digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Physicists Develop Test for 'String Theory'

physorg.com — For decades, scientists have taken issue with “string theory”—a theory of the universe which contends that the fundamental forces and matter of nature can be reduced to tiny one-dimensional filaments called strings—because it does not make predictions that can be tested.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • infimprob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30I can't wait to read about this in the Physical Review Letters. It's about time that string theory was either refuted or proven. If it's refuted then we can finally move on to other theories concerning the general equivalence. If it's proven we can move forward and finally discover how the forces, both Quantum and Newtonian, are related.
    • thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Unfortunately, this test won't be able to tell us for sure if string theory is correct.

      FTA: “If the bounds are satisfied, we would still not know that string theory is correct,” said Distler. “But, if the bounds are violated, we would know that string theory, as it is currently understood, could not be correct. At the very least, the theory would have to be reshaped in a highly nontrivial way.”

      So basically, if these go according to string theory plan when these atoms collide, then it will confirm that the current theory is at least possible. If it doesn't, though, string theory will have some serious kinks to work out. Should be interesting either way.
    • jconnop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22"Like, does the light turn off when you shut the refrigerator door?"

      Ah, we run into a little problem when trying to test this nobel prize worthy problem. As we do not directly observe whether the light is on or off when the door is closed (what with the door being closed and all - how are we supposed to know hmm?), the light must be both on AND off (a super position of the two really) until the waveform of possibilities is collapsed by opening the door again and observing.

      No, no, I think this problem may just have to wait until string theory can tell us WTF Schrodinger was thinking about his cat.
    • TheReport, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"They should be spending more time on important stuff.

      Like, does the light turn off when you shut the refrigerator door?"

      Of course it does, What else do you think the little leperchaun does in there?
    • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -4/+4I predict the test will fail.
    • laplacian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Not everyone is optimisic about this test: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=510
      "This latest claim about a “test for string theory” is quite remarkable and even more bogus than usual. It is based on a paper which has nothing to with string theory and doesn’t do a string theory calculation at all."
    • sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7After retiring from the circus I dedicated my life to the pursuit of a unified theory. Ladies and gentlemen, without further adieu, I give you the silly string theory...
    • Axim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2well excalpius if you're wrong in a couple decades you can come back here and edit your prediction
    • catmistake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2As soon as we (humankind) figure this out, its all going to be replaced by something even more incomprehensible.
      /5 blind men and an elephant
    • Anrkist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What of M-Theory? This is supposedly the unified theory, where all the strings come together. Instead of strings, they have turned into a membrane of some sort.. perhaps our universe is catching a ride on some very large being.
    • datr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@catmistake

      Who's to say it hasn't already?
    • adb44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

      Blog from a professor who wrote a critical book on string theory, top entry refuting this "test."

      FTA: " “The canonical forms of string theory include three mathematical assumptions—Lorentz invariance (the laws of physics are the same for all uniformly moving observers), analyticity (a smoothness criteria for the scattering of high-energy particles after a collision) and unitarity (all probabilities always add up to one). Our test sets bounds on these assumptions.” "

      Sounds great but....those principles seem to exist in all modern physics. The first is simple relativity, which the standard model accounts for. Last is assumed in most reality based mathematical operations that I can think of. And I have no idea what analyticity means, but I don't think it will be a good litmus test for string theory so much as a litmus test for our natural assumptions about the world, whatever theory we subscribe to.

      I call BS.

      edit: lap got the Woit blog in first
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even when explained by a strong proponent - http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall03/005858.htm - string theory is still a huge muddle.

      Greene's book, ironically, explains special relativity very very clearly. Even if electromagnetism flummoxed you in college you will get it. But string theory has no basis in the kind of thought experiments that Einstein started with. That is, Einstein started with "What if the speed of light in a vacuum really IS the speed limit of information? What has to give in order for that to really be true?"

