The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are these M-theory assumptions correct?  (Read 3410 times)

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Are these M-theory assumptions correct?
« on: 01/09/2009 10:21:18 »
Hi there,
I've watched the 3 part mini series "The Elegant Universe" hosted by Brian Greene yesterday and i think I have a better understanding about the M-theory now. So I want to make some assumptions to further improve my insights.

1. The speed of light
So, according to M-theory we're all living on a brane in 11 dimensions, and all elementary particles except gravitons are in fact open end vibrating energy strings which have their ends anchored in the brane. Except gravitons... so photons are also attached to this brane.
So can i assume that c is the maximum speed at which a string can move around on this brane?

2. The sharing of gravitons
For long, physicist didn't know why gravity is so much weaker than EM, strong and weak nuclear forces, but M-theory proposes this is because gravity is diluted not only across our brane, but all the other branes out there. Combined with the possibility that our brane is not a smooth sheet but can fold in the 11 dimension..
Even though the effect of all the gravitons combined, what we call gravity, cannot travel faster than ligt, Can i assume a single 'graviton string' could go faster than the speed of light by taking shortcuts from one spot on our brane to another?

3. Why not more?
The nature of the elementary particles is supposed to be determined by the nature of vibration of the string.
So can i assume that, if we ever have the possibility to modulate these frequencies, we can create new particles?

4. Why not visit our neighbors?
If we could modulate string frequencies, could we 'detach' ourselves from our brane and 'attach' ourselves to other branes?
So can I assume that, if we ever have a full understanding of strings, we could visit parallel universes? Or travel faster than light by reattaching strings on our own brane but far far, really far away from our starting point?


 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Are these M-theory assumptions correct?
« Reply #1 on: 05/11/2009 21:51:23 »
No one answered your questions? Oh well, i will then.


1. The speed of light
So, according to M-theory we're all living on a brane in 11 dimensions, and all elementary particles except gravitons are in fact open end vibrating energy strings which have their ends anchored in the brane. Except gravitons... so photons are also attached to this brane.
So can i assume that c is the maximum speed at which a string can move around on this brane?

It's the ultimate speed for any fundamental particle (or string) in special relativity - there are some cases however for the general theory to allow superluminal particles called tachyons

2. The sharing of gravitons
For long, physicist didn't know why gravity is so much weaker than EM, strong and weak nuclear forces, but M-theory proposes this is because gravity is diluted not only across our brane, but all the other branes out there. Combined with the possibility that our brane is not a smooth sheet but can fold in the 11 dimension..
Even though the effect of all the gravitons combined, what we call gravity, cannot travel faster than ligt, Can i assume a single 'graviton string' could go faster than the speed of light by taking shortcuts from one spot on our brane to another?

No. Many editors and publishers alike of science often remarked that particles could achieve faster-than-light communication by a process known as tunneling, which would be the same quantum process that allows one graviton to be in one universe, and then in another. It doesn't imply anything physically-moving faster than lightspeed.

3. Why not more?
The nature of the elementary particles is supposed to be determined by the nature of vibration of the string.
So can i assume that, if we ever have the possibility to modulate these frequencies, we can create new particles?

Theoretically, yes.

4. Why not visit our neighbors?
If we could modulate string frequencies, could we 'detach' ourselves from our brane and 'attach' ourselves to other branes?
So can I assume that, if we ever have a full understanding of strings, we could visit parallel universes? Or travel faster than light by reattaching strings on our own brane but far far, really far away from our starting point?

It seems implausible to suggest we could move from one universe into another, or by using advanced technology involving thee vibrating strings. The problem about ever wanting to visit a universe involves many problems, but the main problem involving particle communication is that any one particle could end up in any of the infinite amount of branes which can exist. So communication to a specific universe would seem improbable, unless there was a controlled passageway called a wormhole, which is far beyond the scope of our current technology. For a wormhole, we also have the added requirement of exotic matter, which is yet to be discovered.
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Are these M-theory assumptions correct?
« Reply #2 on: 06/11/2009 08:16:07 »
Hi Mr. S.
Thanks for the late reply, but in the meanwhile Vern and his photon-theory have converted me ;)
When comparing M-theory vs. photon theory, Occam tells me to go for the latter..

PS: String theorists are wacky  ;D
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Are these M-theory assumptions correct?
« Reply #3 on: 06/11/2009 14:01:20 »
I can't take ownership for the photon-only universe scheme. That notion has been around for at least two hundred years. I just added a few observations and some guesses about how nature might behave in that scenario.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Are these M-theory assumptions correct?
« Reply #4 on: 06/11/2009 14:08:35 »
I can't take ownership for the photon-only universe scheme. That notion has been around for at least two hundred years. I just added a few observations and some guesses about how nature might behave in that scenario.
I can trace the idea as far back as Newton.
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Are these M-theory assumptions correct?
« Reply #5 on: 06/11/2009 14:21:09 »
Ok ok, Newton, Poincaré, Maxwell, Lorentz were the pioneers.

But Vern makes a pretty good advocate ;)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Are these M-theory assumptions correct?
« Reply #5 on: 06/11/2009 14:21:09 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums