- #1

- 458

- 1

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter dimensionless
- Start date

- #1

- 458

- 1

- #2

Nabeshin

Science Advisor

- 2,205

- 16

- #3

Chronos

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 11,408

- 742

It's what we do. Understanding the universe is all about science.

- #4

- 70

- 0

What is the alternative? Should we just draw a line and say God did it?

- #5

Chalnoth

Science Advisor

- 6,195

- 447

Now we believe that all of physics stems from one single mathematical structure. Basically, it has to, because a mathematical structure is nothing more and nothing less than a fully self-consistent system. So unless you want to entertain the possibility that our universe contradicts itself, there must be some mathematical structure that describes our universe, and our preference tends to be towards simpler structures as being more likely.

Perhaps a bit more telling is that if you look at our two main prevailing theories: the standard model of particle physics, which governs the strong, electromagnetic, and weak forces, and General Relativity, which governs gravity, are fundamentally incompatible. That is, we can talk about the strong, electromagnetic, and weak forces in the same language. But when we try to talk about GR in the same way, we get inconsistencies. Similarly, if we try to talk about the three quantum forces in the language of GR, we get different inconsistencies. So we expect that there is one consistent picture that let's us talk about both gravity and the three quantum forces in one language, we just don't know what that picture is yet (though Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory are attempts to do just that).

- #6

- 458

- 1

The introduction of compactified dimensions seems to make the model more complicated, as it raises the question of why some dimensions are compactified and others are not. I'm in no way an expert in this area, so feel free to fill me in.

- #7

Chalnoth

Science Advisor

- 6,195

- 447

Don't be fooled by the amount of stuff. The baryonic part has physics that is vastly, vastly more complicated than the rest, so as far as the physics is concerned, we know a heck of a lot more than this simple counting of energy densities implies.I just get the sense that this is potentially something much more complicated (or maybe even much more simple) than we realize. The fact that we are unable to find 90% of the mass in the universe implies to me that our entire understanding of the workings of the universe is massively deficient.

Well, string theory requires a specific number of dimensions, and that number is more than the dimensions we observe. So this necessitates that those dimensions be difficult to observe. There are two known ways to do this:The introduction of compactified dimensions seems to make the model more complicated, as it raises the question of why some dimensions are compactified and others are not. I'm in no way an expert in this area, so feel free to fill me in.

1. The extra dimensions could be small. If the extra dimensions are small enough, we wouldn't yet have observed them.

2. We could be stuck on a brane, unable to move off of it. The other dimensions could well be quite large, but we still might not be able to detect them if we can't move off of our 3+1 dimensional brane.

Also, a combination of the above two options is possible.

Where string theory is concerned, I think we generally expect that lots of stuff is allowed to happen in string theory (work remains to be done on the implications of string theory: it's not an easy thing), but we end up with 3+1 apparent dimensions because it is only when things turn out in that way that life is possible.

- #8

- 12

- 0

- #9

Chalnoth

Science Advisor

- 6,195

- 447

There is a tendency to think that knowledge can be a crutch. It isn't. It's a staggeringly-powerful tool. The truth of the matter is that if you don't know about what people have learned before, about what they have discovered works and doesn't, your chance of coming to something even remotely accurate is slim to none.

But perhaps more importantly, learning about what people have thought of before you is actually a fantastic way to generate new ideas. Knowledge really isn't a crutch or a limiting thing at all, but rather fuel for creativity.

And if you think that the things we know today are incorrect, you first need to point out

- #10

- 341

- 2

Do you have some suspicions where the current theories break down? Or some idea of a simpler theory that works? Any papers you think look promising?

Share: