2 of 3
2
Rendering of the megaverse…
Posted: 22 April 2009 11:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

Now I know why Andrew trashed his thread on String theory… can’t get a straight answer from any of you bozo(n)s.  wink 

I take it from burt, euk and jefe’s earlier and brief remarks that the drawing bears some semblance of the descriptions of ribbons of boson fields emitting from branes, vacuum energy (or dark energy), inflating “bubble” universes, possible worlds within those universes, and multiple dimensions made by theoretical physicists.

burt, you’re a math guy, what say you of the equations that support S.T.? The equations make zero sense to me—although I understand that either side of zero has something to do with the notion of a cosmological constant—can you explain in simple, non-mathematical terms the implications and import of those equations?
Do you, or anyone who gets this shit, think physicists with a mathematical bent will “find” a cosmological constant?

[ Edited: 25 April 2009 04:17 PM by isocratic infidel]
 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 11:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
isocratic infidel - 22 April 2009 03:19 PM

Do you, or anyone ........ will “find” a cosmological constant?

That constant is change.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 11:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

Sure. The only thing that is cosmologically constant is change.
And only change is going on constantly in the cosmos.

Now we are getting somewhere!

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2009 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2009-02-05

Well now we’re stretching the string (in theory) all the way back to Heraclitus . . . “the only constant is change”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2009 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
frozen buns - 23 April 2009 02:35 PM

Well now we’re stretching the string (in theory) all the way back to Heraclitus . . . “the only constant is change”

Ok, if you say so, but how so, please enlighten us?

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2009 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17
isocratic infidel - 22 April 2009 03:19 PM

Now I know why Andrew trashed his thread on String theory… can’t get a straight answer from any of you bozo(n)s.  wink 

I take it from burt, euk and jefe’s earlier and brief remarks that the drawing bears some semblance of the descriptions of ribbons of boson fields emitting from branes, vacuum energy (or dark energy), inflating “bubble” universes, possible worlds within those universes, and multiple dimensions made by theoretical physicists.

burt, you’re a math guy, what say you of the equations that support S.T.? The equations make zero sense to me—although I understand that either side of zero has something to do with the notion of a cosmological constant—can you explain in simple, non-mathematical terms the implications and import of those equations?
Do you, or anyone who gets this shit, think physicists with a mathematical bent will “find” a cosmological constant?

Haven’t looked at them, it would probably take me several months to begin to understand them and don’t have the time.  The overall idea is pretty easy to grasp but with equations like that you’ve actually got to get your hands dirty computing with them for a while before they start to make sense.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2009 03:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08
eucaryote - 22 April 2009 03:41 PM
isocratic infidel - 22 April 2009 03:19 PM

Do you, or anyone ........ will “find” a cosmological constant?

That constant is change.

That’s a nice, albeit obvious, pre-socratic philosophical observation euk, (as frozen buns noted, it is reminiscent of Arius Didymus who attributed Heraclitus in “Eusebium” to the phrase: “Upon those that step into the same rivers different and different waters flow… They scatter and… gather… come together and flow away… approach and depart,” in other words, even though it’s the same river we can’t step into the same river twice, illustrating that unity depends of the preservation of measure and balance in change), but I was referring to Einstein’s “big blunder” in 1917 when he was searching for a cosmological constant, or an energy field that counter balances the gravitational forces in his theory of General Relativity. Einstein thought it’s mathematical value would be near -1 and would represent the forces physicists call dark or vacuum energy. He gave up on it though, hence the reference to the cosmo-constant being a “big blunder.” Currently, some string theorists are arguing there may be a valid basis for its existence after all.

Thanks for attempting a response burt. I know a tease you quite a bit, but I always appreciate your opinions and ideas.

[ Edited: 25 April 2009 04:19 PM by isocratic infidel]
 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2009 05:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
isocratic infidel - 24 April 2009 07:17 PM
eucaryote - 22 April 2009 03:41 PM
isocratic infidel - 22 April 2009 03:19 PM

Do you, or anyone ........ will “find” a cosmological constant?

That constant is change.

That’s a nice, albeit obvious, pre-socratic philosophical observation euk, (as frozen buns noted, it is reminiscent of Arius Didymus’ who attributed Heraclitus’ in “Eusebium” to the phrase: “Upon those that step into the same rivers different and different waters flow… They scatter and… gather… come together and flow away… approach and depart,” in other words, even though it’s the same river we can’t step into the same river twice, illustrating that unity depends of the preservation of measure and balance in change), but I was referring to Einstein’s “big blunder” in 1917 when he was searching for a cosmological constant, or an in his theory of General Relativity. Einstein thought it’s mathematical value would be near -1 and would represent the forces physicists call dark or vacuum energy. He gave up on it though, hence the reference to the cosmo-constant being a “big blunder.” Currently, some string theorists are arguing there may be a valid basis for its existence after all.

Thanks for attempting a response burt. I know a tease you quite a bit, but I always appreciate your opinions and ideas.

Ok,
I just thought it cute to juxtapose change with constancy….in a smart ass way, but of course that all is obvious to anyone who gives it much thought. Of course I knew all that stuff about Heraclitus’ in “Eusebium” and the river and all. wink
I don’t know anything about “energy field(s) that counter balanced the gravitational forces”, but I think many of us must have run into “dark vacuum energy” before. It’s the substance that gums up the thoughts of believers.

[ Edited: 24 April 2009 05:30 PM by eucaryote]
 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2009 09:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

Is dark vacuum energy the same thing as dark energy?

Can energy and vacuum make up the same thing?

Damn euc you are confusing me here, but thats another thing that is always represented by constant change-my confusion!

