was wondering if anyone knows of any other good resources to learn more about this (websites, documentaries, etc). Also any discussion on the topic would be interesting. Of course, it's still an unproven area of science and shouldn't necessarily be taken to be true yet, but they are continually making advances in the theory and if they eventually do prove it to be true, it would be IMO the largest discovery ever made. Very interesting stuff...
What exactly about parallel universes interests you? If it's the idea that you might have actually been an astronaut (or whatever floats your boat)in another universe, id say forgit about it. That universe would most likely be totally separate and unrelated to our, or any other, universe. I think of it more as a infinite cyclic process of creation, each universe being totally unique. Of course, I could be wrong.
Either way, I agree it's very interesting stuff. I'd be as bold to say it's the most interesting stuff ever lol
|
Khonga
Shpongled


Registered: 08/18/10
Posts: 267
Loc: The Quantum Matrix
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
|
Yea I would have to agree. After many psychedelic experiences in the past, I would assume other universes would be very strange compared to ours and have very little in common. Then again, there is some level 3 parallel universe theory (I'm sort of speaking out of my ass here because it's something I recall from an episode of The Universe that I haven't actually looked into at all ) that states that there are an infinite number of parallel universes around us right now with dimensions we do not see, in which there are universes for every possibility of life. In another universe you would have been an astronaut, and there would actually be another version of you with every possible job in other universes. Of course that sounds insane and it's only a theory with absolutely no hard proof at the moment so it doesn't mean much. I like that theory though because it would make the "meaning of life" question very simple: that there is no actual purpose/meaning to life, and everything in our universe just happens to be the way it is because it is one of the infinite possible realities.
And yes, it is such interesting stuff. I find it hard to believe that such a small percentage of the human population has interest in any of it. Then again, we can't prove anything in this area yet, so I can understand why many people wouldn't/aren't able to spend the time learning it. I'm still at the very beginning stages of learning all this material, but I have been finding it fascinating. I have had a very strong interest in reality and all the deeper questions about life since I started experimenting with psychedelics a few years ago but up until recently, it was all only speculative talk and spiritual concepts. Then I realized that science isn't just solving equations and close-ended research, and that the deeper you go into the science field, the more it deals with these very tricky subjects (but in a way that looks for hard evidence and data). Still, these parallel universe theories generally have no proof so they can't be taken as more than speculation for now, but it is still very interesting stuff. I'm sure whatever it is we discover in the future, it will be something we never expected.
-------------------- all i've had is 3 cups of coffee 50mg of MXE and a banana...
|
|