So i have been reading some about string theory, m-theory, and the big bang. A little over my head. If i have this wrong correct me. According to M-theory the universe as we know it (the observable universe) is one of many, these many universes exist on what's called a "brane", one of many, which actually exist in a "higher" 11-dimensional plane of existence, when 2 or more of these "branes" collided the big bang happened and our universe was born. Is that basically it? So according to m-theory (still developing) not only are we dust int he wind, so to speak, but so is our universe, and so is the "brane" that our universe is a part of? We could all be supermicro existing on a cosmic zit? like maybe, our brane is comparable to an atom.... Does that actually answer anything about the "begining"? Maybe there are an infinite amount of "higher" dimensions and truely no begining, and if there are sentient being on those higher planes of existence, they could be wandering about the same questions we are.... are maybe they have the ability to manipulate those "lower" planes? Could they be "god"? trippy. If that's incorrect and i just dont "get" m-theory somebody tell me. So, maybe it is possible for a sentient being(myself) to exist on seperate planes of existence... Like a 2-D character brought forth into a 3-D world. Or maybe I am just a bump, a bump on a bump, a bump on a bump on a bump. Maybe my life has no more purpose or direction than that of a candle flame. or a butterfly or the sun Or maybe it all means more than i could ever possibly know. Maybe i'm that poor 2-D character who will never truely grasp what a cube is... Something to talk about when i'm smoking a bowl with my friends later. I could be a part of an infinitely huge picture, or maybe a huge picture that can never be seen fully because the horizon can never be reached.... I remember that a month or so ago that russian guy proved that everything is a donut or a sphere and that a space probe provided more evidence to back up the big bang, that's what got me thinking on this track...
Will do. According to the Wikipedia entry for M-theory, there is no such thing as "many universes" or "parallel universes" or anything of the sort. A brane is simply an object. It is another name for a multi-dimensional object. For example: Remember from geometry class? A point is a zero-dimensional object, a line is a one-dimensional object, a plane is a two-dimensional object, and so on to a space, and a hyperspace. Well brane is just a synonym for "multi-dimensional object," and the terminology in M-theory follows this model: A particle (or point) is a 0-brane, a string (or line) is a 1-brane, a membrane (or plane) is a 2-brane, a space is a 3-brane, and so on. Geometrically, we call them points, lines, planes, etc. Physically, we call them particles, strings, membranes, etc. A brane is NOT synonymous with "dimension" or "parallel universe" and it has very little to do with these ideas. The idea of branes colliding has to do with special d-branes that pervade a multitude of the dimensions of our universe, including that which is rolled up into the smaller dimensions. I understand that d-branes link the compactified dimensions to our main 3 spatial dimensions, but I honestly don't know enough about d-branes to explain what they are to you. When M-theory speaks about an 11-dimensional universe, it is exactly that -- the universe has 10 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. Previous models of string theory proposed a 10-dimensional universe (9 of space and 1 of time), where for every 1 spatial dimension that is visible, there are 2 spatial dimensions which are folded in upon themselves (compactified) into a Calabi-Yau space. M-theory proposes that there must be a 10th dimension (probably spatial) with some relationship to the time dimension. The number of dimensions varies on the kind of string theory you are using. The first string theory, bosonic string theory, predicted 26 dimensions (the calculations would only work if the number of dimensions was a specific constant -- i.e. it "predicts" 26 dimensions). However, bosonic string theory only worked for bosonic calculations and couldn't explain the existance of fermions. The latest string theory models all require 10-dimensional calculations, but there are multiple types of duality which relate each of the string theory models to a different string theory model, through the substutition of one or two variables. M-Theory was created to link all of the dualistic string-theory models under one theory. Hence, M-Theory is the underlying theory, and each of the specific string-theory are the formulas which you apply to make calculations. The dualities are very simple, they're like the physics formula for Force: F=ma. Force equals mass times accelleration. There is another physics formula which goes: F=ir. Force equals inertia times radius. You could say these two formulas are dualistic, in that they both calculate Force, but only one of the formulas is applicable to straight-moving objects, and only one of the formulas are applicable to objects that are tethered to some central point. The dualities of the individual string-theories work exactly the same. M-theory, then, is the general framework theory which explains how the individual string-theories are related. Not really ... at least, not on the level that you and I can understand. There are some scientists which claim that certain string-theory calculations may explain things about the universe (I understand that one of the latest ideas is that our big bang isn't the only one, and that the universe is not 13 billion years old, but "at least 987 billion" years old; this explains the existance of cosmic background radiation, because other big bangs far off in the distance would then be emitting such radiation, mimicking the effect of our own big bang's radiation bouncing off the "ends" of the universe). This is not possible, as string theory predicts a specific number of dimensions of our universe. String and M-theories have nothing to do with higher "planes of existance." It took me a lot of reading into M-theory to finally figure out that this wasn't what they were talking about, hehe. In fact, string theory is not even physically testable. String theory can be thought of like this: In our standard model of physics, everything is "particle" and "wave"-based. We don't really know what waves are, but we do know that particles are essentially pointlike in nature, but that they have some radius. In other words, in the standard model of physics, everything is made up of 0-branes, and potentially waves are made up of 1-branes but we don't know. In the string-theory model of physics, particles are actually just 1-branes (strings) which resonate at specific frequencies, which cause them to gain the same properties that we see in the proposed 0-brane particles by the standard model. These 1-branes can be either looped in a big circle (thus having some radius), or they can have fixed endpoints on d-branes (thus making them like strings with tethered ends, which vibrate). This way of looking at things offers a much simpler explaination for waves, as well as for wave-particle-duality. We already know that ALL things have some particulate nature, and ALL things have some wavelike nature, and that they seem to interchange at odd times. Sometimes they act like particles, and sometimes they act like waves. Well what if everything was a string? The endpoints could meet creating a circular-like shape (particle nature) or they could break apart creating a wave-like shape (wave nature). Since string theory is, essentially, just a different way of looking at particles and waves, and the dualities therein, string theory can really make no observations or calculations which weren't already possible with the standard model of physics. For more information, go to Wikipedia and type in "string theory." A lot of the language is way over my head, but if you actually do read the whole thing, it begins to make much more sense. You'll also notice this in the M-theory page: "Since a very basic underlying assumption of M-theory is the co-existence of many unconceivable dimensions and parallel universes, some schools of spirituality consider it to be a scientific "proof" to their own metaphysical claims about God, the heavens and so on. M-theory itself, however, makes no such claims." When I first looked at the Wikipedia articles, I thought that it was perhaps some suggestion of parallel universes and so-on, but after reading all of those articles and doing some (light) further reading, I found out I was mistaken, and now I'm trying to share what I've learned with everyone else who is confused about what string-theory really is. Anyhow, I do apologize if this post was way too cryptic (I'm just trying to regurgitate what I've learned here). =p Some of it, especially the calculations themselves, goes way beyond my head, so I can't exactly explain it well enough to deserve a medal.
