Archived Posts » 60,546,157
String theorists squeeze nine dimensions into three
6/21/2012 7:38:33 AM
String theorists squeeze nine dimensions into three
Simulation suggests extra spatial directions failed to thrive
By Devin Powell
Web edition
: Friday, January 13th, 2012
A simulation of the early universe using string theory may explain
why space has three observable spatial dimensions instead of nine.
The leading mathematical explanation of physics goes beyond modern
particle theory by positing tiny bits of vibrating string as the
fundamental basis of matter and forces. String theory also requires that
the universe have six or more spatial dimensions in addition to the
ones observed in everyday life. Explaining how those extra dimensions
are hidden is a central challenge for string theorists.
"This new paper demonstrates, for the first time, that our 3-D space
appears naturally … from the 9-D space that string theory originally
has,” says Jun Nishimura of the High Energy Accelerator Research
Organization in Tsukuba, Japan. He and his colleagues will publish their
findings in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters.
6/21/2012 7:43:59 AM
They're just getting way too far out with this stuff nowadays.
6/21/2012 2:10:46 PM
6/21/2012 2:11:57 PM
I've always suspected that.
6/21/2012 2:13:07 PM
My brain hurts just trying to even comprehend that. I think stats is as high as I'll go mathematically, thank you VERY much.
6/21/2012 2:15:02 PM
is clicking on this link going to cause my brain to hurt?
6/21/2012 2:19:58 PM
I have yet to figure out the odd behavior of people in our known diimensions, but perhaps an explanation for their actions could be attributed to the other six.
6/21/2012 2:21:05 PM
Theoretical physics is theoretical.
6/21/2012 2:21:07 PM
This thread is worthless without pics.
And very hard to wank to.
And very hard to wank to.
6/21/2012 2:25:08 PM
I forget why quantum field theory was abandoned in favor of string theory (probably some complex math I will never comprehend
), but aren't the extra dimensions a necessary part of the basic equations for string theory?
I mean, doesn't it flat out necessitate more dimensions for any of those theories to be mathematically proven?
Speed
), but aren't the extra dimensions a necessary part of the basic equations for string theory?I mean, doesn't it flat out necessitate more dimensions for any of those theories to be mathematically proven?
Speed
6/21/2012 2:33:27 PM
6/21/2012 2:35:47 PM
Michio Kaku resigned from Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems back in the '80s.
6/21/2012 2:41:04 PM
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
I've always suspected that.
I've always suspected that.
yea but i suspected it first.
6/21/2012 2:46:09 PM
Originally Posted By isa268:
yea but i suspected it first.
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
I've always suspected that.
I've always suspected that.
yea but i suspected it first.
I'm gonna go ahead and suspect it too.
6/21/2012 2:51:32 PM
I'll wait for the 9DTV.
6/21/2012 2:56:17 PM
Dart fins. Three fins two sides each. Attached to a string. Now .... What prize did I win?
6/21/2012 3:09:00 PM
You see a line along the X-axis. This line represents one of the 3 dimensions we're all familiar with. Of course, a plane represents two dimensions, and a volume represents three.
But we're only interested in this line, this one-dimensional line.
We look closer, and closer, and closer. We're talking, big honkin' microscope.
We notice that the line is thicker than we thought it was. It's more like a garden hose than an actual line.
All the particles we know of so far are like a marble - they can roll one way or the other, up or down the hose. So from our perspective, a marble in the hose is only capable of moving along the one dimension we're familiar with.
But what if we had a much smaller particle? Something the size of, say, #9 birdshot should be able to move in three dimensions within the garden hose that we thought was one-dimensional.
The problem is, very small particles require very high energies (size of particle ~ wavelength of particle; higher energy, smaller wavelength). That's what the LHC is for.
But we're only interested in this line, this one-dimensional line.
We look closer, and closer, and closer. We're talking, big honkin' microscope.
We notice that the line is thicker than we thought it was. It's more like a garden hose than an actual line.
All the particles we know of so far are like a marble - they can roll one way or the other, up or down the hose. So from our perspective, a marble in the hose is only capable of moving along the one dimension we're familiar with.
But what if we had a much smaller particle? Something the size of, say, #9 birdshot should be able to move in three dimensions within the garden hose that we thought was one-dimensional.
The problem is, very small particles require very high energies (size of particle ~ wavelength of particle; higher energy, smaller wavelength). That's what the LHC is for.
6/21/2012 3:22:11 PM
Originally Posted By the_naked_prophet:
You see a line along the X-axis. This line represents one of the 3 dimensions we're all familiar with. Of course, a plane represents two dimensions, and a volume represents three.
But we're only interested in this line, this one-dimensional line.
We look closer, and closer, and closer. We're talking, big honkin' microscope.
We notice that the line is thicker than we thought it was. It's more like a garden hose than an actual line.
All the particles we know of so far are like a marble - they can roll one way or the other, up or down the hose. So from our perspective, a marble in the hose is only capable of moving along the one dimension we're familiar with.
But what if we had a much smaller particle? Something the size of, say, #9 birdshot should be able to move in three dimensions within the garden hose that we thought was one-dimensional.
The problem is, very small particles require very high energies (size of particle ~ wavelength of particle; higher energy, smaller wavelength). That's what the LHC is for.
You see a line along the X-axis. This line represents one of the 3 dimensions we're all familiar with. Of course, a plane represents two dimensions, and a volume represents three.
But we're only interested in this line, this one-dimensional line.
We look closer, and closer, and closer. We're talking, big honkin' microscope.
We notice that the line is thicker than we thought it was. It's more like a garden hose than an actual line.
All the particles we know of so far are like a marble - they can roll one way or the other, up or down the hose. So from our perspective, a marble in the hose is only capable of moving along the one dimension we're familiar with.
But what if we had a much smaller particle? Something the size of, say, #9 birdshot should be able to move in three dimensions within the garden hose that we thought was one-dimensional.
The problem is, very small particles require very high energies (size of particle ~ wavelength of particle; higher energy, smaller wavelength). That's what the LHC is for.
6/21/2012 3:30:57 PM
What about the other two?
6/21/2012 3:33:00 PM
Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:
What about the other two?
What about the other two?
What's the fifth?
6/21/2012 3:33:21 PM
Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:
What about the other two?
What about the other two?
Yup, There are 11.
6/21/2012 3:35:27 PM
Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:
What about the other two?
What about the other two?
I was taught there were 8 growing up...
Speed
6/21/2012 3:36:04 PM
Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:
What about the other two?
What about the other two?
There is debate about their existence among string theorist. But I like the elegance of 11.
6/21/2012 3:37:14 PM
Because, unless his name translates to John Physicberries, he had no reason to stay there.
Originally Posted By VBC:
Michio Kaku resigned from Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems back in the '80s.
Michio Kaku resigned from Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems back in the '80s.
6/21/2012 3:43:09 PM
Kindof slick and makes sense.
I suppose thie end result is that the "infinite universes" model will start to fall into disfavor if this gains any traction.
I suppose thie end result is that the "infinite universes" model will start to fall into disfavor if this gains any traction.
6/21/2012 3:45:00 PM
I like this film to explain 11 dimensions without mathematics
6/21/2012 4:13:41 PM
Originally Posted By Doc_Peck:
is clicking on this link going to cause my brain to hurt?
is clicking on this link going to cause my brain to hurt?
Yes.
6/21/2012 4:16:36 PM
6/21/2012 4:18:32 PM
Originally Posted By FivespeedF150:
My brain hurts just trying to even comprehend that. I think stats is as high as I'll go mathematically, thank you VERY much.
My brain hurts just trying to even comprehend that. I think stats is as high as I'll go mathematically, thank you VERY much.
wat
im just her 4 my post cunt
6/21/2012 4:21:04 PM
For some physicists, this way of approximating string theory is too
oversimplified to be believable. "Frameworks like the one they're using …
lack a lot of other stuff that goes into trying to make a realistic
model,” says Shamit Kachru, a theoretical physicist at Stanford
University.
you don't say?
6/21/2012 4:24:17 PM
6/21/2012 4:26:46 PM
Originally Posted By VBC:
Michio Kaku resigned from Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems back in the '80s.
Michio Kaku resigned from Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems back in the '80s.
John Kaku.
6/21/2012 4:31:13 PM
One time I linearized the Navier–Stokes equations whilst three sheets to the wind. They simplify to one term.
6/21/2012 4:32:39 PM
Sorry if I made anyones head splode..
String theory fascinates the hell out of me.
String theory fascinates the hell out of me.
6/21/2012 4:33:16 PM
Originally Posted By AeroE:
One time I linearized the Navier–Stokes equations whilst three sheets to the wind. They simplify to one term.
One time I linearized the Navier–Stokes equations whilst three sheets to the wind. They simplify to one term.
Reminds me of this:
6/21/2012 4:34:51 PM
Originally Posted By Subnet:
Reminds me of this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ballmer_peak.png
Originally Posted By AeroE:
One time I linearized the Navier–Stokes equations whilst three sheets to the wind. They simplify to one term.
One time I linearized the Navier–Stokes equations whilst three sheets to the wind. They simplify to one term.
Reminds me of this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ballmer_peak.png
Oh lulz Windows ME lulz!
6/21/2012 4:35:02 PM
Is this or is this not helpful in the development of "portal" technology?
6/21/2012 4:36:30 PM
Originally Posted By Subnet:
Reminds me of this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ballmer_peak.png
Originally Posted By AeroE:
One time I linearized the Navier–Stokes equations whilst three sheets to the wind. They simplify to one term.
One time I linearized the Navier–Stokes equations whilst three sheets to the wind. They simplify to one term.
Reminds me of this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ballmer_peak.png
6/21/2012 4:38:04 PM
This shit came out in January and your just now sharing it with us?!
6/21/2012 4:38:46 PM
Fuck those guys, I'm not going out and buying another new TV.
6/21/2012 4:40:22 PM
Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
Is this or is this not helpful in the development of "portal" technology?
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1335059_Quantum_teleportation_leaps_forward.html
6/21/2012 4:42:17 PM
I hate this shit. I'm just going to settle for the new episodes of Burn Notice and Swamp People tonight.
6/21/2012 4:42:45 PM
Originally Posted By ARMinnesota:
This shit came out in January and your just now sharing it with us?!
This shit came out in January and your just now sharing it with us?!
Tachyonic antitelephone
6/21/2012 4:44:20 PM
Originally Posted By bcw107:
I hate this shit. I'm just going to settle for the new episodes of Burn Notice and Swamp People tonight.
I hate this shit. I'm just going to settle for the new episodes of Burn Notice and Swamp People tonight.
CHOOT EM CLINT!
6/21/2012 4:46:21 PM
Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
Tachyonic antitelephone
Originally Posted By ARMinnesota:
This shit came out in January and your just now sharing it with us?!
This shit came out in January and your just now sharing it with us?!
Tachyonic antitelephone
6/21/2012 4:51:19 PM
Originally Posted By Doc_Peck:
is clicking on this link going to cause my brain to hurt?
is clicking on this link going to cause my brain to hurt?
Don't do it. It's some heavy dope.
6/21/2012 4:54:25 PM
Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
Tachyonic antitelephone
Originally Posted By ARMinnesota:
This shit came out in January and your just now sharing it with us?!
This shit came out in January and your just now sharing it with us?!
Tachyonic antitelephone
Golf clap.
6/21/2012 4:57:40 PM
How many yeas is it? 40 and counting? String Theory have yet found any proof supporting it. It is a bunch of welfare scientists desperately trying to keep the money coming in.
