What is Digg?Sponsored by Amazon.com
Kindle(TM) - Give the Ultimate Last Minute gift view!
amazon.com - Order Kindle now and receive it in time for Christmas. Free Expedited shipping. Click to learn more.
56 Comments
- PhysicsChris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18That's what I tell myself every time I screw something up: "Yeah, but in an infinite number of parallel universes I got it right."
- Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15This is an awesome video, I love documentaries online.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9it is not "the" 11th dimension
the 2 dimensional structure exists living inside (technically "embedded" or possibly "immersed" if intersections are allowed) an 11 dimensional space. "Dimensions" are not independant objects, they are better thought of as a unit of measure. What you've asked is equivalent to asking how 2 liters of soda exist in only the "single" 3rd liter of a 3L soda bottle.
It's just like the theoretical surface of a blackboard is (in principle) 2-dimensional, but existing inside a 3-dim space.
we can't "see" the "extra" dimensions because they're curled up in little Calibi-Yao manifolds, far too small relative to us. It's like how the "2nd" dimension of a soda straw (a soda straw itself is, in principle, intrinsically 2-dim, but embedded in 3-dim (or technically 11 i suppose) space) is curled up into a little circle (a 1-dim manifold); but from (very) far away the straw might appear (and behave) simply like a 1-dim line. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8NO! don't go tenthdimension.com
That video is stupid, wrong, evil, and confusing; it completely mangles the concept of dimensionality. It's been on digg several times already, and I'm tired of ranting about it, so I'll here's one of my previous rants showing where it's wrong and what a correct interpretations *would* be: http://digg.com/videos/educational/Explanation_of_the_10_dimensions_Must_See#c5236850
As a grad student in Topology, that video makes my soul hurt inside.
the 2 dimensions of a 'brane are both "spacial", it is not a string moving through time; string and M-theory are two separate models. - gooddoggytreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It was funny how the BBC ended this. They totally made that scientist guy seem crazy.
- DavidHorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Yet it's all true."
My arse it is. No respectable physicist would make that claim about M-Theory yet - for crying out loud, they're still working on the maths behind it. It may well be a/the GUT, but to claim now that it's the one is foolish and implies limited knowledge about the subject. As with all documentaries, take it with a pinch of salt. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8dimensions != emotions
They have nothing to do with new-agey "spiritual planes" or "dimensions of thought" or any other such hogwash.
Dimensions are a mathematical concept for measuring a specific quantitative property of a space of points.
as for what they're made of: What is space itself made of? What are photons made of? What is energy made of? What are quarks made of? These are all equally silly questions, what truly concerns us is how they behave. If they can be more easily modeled and understood by breaking them up into units, then it's useful to think of them that way in order to improve our predictions; otherwise it's as superfluous as asking what color a pig's wings are. - CptZap, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I like online documentaries too, but I sure do love Google Video.
- jguy584, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Note that this documentary carries no actual truth.
It is all just speculation and educated guesses, none of this has been proven yet. - nyx210, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You know what, with all that talk about trying to create a new universe, I wouldn't be surprised if we were living in some geek programmer's computer. Who knows? Maybe we're just one big, giant science experiment...
- vare2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Try the Elegant Universe http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program_t.html
- tanvach, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Strings moving through time = membrane
Just for kicks:
If you want a way to visualise the 10th dimension, go to this link and click the rotating helix of numbers.
http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php
For a more mathematically grounded reasoning why anyone would think 10 or more dimensions are necessary, this wikipedia article is pretty good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_10_dimensions
Oh and Michio Kaku figure skating. Nice. - hsbsitez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My question is, what if there are mysterious, hidden worlds which we cant even precise with our logic because our mind if binded my rules of science?
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"When you begin filling in empty spaces with your assumptions we lose science."
Sorry I wanted to clarify, I understand that Randall isn't just wildly guessing, but at the same time I can't help but to wonder what kind of other things we could come up with if we used the right math. - barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's funny how when something is on tv, they believe it. While I wont deny that Lisa Randall has done amazing work in this area, this isn't what all physicists believe. I tend to find the idea that there is one elegant answer to everything improbable and a wasted task. And them using "Magic" to describe the M in M-theory doesn't help their case either.