Oh, and one more thing ... There was a program called "the Elegant Universe" which was aired on some TV network, which made the claim of parallel universes in string theory. I believe this program, along with much of its source material, is responsible for much of the misconception that string theory and M-theory explain "parallel universes" and so-on. Much of the program is false or at least presented in an extremely misleading way.
So ah, I take back what I said about the Elegant Universe. I just finished watching the entire 3-hour program, and it basically better-explained what the Wikipedia explains, without all the insane match and terminology like "Calabi-Yau spaces," etc. However, I think it does fail in one aspect -- it fails to properly describe "parallel universes." You could call them that, but they aren't parallel in a time sense, they are parallel in a spatial sense. I.e. they are not parallel in the sense that, I make one decision in this world, and another decision in another world. They are literally parallel in the same sense where you can take two sheets of paper and hold them side by side. Except imagine holding two *spaces* (3-dimensional branes so to speak, rather than planes or "membranes" which are 2-dimensional branes) side by side. We as humans can only conceptualize it via relation. Looking at the nature of how 1-dimensional objects can move in 2-dimensions, and 2d objects in 3d. This is the only way we can understand 3d things moving in 4d, because we are essentially locked into a "3 dimensional slice" in an 11-dimensional universe. It would be logical to conclude that there are other 3-dimensional slices (and also 1-dimensional slices and 5-dimensional slices and 9-dimensional slices -- all called branes but of different orders of magnitude), but each of these slices would almost absolutely necessarily have its own, shall we say, slice of physics, and contents. And it is doubtful (although possible) that anything even close to our universe, let alone any universe capable of sustaining life, or even life with whom we could contact or communicate, would be capable of forming in those conditions, and it would most certainly not have a time-based link to our universe; it would be completely separate. Also, the program fails to explain how gravity could "leak" into these other dimensions (as it is not tied down to our brane) yet still have an exactingly powerful effect, as if it were an exact distance (through the other 7 dimensions) away from our 4-dimensional brane. The notion that gravity can "slip out" also violates the laws of conservation of thermodynamics -- we should be able to see a measurable loss of energy anytime gravity leaks out, unless that level of energy is immesurably small (say, lots smaller than a unit of Planck energy). But I suppose perhaps the program shouldn't be blamed for failing to explain what scientists are still trying to figure out. I just think parallel universes is portrayed in an inaccurate and flatly wrong light. Throughout the program, they use video editing to show the narrator in several places at once, or even 5 of him taking a sip of one drink at the exact same time. None of this would have anything at all to do with the way "universes" are parallel, since the parallelness is spatial and not time-based. Also, it makes no real sense to say that universes are parallel, only to say that branes are parallel. There is still one universe, with 11 dimensions, but the immediate scope of our existance is locked onto a single 4-dimensional brane. And so there are not "parallel universes" but "parallel branes within the bulk," where the bulk is the part of the dimensional universe that we aren't immediately capable of experiencing. Still, the program does a great job of explaining an intermediate level of both quantum mechanics as well as string theory/M-theory, and it even touches on the idea that string theory isn't just about strings anymore; it goes from our previous 0-brane-centric idea to become more of a theory of branes, where things aren't just made up of strings (1-branes) but also of 2-branes and 3-branes and 4-branes and 5-branes and so on ... Ugh ... my braine hurts ... *cry* Edit: Watch the program for yourself! It may answer some questions you have. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html Note: There are 3 hours, and they are stacked on COLUMNS on this website. Each hour is split into eight 7.5-minute chapters. So in order to watch the program sequentially, you have to watch DOWN the columns, then go back up to the top of the next column. Almost like reading Japanese (except you still go left to right, you just go top to bottom first). Phew.
LOL The multiverse is what it's about. M theory is so obtuse as to make multiverse theory a FACT Occam
It uh ... it really doesn't. M-theory doesn't make anything a fact, because its fundamental principle is just looking at what we already know in a different way. The universe is still the universe, M-theory just makes the prediction that it is much larger than we originally thought. Occam should watch this program and tell his friend Hikaru what he thinks. Hik wants to know Occam's opinion.
