posted
I watched a program on BBC yesterday, Horizons. For those of you not familiar with Horizons, it's a documentary series which takes a different topic, usually scientific or philosophical, every week.
Anyway, to summarise this particular episode, it was about the holy grail of physics, a theory of everything, sometimes known as a Grand Unified Theory, GUT. This theory must pass several benchmarks, such as unifying gravity with quantum laws, and being able to see past the big bang. String theory, when it was first proposed, seemed to be on the verge of doing this.
It could unify gravity and quantum mechanics, but there were certain problems. Now it seems that string theory was close except for one thing, the number of dimensions. String theory, which dominated the GUT field for the last 20 years or so, made use of 10 dimensions, because with 10 dimensions, the theory was able to unify quantum theory with gravity. The problem was that string theory produced problems, mathematical problems like infinities. A competing theory, supergravity had 11 dimensions. It was found that string theory made sense with 11 dimensions, and this gave rise to a new theory, M-theory, or membrane theory, where the universe is visualised to be a membrane consisting of these strings. Moreover, an infinite number of these universes are possible, floating around in dimensions beyond our perception. If these universes collide, their membranes interact to produce matter in a big bang. These are very recent developments, just the last few years.
I don't know much about this, but I was so strongly affected by this program last night that I'm determined to find out more. It's just so damn profound. I posted this in the Flameboard in case anyone wants an excuse for another heated creation debate. Personally, and I'm not trying to be hostile and adversarial here, I think that once the full ramifications of the theory are understood it will finally put it beyond all doubt that there is no deity. Although it may not prove what there is, and may leave more questions, it will prove the lameness of the Godhead concept.
Here are some links: BBC page about the program. The BBC's site has some links, I think the one below, Dr. Kaku's, is the best if you want a general explanation of what it's all about Dr Michio Kaku's page. (has some very interesting and informative articles on string theory and hyperspace).
-------------------- "Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing. To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
The Battle of the Pelennor Fields.
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Saw Horizon too last night. Really interesting stuff, I wish they had more time to explain more of it in depth. I am very fascinated by these weird theories on parallel universes and �berdimensions.
posted
it will finally put it beyond all doubt that there is no deity
Um... not trying to start an argument here, but that's, by definition, not possible. You can't scientifically prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist, much less something like God, because that'd be proving a universal negative. All you MIGHT do is eliminate the current necessity of God to explain the existence of the universe, due to contradicting physical laws.
Now as to the theory, how DO they get around conservation of energy, anyhow?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I read Kaku's book Hyperspace a few years back. I seem to recall that it was rather confusing, but interesting. It's probably a little out-of-date now. Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe is a good book for string theory/M-theory. It's more recent, too. I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about this kind of thing.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
About Greene's book. I bought it and started reading it about a month ago. Just can't get into it right now... So, I'm going to read the 3 or so Trek books I've got backed up and lend the book to my chem teacher. Maybe then I'll be able to get into it.
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Kaku's book is far more readable than Greene's. But Greene's goes into greater detail.
There's always a barrier between scientist and the general public on things like this. The general public can't really get the full impact until it learns all the necessary math. Since that will never happen...
I respect those guys (and others like them) for even trying to make sense of it all for us.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I thought there was a lot of Stephen Hawking fans in this board.
Grand Unifed Theory is one of his most important research (beside blackhole of course).
Einstein was also working on it before he passed away.
Basically, to prove the grand unifed theory, one needs to understand the nature of matter down to the molecular level, which involves very complicated quantum mechanics calculation.
In another word, we haven't prove it because our mathmatics are just not there yet.
[ February 16, 2002, 22:10: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
You know, if you do a search for Stephen Hawkin, you get as many results as if you'd searched for Stephen Hawkings or Stephen Hawking. And mightily, there are many a site that has both mentions of Stephen Hawkin and Stephen Hawking.
posted
Actually, I'm going to step in and back up Omega for a second.
He's absolutely right when he says science can never disprove the existence of God. An omnipotent being, by definition, can always exist, no matter what observations tell us. Proof that collisions between hypermembranes caused the big bang which caused our existence is no more likely to disprove the existence of God than proof it was the big bang which caused our existence would.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: that's, by definition, not possible. You can't scientifically prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist, much less something like God, because that'd be proving a universal negative.
quote: An omnipotent being, by definition, can always exist, no matter what observations tell us.
Okay, point taken, but that's being a bit pedantic. I guess what I meant was that the theory would make the idea of God seem absurd, much in the same way that believing in elemental gods would now be regarded. Nobody could, or did, disprove the existance of the mythological gods of fire and war etc, but these were gradually rejected as our knowledge of what's around us improved and we became more rational.
quote: Now as to the theory, how DO they get around conservation of energy, anyhow?
-------------------- "Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing. To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
The Battle of the Pelennor Fields.
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
quote: I guess what I meant was that the theory would make the idea of God seem absurd, much in the same way that believing in elemental gods would now be regarded.
Nope, still not getting this. For a lot of people today, God has very little to do with trying to explain observable scientific theories. About 95% of the UK's protestant and catholic priests believe in evolution, the big bang, and so on. This theory would no more make God redundent than others. It would only make the idea of God redundent if your belief in God is that he waved his hand and people sprung up.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
