Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Trying to understand strings and branes better

  1. #1 Trying to understand strings and branes better 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    57
    Hi!

    I saw an interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on branes and when asked where these other universes (or is it ‘worlds’) on other branes exist, he said in your living room. (?) This doesn’t sound like the vertical wavy sheets nor the separate (or connected) bubbles we’re shown in brane videos.

    Are strings on ‘other’ branes thought to be physically within the same space that we are? That is to say, if we could look at the strings attached to our brane would we also see (if we could see) strings that are on other branes mixed in with them?

    If so… what is meant by ‘colliding branes’?

    Thanks any help!

    Rusty


    Rusty Williamson
    Author
    3D Animator

    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    First off, ignore string theory.

    Yea, I think the idea is that the universes on other parts of the branes are physically connected to us via hyper dimensional linkage.

    I THINK their idea behind branes colliding is that the pure energy that the branes are made up of is synthesized into matter upon the collision, which then expands space around itself, forming a new universe.


    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Trying to understand strings and branes better 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by rrw4rusty
    Hi!

    I saw an interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on branes and when asked where these other universes (or is it ‘worlds’) on other branes exist, he said in your living room. (?) This doesn’t sound like the vertical wavy sheets nor the separate (or connected) bubbles we’re shown in brane videos.

    Are strings on ‘other’ branes thought to be physically within the same space that we are? That is to say, if we could look at the strings attached to our brane would we also see (if we could see) strings that are on other branes mixed in with them?

    If so… what is meant by ‘colliding branes’?

    Thanks any help!

    Rusty
    Kaku likes to promote his books. I don't consider him a serious physicist or an expert on anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    57
    DrRocket,

    Again, I have to assume that you believe that you are somehow helping -- and I thank you for the effort but, with all due respect DrRocket, regarding my posts, if you can't answer the questions, please don't feel compelled to post completely unrelated matters like your opinions on other people in the field. It wastes your time as well as mine.

    I'm not trying to slam you -- probably you don't realize what you're doing. I'm investing the time writng this in the hope that it will save time in the future.

    Rusty
    Rusty Williamson
    Author
    3D Animator

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    String theory really is nothing more than conjecture. There has been no experimental evidence to support any of its claims. My advice to you would be to forget about string theory, put your time and energy into something else, because string theory really is a dead end.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    String theory really is nothing more than conjecture. There has been no experimental evidence to support any of its claims. My advice to you would be to forget about string theory, put your time and energy into something else, because string theory really is a dead end.
    Truly ridiculous. Post a couple of questions on an 80 year old theory and all the string slashers come out of the woodwork thinking what I really want is their opinions. You must love words cause you sure do serve up some juicy ones ideal for eating someday. Christ son, never say never or always.

    I know ST can't be proved and that's the beauty of it for a sci-fi writer... because that means it can't really be disproved either. Even if science finds proof that the universe's most basic particle is a kernel of buttered popcorn, there could still be a string hiding in there!
    Rusty Williamson
    Author
    3D Animator

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by rrw4rusty
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    String theory really is nothing more than conjecture. There has been no experimental evidence to support any of its claims. My advice to you would be to forget about string theory, put your time and energy into something else, because string theory really is a dead end.
    Truly ridiculous. Post a couple of questions on an 80 year old theory and all the string slashers come out of the woodwork thinking what I really want is their opinions. You must love words cause you sure do serve up some juicy ones ideal for eating someday. Christ son, never say never or always.

    I know ST can't be proved and that's the beauty of it for a sci-fi writer... because that means it can't really be disproved either. Even if science finds proof that the universe's most basic particle is a kernel of buttered popcorn, there could still be a string hiding in there!
    You need to educate yourself a bit more so as to be able to understand your own questions. Then perhaps the answers will make sense to you.

    Ignore Kaku. You are barking up the wrong tree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    String theory really is nothing more than conjecture. There has been no experimental evidence to support any of its claims. My advice to you would be to forget about string theory, put your time and energy into something else, because string theory really is a dead end.
    wow.... a dead end?..... hmm interesting and a sure confident retaliation to the theoretical physics world..

    Ignore Kaku
    is he that unreliable as a physicists to be ignored? i actually find his books quite fascinating, but i can agree with the "promoting the book" part, some of his videos in you-tube do try and promote his TV shows and his books
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
    String theory really is nothing more than conjecture. There has been no experimental evidence to support any of its claims. My advice to you would be to forget about string theory, put your time and energy into something else, because string theory really is a dead end.
    wow.... a dead end?..... hmm interesting and a sure confident retaliation to the theoretical physics world..

    Ignore Kaku
    is he that unreliable as a physicists to be ignored? i actually find his books quite fascinating, but i can agree with the "promoting the book" part, some of his videos in you-tube do try and promote his TV shows and his books
    Go read something from a first-rank physicist. I fiind Kaku eminently ignorable. His books may be fascinating, but he like to hype ideas to sell books. One needs to distinguish between speculation and established physics.

    Here are some good authors. See the other thread for some detailed book recommendations.

    Feynman, Weinberg, Hawkiing, Lederman, Thorne, Penrose, 'tHooft.

    Witten is not much for books, but he has written some good popular articles. He is in the class with the others and in string theory in a class by himself.

    IMO Kaku, on his best day ever, could not produce as much or as deep physics as these guys could over lunch, on a napkin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    Richard Feynman's books, yes i have come across some, gerardus t'hooft-last time you recommended his books to me once

    Edward witten, yes im familiar with that physicist - can you recommend me some of his famous articles via url if you have please thank you
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
    Richard Feynman's books, yes i have come across some, gerardus t'hooft-last time you recommended his books to me once

    Edward witten, yes im familiar with that physicist - can you recommend me some of his famous articles via url if you have please thank you
    http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    thank you
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    As an ex-musician I find "string theory" very appealing.

    Virtual particles being created and destroyed by enforcing or conflicting "harmonics".

    This may be of interest,

    review,
    As Bohm puts it, ". . . fundamentally, the particle is only an abstraction that is manifest to our senses. What is, is always a totality of ensembles, all present together, in an orderly series of stages of enfoldment and unfoldment, which intermingle and inter-penetrate each other in principle throughout the whole of space" (Bohm 1980, 183-184).
    Lifework of quantum physicist David Bohm by Will Keepin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    As an ex-musician I find "string theory" very appealing.

    Virtual particles being created and destroyed by enforcing or conflicting "harmonics".

    This may be of interest,

    review,
    As Bohm puts it, ". . . fundamentally, the particle is only an abstraction that is manifest to our senses. What is, is always a totality of ensembles, all present together, in an orderly series of stages of enfoldment and unfoldment, which intermingle and inter-penetrate each other in principle throughout the whole of space" (Bohm 1980, 183-184).
    Lifework of quantum physicist David Bohm by Will Keepin
    Note meaning to be rude or anything, but is there really a need to resurrect a three year old thread on this ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •