PDA

View Full Version : A Theory of Everything


onnihs
06-17-2004, 02:44 PM
I love it... super strings, 10 dimensional universe, it gets me excited and makes me THINK so hard.

I stumbled across this web page by Dr. Michio Kaku, Prof. of Theoretical Physics at the City College of New York, and it had me bedazzled. I've read it 4 or 5 times already, and have gotten 4 other people hooked on the topic. Now i share it with you! Below is a little excerpt of the things he talks about. The entire article can be found HERE (http://home.flash.net/~csmith0/theryall.htm).


10 Dimensional Hyperspace
The superstring theory represents perhaps the most radical departure from ordinary physics in decades. But its most controversial prediction is that the universe originally began in 10 dimensions. To its supporters, the prediction of a 10 dimensional universe has been a conceptual tour de force, introducing a startling, breath-taking mathematics into the world of physics.

To the critics, however, the introduction of 10 dimensional hyperspace borders on science fiction.

To understand these higher dimensions, we remember that it takes three number to locate every object in the universe, from the tip of your nose to the ends of the universe.

For example, if you want to meet some friends for lunch in Manhattan, you say that you will meet them at the building at the corner of 42nd and 5th Ave, on the 37th floor. It takes two numbers to locate your position on a map, and one number to specify the distance above the map. It thus takes three numbers to specify the location of your lunch.

However, the existence of the fourth spatial dimension has been a lively area of debate since the time of the Greeks, who dismissed the possibility of a fourth dimension. Ptolemy, in fact, even gave a "proof" that higher dimensions could not exist. Ptolemy reasoned that only three straight lines can be drawn which are mutually perpendicular to each other (for example, the three perpendicular lines making up a corner of a room.) Since a fourth straight line cannot be drawn which is mutually perpendicular to the other three axes, Ergo!, the fourth dimension cannot exist.

What Ptolemy actually proved was that it is impossible for us humans to visualize the fourth dimension. Although computers routinely manipulate equations in N-dimensional space, we humans are incapable of visualizing spatial dimensions beyond three.

The reason for this unfortunate accident has to do with biology, rather than physics. Human evolution put a premium on being able to visualize objects moving in three dimensions. There was a selection pressure placed on humans who could dodge lunging saber tooth tigers or hurl a spear at a charging mammoth.

Since tigers do not attack us in the fourth dimension, there simply was no advantage in developing a brain with the ability to visualize objects moving in four dimensions.

From a mathematical point of view, however, adding higher dimensions is a distinct advantage: it allows us to describe more and more forces. There is more "room" in higher dimensions to insert the electromagnetic force into the gravitational force. (In this picture, light becomes a vibration in the fourth dimension.) In other words, adding more dimensions to a theory always allows us to unify more laws of physics.

A simple analogy may help. The ancients were once puzzled by the weather. Why does it get colder as we go north? Why do the winds blow to the West? What is the origin of the seasons? To the ancients, these were mysteries that could not be solved. From their limited perspective, the ancients could never find the solution to these mysteries.

The key to these puzzles, of course, is to leap into the third dimension, to go up into outer space, to see that the earth is actually a sphere rotating around a tilted axis. In one stroke, these mysteries of the weather become transparent. The seasons, the winds, the temperature patterns, etc. all become obvious once we leap into the third dimension.

Likewise, the superstring is able to accommodate a large number of forces because it has more "room" in its equations to do so.

ism
06-17-2004, 04:35 PM
I read some of his books, Hyperspace and Visions. Hyperspace goes more indepth about superstring theory (like 9 and 13-string dimensions), and Visions is a more general look at the future. If you like his stuff, check out Ray Kurzweil's (yes, the guy that makes the keyboard synthesizers) The Age of Spiritual Machines. Both are very lucid writers and explain the concepts well.

applehead
06-17-2004, 06:50 PM
you guys read this kind of stuff
for fun?
man, i thought this was a joke thread
about silly strings.

onnihs
06-18-2004, 10:32 AM
I read some of his books, Hyperspace and Visions. Hyperspace goes more indepth about superstring theory (like 9 and 13-string dimensions), and Visions is a more general look at the future. If you like his stuff, check out Ray Kurzweil's (yes, the guy that makes the keyboard synthesizers) The Age of Spiritual Machines. Both are very lucid writers and explain the concepts well.

ooooh thanks, glad to find someone else who finds this stuff interesting. I think i've become a little super-string obsessed... i hope i can grasp most of the theory with my primitive brain. And i'm definately going to check out that book! The title alone is so intriguing.

you guys read this kind of stuff
for fun?
man, i thought this was a joke thread
about silly strings.

:biggrin: hehe, i've always been a pretty big sci-fi buff, but reading these articles is like reading hardcore science fiction that is real, or at least plausible, instead of reading things from ficiont novels that are from the world of make-believe.

:) :) What's your genre of novels?

VV o n g B a
06-18-2004, 11:10 AM
i read a smattering of stuff about this in the past, but i've since lost that interest. no one has conducted an experiment that can prove any of this and the tests that have been theorized require ungodly amounts of energy. and since i'm no physicist, i found it not worth my time to think about unproven superstrings.

i haven't even got my head squared on all the implications of quantum physics where observation changes reality. i can't justify spending more time on things that i can't even visualize properly.

onnihs
06-18-2004, 01:02 PM
i read a smattering of stuff about this in the past, but i've since lost that interest. no one has conducted an experiment that can prove any of this and the tests that have been theorized require ungodly amounts of energy. and since i'm no physicist, i found it not worth my time to think about unproven superstrings.

i haven't even got my head squared on all the implications of quantum physics where observation changes reality. i can't justify spending more time on things that i can't even visualize properly.

Superstring theory, from its infancy, has been heavily skepticized by many, many physicists including some Nobel Peace price winners primarily because, like your concern, it just can't be proven. It appears that humans do not have the capability of solving much of the mathematics involved with the theory at this time, since the necessary forms of mathematics have yet to be created (much like how Newton procured calculus to solve the equations for gravity). Also, like you've said, experiments to test the theory is pretty much impossible because we're dealing with sub-sub-atomic particles.

However, through all the bumps in the road, science still cannot deny the profundity and theoretical value Superstring theory offers, as it provides at least a tentative explanation of how things work, why certain phenomena exist, and most importantly, what exactly the universe is.

This is why it intrigues me so much.