-
OK, it's on.
String Theory
- Thread starter lolzcry
- Start date
ZenRaiden
One atom of me
If you knew how much math goes into these things you wouldnt want an explanation, because the way it works is that these new physics theories are all derived from hardcore number crunching. I mean my brother studied some form of physics in school and he said he didnt know where is up and where is down. Even Einsteins theory of relativity requires the kind of math that makes students bleed from their eyes.
Pizzabeak
Banned
- Local time
- Today 4:27 AM
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,667
So many dimensions? It only requires 10, although some formulations say 11 or 12.
It’s just what came after 4 dimensions or the 4th dimension. I don’t think this is it either, but string theory used to be “mysterious” or as if there were no future in it, so to speak. Everyone probably knows Brian Greene’s books The Elegant Universe, The Fabric of the Cosmos, and The Hidden Reality are the modern texts about it that you don’t need to go to school for. Carl Sagan and the like just set you up on the foundations, and the quantum mechanics are also considered a prerequisite in any regard.
So who has been manifesting this subject recently? I learned about it a long time ago, although no one talked about it here.
You have to go to somewhere else to talk about it. Maybe, Hawking forums and Kurzweil’s forums have academic minded thinkers regarding math or physics at the very least (reaching A.I./AI/artificial intelligence). You could read Brief and Briefer History of Time, although there isn’t a lot in there, just foundation for your imagination.
Most math systems center around 3: x, y, z, for example, three spatial dimensions, and the familiar ideas. Euclidean geometry is what prevented four dimensions so non-Euclidean geometry usually through paradoxes in the Parallel Axiom allowed new geometries to be made not limited to three dimensions. Algebra became a set of, at first, verbal rules for finding the unknown, and with it, mathematicians were able to have fun with new equations. Things such as: adding the square of an unknown to three times itself subtracted by seven, the result is nine.
Quadratic equations are a staple in algebra. Eventually cubic equations were developed around 1500.
It was a series of reluctance to reveal how to solve them, to regretfully sharing the key, to finally 35 years later full credit given, but at half its value in what was mostly insult to injury. It was typical mathematical dueling stuff.
They gave results although mathematicians couldn’t explain the reason for the correct answers and hypothesized squares of negative numbers could be useful or interesting in some way. Isaac Newton had to invent calculus, which studies a quantity’s instantaneous rate of change over time. Velocity is the position’s rate of change, and acceleration is the velocity’s rate of change.
Differentiation is finding a quantity’s rate of change and integration is finding the rate of change’s quantity.
This is the same time wherein it was realized math could be used to solve equations that describe nature, if everything can be applied values. Newton was more physics and science focused while Leibniz was philosophically and mathematically orientated. The rediscovery of the Greeks’ notion of proof was around this time as well.
e = 2.71828, the natural logarithm, became popular leading to the imaginary number i and the square root of -1.
Descartes tried to explain the differences between real and the new imaginary numbers by implying they might create the absence of solutions. John Wallis configured a way to graph complex numbers on Cartesian coordinates. It was ignored, until a Dane named Caspar Wessel slightly improved the method, it went ignored, and then a French translation appeared a century later. But, another French thinker published the same idea 90 years prior.
Hamilton reminded us of the commutative property (law) of multiplication, but it doesn’t work in 3 dimensions. It’s useful, though, because transformations allow a+b = b+a, which doesn’t really work in three dimensions because there are more axes and it doesn’t translate the same or “equal”.
3 dimensional algebra was eventually developed by Hamilton when he formulated quaternions. They describe three axes in space, plus the number 1.
There was 1, 2, 4, and 8 dimensional algebra but not a 16 one. n-dimensional math was developed instead, once they remembered complex numbers and non-Euclidean geometry didn’t really exist, and were just tools used by mathematicians. Vectors made clear that three was a key number in math. It couldn’t go any further until manifolds were developed.
The idea was the it describes the underlying geometry of n-dimensions. When mathematicians finally started to find the electric field worth thinking about is when they realized Maxwell’s equations were six dimensional, describing the electric and magnetic fields already.
The manifolds were curved spaces. Riemann was a student of Gauss and had a similar idea to Einstein wherein the curvature of space causes a force. On average, space is flat but there are occasional hill shapes on, analogous to a wave, caused by motion of matter, and that on this physical level in the world, and of reality, that’s all there is, and nothing else is responsible for the creation of matter.
That allows matrix mechanics to be developed. Then, the focus went to invariants, which are numbers that remain stable during transformations. The hyper complex numbers weren’t seen as interesting because they referred to things that didn’t exist.
The focus then went to trying to find out if they existed or not.
Kant maintained 3 dimensions are an essential feature of space. Dimension is a diverse term and can even refer to endless details of organisms in environments. DNA sequences are seen as dimensions and can be compared to hypercubes by looking at both of them as plotted points.
Relativity uses Minkowski coordinates x, y, and z, with t for time, as four dimensional spacetime. The speed of light c, an interval, is introduced to describe distance, and no particular can go faster than the speed of light.
It becomes that superstring theory requires ten dimensions because that’s what a string needs if they encompass all types of matter, in other words, if they’re capable of generating the core components. They need to vibrate in the different directions in order to create the groove or tune necessary to manifest the appropriate particle.
