M - Theory -- LiveWire Teen Forums

Quote: from Audioblood at 3:26 am on July 6, 2009

Physics and mathematics are similar, but not the same, I'm afraid. If you notice in the article, it also links you to "theoretical physics" which M-theory is allegedly a part of.

Do you know why it is a part of theoretical physics? Because it is all theoretical. There exist no tests at this point which can provide physical evidentiary support, so it is all just math and getting numbers and variables to fit with each other in a strictly mathematical sense. There is nothing physical about the theory, really, which is why I just said that it is silly to argue about it if we are not mathematicians.

Within the theoretical physics article you will see that this area of study employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics. This is where the dimensions come in. The dimensions are variables which will constantly increase, as the universe is constantly expanding. This is a fundamental aspect of astrophysics. The mathematics within the theory doesn't do shit but predict patterns which allow people to affirm and describe the theory it in general terms. If it was purely mathematics, all you would see is a page of formulas. The math simply justifies the physics. And I simply argued my belief that the physics are irrational.

And all I said was that your understanding of M-theory is obviously limited. Given this paragraph, I think I was correct. The maths used are not just added and thrown together, they are designed to describe the physical universe's actions and reactions in a mathematical sense, and to get those numbers to fit. That is to say, for one thing, the dimensions they "add" serve to account for the expansion of the universe.

The expansion of the universe, by the way, does not--in the model--generate new dimensions.

Are you shitting me? You are aware that probability is a branch of mathematics, right? I've known this since like the 4th grade. This just further decreases the respectability of your argument.

Sure, I worded that pretty poorly. What I meant was that the math involved in M-theory does not give someone the opportunity to speak of any probabilities of it being correct. It does not provide probability factors and tell us how likely it is that such-and-such is the case. It seeks to prove a mathematical point, and it is either right, or not. whether or not probabilities are a branch of mathematics is irrelevant, since my point was that that branch is not what is called for when speaking about the validity of M-Theory.

Right. So you just affirmed what I said above. Only mathematics don't "describe" the universe. Mathematics involves formulas which equate probabilities, which are then described by the laws of physics.

I'm going to guess you don't know any theoretical physicians...You go tell one of them that math doesn't describe the universe lol. They would argue that the only way TO understand the universe is qua mathematics.

And no, the formulas don't "equate probabilities"...Where did you get that?

In a mathematical sense, yes. But you'll notice that I never argued the mathematics of it. I've already said I'm no mathematician, but based on your arguments, I don't see what justifies you to determine who is or isn't. Based on the physical sense of, that is what determines it to be a theory rather than a law.

And I've already said that you HAVE to be a mathematician in order to actually understand what it is you are rejecting. There aren't really any "physical" aspects of the theory, which is why it is "theoretical" and based solely in math, rather than experimental data.

Okay, so exactly when did man first begin to measure length? When he discovered that length was a measurable attribute. This is one dimension. The number of dimensions increases with the number of measurable quantities which man discovers. This is why they're on "number 11." As they discover more, the "variable" will again increase, making the theory ever-indefinite. This is the point upon which my logic is based.

You obviously don't know what they mean by "dimensions".

But since you've taken the time to try and bash on anyone who has at least tried to make sense of the theory beforehand, I'll show you specifically how ignorant you sound to me.

All I've said is that we are not complex mathematicians, and so any arguments we cock up don't really amount to anything much more than guessing and speculation. I'm not trying to bash you, I'm just saying that you should recognize that you are not in a position to reject it as a theory with any substantial credibility...You can reject it "just because" all you like; you can reject it because of it's apparent complexity and that the idea of "hidden dimensions" is silly, too. But you can't really say that you think it is a silly idea, since you don't really even know what it is--by not knowing the maths.

Okay. here, you've just started off showing that you don't know what you're talking about. What the hell are "super-complex extra-dimensional mathematics"? If you're going to try and present the authority to call bullshit, you should at least have a general idea of what you're talking about.

That's what they are...I don't know the specific name for the maths they are using. Probably a shit load of differential equations, some discrete math, myriad different types of equations. What else can I call it but what it is? Super complex, do you think it is easy? Extra dimensional, that's what they are invoking, aren't they? I'm not claiming to be an authority; in fact, I've said several times now that I'm absolutely not, that is my point.

These "variables" are the dimensions. As I explained above.

You have a very limited knowledge of the maths, so how can you say which factors are variables and which are not? Isn't it true that that is just a guess on your part?

What isn't theoretical about "String THEORY" or M-"THEORY"?

Yea, whoa. I think I meant to type "it is wholly theoretical. Messed up that one lol.