      There is no corresponding "elegant" basis for string theory. Not only that, the most commonly known knock on string theoryis that it is not predictive of anything. That's a large defect for something that claims to be a "theory."
    • miles01110, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Uh, the fact that these academicians came up with an experiment to test string theory means that if their *predictions* are correct they will get result A, and if their *predicitions* are incorrect they will get result B. To say that string theory doesn't "predict" anything just demonstrates your ignorance of science.
    • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2Axim, the ability to edit a post ends after 120 seconds. So, unless I have a time machine...and I time it *just so*...I don't think I will be able to edit my post.
    • randal23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Unfortunately, this test won't be able to tell us for sure if string theory is correct."

      Indeed, but what's wrong this that? I don't know what you were taught in science classes, but I was taught that no experiment can prove a theory correct.

      --
      "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -- Albert Einstein
  • hbweb500, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2My test: Is it seemingly incomprehensible to the human mind? Does it seem to make no sense whatsoever? If you answered yes, then its string theory!

    In all seriousness, I wish we would learn about this in high school physics. Not the intricacies of the theory, but just whatever the hell it implies. Instead we have been doing vector equations for a semester. Not quite as fun.
    • infimprob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Amen, preach it brother!!!
    • imikedaman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"Instead we have been doing vector equations for a semester."

      Get used to it. We did vector equations in Physics and A.P. Physics in high school, then Physics I and Physics II in college, and again in Computer Graphics, and again in Linear Algebra, then yet again in another Linear Algebra course, and in a few other courses. STOP WITH THE DAMN VECTOR MATH!
    • GenVoss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm in IB physics year 2 as a senior in high school, and we are doing a bunch of quantum level stuff, including string theory. it's very interesting and i recommend that you check it out if you are bored of vector equations.
    • kiwifish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ah, another IBer. I did IB Higher physics.... 5 years ago. Despite the teacher being fairly atrocious, it still meant that I coasted through the first year and a half of university physics in the UK.
    • hbweb500, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Kiwifish & genvoss

      I wish our school offered that. They dont even offer AP Physics. So it goes.
    • miles01110, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry to burst your bubble, but E = hf doesn't count as Quantum Mechanics any more than boiling water counts as cooking.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Passive networks (analog electronics) has some pretty mind-bending math behind it that. Very few people have an intuitive grasp of imaginary numbers. To me, relativity is cakewalk by comparison.

      Hard math is not a problem for a theory. And simplifying the math, as in Wolfram's "clockwork universe" doesn't make it more likely to be right.
  • svladc42, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0string theory is just that, a theory, others are welcome if they are out there!
    • majglow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I'm more of a believer in intelligent rope
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Theories predict stuff. String "theory" doesn't. That's the problem.
    • H3g3m0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But whats the string made of?
  • Hoodwinker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Educate yourselves on string theory
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
    • konig12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Excellent show. I have seen it a couple times. It really does explain the theory well. Its a little weird at times, but then how are you supposed to avoid that with a topic like string theory?
  • spacebetween, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Sweet.

    Hook 'em :-)
  • majglow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hopefully the results of this experiment will be posted on digg. I'll probably forget to look on my own.
  • YourTechSupport, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I thought two teenagers proved string theory using an overclocked phone booth they guy from a guy named Rufus.
  • S4MF1SHER, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"What's up Socrates?"

    This is exciting to read! I read a book called The Elegant Universe, and the watched the subsequent video on Nova. It blew my mind. It challenged my understanding of the world, religion, and why things are the way they are. String theory is out there.
    • jesuschrysler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0-1 for grouping religion with reality
    • rygoke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"-1 for grouping religion with reality"

      Think about death, we can't observe what the person's will goes through. String theory could be a gateway to realizing life after death. Food for thought, "What of M-Theory? This is supposedly the unified theory, where all the strings come together. Instead of strings, they have turned into a membrane of some sort.. perhaps our universe is catching a ride on some very large being." Decaying, radioactive molecules from our future corpse all unite at the center of the universe? Could this be an act of God?