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2009 05:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1485
Joined  2007-12-10

ii,

If I have time next week, I’ll try to post something that may be helpful for you.  No promises tho.  smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2009 08:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

Thanks tav! I’d truly appreciate it… I just want to know if I’m planck’s length near or light years away from comprehension. grin

jefe:  I’m just happy with the phrase “little things that jiggle” that comes originally from Feynman, and seems to continue to be apt as we find smaller and smaller jiggly things.

I always liked the concept of the “quantum jitters.” The effects of which can be felt after three cups of coffee or post-coital orgasm.  shock

jefe:I.E. the foam at the planck level (10 exp -33) turning into something else as the size curve increases.

Huh?

McCrea: Is dark vacuum energy the same thing as dark energy?

Can energy and vacuum make up the same thing?

According to Susskind dark energy and vacuum energy are synonymous. It’s simply a matter of the particle physicist’s preference. For example Susskind prefers megaverse to multiverse but they both refer to the same concept.

Ah euk, I love ya mon, I hereby grant you a diploma in smart assery.  cool smile

[ Edited: 25 April 2009 08:11 PM by isocratic infidel]
 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 12:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
isocratic infidel - 26 April 2009 12:08 AM

Ah euk, I love ya mon, I hereby grant you a diploma in smart assery.  cool smile

Nah, I don’t deserve it, I’m not that good.

You should check out these discussions that just took place at ASU. They are all over your question, including several other “depictions of the multi-verse”.
Very hard for me to follow most of this…..I enjoyed David Gross’s skeptical take.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/origins-symposium/panel-2-is-our-universe-unique-and-how-can-we-find-out

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2009 08:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  892
Joined  2007-12-04
Jefe - 25 April 2009 04:05 PM

I must admit that you could fill a fleet of dump-trucks with what I don’t know about string theory.

I believe that puts you in good company with pretty much all of the actively working string theorists wink

I do insist that its a bit unfair or disingenuous to call it string theory and not stuff that wiggles hypothesis I would like to ask a question to those of you who may be more up to date with the field research.

Obviously the problem with string theory is that its so damn illusive when it comes to testing it in the lab. I’m skeptic to the odds of making any headway there even in the LHC.
I actually love string theory and I am of the opinion that even if it turns out to be a dead end, atleast some of it just have to be right if only perhaps in a different context. There just seems to be too much math that adds up.

But I gave up following the idea as closely as I had before due to the forecast of actually proving anything within the next decades so bleak.

But I understand that there is currently a move among many string theorists towards cosmological string theory. I understand in the attempt to use the CBM to find the “traces” if you will of string physics from the very early universe.

Without having actually checked up on progress on this it sounds to me to be a very promising approach, and I understand how they hope to reach conclusions this way.

But not really being up to date with progress. Is there actually any concrete enough predictions right now made by string theory that could definitely be tested through CBM observations?

That is, predictions that if not found will actually falsify the theory. Or are all predictions so far still flexible enough so that even if they are not found, the theory would not be falsified?

 Signature 

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2009 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

Gracias euk! Ahora yo comprende! Eusebium (you’s-be-um) one great guy. How about an honorary degree for posting a link I should be able to find meself. What a doofus I am… I coulda gone to a symposium.
Now that I more fully comprehend what STists are saying, the woo-factor has inflated. (I think I’ll make a painting out of the drawing and send it to Guth… maybe if he sees what the theory—when it includes branes—looks like, he’ll recognize its woo-nature.)

Susskind made some pretty palatable, but not necessarily plausible, arguments in his book as to why it’s supposedly ‘no big deal’ that elements of the the theory aren’t falsifiable and he secularizes the anthropic principle. I doubt I’ll ever see the mathematical beauty of the “theory,” but I do see the intuitive beauty of it… and at this juncture, I would agree with Gross (and unbe), in that it’s not a theory so much as it’s an imaginative and creative narrative made by the more mathematically-inclined physicists.

On the vid-link: I think Alan Guth did a swell job of exposing its flaws. I think I’ll stick to that which is observable and falisfiable.

I agree unbe, they should change the label to The Stuff That Wiggles Hypothesis (STWH) or The Small Stuff that Jiggles and Jitters Hypothesis (SSTJJH).

unbeliever: Is there actually any concrete enough predictions right now made by string theory that could definitely be tested through CBM observations?

As far as I can discern from my recent readings, the CBM observations back up the inflationary model of the universe, and give credence to there being a cosmological constant.

Which begs the question: if they find the Higgs boson at CERN, will it validate the STWH or will it simply be evidence for the existence of the boson field that gives other particles their mass? That said, I don’t know if observing a Higgs particle is enough to validate all the other hyps that ST (M-theory in particular) makes.

That is, predictions that if not found will actually falsify the theory. Or are all predictions so far still flexible enough so that even if they are not found, the theory would not be falsified?

I think this is all riding on whether they “discover” the Higgs boson/field in the particle accelerator. STists definitely will see this as tangible, observable evidence backing their ideas.

[ Edited: 04 May 2009 10:40 AM by isocratic infidel]
 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2009 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20

My son sent me this..
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225921&title=large-hadron-collider
..pretty funny. Apparently his group at brookhaven are working on some project related to the LHC….(very much over my head).

Probably, this was how the universe started last time. Evolution created life smart enough to build a large hadron collider….and the rest….was history.  wink Possibly we have already been through several of these cycles with a new Walter each time arriving too late with warnings that were not heeded. No doubt that this was dog’s plan.

Hey isocrat, could you expand on this? “he [Susskind] secularizes the anthropic principle.”

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed