I don't think in the case of strings/alternate dimensions the theory is really molded either to the math or the math is molded to the theory. The math shows a minimum of 10^500 possible mathematical outcomes.
I could be wrong.
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.
Shadow Matter,Psi-phenomena and possible Survival of Human Personality"
- Thread starter Alexander1304
- Start date
I don't think in the case of strings/alternate dimensions the theory is really molded either to the math or the math is molded to the theory. The math shows a minimum of 10^500 possible mathematical outcomes.
I could be wrong.
What theory? Show me. I know a bit about string and Q theory, but i've never seen this claim.
I don't think a whole lot has changed in the last year.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/ext...ll-the-strings
Excerpt from interview ...
Brian Greene (Columbia) says string theory is still scientific even if it's not falsifiable.
March 9, 2010
What is the current status of string theory research?
We have a range of possibilities for the shape of the extra dimensions. We have, in fact, catalogs of shapes. Literally, I could write out a book and turn page by page and show you different shapes for the extra dimensions that people have mathematically determined as being possible. The problem is we don’t know which page is the right one, and the number of pages has grown fantastically in the last few years. There are on the order of at least 10^500 different pages now [a number that dwarfs the number of particles in the universe], and when you’re faced with a book of that many pages, some people throw up their hands in disgust. Others say that maybe all those shapes are out there in different universes. That’s the most recent and controversial approach that people have been following.
The $$10^{500}$$ number doesn't mean string theory predicts there's that many alternative universes existing 'somewhere else'. It means that there are that many possible configurations our space-time could take and still have, approximately, the sort of properties we see in the universe. In physics you can often get multiple solutions to a problem but only one of them is physical.I don't think in the case of strings/alternate dimensions the theory is really molded either to the math or the math is molded to the theory. The math shows a minimum of 10^500 possible mathematical outcomes.
I could be wrong.
As for the number itself you have to bear in mind that its done in an extremely arm wavy way and doesn't take into account various things.
First and foremost it doesn't actually count configurations with precisely the properties of our space-time, it counts ones nearby. For instance, we don't live in a universe with unbroken supersymmetry but its much easier to deal with constructions of a supersymmetric universe. We don't live in a universe with exactly zero cosmological constant but its much easier to deal with constructions with zero cosmological constant. All of these are included in the counting of the possible vacuum states.
Secondly, much work has been done in the realm of vacuum state construction, particularly using flux compactifications. This is my personal interest area, my PhD was in it. One of the great things about string theory, which other quantum field theories don't have, is the wealth of symmetries in it. A set of dualities known as T, S, U dualities and mirror symmetry arise in string theory. What they do is relate two entirely different physical constructions and demonstrate they are the same thing looked at in two different ways. It's been demonstrated that there are sets of vacuum solutions which are just reformulations of one another, their dynamics are fundamentally the same. This isn't just "Oh these two are the same" but you can construct entire parameterised families of vacuum solutions linked to one another by duality reformulations. Myself and two collaborators did precisely this for a set of isotropic toroidal Type II compactifications, resulting in connecting dozens, even hundreds, of superficially different vacua to one another. In fact you end up reducing the number of possible vacua to a set of equivalence classes and then you can examine a particular member of each class and derive all the properties of every other member in the class. The collaborators I just mentioned wrote a couple of papers using such techniques to demonstrate a few 'no go theorems'.
After working on that particular case I went on to work on the more general abstract cases where you considered all the dualities. Once you start combining things like T, S and mirror dualities (though mirror is a particular combination of T dualities) you get further symmetries not evident in any of them separately, reducing the number of independent ones further.
This is in its infancy of development, much of the interesting stuff happens in the poorly understood strongly coupled regime, but it means the actual number of independent "We really can't tell which one of these is the right one" solutions is vastly smaller than the $$10^{500}$$ so often mentioned.
The $$10^{500}$$ number doesn't mean string theory predicts there's that many alternative universes existing 'somewhere else'. It means that there are that many possible configurations our space-time could take and still have, approximately, the sort of properties we see in the universe. In physics you can often get multiple solutions to a problem but only one of them is physical.
I appreciate you trying to explain this in terms I have some hope of grasping. Not to be argumentative, but there are a couple points I would like to make. For one, that 10^500 is a 'lower bound'. A minimum. In itself, a mind-numbing number. From my understanding there is no upper bound established. Please correct me on this.
As for the number itself you have to bear in mind that its done in an extremely arm wavy way and doesn't take into account various things.
I can appreciate that.
First and foremost it doesn't actually count configurations with precisely the properties of our space-time, it counts ones nearby. For instance, we don't live in a universe with unbroken supersymmetry but its much easier to deal with constructions of a supersymmetric universe. We don't live in a universe with exactly zero cosmological constant but its much easier to deal with constructions with zero cosmological constant. All of these are included in the counting of the possible vacuum states.
Granted.
Secondly, much work has been done in the realm of vacuum state construction, particularly using flux compactifications. This is my personal interest area, my PhD was in it. One of the great things about string theory, which other quantum field theories don't have, is the wealth of symmetries in it. A set of dualities known as T, S, U dualities and mirror symmetry arise in string theory. What they do is relate two entirely different physical constructions and demonstrate they are the same thing looked at in two different ways. It's been demonstrated that there are sets of vacuum solutions which are just reformulations of one another, their dynamics are fundamentally the same. This isn't just "Oh these two are the same" but you can construct entire parameterised families of vacuum solutions linked to one another by duality reformulations. Myself and two collaborators did precisely this for a set of isotropic toroidal Type II compactifications, resulting in connecting dozens, even hundreds, of superficially different vacua to one another. In fact you end up reducing the number of possible vacua to a set of equivalence classes and then you can examine a particular member of each class and derive all the properties of every other member in the class. The collaborators I just mentioned wrote a couple of papers using such techniques to demonstrate a few 'no go theorems'.
As I have said before, I am deeply envious of mathematicians. That said, I do not think any of the above has been experimentally, or observationally established. In practical terms, there is still no physical or causal relationship to observed reality.
Symmetry, supersymmetry, duality remain mathematical constructs. Mathematicians constructed an imaginary 'reality' with strings. The work (undeniably brilliant work) done by you and your collaborators has taken this imaginary reality and elaborated upon it. Refining, and constraining the physical parameters.
After working on that particular case I went on to work on the more general abstract cases where you considered all the dualities. Once you start combining things like T, S and mirror dualities (though mirror is a particular combination of T dualities) you get further symmetries not evident in any of them separately, reducing the number of independent ones further.
This is in its infancy of development, much of the interesting stuff happens in the poorly understood strongly coupled regime, but it means the actual number of independent "We really can't tell which one of these is the right one" solutions is vastly smaller than the $$10^{500}$$ so often mentioned.
Whether or not it turns out that strings exist, I don't think any of your work or that of your colleagues will have been a wasted effort.
To an outside observer, it appears that in recent years string theorists have attempted to engineer an ever-taller and increasingly complex skyscraper with not just a flimsy foundation, but no foundation at all. Perhaps that is a poor analogy.
But I do not see this as a bad thing. I am not against strings, although I understand why someone could construe my statements that way. I fully support continued funding. It doesn't matter if results are positive, negative, or inconclusive. People like you are continually adding to our knowledge. I mean it when I say I wish you continued success.
And maybe, someday, I will have a better understanding of it.
Alexander1304
Registered Senior Member
My few problems with all this conception are these.
1.The very existence of Shadow Matter is still hypotetical,not confirmed.As Paul Davies and John Gribbin stated about Shadow Matter:"extreme speculations on the fringes of superstring theories",Moreover,seems like Wassermann uses "his own" version of Shadow Matter,lighter than original one,postulated by cosmologists.
2.And as Joel Rpimack, a professor of physics and astrophysics at the University of California,stated: "Shadow matter is a hypothetical form of matter that is thought to interact with ordinary matter only through the force of gravity. If shadow matter exists, it is a form of dark matter.
Theoretical studies have shown that if shadow matter does exist, its properties are very different from those of ordinary matter. Because of these differences, such objects as stars and planets made of shadow matter could not form."
This brings another question: even if shadow matter does exist,its properties are very different.So,it cannot form stars and planets,but can form brains?...Is it even logical?
1.The very existence of Shadow Matter is still hypotetical,not confirmed.As Paul Davies and John Gribbin stated about Shadow Matter:"extreme speculations on the fringes of superstring theories",Moreover,seems like Wassermann uses "his own" version of Shadow Matter,lighter than original one,postulated by cosmologists.
2.And as Joel Rpimack, a professor of physics and astrophysics at the University of California,stated: "Shadow matter is a hypothetical form of matter that is thought to interact with ordinary matter only through the force of gravity. If shadow matter exists, it is a form of dark matter.
Theoretical studies have shown that if shadow matter does exist, its properties are very different from those of ordinary matter. Because of these differences, such objects as stars and planets made of shadow matter could not form."
This brings another question: even if shadow matter does exist,its properties are very different.So,it cannot form stars and planets,but can form brains?...Is it even logical?