0
   

Supermath, string theory and superstring theory

 
 
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 03:54 pm
Are there any branches of math related to string theory?
What is the difference between string theory and superstring theory?

Are there any branches of mathematics that go beyond calculus?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,009 • Replies: 63
No top replies

 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 04:54 pm
Analysis, Topology( Algebraic Geometry), Group Theory (Algebras). Theory of Numbers I could go on and on but I would be reinventing the wheel.

I recommendMathworld as an introduction.

Rap
0 Replies
 
JGoldman10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 12:43 pm
I know what M-theory is and string theory. What is the differnce between strings and superstrings?
0 Replies
 
G O T R
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 02:22 pm
I suggest going to a library and checking out Mr Stephen Hawkings "A Brief History of Time". It will blow your frikkin mind!..... and answer your question.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 05:54 am
What I could find relating to SuSy (Super Symmetry) on the Advanced Physics Forums.

Neutrino flavours http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=1599#pid8051
... standard model insists are zero (photon mass), and numbers that aren't even in the standard model (SuSy masses). The latter two are new theories, the first is just refinement of parameters.

Xerxes 3-10-2005 at 21:30
by: Xerxes314
Dark matter http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=1444#pid7699
... be: sparse neutral gas clouds, very hot diffuse gas clouds, brown dwarves, black holes, neutrinos, SuSy particles, other undiscovered particles, or most likely many of these.

We also know that most of it is cold and most of it is not baryons (like protons and neutrons).

Xerxes [/quote]

Black holes are NO dark matter. Black holes do absrob light, so you have an inconsitency in your own definition of d ... 3-2-2005 at 22:11
by: marlon
prior to big bang? http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=1502#pid7448
... terms of physical laws within the world, forseeable consequences of physical events, etc?[/i]

If SuSy is correct, then in the first moments after the big bang, the universe had so much energy that ordinary particles and their supersymmetric partners were basically equivalent. Aside from doubling the number of degrees of freedom in the particle spectrum, I don't think anything very interesting happens. Tho when the energy drops far enough, the SuSy particles freeze out into the LSPs (lowest-mass supersymmetric particles), giving us the dark matter we (don't) see today.

3)am I correct in assuming that the four guage forces of the universe were at one time the same as each other, that they split as the energy level of the universe lessened as the universe expands due to after effect of the bang? If so, what do I call the 'unified' force? What kind of law does it ... 2-20-2005 at 21:59
by: Xerxes314
Quantum Mechanics and Strings http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=1026#pid5019
The particles of the standard model are not generally called SuSy particles. Only those that are added to the SM when you add SuSy to it are. It should be noted ... 9-22-2004 at 15:55
by: Xerxes314
Cosmology books http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=645#pid4623
... My reply would be "why would he?". LQG is not developed enough to answer cosmological questions. SuSy and superstrings are only covered very briefly at the end of "The Standard Model and Beyond" chapter. It's an excellent text, providing you have the background.

Can't give a reliable opinion of Peebles, as I've never used it. ... 9-3-2004 at 14:12
by: Ragnorak
mu problem http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=961#pid4576
It's some problem associated with SuSy. The parameter mu is a mass-type coupling between two Higgs doublets. When mu = 0, you expect t ... 9-1-2004 at 18:00
by: Xerxes314
Does a Black Hole unify the four forces again? http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=875#pid4016
... </sup> GeV tho, a problem known as the Hierarchy problem, possibly to be solved by low-energy SuSy.

Xerxes 8-2-2004 at 00:26
by: Xerxes314
Higgs Fields? http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=554#pid3858
The whole SUSY thing leaves me feeling a bit itchy. I haven't followed this recently but the ... 7-25-2004 at 21:41
by: editor
cosmological constant http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=704#pid2937
Sparticles are not dark energy, they're dark matter. Also, SuSy doesn't have to be part of a string theory or M-theory or whatever. Any theory can have S ...
0 Replies
 
Bakku
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 11:07 pm
JGoldman10 wrote:
I know what M-theory is and string theory. What is the differnce between strings and superstrings?


The real question is, my good friend: what is the difference between strings, superstrings, G-strings and super-G-strings...(and I'm not talking about violins here)
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 03:16 pm
Bakku wrote:
JGoldman10 wrote:
I know what M-theory is and string theory. What is the differnce between strings and superstrings?


