Reply With Quote
It's part of the Gamma Function (Google) which describes a particle that is not a point particle but rather a "string" (this is what equations do, they describe a manefest behavior, reaction, substance, or entity. They're not just solveing for X) however, the Gamma Function, in order to describe anything realistically assumes not 3 - 4 but 10 dimensions. Without that, the equation doesn't add up. It helps that this equation pretty aptly describes the effect of gravity in the Simple Model (which is universally accepted in physics). The Simple Model can apply to all forces we know of EXCEPT for gravity. It's not quite right for there to be two kinds of physical law for one universe is it? String Theory in its blundering fixes that, if you accept its notions. M-Theory is the refineing of Strings. In String Theorys progress, there was derived not one but 5 conflicting theorys of strings. They all added up (once, of course, you accepted their notions). The problem is, if only one is right, then who lives in the other 4 universes*. M-Theory fixes that up nicely and describes how ALL of them apply to the same effect (and in 11 dimensions) and are (to put it simply, like how a cave man might describe the technical details manned-spaceflight) diffrent perspectives of the same theory. It works in the math, which is impressive enough, but fancy math doesn't make science and doesn't nessiarily describe our universe (though it's a good step towards that, since the universe speaks in math).Originally Posted by Jetman
It's very very easy to discount M-Theory, and not because it's "just a theory." I'd hate to point out the enormous amount of theorys that are applied every day in all manner of things and always, without fail, work. Meanwhile, there have been laws that have stayed laws for decades and then, been broken. Laws are not concrete, theorys are not nessiarily bullshit ideas. M-Theory differs in one way to most other theoretical physics in that it inherently cannot be tested, not for sure at least. They call that a "safe" theory. Those typically don't have much weight to them.
I say all that because too many people say, "Oh it's just theory they don't really know anything," but the fact of the matter is, they do know quite a bit. Theory is variable but very often is as strong as some laws because it is known and excepted that laws can be broken because new facets of the universe are uncovered. That also leads to the tentiveness of calling a trusted theory a law, particularly because the unverse is revealing new layers of itself to us more frequently than in, say, Newtons day, where many "laws" wrote by Newton are now nothing more than science history than science itself.
M-Theory definitly deserves inspection, and places like CERN and Fermilab will be will served either way by trying to find ways to test this (admitedly unbeliveable, yet potentialy Earth-shattering) theory. For progress, we need a unified field theory and M-Theory is basically all we've really got on it. If it does work, in someway shape or form. Our understanding of phenomina that we aren't even yet aware of (not to mention the whole of the universe, in a rough, general fashion) will very greatly increase and so to will our technology and who knows what boons might come of it. There are things like The Casmir Effect which is still unexplainable yet could, if properly understood, yield an unlimted souce of energy which we most certianly can use (this is called Zero-Point, I belive, and is actually the leading "silver-bullet" alternitive energy theory behind/next-to Cold Fusion). There's much much more that can be learned once we can understand those things in the universe which are both very small and also very massive (simultaniously). Like singularities and the effects there-in (wormholes, if you will... thats all speculation though). If with have a UFT then we'll at least know (or be generally pretty positive) about these things and whether or not they're really and truly real or not.
There are painfully simple ways around that. If zero-g is a problem then add G's. You can make gravity from nothing but you can simulate it (as we have for decades) with centifugal force. A spaceship can be built as a Dyson-Sphere (you've played Halo yes?) and gravity can be simulated. The body won't know the diffrence. Building a space ship that does this well is expensive and must be built in space (likely in orbit) but it's entirely possible with todays technology and science.
Propulsion is another key factor but it's also one that to me seems easy to get around. It's really another question of money and commitment. As time marches on and things like The Casmir Effect become understood, then we have a great chance at not only propelling ourselves into interstellar space but perhaps by bending space around us to get us to point B. You will note that I am NOT refering to wormholes but to a realistically tangeble idea that works almost entirely within our current model (which can be proven completely wrong) of the universe so long as the energy is there.
Theres tons of solutions, some easier than others. Some ready at hand, others pretty much around the corner. It's far from impossible. But need, effort and expence keep it out of reach.
And we did go to the moon.
*This was a quote shamelessly ripped from the PBS Nova special "The Elegant Universe," which I liked enough to refrence here. It's worth the 3 hours to watch despite the repition. The book of the same name by Brian Green is worth a glance too. Hawking is a great, "Physics for Dummies," author (and most definitly a great mind) but there's other books WELL worth reading on the subject. Siefe's "Zero," Kaku's "Hyperspace," and Davie's "Mind of God" are all worth your time.
Bookmarks