And I'm supposed to take your word that an "extensive knowledge of complex mathematics" is required to make general observations of the theory?

No, surely you could go looking for the math and try to understand it yourself...I wouldn't be too hopeful, though. Making general observations is quite different than rejecting it on supposed contradictions and inconsistencies in the theory itself.

Oh yeah, leave it to the people with degrees to tell you what is right and wrong. I would hate for you to have to think for YOURSELF for once, instead of telling me I'm wrong because I don't meet your requirements for making simple speculations.

lol. I CAN'T think for myself when it comes to such complicated mathematics. I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right, I'm just saying that if you don't know the math behind the theory, and what it all means, then how can you call it silly or improbable?

Even though you yourself haven't actually contributed to the topic apart from "Everybody is wrong because nobody with a math degree would be on LiveWire so no-one who posts here could possibly know what they're talking about."

When it comes to M-theory, I am fairly certain that none of us on here actually know how it works, and what the fundamental principles and assertions are. We may have watched a couple videos and read a couple books on what M-theory seeks to do, and gotten a break down of how it attempts to do it, but we don't know anything about how it actually goes about that--and that is the most important part.

I've been using quotations, at least. You, however, seem so apt to call me wrong that you didn't bother to quote but part of one sentence of mine, the context of which you showed minimal comprehension. So quite frankly, to sum it all up: STFU.

So angry...All I said was that none of us can offer any meaningful argument about M-theory. I didn't try to offend you man, i only said that your rejection of M-theory is not really substantial, but really a guess. Speculation. Do you deny that?

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome. --Isaac Asimov

Do you know why it is a part of theoretical physics? Because it is all theoretical. There exist no tests at this point which can provide physical evidentiary support, so it is all just math and getting numbers and variables to fit with each other in a strictly mathematical sense. There is nothing physical about the theory, really, which is why I just said that it is silly to argue about it if we are not mathematicians.

I'm sorry, but no. M-theory is part of string theory, which itself is largely quantum mechanics. You're telling me there is nothing physical about quantum mechanics? You're joking, right? I have already admitted it involves, on some levels, complex mathematics that I could not work with immediately. But these mathematics do not envelope the entire theory. The math is used to affirm the physical correlations, like I already said.

And all I said was that your understanding of M-theory is obviously limited. Given this paragraph, I think I was correct. The maths used are not just added and thrown together, they are designed to describe the physical universe's actions and reactions in a mathematical sense, and to get those numbers to fit. That is to say, for one thing, the dimensions they "add" serve to account for the expansion of the universe.

Yes. I've agreed with this already. I stated before that mathematics accounts for patterns within the universe, which we then describe in physical terms. The math justifies the reason. I suppose it is this sense that has you so strongly pitted against me, but my point is that each one cannot justify the theory in itself. They require soundness on both levels.

The expansion of the universe, by the way, does not--in the model--generate new dimensions.

This is the most credible thing you've said. I will admit that I should not have assumed that the expanding universe would generate new dimensions (I realize that's a somewhat unrealistic notion), but I still firmly believe there are dimensions which extend beyond our ability to measure. Since string theory is a universal theory, this simple aspect could make it something which is always indefinitely "complete".

whether or not probabilities are a branch of mathematics is irrelevant, since my point was that that branch is not what is called for when speaking about the validity of M-Theory.

As a mathematical foundation for statistics, probability theory is essential to many human activities that involve quantitative analysis of large sets of data. Methods of probability theory also apply to descriptions of complex systems given only partial knowledge of their state, as in statistical mechanics. A great discovery of twentieth century physics was the probabilistic nature of physical phenomena at atomic scales, described in quantum mechanics.

You don't consider M-theory a "quantitative analysis of a large set of data"? What DO you call it, then? Probability plays into nearly everything that involves math. Simply because something has a 99.999999998% probability of occurring, it is taken as a consistency. This is how we lay foundations of theories. This is also a fundamental aspect of quantum physics, of which string theory is a part.

I'm going to guess you don't know any theoretical physicians...You go tell one of them that math doesn't describe the universe lol. They would argue that the only way TO understand the universe is qua mathematics.

2+2=4; A very basic example, sure , but what exactly does that describe? It describes the relationship between the quantity of the number 2 being added into itself as becoming the quantity of the number 4. What universal truth does that hold? 2 doesn't mean shit until you apply something physical to it, which is the quantity. Otherwise, 2+2 would equal 4 just as much as "3+3". The "variables" within these complex math equations are based on physical speculations. All math does is affirm whether or not the associations are logical. You cannot start with the math and end with it, simply because in order to develop the math, there has to be a physical basis somewhere.