      Just because you can't TEST SCIENCE doesn't mean you can't have freedom to have tight beliefs. TAKE ME ON BABIES...
    • jesuschrysler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0rygoke-

      now say that coherently
  • spartyms2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For those of use who aren't really into the sciences, is there a string theory for dummies out there?
  • Sputtnik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

    Heim theory seems better to me... it predicted the mass of fundamental particles very accurately
    based only on basic constants (G,h, c ...)

    and the concept of a "metron" has a base of everything is very interesting.

    And , if true, we have the hyperdrive for a 3 hours trip to mars :)



    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The real tragedy of string theory is that it has sucked the money out of everything else.

      So you are left with intriguing things like Heim theory never having been closely examined, and you have stuff like Wolfram's "New Kind of Science" being developed basically as the hobby of a wealthy entrepreneur.

      My expectation is that we have to go back to the basic problem and start over. The answer could be one of the less well-known theories, or it could even be "You are stuck with two kinds of math - what do you expect when you can't see the universe both ways at the same time?"
  • spinalcracker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2FTA posted by Sputtnik - "Although it purports to unify quantum mechanics and gravitation, the original Heim theory cannot be considered a theory of everything because it does not incorporate all known experimental data. In particular, it gives predictions only for properties of individual particles, without making detailed predictions about how they interact."

    How does that seem better? It is interesting, but you are not comparing apples to apples. One is a theory of everything, and the other is most definitely not. Also if you read the whole wiki you posted you would realize that it didn't really, "predict the mass of fundamental particles very accurately based only on basic constants", because the particle he was basing his calculations around ended up being "composite particles and not elementary after all", ie. hadrons

    So we may have to wait a little longer for 3 hour trips to Mars :(
  • spinalcracker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Also, please read this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory#Current_status

    Basically sounds like Heim theory has been completely disproven already
  • theOster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4European Laboratory for Particle Physics, or CERN

    and of course:

    Sponsored Links by Google
    String Lights Wholesale
    Mini lights, C-7 & C-9 lights, Light Strings, Rope Light & More
    • diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Google is searching for Strings, too.
  • Roppongi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I believe the book

    The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next ( by Lee Smolin )

    will tell you everything you need to know about String Theory.

    /Go Loop Quantum Gravity!
  • diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2On a PBS program which explained String Theory, the physicists flatly stated that they would never be able to prove it. This was a year or two ago.
  • iloveliberals, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Sooo....scientists believe in that which cannot be proven = Perfectly acceptable.

    Religious persons believe in that which cannot be proven = Grounds for ridicule.

    Gotcha.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Go experience some university politics and you will see how similar it is to Byzantine intrigues. Orthodoxy and dogma are not unique to churches.
    • df12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@iloveliberals
      I seem to be seeing a very large amount of ridiculing of string theory going on here. Not to mention several books on the failure of String Theory, and numerous lectures at major universities also discussing the issue.

      Besides, we've only had a few decades to blindly follow String theory, I think we've got awhile to catch up to the millennia Religion has had.
    • tremor_tj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The difference is, nobody claimed String Theory is a fact. They claimed it was a theory. The same can't be said for "God".
    • Matri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At least String theory now has one slightly-believable, most-likely-bogus, almost-crazy experiment to prove that the theory is possibly-maybe-hopefully-atleast-partially true. Creationists just spend 100% of their time calling science dumb and zero effort in even thinking up a ***** experiment.
  • airship, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I predict that once CERN performs this experiment and we observe the results, the universe will collapse.
  • Double0Doug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ok, so help me understand how String Theory is a scientific theory at all if it can’t be tested. If a hypothesis can’t be tested, it can’t be supported. If it can’t be supported, it can’t be a theory.

    It’s been a while since college physics, so maybe there is some special case type of stuff going on here. With my background in the biological sciences the progression from hypothesis to theory is hard and fast, I have a hard time seeing a way around this evolution without changing the rules.