The real question is, my good friend: what is the difference between strings, superstrings, G-strings and super-G-strings...(and I'm not talking about violins here)


The concept of strings is easy to comprehend and needs no mathematical knowledge. The strings of physics represent degrees of curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical consideration. This is how it must be if there is only one substance that constitutes a universe.
The problem with the theory is that it has no intuitive model associated with its mathematics.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 03:39 am
Er what about topology given dimensions may be curved or knotted - and knotted dimensional space is advanced enough to get the modellers of knot theory (k = 1/p^-1 + 1/p^-2 + 1/p^-3 + 1/p^-4 + 1/p^-5 + 1/p^-6 to describe any possible twisted knot in a 3 dimensional space) the Nobel prize in mathematics about 15 years ago!

If it all seems so simple solve the mu problem for SuSy:

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:hep-ph/0101046

Need the full link for this to work btw!
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 12:16 pm
g__day wrote:
Er what about topology given dimensions may be curved or knotted - and knotted dimensional space is advanced enough to get the modellers of knot theory (k = 1/p^-1 + 1/p^-2 + 1/p^-3 + 1/p^-4 + 1/p^-5 + 1/p^-6 to describe any possible twisted knot in a 3 dimensional space) the Nobel prize in mathematics about 15 years ago!

If it all seems so simple solve the mu problem for SuSy:

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:hep-ph/0101046

Need the full link for this to work btw!


String theory is easy to understand. You don't need any mathematical knowledge.

We map metaphysics to numbers in mathematics. The numbers we can lose sight ot, but the metaphysics we do not lose sight of. The problem with string theory is that it asks us to consider a non-intuitable metaphysics in order to intuitively appreciate the model.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 07:01 pm
I think you deploy a strange meaning to the word understand.

But I'll accept that if it works for you. So given its all easy for you, and maths and numbers aren't even needed, feel free to explain the most basic premise and explain the topology of SuSy - what are reality's dimensions and geometry into these extra dimensions?

Whether your metaphysics is dominated by studying what there is (ontology), what is knowledge (epistemology), and what one should do (ethics) - sooner or later you have to hit a hard science for it to be actionable.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Aug, 2005 04:01 am
g__day wrote:
I think you deploy a strange meaning to the word understand.

But I'll accept that if it works for you. So given its all easy for you, and maths and numbers aren't even needed, feel free to explain the most basic premise and explain the topology of SuSy - what are reality's dimensions and geometry into these extra dimensions?

Whether your metaphysics is dominated by studying what there is (ontology), what is knowledge (epistemology), and what one should do (ethics) - sooner or later you have to hit a hard science for it to be actionable.


Sooner or later I have to employ a carpenter if I want to make a cupboard, but I know what a cupboard is. String theory is like a cupboard. I thought of it thirty-five years ago. Rather than play with matter and particles, we say that there is only one substance in the universe and that it is typified by its rate of change of curvature. If I want to know how the curvature changes then I would have to learn this particular mathematical carpentry. But I don't have to learn it to know what a mathematical cupboard is. We don't need to know the intricies of mathematical operations to understand them. To understand them, all we have to do is look at the metaphysical ideas that we map to the intricate mathematical opertaions. This is liberating. The idea that maths presents itself on its own terms and in its incredible complexity, is simply misguided.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Aug, 2005 04:09 pm
Groan, a philosopher is on the loose Smile

String theory is like a cupboard... really?

I thought of it 35 years ago... you've demonstrated your thinking, what you saw a box of dropped string?

we say that there is only one substance in the universe... guess again http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_print.html

typified by its rate of change of curvature... go read quantum mechanics then, consider entanglement

If I want to lear how the curvature changes I'd learn it... well no because its unknown and topology is the first platform you build the rest of M-theory on

We don't need to know the intricies of mathematical operations to understand them... The parody between that statment and Dicken's Great Expectations.. "I don't have to raise children to understand them, I'm a master of young children" is chilling in its ignorance.

This is liberating... I am sure your mind is very uncluttered.

The idea that maths presents itself on its own terms and in its incredible complexity, is simply misguided... What other terms would it express itself in - cooking, cleaning or religious terms? It has to be internally consistent to be of use and it's pretty good for modelling and logical analysis. Don't confuse the means with the end, nor having the skill to understand the tools of mathematics with a desire for complexity. Lack of understanding of maths is grand when it comes to humour or philosophy... "if she floats... its because she weights the same as a duck... because she's made of wood... and therefore she's a witch ... so burn her!"

