M Thoery and the Parallel Universe

[Matt1970]

So I was watching the show on parallel universes and M theory. I wouldn’t even begin to understand the math involved in this but M theory pulls the 5 string theories together with an 11th dimension. In this 11th dimension are all kinds of different membranes, each one a possible parallel universe. Further in the show they discussed the theory that we are leaking gravity into other parallel universes. Couldn’t the opposite be possible as well that parallel universes leak gravity into our universe? If that were possible, couldn’t that explain Dark Matter since (and correct me if I am wrong) but the mass of a Galaxy is calculated by the gravitational pull/orbital velocity they have on each other?

 

[Hacp]

Hahahahaha. String theory is useless until there is empirical evidence. At this point, it is just as valid as climate change, which means it has no factual evidence to base its findings on.

 

[wuliheron]

String theory has proven quite useful for advancing the mathematics of theoretical physics and bridging it with mathematics in general. However, there are just too many variations of the theory with some people proposing as many as a googleplex of possibilities. Here are just a couple of the variations I've come across.

One is the idea the 3rd spatial dimension we observe is merely a holographic projection; thus explaining the nonlocal effects of quantum mechanics as an illusion of distance between particles. Then there's the "mirror world" variations where the properties of mass and energy are intimately connected to another universe. What appears to be the action-at-a-distance of electromagnetism in our universe is explained by something prosaic like size, shape, or momentum in the mirror world. Kind of like a puppet show where you just can't see the strings. And of course gravity can form the one bridge between the two universes through which it might be possible to communicate back and forth.

Anyway, you get the idea. The latest evidence for quantum mechanics doesn't help matters either suggesting a contextual view. For example even nonlocal effects have proven to be subject to Indeterminacy and one contextual theory proposes that whether the cat is perceived as dead, alive, or in superposition depends on the observer (ie-context). Some of these contextual theories don't even appear to have any metaphysical bias whatsoever making them useless for choosing among the more background dependent string theories. Between the added complexity of contextual theories and the number of possible string theories its frankly a mess.

 

[pandemonium]

Schrödinger's cat lives! Or does it?

Personally I find string theory an all inclusive attempt to explain things that are way beyond explainable at this point. It's an unknown being explained by uncertainties and possibilities that are endless. While I admire the premise and the resulting technologies that are following to pursue it, I think the focus of it is unreasonable. Concentrate on more concrete theories IMHO; e.g. the LHC.

At least with dark matter the theory is a bit more sound since that's how we're accounting for the missing mass of the "visible" universe.

As for parallel universes I still think the underverse, as it was called in The Chronicles of Riddick, is probably what I'd find most reasonable. Which explains ghosts and other phenomenom outside our perceivable limits. To each their own. Scientific "theories" certainly have developed much like that of religions. There's one out there for everyone it seems.

 

[CycloWizard]

Hahahahaha. String theory is useless until there is empirical evidence. At this point, it is just as valid as climate change, which means it has no factual evidence to base its findings on.

Who let you in here? Are you really going to say in a highly technical forum that the climate doesn't change? Was relativity useless until it had supporting empirical evidence? Do you even know what it is?

 

[Anteaus]

Hahahahaha. String theory is useless until there is empirical evidence. At this point, it is just as valid as climate change, which means it has no factual evidence to base its findings on.

Climate change is real. We have enough "factual data" to swim in. "Global Warming", or man made climate change, is arguable. Since the second half of your statement is uninformed, I'll assume the first half is also.

 

[Hacp]

Who let you in here? Are you really going to say in a highly technical forum that the climate doesn't change? Was relativity useless until it had supporting empirical evidence? Do you even know what it is?

I challenge you to model the climate using theory alone and no made up emirical bullshit. Can't do it can you? Climate models=fucking bullshit just like economic models. How many of these models have accurately predicted the future? None! String theory is just even more bullshit because no one has proven anything but you have a horde of followers believing this stuff because it is "beautiful". What a load of crap.

Trolling and foul language are both prohibited in the technical forums. -Admin DrPizza

 

[Hacp]

Climate change is real. We have enough "factual data" to swim in. "Global Warming", or man made climate change, is arguable. Since the second half of your statement is uninformed, I'll assume the first half is also.

Um it is obvious I am talking about "man made" climate change. The temperature of the earth has been fluctuating up and down since the dawn of its creation.

 

[Matt1970]

Um it is obvious I am talking about "man made" climate change. The temperature of the earth has been fluctuating up and down since the dawn of its creation.

This is true. Scientist have found layers in the Earth suggesting time periods where the earth was on average upwards of 13 degrees hotter than it is today. Everyone knows about the ice ages. The overwhelming evidence does point to current Global Warming but who or what is to blame and exactly how much has turned into politics.

 

[Anteaus]

Um it is obvious I am talking about "man made" climate change. The temperature of the earth has been fluctuating up and down since the dawn of its creation.

I understand what you mean, but there is nothing obvious about it. You might not think the distinction is important, but they are entirely different things. One describes an event, while the other describes a cause. The fact that some people think these terms are interchangeable in the first place is a unfortunate.

 

[CycloWizard]

I challenge you to model the climate using theory alone and no made up emirical bullshit. Can't do it can you? Climate models=fucking bullshit just like economic models. How many of these models have accurately predicted the future? None! String theory is just even more bullshit because no one has proven anything but you have a horde of followers believing this stuff because it is "beautiful". What a load of crap.

Lack of a working model does not invalidate reality. Or do you think ice ages have never occurred? If you want to discuss this nonsense, start a new thread and I'll be happy to shoot down everything you learned from some talk radio host.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Lack of a working model does not invalidate reality. Or do you think ice ages have never occurred?

Hello !
I am supposed to be the one from who the writings in this forum do not make sense !

I am getting my lawyer on patent infringement buddy !