The word Universe derives from the Old French word Univers, which in turn derives from the Latin word universum.[3] The Latin word was used by Cicero and later Latin authors in many of the same senses as the modern English word is used.[4] The Latin word derives from the poetic contraction Unvorsum — first used by Lucretius in Book IV (line 262) of his De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) — which connects un, uni (the combining form of unus, or "one") with vorsum, versum (a noun made from the perfect passive participle of vertere, meaning "something rotated, rolled, changed").[4] Lucretius used the word in the sense "everything rolled into one, everything combined into one". An alternative interpretation of unvorsum is "everything rotated as one" or "everything rotated by one". In this sense, it may be considered a translation of an earlier Greek word for the Universe, περιφορα, "something transported in a circle", originally used to describe a course of a meal, the food being carried around the circle of dinner guests.[5] This Greek word refers to an early Greek model of the Universe, in which all matter was contained within rotating spheres centered on the Earth; according to Aristotle, the rotation of the outermost sphere was responsible for the motion and change of everything within. It was natural for the Greeks to assume that the Earth was stationary and that the heavens rotated about the Earth, because careful astronomical and physical measurements (such as the Foucault pendulum) are required to prove otherwise.
Actually, as a matter of fact, they haven't had any such successes. String theory right now is just a highly-abstract branch of mathematics that could possibly be made to yield a model of the universe that is accurate. Unfortunately, there are 10^500- that would be a ten with 500 zeros after it- possible ways to model a universe in string theory. The problem is picking the model that's actually right, assuming any are. What we have right now in terms of advances in quantum gravity and the creation of the universe in string theory are just speculations about how you could make those work in the context of a string theory. What the actual properties of the particular string theory that would describe our universe accurately are not actually known, and picking that particular string theory out of the rest of them would be exceedingly difficult considering the fact that there exist 10^500 possible string theories.
String theory is based on trying to interpret why there is randomness, a problem that drives a whole lot of people insane including myself. String theory involves more than just strings, if you get into the hugely complex math equations that involve probability you are probably going to stumble upon more than one explanation for the same phenomenon. String theory involves more than the super-small it involves the conectiveness of everything and when you begin to get into the very strange upper dimensions each of these different theories break apart. Without collectively using all dimensions, including adding an extra, together the upper-dimensions would break apart. Without taking into account say m theory string theory doesn't work mathematically. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that history has shown us that when venturing into the unknown as we are here, we are more than not wrong there are a number of other theories to rival that of string theory that work when taking into account randomness.
You cannot describe mathematical concepts like ´string theory´ simply verbally. And as most GCers have no real comprehension of mathematics, this thread is going nowhere.
I guess part of the picture is trying to "picture" the 10th dimension. From my basic basic understanding, each dimension is built off one another. So starting with the 0 dimension: 0 Dimension : Would be a point of indeterminate size, marking a location in a system 1st Dimension: Would be a line drawn between two points in the 0 dimension, having only length 2nd Dimension: If a line branched out from the line above like _______|______ that, you'd enter the second dimension, by conjoining three points in the first dimension. 3rd: Our dimension, length, width and height, imagine an ant walking across a newspaper, if it were 2 dimensional, the act of folding the newspaper, allowing the ant to jump from one side to the other, would represent our dimension, to be instanty transported it has to pass through our dimension. 4th: Duration, the line joining your former self with your future self, to the ant traveling on the newspaper, he believes he's traveling in a straight line in his dimension, he doesn't notice, but he's moving in circles in the third dimension. The same way when we move through time, it is not linear as it appears to us, our path is affected by chance, our choices, and the actions of others. 5th: If you imagine time as a line between yourself as a child and yourself as an adult, the fifth dimension would be the line branching off to alternate timelines, our choices and actions affect how we move in the 5th dimension. In order to jump from one reality to another, you have to fold the fifth dimension into the sixth dimension. 6th: A folded fifth dimension, similar the to the third dimension with the ant and the newspaper, to instantaneously travel from one timeline to another, you travel through the 6th dimension. ( I really don't have a better explanation than that) 7th: If you imagine time as a line between the big bang, and a possible ending of our universe, the 7th dimension would be like taking every single possible outcome/ending of our universe and condensing it to one point. Infinity. Now imagine a completely different universe, possibly with different physical laws than our own, if all of it's possible timelines and outcomes were condensed to a different point, the line joining the 2 points, would be 7th dimensional. 8th: If you were to branch off of that 7th dimensional line, to join those 2 points with a third point, you'd now be entering the 8th dimension. 9th: Like the 6th dimension, if we wanted to travel from universe to another, we'd have to fold the 8th dimension to the 9th dimension to do so. 10th: Now we imagine all the possible timelines, and all the possible outcomes of all the possible universes as a single point. Everything is contained in this point, which is were there are subatomic strings vibrating to create our subparticals in the lower dimensions. Ok, I hoped that helped, I don't understand it much myself, but it makes it a bit easier to picture when you look at it that way.
i maybe wrong, but i believe there is at least 11 theoretical dimensions when it comes to string theory. or the 11th dimension was proposed and thats where we got M theory or membrane theory. kinda like string theory but everythings is made up of branes or membranes. but string theory is everything is potentially made of strings, like on a guitar and the strings are different sizes, just like a guitar that would give off a different sound. but in string theory case, it just makes different particles, not sound. if im incorrect sorry i didnt google it like others on here so i can claim to know what i'm talkin bout. i just know from what i've read in books and watched on sci-q sundays with michio kaku.
I don't think all of us are claiming to be knowledgable, we're just discussing a THEORY. Why not use google? It's what it's for isn't it? To learn and research. All I did was read A Brief History of Time a while ago (7 years ago) which gave me the desire to keep reading about this amazing subject and I don't believe you have to be a mathmetician/cosmologist to understand the concepts. I think one of the issues we're seeing right now is a lack of faith and a set mindset. History proves that we ridicule certain theories like the earth being round or that the planets revolve around the sun or the existence of Black Holes, even the fact that there was a Big Bang. The bottom line is that we have some amazing discoveries to still make and I hope we're around to see them! fm.
LISA might give us proof, but as of yet, we have only theories. But theories that fit our current observations. LISA is a laser interferometer; a set of three (I think) separate satellites that will fly around Earth and measure gravitational waves. It does this by bouncing a laser in between the crafts as they fly in synchronized orbit. In theory, gravitational waves should change the length that the laser has to pass, and LISA will measure this on two (maybe three) axis. We currently have LIGO in North America that does the same thing, but is much less sensitive and underground. Soo... keep an eye on LISA!
The biggets gripe I have with string theory is exactly what led physicists to this exact design? Is there something demonstrated in nature that shows how the subatomic world acts as random strings? Maybe it's me but it seems like they just took a shot in the dark about how the universe functions at the smallest fundmental level and at the biggest. Most scientific theories are based upon observation, granted, the subatomic world is seemingly random and bizarre but still. String theory seems to go again intuition and common sense. As opposed to general relativitiy, it makes sense that space bends for objects. I stumbled upon this since we are getting into math and how I was alluding to science that goes with our intuition. Science: Physics: Animated Wave Diagrams on the Wave Structure of Matter
Why can't gravity be a force? Like the weak and strong. "Bending space" is just a way for us to visualize it...but it doesn't work really. It's "captured" If you throw an object towards a planet at one angle, it goes into orbit and stays that way forever more or less. Throw another object at a different angle, 90 degrees off, and it goes into orbit at a different angle. So now you have two different "warps" of space interfering with each other. how can that be? Actually, you have nothing more than a "ring", an "aura" of gravity...because it's a force, not an actual bending of space. Bending is what it appears to be nothing more. This is the kind of weird shit you come up with after being a science geek for 40 years...I've heard just about every theory there is.
Im pretty sure General Relativity describes space actually being bent/warped producing gravity.. not just a way for us to visualize it
It's wrong...or "incomplete". Until next year... That's the point I was alluding to earlier or in another thread. EVERY few years, what we thought were the answers aren't...and a new theory comes along.