Exploring M-Theory Philosophical Implications

[fuzzyfelt]

Yes, I like your answer, that it is an ongoing low energy approximation to the evolving prior physics. Thanks for humouring me, actually trying to verbalise questions helps as well as the answers, it all gives me a sense of direction. I'm keen now to learn about the different spacetimes in twistor theory and what they're suppossed to be, on top of everything else!
I must say, I probably won't be getting much computer time in the next month, my parents are visiting, so please enjoy a well deserved break from my questions!

 

[fuzzyfelt]

A little computer time! Just to clarify, I did mean to take the ongoing nature of spacetime generation into account, but I realize that it is a bit too significant not to stress. My aim had been to see if there were a distinction between the two ideas, that strings requires the big bang, whereas twistors, as far as I have read, do not seem to be dependent upon it, or at least not directly, is that so?
Also, is it important, should strings have a curved spacetime?

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Sorry, maybe this is a better question, what sort of spacetime should string theory have? And in fact, I think this thread is better off without my questions, maybe it could be just a thread about what Selfadjoint thinks, what do you think?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm BAAACK!

According to many but by no means all physicsts, string theory should be in a dynamic background independent spacetime. The great example of a theory like this is general relativity. Spacetime isn't just a background for physics in GR; "Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move." "Matter", in this slogan, tacitly means anything that has momentum, but not necessarily mass, such as light, as well. It doesn't do any good to put string theory into a curved spacetime, if the curvature is fixed and not interactive; that's just another inert background.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Great!
Thank you,I've been getting confused about matter as well as spacetime. Again, of course, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I'm sure it will!

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Hi SelfAdjoint, Ok, I'm pretty sure I understand what you say about spacetime. I just finished 'Elegant Universe' (Yay! I'm a slow reader), and although I'm not really after solutions, more just understanding, is it just me, or was there a conclusion he seemed to want us to draw from the way it was written that looped string -gravitons, are event horizons of anti-black holes, and depending on what black holes do with the stuff they suck in would determine whether the stuff spat out by these strings was generated, or background dependent,( or just recycled?). Have I really gone right off-track here? I really haven't thought it through too carefully. I'll try 'Fabric of the Cosmos' next and see if that puts me straight.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

...I got carried away! On another note, I think I have read contradictions about the compacted dimensions -I'm sure I have read that they were extended and have compacted since the big bang, and elsewhere that they were never extended, which is more correct?

 

[selfAdjoint]

...I got carried away! On another note, I think I have read contradictions about the compacted dimensions -I'm sure I have read that they were extended and have compacted since the big bang, and elsewhere that they were never extended, which is more correct?

Those are both conjectures. Neither is correct as yet, they will have to be evaluated based on observation, if possible. For example a couple of years ago there was a conjecture, based on the Randall-Sundrum model in string theory (roughly, that our universe is the boundary of a higher dimensional space, called a brane), that some of the compacted dimensions could be small but large enough to affect gravity at very short ranges, like a millimeter. And an experimental program was undertaken to detect these effects, if they existed. But nothing ever showed up. This doesn't falsify the conjecture, but it does render it a little doubtful. It had a chance to shine, and didn't.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Thanks Selfadjoint, sorry to be such a goose. Of course these are conjectures, I must remember to begin everything with 'hypothetically speaking'. I was suffering a momentary lapse of sense, elated by superficial comprehension and wired under the influence of my first cup of coffee in weeks. It does feel a bit of a roller coaster ride, one minute a little thing makes sense and it feels so good, followed by the realisation that is really hardly anything, which feels really bad! Sorry.
Rather than saying which is 'more correct', would you happen to know of any very good reason why one of these conjectures is favoured over or has been superceded by the other? The idea that dimensions were originally extended was from something dated 1988, and had gone on to say that, theoretically, the compactification process in itself could cause the gauge fields we have today. In the book I just finished, dated 2000, he says all spatial dimensions are completely symmetric, all curled in a multidimensional nugget until 3 spatial ones are extended. It just matters to me about at what stage and in what form - curled up or extended, they are symmetric, and for what good reason is there even speculation about this if the dimensions are pretty much the same thing, thus rather symmetrical, through duality, curled or not, unless compactification does play a role in the present state.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

But I see what you mean, Brane conjectures seem to supersede the others.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

or not so much supersede as present alternate ideas.