On the other hand, I am reminded of the conversation between Bohr and Einstein.
Einstein: God does not play dice.
Bohr: Don't tell God how to play with his dice.
Also, my favorite physicist (Feynman) said the following about quantum physics, "nobody understands quantum mechanics"
When you begin filling in empty spaces with your assumptions we lose science. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
- mrlyons, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I LOVE these BBC documentaries I've been watching lately. Is there a website that has a collection of all the documentaries the BBC has done? Even better, is there a link to like all their documentaries that are on like google video? I'm not asking for http://best.online.docus.googlepages.com/ :D
- nyx210, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Wow, that all seems too bizarre and crazy to be true... How on earth can those physicists actually understand the stuff?! That's simply amazing.
- Azimuth1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4There's a parallel universe where Kevin Sunflower runs a site called buryy, where a parallel me is writing a parallel version of this comment.
- Angoulemmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thumbs up. Nuff said!
Ah, the classic last line of The Tractatus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein#The_Tractatus - hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My brain hurts.
- stigma15, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3String and M-Theory aren't dead, they are just isn't a consensus on it among physicist. Many physicists see at as a hopeless cause since you can never direct get direct evidence of strings via observation/experimentation. Other physicists (such as Neil Degrasse Tyson) are skeptical because string-theorists should have figured it out by now. (i.e. Einstein published and proved Special Relativity in a matter of a couple of years).
I am reading Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, which is sort of like A Brief History of Time for String Theory, and I am on the fence about it.
When CERN fires up the Large Hadron Cylinder(world's largest particle accelerator) in the next year or so, string theorists are hoping it can verify some of the concepts that are outlined in M-theory such as the presence of the graviton. - fiver22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This video is exciting and it teaches people about many ideas in physics, but many of it's claims are innacurate:
1) claims that there has been a *shift* away from particle physics towards string-theory: sorry, that is false. Most physicists still regard string-theory as a *possibility* -not as a replacement of particle physics. -That does not deny the inherent *strangeness* of particle physics -it simply states that there are other models that satisfy reality.
2) it's metaphors are *weak* -did an musician vet these views before they made it to air?
3) "string-theory" is intriguing, but it it is NOT, yet, the answer to many quantum-conundrums.
4) Kaku skating is pretty but it aint an argument for the validity of string theory.
String Theory may be the future of physics but this video *prematurely* asserts it's validity.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The PBS Nova "Elegant Universe" documentary is better than this one.
- joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The TV series is called "Horizon"...... it's about 30 years old now.... if you want a list of all the BBC's documentaries you would probably need to start collecting 70 years of British TV guides.
There is a 'Horizon' mini-site on the BBC website. - tybris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"There may be a universe in which Al Gore is president and Elvis lives"
Slow down there. That's making a lot of assumptions. It implies that the universe, and human thought and behaviour are non-deterministic and that there is a parallel universe for every non-deterministic 'option'. The infinity of universes may just as well be deterministic and behave like a Mandelbrot Set (which from a mathematical perspective is much more simple and elegant). In this M-theory we may very well be the only universe with life in it, even with an infinity of other universes. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3 What a find!
Thanks so much!
- Lingur, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@nyx210
Riiiight, and next you're going to be telling me that mice are the ones running this experiment and dolphins can fly...
Some people.... - archcvd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1nyx210, please tell me you understand the reference.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1currently accepted "classical" Quantum theory doesn't work well with very large scales or gravity; on the other hand, relativity doesn't work at all on the small scales, and does little to explain particle physics. This is what string/M theory hopes to reconcile
Currently is seems that the problem is not that it doesn't work, but there are currently hundreds of "variations" of the model that fit the current experimental data; thus we can't narrow it down and say "*these* are the universal constants" and begin to draw further conclusions. It works, but we can't use it to determine any new information other than what we have determined empirically. - 4fingers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah that documentary was in 2002 so I found this news article written in November 2006 called "Build Your Own Universe".