* * *

So youv'e ducked my challenge above, and said you don't need understanding to pontificate, you just know. String theory is so self evident to you the basics can be dropped or learnt at a whim.

Lovely but properties flow from topology and this isn't fully defined yet. Here's another challenge (what will it be compared to this time, a table or a chair I imagine); M-theory says reality has 10 or 11 dimensions, besides the 4 obivous ones. What are these extra, hidden dimensions? What do your strings tell you?
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2005 12:35 pm
g__day wrote:
Groan, a philosopher is on the loose Smile

String theory is like a cupboard... really?

I thought of it 35 years ago... you've demonstrated your thinking, what you saw a box of dropped string?

we say that there is only one substance in the universe... guess again http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_print.html

typified by its rate of change of curvature... go read quantum mechanics then, consider entanglement

If I want to lear how the curvature changes I'd learn it... well no because its unknown and topology is the first platform you build the rest of M-theory on

We don't need to know the intricies of mathematical operations to understand them... The parody between that statment and Dicken's Great Expectations.. "I don't have to raise children to understand them, I'm a master of young children" is chilling in its ignorance.

This is liberating... I am sure your mind is very uncluttered.

The idea that maths presents itself on its own terms and in its incredible complexity, is simply misguided... What other terms would it express itself in - cooking, cleaning or religious terms? It has to be internally consistent to be of use and it's pretty good for modelling and logical analysis. Don't confuse the means with the end, nor having the skill to understand the tools of mathematics with a desire for complexity. Lack of understanding of maths is grand when it comes to humour or philosophy... "if she floats... its because she weights the same as a duck... because she's made of wood... and therefore she's a witch ... so burn her!"

* * *

So youv'e ducked my challenge above, and said you don't need understanding to pontificate, you just know. String theory is so self evident to you the basics can be dropped or learnt at a whim.

Lovely but properties flow from topology and this isn't fully defined yet. Here's another challenge (what will it be compared to this time, a table or a chair I imagine); M-theory says reality has 10 or 11 dimensions, besides the 4 obivous ones. What are these extra, hidden dimensions? What do your strings tell you?



erg.
What problem are we supposed to be faced with by the concept of dimension? None, unless we try to make it perform as a model in areas outside of our intuition. The problem with undertstnding 10 or 11 dimensions is not a problem of maths or theory. That much is obvious. It is a problem of not having an intuitive model to work with and yet being forced to work with one (dimension). Mathematics should be honest with itself and abandon the model. But neither maths nor you, will abandon that model.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 08:13 am
Er what model do you think we are not abandoning?

I'll say this again - using very small words, very slowly, for the third time... we don't have a model to abandon. Nada model. Nitch, nil, zip, zero, butt kiss on having any formed model. Das model is kaputen!

And nice how you dodged (very poorly and for the third time now) all the criticisms and obivous flaws in your thinking by simply stating flawed and obscure dogma again that maths is presumptious and evil.

So let me be more direct: Put up or shut up! You say for 35 years you have intuitively grasped as simple 10 or 11 dimensional reality that escapes the best scientific minds - congratulations! Raise your hand, explain it to us and earn you Nobel prize ten times over.

Or if you're just a hollow drum, give up before you embrass yourself even further.

PS - learn how to spell while you're at it!
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 02:05 pm
g__day wrote:
Er what model do you think we are not abandoning?

I'll say this again - using very small words, very slowly, for the third time... we don't have a model to abandon. Nada model. Nitch, nil, zip, zero, butt kiss on having any formed model. Das model is kaputen!

And nice how you dodged (very poorly and for the third time now) all the criticisms and obivous flaws in your thinking by simply stating flawed and obscure dogma again that maths is presumptious and evil.

So let me be more direct: Put up or shut up! You say for 35 years you have intuitively grasped as simple 10 or 11 dimensional reality that escapes the best scientific minds - congratulations! Raise your hand, explain it to us and earn you Nobel prize ten times over.

Or if you're just a hollow drum, give up before you embrass yourself even further.

PS - learn how to spell while you're at it!


Yeh. What's your favourite band?
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 08:13 pm
John Jones wrote:
The problem with undertstnding 10 or 11 dimensions is not a problem of maths or theory. That much is obvious. It is a problem of not having an intuitive model to work with and yet being forced to work with one (dimension). Mathematics should be honest with itself and abandon the model.


You be right JJ. I went to a 'Dead' concert in the late 60's and I saw 10 or 20 dimensions. The next thing I knew Ronald Reagan was Rresident.