Hyperdimensions used to be a bizarre concept, so people don’t grasp how irregular it can sound just casually discussing them, for instance. No one said strings weren’t worth looking at since the math and physics could be wrong. It’s more so that the 4 dimensions we inhabit are permeated by the other six dimensions, too curled up and small so we can’t “notice” them. We don’t have the physics to observe or experience those dimensions, particularly.
It’s just what came after 4 dimensions or the 4th dimension. I don’t think this is it either, but string theory used to be “mysterious” or as if there were no future in it, so to speak. Everyone probably knows Brian Greene’s books The Elegant Universe, The Fabric of the Cosmos, and The Hidden Reality are the modern texts about it that you don’t need to go to school for. Carl Sagan and the like just set you up on the foundations, and the quantum mechanics are also considered a prerequisite in any regard.
So who has been manifesting this subject recently? I learned about it a long time ago, although no one talked about it here.
You have to go to somewhere else to talk about it. Maybe, Hawking forums and Kurzweil’s forums have academic minded thinkers regarding math or physics at the very least (reaching A.I./AI/artificial intelligence). You could read Brief and Briefer History of Time, although there isn’t a lot in there, just foundation for your imagination.
Most math systems center around 3: x, y, z, for example, three spatial dimensions, and the familiar ideas. Euclidean geometry is what prevented four dimensions so non-Euclidean geometry usually through paradoxes in the Parallel Axiom allowed new geometries to be made not limited to three dimensions. Algebra became a set of, at first, verbal rules for finding the unknown, and with it, mathematicians were able to have fun with new equations. Things such as: adding the square of an unknown to three times itself subtracted by seven, the result is nine.
Quadratic equations are a staple in algebra. Eventually cubic equations were developed around 1500.
It was a series of reluctance to reveal how to solve them, to regretfully sharing the key, to finally 35 years later full credit given, but at half its value in what was mostly insult to injury. It was typical mathematical dueling stuff.
They gave results although mathematicians couldn’t explain the reason for the correct answers and hypothesized squares of negative numbers could be useful or interesting in some way. Isaac Newton had to invent calculus, which studies a quantity’s instantaneous rate of change over time. Velocity is the position’s rate of change, and acceleration is the velocity’s rate of change.
Differentiation is finding a quantity’s rate of change and integration is finding the rate of change’s quantity.
This is the same time wherein it was realized math could be used to solve equations that describe nature, if everything can be applied values. Newton was more physics and science focused while Leibniz was philosophically and mathematically orientated. The rediscovery of the Greeks’ notion of proof was around this time as well.
e = 2.71828, the natural logarithm, became popular leading to the imaginary number i and the square root of -1.
Descartes tried to explain the differences between real and the new imaginary numbers by implying they might create the absence of solutions. John Wallis configured a way to graph complex numbers on Cartesian coordinates. It was ignored, until a Dane named Caspar Wessel slightly improved the method, it went ignored, and then a French translation appeared a century later. But, another French thinker published the same idea 90 years prior.
Hamilton reminded us of the commutative property (law) of multiplication, but it doesn’t work in 3 dimensions. It’s useful, though, because transformations allow a+b = b+a, which doesn’t really work in three dimensions because there are more axes and it doesn’t translate the same or “equal”.
3 dimensional algebra was eventually developed by Hamilton when he formulated quaternions. They describe three axes in space, plus the number 1.
There was 1, 2, 4, and 8 dimensional algebra but not a 16 one. n-dimensional math was developed instead, once they remembered complex numbers and non-Euclidean geometry didn’t really exist, and were just tools used by mathematicians. Vectors made clear that three was a key number in math. It couldn’t go any further until manifolds were developed.
The idea was the it describes the underlying geometry of n-dimensions. When mathematicians finally started to find the electric field worth thinking about is when they realized Maxwell’s equations were six dimensional, describing the electric and magnetic fields already.
The manifolds were curved spaces. Riemann was a student of Gauss and had a similar idea to Einstein wherein the curvature of space causes a force. On average, space is flat but there are occasional hill shapes on, analogous to a wave, caused by motion of matter, and that on this physical level in the world, and of reality, that’s all there is, and nothing else is responsible for the creation of matter.
That allows matrix mechanics to be developed. Then, the focus went to invariants, which are numbers that remain stable during transformations. The hyper complex numbers weren’t seen as interesting because they referred to things that didn’t exist.
The focus then went to trying to find out if they existed or not.
Kant maintained 3 dimensions are an essential feature of space. Dimension is a diverse term and can even refer to endless details of organisms in environments. DNA sequences are seen as dimensions and can be compared to hypercubes by looking at both of them as plotted points.
Relativity uses Minkowski coordinates x, y, and z, with t for time, as four dimensional spacetime. The speed of light c, an interval, is introduced to describe distance, and no particular can go faster than the speed of light.
It becomes that superstring theory requires ten dimensions because that’s what a string needs if they encompass all types of matter, in other words, if they’re capable of generating the core components. They need to vibrate in the different directions in order to create the groove or tune necessary to manifest the appropriate particle.
Hyperdimensions used to be a bizarre concept, so people don’t grasp how irregular it can sound just casually discussing them, for instance. No one said strings weren’t worth looking at since the math and physics could be wrong. It’s more so that the 4 dimensions we inhabit are permeated by the other six dimensions, too curled up and small so we can’t “notice” them. We don’t have the physics to observe or experience those dimensions, particularly.