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6545246
"Just imagine if it's true and there's even a small chance it really could work," he said. "In this perspective, each of us can become a god." - maxputer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I suppose there is still two different camps on this one... I am putting my money on Lee Smolin et al, they are trying to deal with the same problem with the bridge between the very small and the very big... and I have read that some of the experiments on Quantum Gravity, have produced more accurate results (on the bending of light through space) then what would be calculated using Einsteins models.
It's not all explained yet, that much is sure, but I strongly suggest any one who is into this kind of stuff on a hobbyist level check out Lee Smolin's body of work, and also David Deutches book "The Fabric of Reality"... anyone who is a string theory scholar doesn't care, but I don't think String / M Theory are going to pan out, I think Smolin's approach has a higher probability of success. (success here meaning as in being true)...
Anytime 3 scientists say they were having a nice chat on a train and figured out the theory of the universe one should be very skeptical. ;0) - SkaVanker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Where the hell did the membrane come from then?
- atarix64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Absolutely take it with a pinch of salt and I don't think anyone is saying its anything concrete but it is the best explanation that we have currently.
As for making stuff up without proper math, it usually starts with a theory does it not? Einstein theorized that light and space bend. Newton wanted to prove gravity but he didn't know how so he sought the way to express it mathematically. So now we have a multiverse but not the facts or math to prove it, but perhaps someday. - atarix64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1actually I saw another documentary recently about obsessive time travelling and someone named john titor who posted on the internet in like 2000-2001 claiming to be from 2036 sort of interesting sinc ehe made predictions which came true, before any of us knew what was gonna happen in the world pre 2001
Worth a google - pawperso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This seriously makes my brain hurt.
- bsiviglia9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does our ability to make choices afford us movement in more than just four dimensions? Is there an extra dimension present in, for example, interactive multimedia that is not present in conventional film? Is free will quantifiable? Is it possible that the parallel universes referenced in the movie (@ 31:08) are no further than a choice away?
- maxputer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I thought String Theory and M Theory were dead... I thought all was to be explained by Quantum Theory (Which also relies on Parallel Universes)... No offense but I think this is dated pop sci, like "Chaos" Theory.
- stigma15, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1^^^Sorry. I got a phone call while I was editing the comment so thats why it is worded poorly.^^^
- ig33k010011, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1although it's fascinating, they're thinking about this stuff way too hard...
- Saea, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Olik -
Unless you have the vast amount of knowledge to make such a theory and back it up, you have no rights to have such opinions against it, especially because you ideas against it are based on opinions. - nyx210, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Lingur: Hey, you never know...
- olik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@saea
1) I spent a lot of time studying this in undergrad
2) I always have the right to my opinion
3) My arguments were based on logic, not opinion - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah... I highly doubt there is... It would be an extreme paradox in the first place.. Also Steven Hawking.. Are you joking? No one has any idea, read the bible.
- Eiki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For a more critical view on this subject i would recommend Richard Müllers class on Physics.
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978397
I am not certain which video he begins to talk about string theory, but i believe it is in the bottom 5 section of the website. - tonich03, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Damn, double comment. No matter what I say, this comment is useless. Have a nice day.
- Mexrocker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2As expected, Kaku makes an appearance. If I don't transfer out of my college next semester, maybe I can take Michio Kaku's class....
- aburrido, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2sorry, that should be "How does a two dimensional structure..."
- olik, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5It is too bizzare and crazy to be true. That there are parallel universes where you were never born is simply not the "only conclusion" anyone could come up with. It's just a measurement problem - you can measure position OR velocity, but not both. Notice, this is a claim about measurement, not fact. Also notice, the assertion that "anything that can happen will happen" is a tautology, and that to conclude that there are an infinite number of possibilities simply begs the question.
This gets you out of the conundrum of multidimensional theories. String/multidemensional theory can still be useful for calculation, but not for existential description - dantrenner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"Yet it's all true."
And if you believe it, I'd like to talk to you about selling you a bridge. LOL!
Dan -
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
