November 15th, 2012, 12:30 PM
hi i d like to hear opinions on the M theory, how it evolved from String theory to the way it is today.
Personally i really like it because it supports the many-worlds interpretation. But does it have potential to become the Theory of Everything? i m sure there are still many flaws in it.
Well, basically there are five self-consistent String Theories in 10 dimensions. M-Theory stems from the realization that there are correspondences between those theories, in that certain objects in those theories map into each other. Furthermore, it was realized that the ends of open Strings really aren't always free to move as they wish, but are "trapped" in well defined regions of space-time - the membranes. Putting it all together M-Theory was born - it is the overarching model which can ( possibly ) combine the five models in 10 dimensions into just one model in 11 dimensions. Problem is, we don't have a complete description of the dynamics of M-Theory, except in certain limiting cases.hi i d like to hear opinions on the M theory, how it evolved from String theory to the way it is today.
As for its value as a TOE - truth is that we simply don't know yet.
M-theory is another word for string theories combined. Generally string theory has made no observable predictions. M-theory has run into mathematical obstacles that many now think cannot be overcome. Funding for string theory in general has fallen maybe 80%. Some think that in the next century string theory will just be a footnote concerning multi-dimensional theoretical complications not needed.Originally Posted by Halibonga
That is not quite right. It would be more accurate to say that our five String theories are special cases of M-Theory, in the same way that SR is a special case of GR.
Have there been observations to show M-theory's consistency? What's the status on evidence?
Well, that's something of a problem. There is no evidence. So far. If the LHC can find supersymetry, that would be a help. But string theory deals with energy levels that are far, far beyond our present capabilities, so any evidence is going to be illusive, and second hand.
okthat is not quite right. It would be more accurate to say that our five string theories are special cases of m-theory, in the same way that sr is a special case of gr.
I just heard of M theory yesterday. I'll have to study up on it.
basically M theory is based on predictions which cannot be empirically verified as of now, we need more than just LHC to test things out, feel like we are relying too much on LHC at the moment thought it cant be helped.
on a side note: why are those 40 minutes+ Parallel universe videos on youtube removed...they were such good videos..
Just another name for conventional string theory in general, or as Markus Hanke prefers it stated: our five string theories are special cases of M-theory.
Last edited by forrest noble; November 27th, 2012 at 01:16 AM.
No it isn't ! That is like saying General Relativity is just another name for Special Relativity in general. It's simply wrong.
it's quite difficult to realize the distinction between M theory and string theoryNo it isn't ! That is like saying General Relativity is just another name for Special Relativity in general. It's simply wrong.
I clarified my meaning by using a direct quote from you. Here's the exlanation from Wiki.No it isn't ! That is like saying General Relativity is just another name for Special Relativity in general. It's simply wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theoryIn theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified. Proponents believe that the 11-dimensional theory unites all five 10 dimensional string theories and supersedes them. Though a full description of the theory is not known, the low-entropy dynamics are known to be supergravity interacting with 2 and 5 dimensional membranes.
Much better
| « Explosions in Space | NASA's Curiosity's secret discovery after sampling Martian soil. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