But then I was 19 at the time and it could have been something I ate, or drank.

Rap
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2005 06:13 pm
The closest I can offer to a useful speculation is the following. If you don't posses the faculities to either observe these dimensions directly (like a force such as gravity or light), or measure there consequences indirectly (like the wind) then you need an abstract label to create an abstract framework to consider them. To be useful sooner or later such a framework must bridge to the dimensional reality we can observe to be useful; in making predictions or being verifable.

Without a collider its hard to see quarks. We give them properties (up, down, charm, strange, top and bottom) so we can classify their interactions with other quarks or leptons (e.g. a ferimon table of leptons and quarks http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_cutouts/fermions.jpg )

This doesn't mean a quark is "strange" like some folk on here are... Smile It means they have a characteristic that is defining we want to label.

Membranes from M-Theory and strings from SuSy are currently more abstract then s-particles where we can may predictions and test them eventually with a powerful enough collider (e.g. LHC in late 2007 - at or above 200 GeV).

Membranes and strings need alot of theory before we can ask can we make them manifest into a scale where we can definitely observe them. Until then we might as well call say a 11 dimensional reality (x, y, z, time, D0, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7) where we don't know what D0 to D7 do! There is some advantage to this. Some very complex interactions are easier to solve if you add abstract dimensions to your calculations and zap them at the end (its analogous to a platinium catalyst in leaded petrol - it doesn't alter the operation, its inert, but it makes it go a hell of alot better)!

Beyond this scientists start abstracting D0..D7. The very first question you ask is what properties does each dimension have and how do they interact. This is a question of topology. We can say how the theories overlap (the "edges" for want of a better word of our topology, but not what is smack in the middle of the table)! Until we can paint this middle all further mind experiments are halted.

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/mtheory.gif

Now for most theorical physicists you say these extra dimensions are psoitional, for example, but the distances involved could be minute (on a Planck scale - 10^-43 or something). Enter the heirarchy problem - there is no brute force way to probe these scales without the power of a supercluster supernova explosion with incredibly controlled precision. The physics you are dealing with here is Big Bang ~ start of Planck time situations.

Adrielle on the Advanced Physics forum described this as...

http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=698&page=1

Ground zero: The universe is created in a big bang. Don't ask what went bang. Before the Planck time, 10-43 seconds after the big bang, nothing is really known, although it is presumed that at this stage there was total chaos, and all the forces, matter, and space time were unified.

At about the Planck time the universe underwent a phase change corresponding to the supergravity symmetry breaking, which created a space-time "foam", and the three remaining forces were unified into one single interaction SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1).

About 10-35 seconds after the big bang, expansion had dropped the temperature of the universe to about 10^27 K. At this temperature the energies were too low to support the unified interaction, which separated into SU(3), the strong interaction, and SU(2) x U(1), the electroweak force. With this symmetry break spacetime and matter separated creating the elementary particles known as quarks and leptons, and a vast amount of energy was released. This energy triggered the rapid expansion of the universe known as inflation, increasing the size of the universe at an exponential rate.

Between 10-35 and 10-32 seconds, the universe grew far beyond the horizon, the edge of the region of the universe falling within the light cone originating at inflation. The expansion in this case happened to the geometry of space-time, rather than the matter in it, so relativity was not violated.

and the excellent insights here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/Planck.html#c1"

* * *

What this leaves us with is how do we study something hidden that will require alot of smarts to understand it well enough to make it economically possible to have it manifest? Its nice to know both Philsophers, Cosmologists and Theoretical and High energy particle physicsts are all working on the problem.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 03:47 am
g__day wrote:
The closest I can offer to a useful speculation is the following. If you don't posses the faculities to either observe these dimensions directly (like a force such as gravity or light), or measure there consequences indirectly (like the wind) then you need an abstract label to create an abstract framework to consider them. To be useful sooner or later such a framework must bridge to the dimensional reality we can observe to be useful; in making predictions or being verifable.

Without a collider its hard to see quarks. We give them properties (up, down, charm, strange, top and bottom) so we can classify their interactions with other quarks or leptons (e.g. a ferimon table of leptons and quarks http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_cutouts/fermions.jpg )

This doesn't mean a quark is "strange" like some folk on here are... Smile It means they have a characteristic that is defining we want to label.

Membranes from M-Theory and strings from SuSy are currently more abstract then s-particles where we can may predictions and test them eventually with a powerful enough collider (e.g. LHC in late 2007 - at or above 200 GeV).

Membranes and strings need alot of theory before we can ask can we make them manifest into a scale where we can definitely observe them. Until then we might as well call say a 11 dimensional reality (x, y, z, time, D0, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7) where we don't know what D0 to D7 do! There is some advantage to this. Some very complex interactions are easier to solve if you add abstract dimensions to your calculations and zap them at the end (its analogous to a platinium catalyst in leaded petrol - it doesn't alter the operation, its inert, but it makes it go a hell of alot better)!

Beyond this scientists start abstracting D0..D7. The very first question you ask is what properties does each dimension have and how do they interact. This is a question of topology. We can say how the theories overlap (the "edges" for want of a better word of our topology, but not what is smack in the middle of the table)! Until we can paint this middle all further mind experiments are halted.

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/mtheory.gif

Now for most theorical physicists you say these extra dimensions are psoitional, for example, but the distances involved could be minute (on a Planck scale - 10^-43 or something). Enter the heirarchy problem - there is no brute force way to probe these scales without the power of a supercluster supernova explosion with incredibly controlled precision. The physics you are dealing with here is Big Bang ~ start of Planck time situations.

Adrielle on the Advanced Physics forum described this as...

http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=698&page=1

Ground zero: The universe is created in a big bang. Don't ask what went bang. Before the Planck time, 10-43 seconds after the big bang, nothing is really known, although it is presumed that at this stage there was total chaos, and all the forces, matter, and space time were unified.

At about the Planck time the universe underwent a phase change corresponding to the supergravity symmetry breaking, which created a space-time "foam", and the three remaining forces were unified into one single interaction SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1).

About 10-35 seconds after the big bang, expansion had dropped the temperature of the universe to about 10^27 K. At this temperature the energies were too low to support the unified interaction, which separated into SU(3), the strong interaction, and SU(2) x U(1), the electroweak force. With this symmetry break spacetime and matter separated creating the elementary particles known as quarks and leptons, and a vast amount of energy was released. This energy triggered the rapid expansion of the universe known as inflation, increasing the size of the universe at an exponential rate.

Between 10-35 and 10-32 seconds, the universe grew far beyond the horizon, the edge of the region of the universe falling within the light cone originating at inflation. The expansion in this case happened to the geometry of space-time, rather than the matter in it, so relativity was not violated.

and the excellent insights here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/Planck.html#c1"

* * *

What this leaves us with is how do we study something hidden that will require alot of smarts to understand it well enough to make it economically possible to have it manifest? Its nice to know both Philsophers, Cosmologists and Theoretical and High energy particle physicsts are all working on the problem.


We are not idiots you know. We have a better grasp of this than the bloody scientists.
The 'extra' dimensions that are added to their theories of reality, are there to prevent contradictions or undesirable structures. There's nothing 'dimensional' about the extra dimensions. 'Dimensions' are merely labels attached to mathematical derivations and functions. The mathematics itself has NO relationship to reality. In particular, all that adding extra dimensions does is allow shapes and curves to retain their shapes and curves without crossing each other and creating point anomalies. And if that's not a precise explanation, then its pretty close, and closer than you'd get anywhere else.

And to say that our reality has at least four dimensions, the fourth being time is stupid. What do they imagine a dimension to look like? Three the same and one a bit different? We are surely not fooled into thinking that change is a dimension? If I drink my cup of tea is there a dimension where I can see the full cup and the empty cup?

I say this. 'Stick to maths and numbers' scientists, but leave the metaphysics to religion. They do a much better job of it.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 09:15 am
How do you expect us to measure your capacity for intelligence other than how you have demonstated your understandings and views, coupled to your biases and tendencies to make unsupported, general, vague and wide claims? I am unsure of the we you are refering to when you say "we are not idiots". Who else did you think was being included in that labelled group?

But whilst your "we" isn't clear, your own individual activities stand out like a sore thumb! When called out multiple times of sloppy thinking or erroneous thinking or unsupportable claims, you ignore all points, offer no substantive clarifications or counter arguments. Your response is merely to say "heh what's your favourite band"?

Well that is not idiotic, but neither will it help you approach a Nobel prize.

Quoting me verbatim merely to say "hey I'm smart you know", whilst offering no discernible proof of this yet leads me to ask why not just change your nick to FIGJAM?

