Quantum weirdness

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by Babylon Candle

i was under the impression that string theory/m theory although not testable/provable.... had mathematical proofs that make them more than just fantasy???

1. ???string theory is necessary because splitting photons does not always give off the same particles (there must be stuff smaller?)???
2. working the math, its discovered that these strings need to move in more than 4 dimensions (the 4th being time)
3. these 11 or 12 dimensions being included in the theory make it "m theory" complete with our universe being the "membrane" stretched string???

i think im on some sort of general direction that may end up in the vicinity of the right track...but i need a little help.

M-Theory is not really my favorite subject in physics, but I believe the string theories all came about due to trying to unify gravity with the Standard Model (which already acounts for many of the smaller particles).

The "official" webste for string theory:
The Official String Theory Web Site

When the Large Hadron Collider starts giving us data, there is hope that we will get data relavent to the Standard Model, and perhaps the string theories and other such things.

EDIT:By "we" I mean the human race--not that I have anything to do with it.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by ygolo

When the Large Hadron Collider starts giving us data, there is hope that we will get data relavent to the Standard Model, and perhaps the string theories and other such things.

That thing is really cool. I wonder if they give tours...I'll be in France next spring and that would be awesome to see.

[ygolo]

This is indeed a good source:
Ket space
Bra space

[Angry Ayrab]

Originally Posted by ygolo

This is indeed a good source:
Ket space
Bra space

These are fundamental and you better know this before going to class. Nice post.

[the.blanket.on.top]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I'm sure you've heard of M-theory and Superstring theory.

YouTube - Parallel Universes

[ygolo]

OK. I now have enough interest in M-theory and the string theories, that I want to learn the Math (otherwise I'll continue to think of it as B.S).

Does anyone know good sources?

[noigmn]

I watched the videos too. Those sensationalised documentaries always make me skeptical.

So is M-Theory still around, does it promise much, and can anyone give a good clear basis of the mathematics and perceived reality of what the theory means?

I hear opinions either way all the time, and I know there is obvious unexplained order in the standard model and the need to provide connection between various scientific theories, but are these new theories based on thought experiments that run close to known reality, or a mathematical attempt to find a formula that fits all known reality?

ie. is it maths based or science based? Just remembering things like Einstein's best work were theoretical physics and based mainly on concepts built from anomalies in experiments. Not a mathematical search for a God formula.

An interesting thought on this topic also is what does a God Formula mean? Does it solve everything, or give us an idea of where to look next. Say for example you had the God Formula and wanted to model the weather. This doesn't sound too hard, you have the God Formula. You get the maximum amount of information you can get for every particle on Earth at a set time and start the modelling system. Even if all the original information was accurate and could be measured simultaneously, you'd get done by Heisenberg's and wouldn't know where any particle is a microsecond later. Five seconds later, you will know so little about the system, that the original idea was pointless.

Or say something like turbulence. We have the Navier-Stokes equation. It models it. So do we have the answers? Not really. Or quantum mechanics. We have Schrodinger's wave equation. Now take a 1000 particle system and model it... I can't think what an 11 dimensional equation is going to be like to find any solutions for with a complex system.

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by ygolo

Edit:Excellent video!

The video link is broken: I found it again here: Physics Video Archive SidneyColeman_QMIYF

[entropie]

Here's a nice thing about M-theory aswell. Even with pictures that's how I like it . Sadly there is no math in it.

http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/services/bi...am14395569.pdf

If you find sources on some model equations concerning the theory, I'ld be happy if you could share em

[Eric B]

Interesting article

Recently Thomas Banks and Stephen H. Shenker of Rutgers University, together with Willy Fischler of the University of Texas and Leonard Susskind of Stanford University, have proposed a rigorous definition of M-theory. Their “matrix” theory is based on an infinite number of zero-branes (particles, that is).
The coordinates, or positions, of these particles, instead of being ordinary numbers,
are matrices that do not commute—that is, xy does not equal yx. In this picture space-time itself is a fuzzy concept in which the coordinates cannot be defined as the usual numbers but instead as matrices.

That was the thing I read about in Greene's Elegant Universe that was most fascinating. But it seemed once they started talking about "M Theory" and the 11-D superspace with brane collisions, then you stopped hearing about this "primeval realm" or matrices that lied below the Planck length. Glad to see that there are some in M Theory that are still positing that.