dimensions and paralell universes

[Charles Bronson]

I don't really think there is a simple way to it.



I'm not qualified to explain it. I probably wouldn't do so correctly, and even then, I can barely understand it.

[cat hallucination]

well then we're kinda in the same boat. (that was a compliment.)

[djonni greazo]

read Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace", it's really well written and the dude has a knack for explaining comlicated, high-grade physics theories in layman terms.

[Haunty]

[quote name="i am the pink lizard"]read Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace", it's really well written and the dude has a knack for explaining comlicated, high-grade physics theories in layman terms.[/quote]



That dude's the fuckin' man!! He's so goo0d at that.

[Hugo.]

[quote name="Johnny"]We also need to know what results of experiments we want before we run the experiments. It's the most reliable way of knowing if the result is wrong.



I think making progress is fundamental to getting anywhere.[/quote]



Dude, you relly are trawling new depths of sarcasm. I like

[djonni greazo]

[quote name="Lavabug"]I don't have a fucking clue what 99% of that is. It's the standard model of particle physics with no explicit Higgs(boson responsible for gravity, still hypothetical). It's an attempt to unify the fundamental bits of matter(smaller than protons/neutrons and electrons) with the "force carriers" called bosons for 3 of the 4 main forces in nature(electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces):

<!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model<!-- m -->



It's the closest to a "theory of everything"(though very incomplete) that we have so far that isn't really wishful thinking like string theory, because the standard model has agreed with experiments for about 30 years now. String theory is still untestable, and it might always be that way who knows. I've never seen what the equations for string theory are like but they are supposed to be more elegant than that. Still, just because it's aesthetically pleasing doesn't mean the theory is correct.

[/quote]



oh god... the standard model, ewwww... i never liked quantum mechanics for the simple reason that most of the theory is "tacky". i mean, they come up with some rough approximations, they do some experiments and then they calculate the difference/fluctuations/whatever and just "stick" the new "element" at the end of the previous formula. yeah, it describes the "real world" (read: experiments) pretty well because it's pretty much based on experiments, duh. it just doesn't have a sound and solid "mathematical backbone" (unlike, say, relativism that is pretty much Riemann geometry applied on a universal scale. now that's elegance). i think i'm recommending this book for the 10th time, but seriously, read Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace". everything is explained in there in much greater detail and with a better grasp of thing than anything i could possibly come up with.



and i really don't understand what's with all the recent hate on string theory... it was "the shit" up to a decade or two ago and then suddenly all the "cool kids" started to hate on it because almost nobody understands it (and neither do i ). it's like the Deathspell Omega of theoretical physics. it's cool to hate it "just because". ma okahoma slamma Ed Witten (by far the best theoretical physicist of the past 20 or so years) said it best when he explained that String theory is a 21st century concept that somehow (it was almost accidental) ended up in the 20th. we don't have the mathematical apparatus to solve it just yet. (or something along those lines)



another thing i don't buy into, is all this multiverse as most people understand it. i mean, i like the idea, and that Hawking-Hartle wave function of the universe was pretty awesome and something i could agree with (although it's still mostly based on those pesky quantum mechanics ); but when people say something like "parallel universes" they usually mean something along the lines "yeah, dude, with every decision you make another parallel universe is created so there's an infinite number of universes for every "branching" decision you made. it's awesome". come on people, it's not a friggin video game. this kind of pseudoscience is just waaaaaay to anthropocentric to be anywhere near the truth.



just my 2cents. i hope it's not "tl;dr"

[Lavabug]

Well I don't think string theory gets any "hate" from anyone who matters, it's just treated with a lot of skepticism because for now it seems immune to experiments, which is the antithesis of a scientific theory. I do find it interesting though, but not as much as something "tried and tested" as the standard model, as f'ugly as it is.



I agree I don't like to throw around terms like "parallel universes", "11 spacial dimensions". 99.99% of the time they're used people don't have a clue, and it probably isn't doing any favors to help popularize physics, rather make it sound like sci-fi bullshit to the layman.