    Maybe there is something in quantum physics that points to string theory, but wouldn’t that make it testable?
    • freidog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Like most of the unified theories (the accepted ones at least), they predict the same experimental data that their more conventional counterparts do. One can derive all the predictions of general relativity or the standard model for sub atomic particles or even Maxwell's equations and quantum theory from string theory. So it's easy to see that these theories predict that the Universe should be the way it is in low energy states. (Though in the case of string theory, it can actually predict an infinite number of possible universes - find the specifics that govern the laws of this universe within the context of string theory is a major stumbling block right now)
      The real new predictions of the unified theories only take place near the Planck energy - trillions of times more energy than current particle accelerators can generate.
      So yes, all the unified theories just hypothesis what happens at energies high enough to unify all the fundamental forces. But they also yield verifiable models of the low energy universe we can test.
  • deathdefyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone catch the hour long special on Discovery Channel about CERN? The entire show was based on this lab... its friggin huge... its a tunnel thats under europe, actually a big ass underground ring 17 miles long and then a HUGE magnet and particle accelerator and some other equipment... major major stuff. This article and that show are friggin awesome.
  • YeahOK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If the string theory is false would it be "a frayed knot" theory?
  • cantoral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Benjamin Grinstein was born in Mexico City and studied there until he went to Harvard to work with Howard Georgi and get his Ph.D. in Physics. I would be very happy if he can prove that string theory is impossible. If the bounds are satisfied then string theory is consistent, but that does not mean that the theory is right, nor tells us which of the many versions of string theory is right. In any case, good work Grinstein et al.
  • lastword2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0that's why I can never understand any concept of strings, in the beggining the article says: "a theory of the universe which contends that the fundamental forces and matter of nature can be reduced to tiny one-dimensional filaments called strings"

    how? but how a filament can be 'one-dimensional'?

    one-dimensional is a point... no?
    • xartemisx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A point is zero dimensional. A line is one dimensional, a plane is two dimensional(like the common x-y axis/cartesian coordinate system). If you watch the PBS special, it can give you pretty good visualizations to what they think strings look like.
    • lastword2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0damn, you re right.

      But I think I was mislead by this PBS special, where they show us trembling rings as strings. A ring cant be one dimensional, thats I'm sure (for now)

      one-dimensional vibrations can be only in its length... no?
    • xartemisx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is true. I am not sure about the technical aspects of string theory but if each string were one dimensional it could only get longer or shorter.. so if you imagine the suspected 11 dimensions you need 11 strings.
  • rangermccoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Moving Dimensions Theory Unifies ST & GR

    Ed Witten Seen Reading Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics": NSF Quadruples LQG's Funding, Slashes ST's Funding, and Every University Gets Three LQG Theorists To Talk Amongst Themselves & Give One Another Tenure!

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    THE PHYSICS TIMES
    Princeton, NJ

    Ed Witten was seen reading Lee Smolin's THE TORUBLE WITH PHYSICS while simultaneuosly walking down Nassau Street in an inertial frame, followed by his 137 postdocs, who were chanting in unison.

    Some towards the front of the line started crying first, as they realized it was the end of a free ride for blind obedience, and that for health benefits and summers off, they were going to have to hurt themselves by thinking on their own.

    The news spread far and wide. Up in Cambridge Lubos Motl changed his snarky two star amazon review for THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS to a laudatory five star review, so as to secure future NSF funding. And Michio Kaku added Smolin as a friend at his myspace page, after a call from his media team.

    "I've seen darker days than this," Brian Greene smiled. "I already got my two string theory coffee table books out and am set. I know that I have secured the Nobel--in literature."

    Witten said, "It is time to make peace. The most important thing that we ST, LQGers, and Not Even Wrongers must do is continue to oppose physical theories, which unify disparate physical phenomena in the same physical framework. Otherwise mathematical masturbation will fall out of favor, and we will have to join the proletariat in working for a living and taking what they're giving."

    I wish Woit would have talked more about his views on the future of physics.

    String Theory was the only game in town, and now there are two--ST & deconstructing ST.

    But there is another that actually unifies QM & SR & GR with a physical model: MDT--it's physics!

    Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all experimental tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity. MDT is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted by quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The genius and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model which shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics derive from the same fundamental physical reality.

    Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source, nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe which troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox.

    Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies formerly disparate phenomena within a simple context.

    THE GENERAL POSTULATE
    OF DYNAMIC DIMENSIONS THEORY
    The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

    If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.
    -Albert Einstein

    But after thirty years of the absurdity of String Theory, millions of dollars from the NSF, and billions of complementary dollars from tax and tuition and endowments spent on killing physics and indie physicists, perhaps it's time for something that makes sense-for a physical theory that actually accounts for a deeper reality from which both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, from which time, entanglement, gravity, entropy, interference, the constant speed of light, relativistic time dilation, length contraction, and the equivalence of mass and energy emerge. It's time for Moving Dimensions Theory-MDT.
    -The Physicist with No Name

    I know what you're thinking. Did he say there were thirty-six dimensions or only thirty-five? Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .45 Revolver-the most powerful hand gun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question--Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk!? -Clint Eastwood

    I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice. -Clint Eastwood

    Go ahead. Make my day. -Clint Eastwood

    MDT IN BRIEF
    Without further adieu, allow me to present the beauty and elegance of MDT by showing both its simplicity and far-reaching ability to account for and answer fundamental questions. All of the below will be elaborated on throughout the book.

    Questions Addressed by MDT:

    Why does light have a maximum, constant speed independent of the source? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. A photon is momenergy that exists orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions. It is carried along by the expanding fourth dimension. So no matter how fast the source is moving when the photon is emitted, the photon travels at the rate with which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Thus c is always independent of the movement of the source.

    Why are light and energy quantized? The fourth dimension is expanding in a quantized manner relative to the three spatial dimensions. Light and energy are matter rotated completely into the fourth expanding dimension, and as it expands in a quantized manner, light and energy are thus quantized.

    Why is the velocity of light constant in all frames? Time is an emergent phenomena that arises because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The flow of time is inextricably wed to the emission and propagation of photons. In all biological, mechanical, and electronic clocks, the emission and propagation of photons is what determines time. The velocity of light is always measured with respect to time, which is inextricably linked to the velocity of light. This tautology ensures that the velocity of light, measured relative to the velocity of light, will always be the same.

    How can photons display both wave and particle properties? The fundamental photon propagates as a spherical wave-front, surfing the fourth expanding dimension. This is because the fourth expanding dimension appears as a spherical wavefront as it expands through the three spatial dimensions. The act of measurement localizes the photon's momenergy, taking it out of the expanding fourth dimension and trapping it in the three stationary spatial dimensions, and it appears as a localized particle, trapped by electrons as it blackens a grain on a photographic plate.

    How can matter display both wave and particle properties? The fundamental electron is abuzz with photons. Photons are continually being emitted into the fourth expanding dimension and reabsorbed by the electron. The continual dance with these photons gives the electron its wave properties. Nothing moves without photons which up the net probability that the combine momenergy will be in the expanding fourth dimension. The more photons one adds to an object, the greater the chance it has of existing in the expanding fourth dimension, and thus it moves.

    Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That means that what begins as a point in the fourth dimension is a sphere with a 186,000 mile radius one second later. So it is that the entire spherical wavefront of the photon exists in the exact same place in time. Hence the non-locality observed in double slit experiments, the EPR effect, and quantum entanglement. Take two interacting spin ½ photons and let them propagate at the speed of c in opposite directions. They are yet at the exact same place in time! And too, they are yet in the exact same place of the fourth expanding dimension.

    Why does time stop at the speed of light?
    Time depends on the emission and propagation of photons. If no photons are emitted, time does not occur. This holds true whether the clock is an unwinding copper spring, a biological system such as a heart, or an oscillating quartz crystal. No photom emission=no time! As an object approaches the speed of light, its ability to emit photons without reabsorbing them diminishes. An object traveling at the speed of light cannot emit a photon.

    How come a photon does not age?
    A photon represents momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth expanding dimension. A photon stays the exact same place in the fourth dimension, no matter how far it travels. A photon stays the exact same place in time, no matter how far it travels. Again, time is not the fourth dimension, but in inherits properties of the fourth dimension.

    Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing?

    Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction?
    Movement is always accompanied by a shortening in length. This is because the only way for a body to move is for it to undergo a rotation into the forth dimension, which is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The more energy an electron has, the more photons it possesses, and the higher probability it exists in the expanding fourth dimension. Hence its length appears contracted as perceived from the three spatial dimensions.

    Why are mass and energy equivalent?
    The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That means that a baseball sitting on a lab table stationary in our three-dimensional inertial reference frame, is yet moving at a fantastic velocity relative to the fourth dimension. Hence every seemingly stationary mass has a vast energy, as given by E=mc2. In a nuclear reaction matter is rotated into the expanding fourth dimension, appearing as high-enegry photons (gamma rays) propagating at the same velocity of the fourth expanding dimension-c.

    Why does time's arrow point in the direction it points in? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Hence every photon naturally expands in a spherically symmetric manner. Hence every electron, or piece of matter that interacts with photons, is naturally carried outward from a central point in a spherically symmetric manner. Hence the particles in a drop of dye in a swimming pool dissipate in a spherically symmetric manner, and are never reunited. Hence time's arrow and entropy.

    Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling at a velocity c? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. Hence photons, which are tiny packets of momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth dimension, appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts propagating at the velocity c.

    Why is there a minus sign in the following metric?
    x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2
    The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. Hence the only way to stay still in the space-time continuum, and to achieve a 0 interval, is to move with the velocity of light.

    What deeper reality underlies Einstein's postulates of relativity?
    The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. This single postulate assures that the speed of light is constant for all observers and that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

    What deeper reality underlies Newton's laws?
    Newton's laws are an approximation of relativity and quantum mechanics, and as MDT underlies QM & relativity, it underlies Newton's laws.

    Why is an increase in velocity always accompanied by a decrease in length as measured by an external observer? All increases in velocity are accompanied by rotations into the fourth dimension. All particles can be represented by momenergy 4-vectors. The greater the momenrgy component in the expanding fourth dimension, the greater the velocity and speed of the particle. Rest mass is the invariant here. It never changes. It prefers the three spatial dimensions. In order for it to move, one must gain energy in the form of photons. These photons prefer the fourth expanding dimension. The more photons one adds, the greater the component of the momenergy 4-vector that appears in the fourth expanding dimension, the more energy the particle has, the shorter it appears, and the faster it moves.

    How MDT Is Aiding Fellow Physicists

    "The conclusions from Bell's theorem are philosophically startling; either one must totally abandon the realistic philosophy of most working scientists or dramatically revise our concept of space-time." -Abner Shimony and John Clauser

    Moving Dimensions Theory provides this new concept of space-time. The vast ambitions of most tenure-track physicists, including string theorists and LQG hypers, causes them to focus on irrelevant, minute questions, and thus, though funded by millions for over thirty years, have not yet been able to string the bow. Deeper, true physicists, such as Abner Shimony and John Clauser are alert to the fact that physics need news ideas.
    The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

    "For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

    Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal. The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

    "Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

    The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

    "For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

    Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal. The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

    "Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

    The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

    http://physicsmathforums.com
  • rangermccoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Tied Up & Strung Out: Hollywood String Theory Movie!!! Looking For Extras!!!
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
    http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=56
    http://revver.com/video/48391/

    ALL TIED UP & STRUNG ALONG, a movie about String Theorists and their expansive theories which extend human ignorance, pomposity, and frailty into higher dimensions, is set to start filming this fall. Jessica Alba, John Cleese, Eugene Levie, Jackie Chan, and David Duchovney of X-files fame have all signed on to the $700 million Hollywood project, which is still cheaper than String Theory itself, and will likely displace less physicists from the academy.



    "As contemporary physics is about money, hype, mythology, and chicks," Ed Witten explained from his offices at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, "The next logical step was Hollywood, although I thought Burt Reynolds should play me instead of Eugene Levy."



