- #1
fuzzyfelt
Gold Member
- 734
- 4
Confused and just wondering if i could be pointed in the right direction to find philosophical implications of m-theory
fi said:...are dimensions nescessarily restricted to the usual 11 or 26 that is usually discussed or is this the smallest amount needed for the equations to work? That is, are other dimensions possible within the existing framework? Or are the dimensions definitely fiexed and finite?
Further, they talk of the greater dimensions only existing as bound up within, and in answer to your first question, what they all agree upon, is the 4 dimensions- spot, line, volumne and time, (visually speaking) that we percieve.
If so, there are usual questions of within what does our universe exist...Or is our 4d universe with hidden dimensions within it, it? Why would this be the case, and how is this elegant?
In a not very good attempt to answe your second question, the other dimensions are simply tightly wrapped up and effect us by allowing the dualities that instigate matter and forces. I would like to understand this and dualities and symmetry breaking much better. Any thoughts?
fi said:I'm pretty sure I'm understanding things a lot more, but i haven't found a description of supersymmetry, just that it is to do with spin ... would someone help me please? And does they asnwer mean that, for example, particles and sparticles are composite opposites?
fi said:I'm not sure i get exactly what you are saying. I think i get that you mean that extra dimensions simply allow extra coordinates, i don't quite get that they are interchangable depending upon point of view. I mean, it does make sense, but why then are higher dimensions spoken of as having greater symmetry? doesn't that mean that their is a difference between them and lower dimensions, even if that changes?
And when you say there is no first dimension do you mean that there is no need to label any dimension as first etc., or do you mean that one cannot exist alone? Sorry to be slow here.
angeable works for me, and it doesn't matter too much if the dimensions are really just mathmatical devices, they can be portrayed as such. Aside from traditional landscapes- back as a kid in 1985 for assessment, it sounds a bit simplistic now, we were asked to do a painting based on post-modernist thought - unification (that unifying theories had met dead ends - my assumption was that this was regarding political, religous, etc. theories), fragmentation, eclecticism, infinities. My sources were artists like A.R. Penck who were exhibiting at the Venice Bienalle around that time, and found myself painting looped strings on space/time coordinates which worked really nicely except that I used black to signify infinities and black frowned upon unless it is representing something incredibly profound, which the irony of an infinity of unifying ideas it seems is not- Rothko had better uses for black. I hadn't heard of the trials of string theory at the time, but obviously I must have been influenced by sources that had, so I was working backward. Postmodernism was disenchanted with unifying theories and unlike modernism that believed in them and who's motto was form follows function, postmodernism's motto was form follows fun. Since then I did read about the t and s dualities, thought they were amazing and did do some paintings with them, but kids, moving countries and oils don't readily mix, so really trying to understand it all went onto the back burner for a more appropriate time.
I wish i did have a greater knowledge of physics because artists are meant to reflect the thought that influences society, and progress in physics is at the forefront of that.
fi said:Just a quick question- my books have arrived, The Elegant Universe and a couple of others (they were a gift so I had to wait), and I've been enjoying them and the many symmetries I am coming across, including the marvellous SO ones. Just wondering, I haven't seen one but I'm guessing someone has made a list of known symmetries, any idea how I could find one? And, what does SO stand for? And SU and E and U,etc.
Soon afterward, it was found that all five string theories could be shown to be the same--just different approximations of the same mysterious eleven-dimensional theory. Since membranes of different sorts can exist in eleven dimensions, Witten called this theory M-Theory. But not only did it unify the five different string theories, as a bonus it also explained the mystery of supergravity.
Last, I said that M-theory was not really a theory at all, since its basic equations were not known. Unlike string theory (which could be expressed in terms of the simple string field equations I wrote down years ago that encapsulated the entire theory), membranes had no field theory at all...
The origin of this revolution is that string theory is still evolving backward. Even today, no one knows the simple physical principles that underlie the entire theory.
StarshipX said:If I'm not mistaken, Superstring/M-theory is an extension of general relativity. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0504/0504089.pdf extends the methods of differential geometry.
fi said:Many caveats- I've been concentrating on the small picture, out of my depth, etc., but looking very simplisticly at the different theories above, with a quasi platonicish/zenish view, would it be correct to say that if this universe were some imperfect extension, the perfect point of departure in strings belongs at the beginning of this universe, and with twistors in complex space?