Log in

View Full Version : The Elegant Universe



Morpheus
13th December 2005, 08:01
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

An interesting program on how the universe works. Especially the stuff at the end, with the parallel univerises & the origins of the big bang.

"the startling idea proposes that the fundamental ingredients of nature are inconceivably tiny strings of energy, whose different modes of vibration underlie everything that happens in the universe. The theory successfully unites the laws of the large—general relativity—and the laws of the small—quantum mechanics—breaking a conceptual logjam that has frustrated the world's smartest scientists for nearly a century.

Program One, "The Elegant Universe: Einstein's Dream," introduces string theory and shows how modern physics—being composed of two theories that are ferociously incompatible—reached its schizophrenic impasse: one theory, known as general relativity, is fantastically successful in describing big things like stars and galaxies, and another, called quantum mechanics, is equally successful in describing small things like atoms and subatomic particles.

Albert Einstein, the inventor of general relativity, dreamed of finding a single theory that would embrace all of nature's laws. But in this quest for the so-called unified theory, Einstein came up empty-handed, and the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics has stymied all who've followed. That is, until the discovery of string theory.

Program Two, "The Elegant Universe: String's the Thing," opens with a whimsical scene in a movie theater in which the history of the universe is run backwards to the big bang, the moment at which general relativity and quantum mechanics both come into play, and therefore the point at which our conventional model of reality breaks down.

Then it's string theory to the rescue as Greene describes the serendipitous steps that led from a forgotten 200-year-old mathematical formula to the first glimmerings of strings—quivering strands of energy whose different vibrations give rise to quarks, electrons, photons, and all other elementary particles. Strings are truly tiny, being smaller than an atom by the same factor that a tree is smaller than the solar system. But, as Greene explains, they are able—for the first time ever—to combine the laws of the large and the laws of the small into a proposal for a single, harmonious theory of everything.

One of the most peculiar aspects of strings is that they require more than the three familiar dimensions of space plus one of time. In fact, string theory calls for at least ten dimensions in order that its rather abstruse mathematics remain consistent. Greene demonstrates how these extra dimensions can be folded up in plain sight without our noticing. It's like an electrical power cable seen from afar, he explains. To us, the cable looks like a one-dimensional line. But to an ant crawling on the cable, it has an extra, circular dimension—its circumference—which we can't see from a distance.

On a much smaller scale, strings may vibrate in and around extra dimensions that are so tiny that we are completely unaware of them, even though, the theory claims, they play a vital part in determining why the world around us has the properties it does.

But even with its many theoretical successes, as of the 1990s physicists realized that strings suffered from a pernicious flaw—an embarrassment of riches: there were five different versions of the theory, each totally out-of-sync with the others. We have one universe, so shouldn't there be one theory of everything?

Program Three, "The Elegant Universe: Welcome to the 11th Dimension," shows how in 1995 Edward Witten of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, aided by others, revolutionized string theory by successfully uniting the five different versions into a single theory that is cryptically named "M-theory," a development which required a total of eleven dimensions.

Ten...eleven...who's counting? But the new eleventh dimension is different from all the others, since it implies that strings can come in higher dimensional shapes called membranes, or "branes" for short. These have truly science-fiction-like qualities, since in principle they can be as large as the universe. A brane can even be a universe—a parallel universe—and we may be living on one right now.

Branes might also explain why gravity is the weakest force, requiring all the matter in the Earth to produce a measly one g. According to this idea, gravity may be far more potent, but most of its strength is leaking into a parallel universe."

KC
13th December 2005, 08:40
Seen it. Very fascinating. Recommended to everyone. Was going to read the book but couldn't find it. There are other threads on this subject. I believe I made one, a while ago.

ÑóẊîöʼn
13th December 2005, 08:52
I don't understand the logic or utility behind "unifying" two different fields of science.
Can't we just accept that really really big things behave differently to really really small things and leave it at that?

Morpheus
14th December 2005, 02:59
Really really big things are composed of lots of really small things. If we really understood how the universe works there shouldn't be two separate theories for big & small because big is just a whole lot of small. Big & small are part of the same universe, and so obey the same universal laws. GR & QM are good approximations for the micro & the macro, but because we have two separate theories describing the same universe we know they're just approximations. Understanding the underyling laws of physics that both GR & QM approximate on their scales will give us a better understanding of how the universe works. If the theory in that link is correct, it also has big implications for the origins of our universe and our place in the multi-verse.

redstar2000
15th December 2005, 17:51
"String theory" is now "orthodox" -- if you take certain kinds of advanced physics courses, you will be taught "string theory" as if it were "true".

Empirical confirmation of "string theory" has thus far proved elusive...and I've read that some physicists are starting to complain about this.

A plausible mathematical construct is "not the same" as empirically confirmed theory.

So, "keep an open mind" on this one.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif