Mikseri on musiikkiyhteisö,
jossa voit kuunnella, ladata ja arvostella suomalaista musiikkia,
lisätä rajattomasti biisejä, luoda oman artistisivun, kerätä arvosteluja ja faneja

Ladataan

Vastaa Aloita uusi keskustelu

 
Kirjoittaja "So enjoy your four dimensions while they last, time could soon be running out."

tripper
tripper

#1 kirjoitettu 18.03.2008 04:48

Will Time be Replaced by Another Space Dimension?

What if time disappeared? Yes, it sounds like a silly question - and if the cosmos sticks to the current laws of physics - it's a question we need never ask beyond this article. Writing this article would in itself be a waste of my time if the cosmos was that simple. But I'm hedging my bets and continuing to type, as I believe we have only just scratched the surface of the universal laws of physics; the universe is anything but simple. There may in fact be something to this crazy notion that the nature of the universe could be turned on its head should the fundamental quantity of time be transformed into another dimension of space. An idea like this falls out of the domain of classical thought, and into the realms of "braneworlds", a view that encapsulates the 4-dimensional universe we know and love with superstrings threaded straight through…

[continued.. follow the LINK as you wish]

http://redicecreations...

Source: universitytoday.com

Have fun

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Disintegr8
Disintegr8
11299 viestiä

#2 kirjoitettu 18.03.2008 07:44

Meh. String theory is so 1990's. I've come to think it actually set us back a bit, a "sidetrack" theory that promised so much and as of yet has come up with very little.

Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next might be an interesting read. In words of Mr. Smolin, string theory isn't really a theory in the scientific sense of the word; it is unsupported by experiment, unfalsifiable, and unconfirmable. I think string theory is closer to faith than science, it's a bit like saying there are small invisible gnomes in the fabric of spacetime who are responsible for all physical phenomenon and the fundamental properties of space. Hey presto, a Theory of Everything! By the way if they find spacetime gnomes at CERN when the LHC is ready then I would like a Nobel prize in Physics, please.

And the main point being that if string theorists predict that time is going to disappear I'm not going to be too stressed about it.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#3 kirjoitettu 18.03.2008 08:53

Disintegr8 kirjoitti:
Meh. String theory is so 1990's. I've come to think it actually set us back a bit, a "sidetrack" theory that promised so much and as of yet has come up with very little.

Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next might be an interesting read. In words of Mr. Smolin, string theory isn't really a theory in the scientific sense of the word; it is unsupported by experiment, unfalsifiable, and unconfirmable. I think string theory is closer to faith than science, it's a bit like saying there are small invisible gnomes in the fabric of spacetime who are responsible for all physical phenomenon and the fundamental properties of space. Hey presto, a Theory of Everything! By the way if they find spacetime gnomes at CERN when the LHC is ready then I would like a Nobel prize in Physics, please.

And the main point being that if string theorists predict that time is going to disappear I'm not going to be too stressed about it.


Man, it's not about which theory is the most convenient... It's about which theory is correct!

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Heijala
Heijala
4760 viestiä

#4 kirjoitettu 18.03.2008 08:54

o/o/o/o/o/\o Oh yeah English.

"lol"

Heijala muokkasi viestiä 08:55 18.03.2008

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Disintegr8
Disintegr8
11299 viestiä

#5 kirjoitettu 18.03.2008 09:41

After-Ego kirjoitti:

Man, it's not about which theory is the most convenient... It's about which theory is correct!


And string theory if anything is a convenient theory. Just like the ancient geocentric model of the universe was. Then again, history has shown that convenient theories are rarely correct.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Valium for Van Gogh
Valium for Van Gogh
11137 viestiä

#6 kirjoitettu 22.03.2008 12:52

Whatever.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Nevermind
Nevermind
2882 viestiä

#7 kirjoitettu 22.03.2008 15:00

Kuolleet Kekkoset kirjoitti:
Whatever.


Best in this thread.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#8 kirjoitettu 22.03.2008 15:22

Disintegr8 kirjoitti:
After-Ego kirjoitti:

Man, it's not about which theory is the most convenient... It's about which theory is correct!


And string theory if anything is a convenient theory. Just like the ancient geocentric model of the universe was. Then again, history has shown that convenient theories are rarely correct.


I would still not trust history on anything... Even if it's probable that things happen like they've always happened, it's still not a fact before someone can actually prove it.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Disintegr8
Disintegr8
11299 viestiä

#9 kirjoitettu 22.03.2008 16:37

After-Ego kirjoitti:

I would still not trust history on anything... Even if it's probable that things happen like they've always happened, it's still not a fact before someone can actually prove it.


I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that string theory is pretty much full of shit, so to speak.

Though I have to say I'd take string theory over some metaphysics crackpottery any time, it's still quite wank as far as scientific theories go.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Lola443
Lola443
2 viestiä

#10 kirjoitettu 21.07.2020 01:39 Muok:21.07.2020 01:44

Tusina Immonen kirjoitti:
Disintegr8 kirjoitti:
After-Ego kirjoitti:

Man, it's not about which theory is the most convenient... It's about which theory is correct!


And string theory if anything is a convenient theory. Just like the ancient geocentric model of the universe was. Then again, history has shown that convenient theories are rarely correct.


I would still not trust history on anything... Even if it's probable that things happen like they've always happened, it's still krunker io not a fact before someone can actually prove it.


I agree

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Vastaa Aloita uusi keskustelu