Queston On The Theory Of Everything

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the "megaverse" and the possibility of structures smaller than strings in theoretical physics. Participants explore ideas related to subatomic levels, negative mass, and the implications of the theory of relativity at these scales. The conversation touches on theoretical frameworks and the limitations of current experimental capabilities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the concept of the megaverse cannot be expanded downward to include entities smaller than strings, suggesting the existence of negative mass that could have opposite effects on spacetime.
  • Another participant states that there is currently no evidence for structures smaller than those already known, emphasizing the limitations of present physics knowledge.
  • A different participant notes that small scales correspond to high energy, indicating that probing below approximately 10^(-18) meters is currently beyond our experimental reach, and that new physics may emerge at or before the Planck scale.
  • One participant challenges the idea that guessing about smaller structures is impossible, pointing out that the history of physics has shown a trend towards discovering both smaller and larger scales.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of smaller structures and the implications of current physics knowledge. While some acknowledge the limitations of experimental access to smaller scales, others argue against the notion that such explorations are impossible.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in current experimental capabilities and the dependence on theoretical frameworks, such as the Planck scale, without resolving the implications of these limitations.

sudhirking
Messages
63
Reaction score
2
why can't eh idea of the megaverse be expanded downard. thet id\f the universe is part of something bigger, than why can't the same ting be fore subatmic levels and even in the case of the string theories. ssorry if I am typing bad because i am in the school library with only 5 min left.
so why can't there be stuff smaller than strings, and stff smaller and smaller and even there be negative mass. this mass whould be imaginary and parralle to the universe.. right. and then would have the oppsite effects of matter, creating space-time by expanding it.. i need visuals to explain. if at all, we wouldn't be able to see negative mess not only because it is imaginary, but because it is, the relativness is so distorted and away from spac-time, that light is stationary. and with threads posted defore, when something is absoluteley stationary, like light than it is timeless and connot function through space
HELP I NEED ANSWERS oh and if i break any rules, I am so srry I am new to this. pls answer my question. oh and one more thing, if theory of relativity is true, than at subatmoiclevels, canst it make a difference to subatomic stff . srry gottago. mom is waiting for me outside school
srry i f i spell bad
NAWER MY QUESTIONs
 
Space news on Phys.org
There is no rule which says what are guessing is impossible. However, the present state of physics knowledge is such that there is no evidence for the idea of smaller and smaller.
 
Small scales corresponds to high energy in physics. We simply can't probe much below ~ 10^(-18) metres (very approximately). There could be plenty of stuff smaller, but we have no way of seeing it.

Current arguments also suggest that new physics must emerge at or before the Planck scale... so we know at least where the "goalposts" are, although this realm will never be directly experimentally accessible (you need a particle accelerator the length of the galaxy or so)
 
mathman said:
There is no rule which says what are guessing is impossible. However, the present state of physics knowledge is such that there is no evidence for the idea of smaller and smaller.

Doesn't that go against history? Physics knowledge has always progressed towards smaller and larger.
 

Similar threads

High School Thank you for your understanding.Dr. Gregory GreenmanPhysicist
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Graduate Could Gravity Be More About Electromagnetic Forces Than We Think?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate Kind of hard to explain theory of a lot of everything
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Graduate Extra Dimensions in String Theory
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
26K
Graduate Discussing Predictions of the LHC: String Theory, LQG, and Beyond
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K