Whilst I see no hard data to say you're are an idiot, you have a consistent tendency and bias to claim what you can't, don't or won't support and belittle what you can't intuit and frightenly misunderstand it. So I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In small words - you missed the point of the last post by a country mile. Read it again and see if you can get the meaning this time - then your reply can potentially have some value. If you don't get the meaning simply ask, cause I do not wish to embrass you through your simple misunderstanding undermining your own arguments.

You're understanding of dimensions is frighteningly lacking, biased and void of insight. Whilst one can translate colours to a blind person how does one teach archery to a rock?

I cringe when you ask what does a dimension look like, there you are rather ironically showing ignorance in full. Again I say - read the post carefully, you missed some key words in "Now for most theorical physicists you say these extra dimensions are positional". That's is not saying they are positional as you assumed, nor that most theoretical physicists say they are (its just an interesting approach). By saying consider if they are - how does that affect our understanding of spacetime? (So its a framework to approach the heirarical problem).

The answer is enormous, because it covers the transition stages between relativity and science you might have absorbed at school and the quantum world. Studying reality and the transition from Einstein's 4 forces and spacetime, uncertainity and reaching for grand unified theorum (GUT). It is perception that allows us to intrepret reality; its dimensions are what they are.

Now if you want you can say bunk; scientists have got it all wrong - but that is all you seem to be doing. And very loudly at that. Science is based on models, their predictive power and statistically variation analysis of data testing these predictions to show measure the reliablity of confidence intervals of parametric distributions in the underlying model. Science is weighted carefully against hard data.

Your contributions are like talking to flat Earth followers. Colourful, but uninformative. You signal to noise ratio is way off.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 12:45 pm
g__day wrote:
How do you expect us to measure your capacity for intelligence other than how you have demonstated your understandings and views, coupled to your biases and tendencies to make unsupported, general, vague and wide claims? I am unsure of the we you are refering to when you say "we are not idiots". Who else did you think was being included in that labelled group?

But whilst your "we" isn't clear, your own individual activities stand out like a sore thumb! When called out multiple times of sloppy thinking or erroneous thinking or unsupportable claims, you ignore all points, offer no substantive clarifications or counter arguments. Your response is merely to say "heh what's your favourite band"?

Well that is not idiotic, but neither will it help you approach a Nobel prize.

Quoting me verbatim merely to say "hey I'm smart you know", whilst offering no discernible proof of this yet leads me to ask why not just change your nick to FIGJAM?

Whilst I see no hard data to say you're are an idiot, you have a consistent tendency and bias to claim what you can't, don't or won't support and belittle what you can't intuit and frightenly misunderstand it. So I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In small words - you missed the point of the last post by a country mile. Read it again and see if you can get the meaning this time - then your reply can potentially have some value. If you don't get the meaning simply ask, cause I do not wish to embrass you through your simple misunderstanding undermining your own arguments.

You're understanding of dimensions is frighteningly lacking, biased and void of insight. Whilst one can translate colours to a blind person how does one teach archery to a rock?

I cringe when you ask what does a dimension look like, there you are rather ironically showing ignorance in full. Again I say - read the post carefully, you missed some key words in "Now for most theorical physicists you say these extra dimensions are positional". That's is not saying they are positional as you assumed, nor that most theoretical physicists say they are (its just an interesting approach). By saying consider if they are - how does that affect our understanding of spacetime? (So its a framework to approach the heirarical problem).

The answer is enormous, because it covers the transition stages between relativity and science you might have absorbed at school and the quantum world. Studying reality and the transition from Einstein's 4 forces and spacetime, uncertainity and reaching for grand unified theorum (GUT). It is perception that allows us to intrepret reality; its dimensions are what they are.

Now if you want you can say bunk; scientists have got it all wrong - but that is all you seem to be doing. And very loudly at that. Science is based on models, their predictive power and statistically variation analysis of data testing these predictions to show measure the reliablity of confidence intervals of parametric distributions in the underlying model. Science is weighted carefully against hard data.

Your contributions are like talking to flat Earth followers. Colourful, but uninformative. You signal to noise ratio is way off.


Dimension used to mean extension. Now we are supposed to think it means other things as well, like 'time'. Convenient. The unification of all things comes nearer - "let's call everything a dimension everybody!" Riotous. A parlour game, a trick. It's beads to the Indians. But we are not idiots. And they haven't even shown that there is a 'time', but they are quick to abuse the dictionary and make a dimension out of it.
Once the pretensions are stripped away there's nothing in science that is not immediately understandable. I find science very, very, boring. I am, bored.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Supermath, string theory and superstring theory
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 08:49:14