All I've said is that we are not complex mathematicians, and so any arguments we cock up don't really amount to anything much more than guessing and speculation. I'm not trying to bash you, I'm just saying that you should recognize that you are not in a position to reject it as a theory with any substantial credibility...

Firstly, this is a forum. The results of our discussions are not being published in a scientific journal as unequivocal truth. I've already said before that all of my logic is mere speculation. I am not denying that. I do not assert the authority to make a final decision in whether the theory is right or wrong, but rather did explain as to why I thought the theory could be wrong. I am not saying that my word is gospel and that you are wrong for disagreeing with what I say. When you simply call bullshit on my theory because you don't care enough to learn the fundamentals upon which it is based, yet you do care enough to check back in and bash me for even trying while (ironically) arguing that no-one here has the authority to say "right or wrong," you make it appear as though you believe people with "certifications" to be some mystical species or something, and the mathematics they use some sort of obscure, ancient language. The fundamentals apply in any theory, and this is what I was arguing. You can still say I don't have the authority to have the final word on it, but I've every right to make my own decisions about the soundness of the theory. I'm not imposing my observations upon anybody else. Remember that you two are the ones who called ME out.

You have a very limited knowledge of the maths, so how can you say which factors are variables and which are not? Isn't it true that that is just a guess on your part?

Man, come on. You're making me do all the work. Read SOMETHING, won't you?

In theoretical physics, M-theory is a new limit of string theory in which 11 dimensions of spacetime may be identified.

In physics, spacetime (or space-time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort than the spatial dimensions.

So like I said, the first three are the basic length, width, and height attributes. Time is the fourth. Thus, these dimensions represent MEASURABLE QUANTITIES. THIS is what causes me to conclude that the dimensions are variables. Do you see this?

Making general observations is quite different than rejecting it on supposed contradictions and inconsistencies in the theory itself.

Your second sound point. I suppose this is a mere misconception, however. I did not reject the theory, I simply said I did not like its fundamental ideas. I am totally willing to admit that they might have a more sound working of the theory that what I have understood it to be. But at the same time, since people err, and it is in fact a THEORY, I feel my logic is sound and stands just as much chance of being practical.

When it comes to M-theory, I am fairly certain that none of us on here actually know how it works, and what the fundamental principles and assertions are. We may have watched a couple videos and read a couple books on what M-theory seeks to do, and gotten a break down of how it attempts to do it, but we don't know anything about how it actually goes about that--and that is the most important part.

You'll notice I never went past the fundamentals. The dimensions are a fundamental part of the theory. I don't claim to know specifically how the string theory accounts for everything. Apart from this, the fundamentals are pretty much universal. Very basic maths and physics developed into more complex terms to solve a more complex problem. But you still must start with the basics. Because YOU haven't taken the time to read the fundamentals and don't have enough training to make logical associations between them does not give you the right to assume that no-one else has, and damn sure doesn't give you the right to condemn my reasoning while (still ironically) talking about how no-one here has the authority to say "right or wrong." You think there's a secret club of scientists who are studying string theory? No. It is an open theory, open to speculation from ALL angles.

So angry...All I said was that none of us can offer any meaningful argument about M-theory. I didn't try to offend you man, i only said that your rejection of M-theory is not really substantial, but really a guess. Speculation. Do you deny that?

Why are you asking me something I've already affirmed numerous times? You even quoted me saying my words are speculation. This is what agitates me. The fact that you still somehow find within yourself the authority to say my reasons are bullshit, but you don't actually seem to be understanding what I'm arguing. You appear to me to be like a child who wishes so badly to be right that they will discount any logic used on a purely emotional basis of pride. You still have quoted no minutely reputable source. All you've done is, again, suggest that BASED ON YOUR BELIEFS, no-one here has the right to say anything remotely conclusive about string theory. To be honest, I've agreed with a number of your statements outside of this thread, so I'm slightly taken aback that you're so up against me in this one. I can very well see where you're coming from, but I just don't think you see my point. You've even affirmed that it is a mere theory, and thus a complex guess, more or less. By claiming that no-one but a certified mathematician/scientist can argue the theory only serves to further distance the theory from common rationalization. True, it is incredibly complex on some levels. Way beyond my head, even. But to understand ANYTHING, we must understand the fundamentals. And to me, the fundamentals of this particular theory seemed sketchy. I am sorry if you DISAGREE, but that doesn't conclude me to be WRONG.

Post edited at 2:12 pm on July 6, 2009 by Audioblood

-------
This is how we bleed in audio.

609 users online 230746 members 1320 active today Advertise Here