    Brian Greene, the famous String Theorist who will be played by David "the truth is out there" Duchovney, explained the plot: "String theory's muddled, contorted theories that lack postulates, laws, and experimentally-verified equations have Einstein spinning so fast in his grave that it creates a black hole. In order to save the world, we String Theorists have to stop reformulating String Theory faster than the speed of light. We are called upon to stop violating the conservation of energy by mining higher dimensions to publish more BS than can accounted for with the Big Bang alone, and I win the Nobel prize for showing that M-Theory is in fact the dark matter it has been searching for."


    Greene continues: "At first my character is reluctant to stop theorizing and start postulating, but when my love interest Jessica Alba is sucked into the black hole, I search my soul and find Paul Davies there, played by John Cleese. I ask him what he's doing in my soul, and he explains that the answer is contained in the mind of God, which only he is privy too, but for a small fee, some tax and tuition dollars, a couple grants here and there, and an all-expense-paid book tour with stops in Zurich and Honolulu, he can let me in on it. And he shows me God in all her greater glory, as he points out that we can make more money in Hollywood than writing coffee-table books that recycle Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, and Wheeler. I am quickly converted, and I agree to turn my back on String Theory's hoax and save Jessica Alba."


    But it's not that easy, as standing in Greene's way is Michio "king of pop-theory-hipster-irony-the-theory-of-everything-or-anything-made-
    you-read-this" Kaku, played by Jackie Chan. Kaku beats the crap out of Greene for alomst blowing the "ironic" pretense his salary, benefits, and all-expense paid trips depend on. "WE MUST HOLD BACK THE YOUNG SCIENTISTS WITH OUR NON-THEORIES!! WE MUST FILL THE ACADEMY WITH THE POMO DARK MATTER THAT IS STRING THEORY TO KEEP OUR UNIVERSE FROM FLYING APART, OUR PYRAMID SCHEMES FROM TOPPLING, AND OUR PERPETUAL-MOTION NSF MONEY MACHINE FROM STOPPING!!" Kaku argues as he delivers a flying back-kick, "There can be ony ONE! I WILL be String Theory's GODFATHER as referenced on my web page!! I have better hair!"

    But Greene fights back as he signs his seventeenth book deal to make the hand-waving incoherence of String Theory accessible to the South Park generation, senior citizens, and starving chirldren around the world. "Kaku! Kaku! (pronounced Ka-Kaw! Ka-Kaw! like Owen Wilson did in Bottle Rocket)," Greene shouts. "It is theoretically impossible to build a coffee tables strong enough to support any more coffee-table physics books!!!"

    "Time travel is also theoretically impossible, but there's a helluva lot more money for us in flushing physics down a wormhole. Nobody knows what the #&#%&$ M stands for in M theory ya hand-waving, TV-hogging crank!!! Get it?? Ha Ha Ha! We're laughing at the public! We're the insider pomo hipsters! Get with the gangsta-wanksta-pranksta CRANKSTER bling-bling program!!"


    How does it all end? Does physics go bankrupt funding theories that have expanded our ignorance from four dimensions into ten, twenty, and thirty dimensions? Do tax payers revolt? Do young physicists overthrow the hand-waving, contortionist bullies and revive physics with a classical renaissance favoring logic, reason, and Truth over meaningless mathematical abstractions? Does Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT) prevail with its simple postulate? We'll all just have to wait!

    But in the meantime, how do you think it will play out?

    Will theories with postulates ever be allowed in physics again? Or will the well-funded, tenured pomo String Theory / M-Theory (Maffia-Theory) Priests send their armies of desperate, snarky postdocs and starving graduate students forth to displace and destroy all common sense, logic, reason, and physics in the academy? It must be so--for the greater good of physics, the individual physicist, and thus physics, must be sacrificed.

    MDT's postulate: THE FOURTH DIMENSION IS EXPANDING AT A RATE OF C RELATIVE TO THE THREE SPATIAL DIMENSIONS IN QUANTIZED UNITS OF THE PLANCK LENGTH, GIVING RISE TO TIME AND ALL CLASSICAL, QUANTUM MECHANICAL, AND RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENA.

    http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=56
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.