Talk:M-theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|
 Archives |
[edit] Multidimensional Mathematics
Through interest in string theory and M theory I have been exposed to the term "multidimensional mathematics". I believe it should be noted that "multidimensional" does not refer to actual spacial dimensions but are levels of complexity in the equations. The three spatial dimensions and time are reduced to variables in order to be manipulated in the equations. The added "dimensions" are other variables that are added in order to maintain the integrity of the equations and do not represent actual spatial dimensions. I believe this should be noted somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.168.161 (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spiritual speculations and analogies
The section Spiritual speculations and analogies is entirely inappropriate for this article and should go. Its a hotch-potch of vague statements that have nothing to do with M-theory. Pray how is Spaghetti Monsterism relevant, for example? It is admittedly a parody religion! -- 131.111.8.104 18:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- It should probably be deleted, as it contributes nothing to the article. I'll delete the section unless its deletion is disputed. Michael Slone (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I object to the deletion of the comment on Spaghetti having three flavors in the article. That is one unscientific comment on M-Theory among a range of others in the article; if it is to be deleted, the others must go as well. If the others stay, it must stay. --Thucydides411 06:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because apparently certain sections of the Spiritual Analogies section which have every bit the same amount of merit as the rest have been repeatedly deleted - in the latest case by 68.144.82.234 - the entire section must lack merit. I am therefore deleting it. If anyone feels it needs inclusion, please restore the entire section. --Thucydides411 20:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for deleting that section. You've restored my faith in Wikipedians' sanity and common sense when I was beginning to doubt it. This section was useless, and it should stay deleted. -- Ekjon Lok 15:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- If "M" Theory is to be the theory of everything, Spiritual speculations and analogies cannot be dismissed as hotch-potch. As science and religon are technically intwinded in certian aspectes of looking at it, like how "M" theory needs eleven-dimensional hyperspace to exist. This may seem impossible and illogical to one that doesn't factor it in, the truth being that we are no longer closer to finding the "Meaning of Life" or the creation of the universe, A.K.A. the big bang, where with Schrödinger's cat paradox that factors with "M" theory, religon's view of spiritualism and some of science's dismissive aproach to religon and the conscept of Spiritual speculations , which might actually be able to translate into science. Sadly, at this point of time , with war going on, the world cannot come together to experiment enough to find some important answers. Sadly, I must say that you are right and yet wrong with your veiw of Spiritual speculations and analogies
-
Uh, um, "whaaatever"? As an analogy or as a spiritual speculation or maybe even as a spiritual analogy or some combination of such things, is mathematism any more or less spiritual, analogical, speculative, or any combination thereof, than any other ism? (Hail Eris! ;)) Isn't this entire article some such thing? Indeed, is it not at present in a way a kind of prayer, offered up to the the divine forces entities spaces or ontologies of mathematism in hopes that the divine power or attribute(s) known by some as mathematical insight, or possibly by others as encoding, representation, explication, explanation, comprehension, computation, processing, cogitation, or some such notion(s), will answer our sincere desire and/or intent to perform this operation efficaciously and/or have it result in an efficacious conglomeration of tokens, symbols, representations, or some such notion? Some of the tokens you employed I grok potential usefulness in, but your construction seems thus far inefficacious to me. By all means let us not forget how rigourous, computable, complete, etc etc etc bytestreams such as this page might or might not be as we continue to wield such bytestreams in pursuit of our mathemat{h|}eological goal of efficaciousness... Hail Math! (No offence intended to Eris, of course (BTW Kudos Eris on ousting the pretender Pluto hahahahah)) Knotwork (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unverifiable source
On the internet I found this: Real numbers are one-dimensional, they exist on an axis. Imaginary numbers exist in two dimensions, as explained above. What about three-dimensional numbers? As it happens these do not obey laws that are consistent. If you combine "ordinary" 2-D complex numbers you end up with 2-D complex numbers, the results exist in the same plane as the initial numbers. Three-dimensional numbers are not well behaved like that. However Four-dimensional numbers (quarternions) are consistent. The next set of well behaved numbers are the eight dimensional numbers (octonions). So we have real, complex, quarternion and the octonion numbers: 1-D, 2-D, 4-D and 8-D numbers. The next in the sequence are the 16-D numbers. But by some strange property of mathematics, the algebraic rules become more dilute as the dimensions of the numbers increases. No algebra can be found for 16-D numbers, so it is as though they do not exist. (If a number can be said not to exist, or conversely, to exist for that matter).
Complex numbers made from quarternions consist of one real number and three different numbers that, when multiplied by themselves, make -1. Octonion complex numbers consist of one real and seven octonion numbers that all equal -1 when multiplied by themselves. (But they are distinct numbers: any two octonions multiplied together produces a third, different octonion).
It turns out that octonion numbers crop up in the Theory Of Everything that physicists are searching for: in particular M-Theory, which is physics on steroids. According to M-Theory, we are made of minute particles that are really strings of energy, or membranes or multi-dimensional shapes. These vibrate in up to ten space dimensions, but most of the dimensions are so tiny we don't see them. Strange how we can only see one type of number, when the universe may be made up of eight of them. Wikisquared 17:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Oh I forgot to mention this was from www.eadon.com in the philosophy section under imaginary numbers. Wikisquared 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- You may wish to look at Wikipedia articles about quaternions and octonions, which give good and accessible introductions to these fascinating subjects. -- 131.111.8.102 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I couldn't find anything on wikipedia about this strangely Wikisquared 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some paragraphs of this article
have been lifted from Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics." 207.237.10.120 05:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The enigmatic M
The "M" most likely stands for "membrane" since one of the propositions of the theory is that universes can exist on large strings called membranes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.188.248.220 (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
That the maths involved are multi-dimensional, the most sensible "M" would be "manifold," or
perhaps the German, "manigfeltigkeit" (sp?) is better still. It is the same term in German
math texts, but it can also be loosly translated as "many-fold."
I heard that "M" stands for monkey, as we are just monkeys that do not understand this theory.--Sebastien.Gilmour 11:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought that the idea was that it would be better to decide what "M" stood for once the theory was, in fact, specified. Until then, it is a conjecture that such a theory exists, and its name is as ambiguous as its definition. Martin | talk • contribs 04:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] six string theories?
A recent edit [1] by Holt27 changed the statement that M-theory unifies the five superstring theories to that the statement that it unifies six. I only count five -- type I SO(32), type IIA, type IIB, heterotic E8 x E8, heterotic SO(32). What's the sixth? My best guess is bosonic, but there are a few bosonic theories, and I'm unaware of any dualities between M-theory and the bosonic strings(s). Is there a reference for M-theory relating six string theories? Wesino 21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
M-theory is supposed to connect the 5 string theories with a sixth theory known as 11-dimensional supergravity. The bosonic theory has nothing to do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.134.215 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In need of correction
In the following sentence,
"Unlike more conventional views of creation in modern physics, that are ex nihilo, the M-Theory vision, although not yet complete, is of the whole observable universe being one of many extended 4 dimensional branes in an 11 dimensional spacetime.",
I believe it is incorrect to say that modern physics has any "ex nihilo" views, as physics only addresses the early physical universe, but not the "physical pre-universe", if you can use such a term, i.e. a state in which physical existence does not yet exist. "Creatio ex nihilo" is a theological term, which implies the existence of a supernatural creator (or creators), who created the physical universe out of nothing. While I personally believe in a supernatural creator/creators, I think this lies beyond the realm of physics as it is currently formulated. Also, to say that modern physics has views of "creation" I believe is also inaccurate, again, as physics does not address the "physical pre-universe", but only the early physical universe, a "post-creation" state of affairs. Am I wrong? 68.46.96.38 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on your assessment of that particular sentence. It seems to be an opinion based sentence, also, which I think is a point you are getting at.
On another note, I think this article needs lots of work and revisions/add ons. I will attempt to do my best at improving this article in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Master Shake 9 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
???In need of correction???: In section on IIA and IIB: "it would seem that any space described by the IIA string theory can also be seen as a different space described by the IIB theory." ... a different space? You sure? Not merely a different description of the same space? Knotwork (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
???Ambiguity???: In Final step section: "Consequently, the quantum theory describing the low energy limit is a theory that describes the dynamics of these points moving in spacetime, rather than strings." ... Moving in spacetime rather than oving in strings? Or points, rather than strings, moving in spacetime? Or just strings, without need to mention spacetime at all being as how (for all I know) spacetime is one of the aspects or components or features of strings, or a way of describing some corrollary of stringness or the existnece of strings? Knotwork (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speculations Section
I am deleting this section for what I believe to be good reason. It is poorly written and improving on the style of writing would hardly justify this section, anyways. These "speculations" seem to be a disguised opinion of some user as well. Master Shake 9 19:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More Technical
I need help making this article more technical, for as of now it stands not much different from the simplified version. Master Shake 9 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Since no one has responded yet, I am going to continue at revising and adding to M-Theory. If I get out of hand, or am misguided, anyone can rein me in, or give their suggestions, or add themselves. As fo making the article more technical, I will find a hard time achieving this. Master Shake 9 19:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup: Rewrite
I have tagged this article for potential rewriting, as the article needs: - To be made more technical (reasons suggested above by Master Shake 9) - To be re-worded/ punctuated differently (i.e. First Sentence a little clumsy: ... proposed "master theory" (or "mother theory", "mistery", "magic" or the W of Witten up side down from the creator, Ed Witten) Krowe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krowe (talk • contribs) 10:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Universe For Dummies
Simply put, "M" stands for "MECHANISM". A subatomic particle basically is a very, very small device. These devices operate within a set instructions that are fractal in their nature.140.211.8.7 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)LUCY140.211.8.7 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)jonascartwright@yahoo.com140.211.8.7 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Narrative form
I do not know how to message the editors of this page, but i believe that the below description of the M-theory is better put in narrative form, as it is highly technical information, and it is easier put this way. I am a student writing a paper on the string theories, and found this section very helpful. 04:52, 25 February 2008, 71.176.229.16 (Cut from the article by 90.230.54.138 (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC))
[edit] Citation needed?
In section on IIA and IIB: "Second, because it is possible to build up any space by gluing circles together in various ways," ... We know this how? Knotwork (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Big Bang Section
I deleted the Big Bang section, which was full of inaccuracy in both its details and its premise. M-theory inspired the ekpyrotic scenario, which led to New York Times articles, but has otherwise gone nowhere. M-theory simply does not lead to predictions about the Big Bang, and which the section misleadingly implies.PhysPhD (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Major Re-Write?
This article is in need of a major re-write. There ought to be much higher quality for such an important subject.PhysPhD (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
