storyteller Posted August 6, 2021 Share Posted August 6, 2021 I am not a physicist, and the physics I have studies in colleges, are only physics applicable to civil engineering course (mid-80s) and computer science course (late 90s), so nothing in regards to astrophysics. what are differences M-theory and Multiverse? If they are different, which is likely to be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted August 6, 2021 Share Posted August 6, 2021 23 minutes ago, storyteller said: I am not a physicist, and the physics I have studies in colleges, are only physics applicable to civil engineering course (mid-80s) and computer science course (late 90s), so nothing in regards to astrophysics. what are differences M-theory and Multiverse? If they are different, which is likely to be true? They are not different; they are on a different category. M-theory is a generalisation of superstring theory; a theory about both the classes of geometries (Calabi-Yau manifolds) and fields (super-symmetric conformal fields) that make the two irreconcilable field theories we know (gravity and so-called Yang-Mills fields) compatible. Once you establish this very general context for field theories, you notice that there is huge freedom in the space of parameters (coupling constants) of the theory, as well as in the way the many dimensions of space-time that this meta-theory[?] suggests compactify (are reduced to tiny curled-up dimensions that we can't see). The multiverse is the proposal of a general context, within this M-theory, of how a universe like ours may have arisen from the enormously big freedom that M-theory allows. So M-theory gives you a plausible context for the physical laws as we know them to have arisen. Multiverse is an idea about how the particular universe that we know may have arisen within that context. I hope that helped. Hopefully also helpful: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted August 6, 2021 Share Posted August 6, 2021 I've read a bit about super string theory and its derivities, including M-theory, and while according to the professionals, they are intrinsically beautiful theories, the problem being that the chances of observation and validation at such levels, [quantum/Planck level] and numerous dimensions above the currently known four, are virtually nil, as I believe the case to be with any validated QGT, even with LHC and other such instruments. Is this a reasonable understanding of it? One relevant book was "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted August 6, 2021 Share Posted August 6, 2021 25 minutes ago, beecee said: I've read a bit about super string theory and its derivities, including M-theory, and while according to the professionals, they are intrinsically beautiful theories, the problem being that the chances of observation and validation at such levels, [quantum/Planck level] and numerous dimensions above the currently known four, are virtually nil, as I believe the case to be with any validated QGT, even with LHC and other such instruments. Is this a reasonable understanding of it? One relevant book was "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku. That's 100 % correct. M-theory is a theoretical framework, rather than a satisfactory theory of Nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storyteller Posted August 6, 2021 Author Share Posted August 6, 2021 10 hours ago, joigus said: They are not different; they are on a different category. M-theory is a generalisation of superstring theory; a theory about both the classes of geometries (Calabi-Yau manifolds) and fields (super-symmetric conformal fields) that make the two irreconcilable field theories we know (gravity and so-called Yang-Mills fields) compatible. Once you establish this very general context for field theories, you notice that there is huge freedom in the space of parameters (coupling constants) of the theory, as well as in the way the many dimensions of space-time that this meta-theory[?] suggests compactify (are reduced to tiny curled-up dimensions that we can't see). The multiverse is the proposal of a general context, within this M-theory, of how a universe like ours may have arisen from the enormously big freedom that M-theory allows. So M-theory gives you a plausible context for the physical laws as we know them to have arisen. Multiverse is an idea about how the particular universe that we know may have arisen within that context. I hope that helped. So are you saying that Multiverse required M-theory as framework to build Multiverse, just as the Big Bang theory required General Relativity as framework to build the model upon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 6, 2021 Share Posted August 6, 2021 1 hour ago, storyteller said: So are you saying that Multiverse required M-theory as framework to build Multiverse, just as the Big Bang theory required General Relativity as framework to build the model upon? AFAIK they are independent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SergUpstart Posted August 7, 2021 Share Posted August 7, 2021 I like the concept of a Multiverse because in it the appearance of a universe like ours ( and therefore the Big Bang ) is not a unique phenomenon and, therefore, it occurs for natural reasons and is not an act of creation. The dream of any atheist is to explain the appearance of the Universe without the participation of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted August 7, 2021 Share Posted August 7, 2021 But the dream of any scientist is to go where observations take you ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted August 7, 2021 Share Posted August 7, 2021 2 hours ago, SergUpstart said: I like the concept of a Multiverse because in it the appearance of a universe like ours ( and therefore the Big Bang ) is not a unique phenomenon and, therefore, it occurs for natural reasons and is not an act of creation. The dream of any atheist is to explain the appearance of the Universe without the participation of God. Multiple fluctuations in the quantum foam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SergUpstart Posted August 7, 2021 Share Posted August 7, 2021 3 hours ago, MigL said: But the dream of any scientist is to go where observations take you ... Yes, observations of the Outside World ( the Multiverse ) are not available to us. And this translates the concept of the multiverse from the field of physics to the field of philosophy (in combination with mathematics) . Do you not consider philosophy to be a science? 1 hour ago, beecee said: Multiple fluctuations in the quantum foam. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now