Superstring Theory Confounds Astrophysicists

Journey To The 10th Dimension

Physics can't find the biggest thing in the known universe, so it's
looking beyond our paltry three dimensions. Michael Moyer enters the
zone of insanely hard mathematics, translates what he finds into plain
English, and makes it back alive

by Michael Moyer

March 2004

di · men · sion n 1 : a measure in one direction 2 : the number of
variables needed to locate a particle 3 : a property of space, or the
space-time continuum, related to extension in a direction.


If the following seems ridiculous, far-fetched or just outright
outlandish to you, rest assured: It is. It will probably hurt your
brain, as it has hurt mine, and as it most definitely hurts the brains
of those who come up with this stuff for a living. The following asks
you to accept ideas that are counter to the fundamental basis of our
experience, the framework through which we comprehend everything from
setting down a coffee cup to the arc of a home run as it sails into the
upper deck. The basic point of what follows -- and by the way, what
follows is not fanciful provocation but has been worked into
contemporary consciousness by the brainiest physicists alive today -- is
that everything that you have ever experienced has in some small but
significant way been an illusion. Why? Because everything you have ever
experienced you have understood as happening in three dimensions of
space -- up-down, left-right and front-back. Yet this is not how things
happen. Things happen in more than three dimensions of space; to see
them in only three is to succumb to a trick that the universe is
constantly playing on us.

Space as you know it is a lie. What follows is an approximation of the
truth, or at least of various conceptions of the truth. There is no one
model of the extra dimensions in the universe, no one statement of fact
that all physicists can agree on and create in their computers. Alas,
things are not that simple. There are at least two and possibly three
completely different theories of what these extra dimensions should look
like. And in each of these theories, the specific form of the extra
dimensions -- their shape, whether it be Gehry-esque or nail-straight --
is unknown. But let's not let that intimidate us. Let's get started.

Mo
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science...591747,00.html

--
*Remember Your Future*
Hollywood is disinformation!
CNN is misinformation!
Entertainment Tonight is the truth!

nightbat wrote

Imperishable Stars wrote:

Journey To The 10th Dimension

Physics can't find the biggest thing in the known universe, so it's
looking beyond our paltry three dimensions. Michael Moyer enters the
zone of insanely hard mathematics, translates what he finds into plain
English, and makes it back alive

by Michael Moyer

March 2004

Snip and go here if you like Greene sci fi

Mo
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science...591747,00.html

--
*Remember Your Future*
Hollywood is disinformation!
CNN is misinformation!
Entertainment Tonight is the truth!

nightbat

Your reference post is about plain Englich Mike Moyer of Popular
Magazine reporting about Brian Greene's String Hollywood type no
evidence theory parallel universe sci fi, therefore, please label it
according and take it out of astronomy newsgroup. The man (Greene) is
hopelessly mentally lost and in need of more and more imaginary
dimensions to make his overlapping math values make any sense to
himself. He can't find what he is physically looking for because it
doesn't exist. When you require the Universe to be made of anything you
are hopelessly lost to begin with. The missing base frame of total
uniform momentum is non existent as previously reported by nightbat. And
there isn't enough present magnitude of reciprocal dark energy and so
called branes to make it all work so hence his search, like Dr.
Einstein's, for what doesn't presently exist. The odd ball of the family
is gravity because it is the default force effect of a non uniform field
attempting renormalization. Save your brain for humble nightbat provided
the resolution long ago. Is nightbat the 21st Einstein, please, no thank
you, keep your authority granting status and fame to yourself boys, and
leave further discovery to original Maverick me. And math can't answer
everything because of possibility of overlapping values. Mr. Greene
should have learned that in basic solid geometry before going on and
attempting abstract ones. But he resultantly fell like most under the
spell that math could hopefully solve everything.


the nightbat

Imperishable Stars wrote in newsh_0d.135$mVT.82
@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:

Physics can't find the biggest thing in the known universe, so it's
looking beyond our paltry three dimensions.

Okay, I'll bite... what is the "biggest thing in the known universe?"

"Paul Lawler" wrote in message
. 125.201...
Imperishable Stars wrote in newsh_0d.135$mVT.82
@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:

Physics can't find the biggest thing in the known universe, so it's
looking beyond our paltry three dimensions.

Okay, I'll bite... what is the "biggest thing in the known universe?"

That should be obvious: Mad/scientist/imperishable stars' chutzpah

fig

Nightbat you cut me to the core.After the death of Feynman Greene is my
living "ideal" nightbat you don't except abstract thinking. String
theory is not going to go away because nightbat does not like it.(why
should it?) Greene is not going to go away because nightbat don't like
his thinking(why should he?) nightbat in the past few month's your ego
thinking is running away with any sense of realistic thinking to tie
into some of our great theories. Your thinking in its direction is
OK,but bend a little. Other great minds have thoughts on the same
subjects,and don't just pass them of as foolish sci-fiction writers.
They have their spacetime,and have great brains for us to relate to.
Bert

nightbat wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Nightbat you cut me to the core.After the death of Feynman Greene is my
living "ideal" nightbat you don't except abstract thinking. String
theory is not going to go away because nightbat does not like it.(why
should it?) Greene is not going to go away because nightbat don't like
his thinking(why should he?) nightbat in the past few month's your ego
thinking is running away with any sense of realistic thinking to tie
into some of our great theories. Your thinking in its direction is
OK,but bend a little. Other great minds have thoughts on the same
subjects,and don't just pass them of as foolish sci-fiction writers.
They have their spacetime,and have great brains for us to relate to.
Bert

nightbat

No Bert, I'm for sci fi label protecting and not cutting you but
healing you to the bone by explaining what is not scientific base framed
evidenced is considered pure theoretical fantasy and sci fi. Feynman was
a great theoretical physicist, Nobel class, and a most honest and
dedicated one. His lectures reflected that integrity and proficiency of
applied discipline especially in the quantum referenced one. See his, "
There's plenty of room at the bottom ". Greene's promoting of string
theory is non evidenced based and outside the realm of observation and
co peer evidence frame science. Abstract physics thinking is the most
complex and deepest but must always be based on logical or mathematical
evidenced base correlating frame, string theory is not.

My humble theoretical thinking and posts, like oc's, Painius, Double-A's
and mystical Darla's are apparently positively effecting you for the
better Bert, since you are now refraining and referencing less and less
about sci fi and more and more about nightbat logical advised
formulations. There is nothing wrong or bad about theoretical abstract
folks doodles as long as they are evidenced frame based and not fantasy
hype bent, unless properly sci fi labeled as so. Go to the sci fi cable
channel, why is it so sci fi popular, because you know everything on it
is fantasy based, fun futuristic science fiction, not pawned off as,
yep, it's why mot fantasy really real. Greene's spewed parallel
universe's, multiverse hype is mentally deluded mathematical non
evidenced frame based fantasy nice guy abstractions.

Einstein your other good friend thought in static topological applied
terms, and realized late the Universe is dynamic and not frame
comparative intuitively reliable. All cosmic theories lead to nightbat
and the " Black Comet " singularity resolution. You more and more seem
convinced of its possibility as you want to rely on the greatest
thinkers but how could they all be wrong and nightbat be right? They
weren't really totally wrong, but a little right is considered a big
blunder by a profound genius. Because they all basically then are
regarded as nothing more then well, in the eyes of history, considered
educated shoulder to shoulder, til we get there, astute fun loving
runner up second third rank winners. What good are great brains and
almost cosmologically right versus humble brains and really right. I
want you and all to hopefully know where the bulls eye is not the sci fi
one. There can only be one true king of anything, and one truly great
humble servant. And it is written, the humblest shall be the greatest. I
humbly elect you Bert, for inquisitive science persistence and getting
me off my Maverick high horse to dart board explain it.

And the one thing in common that I see with all your other friends Bert,
is that Richard Feynman, Brian Greene, Albert Einstein, and the
nightbat, all loved New York.

ponder on,
the nightbat

Hi nightbat Glad I got you off your "Maverick high horse" Well Einstien
lived in New Jersey and came to Cambridge Ma. to give his talks (Harvard
and MIT) Nightbat it is very hard for our macro three dimensional
thinking to see into the sub-microscopic realm of the QM world and
our.String theory completely comes from this world. What shall we do
about this situation? Light waves get to long or to forceful to probe
in this tiny arena. We are searching in the blind,and only our brains
can do that. Bert

nightbat wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Hi nightbat Glad I got you off your "Maverick high horse" Well Einstien
lived in New Jersey and came to Cambridge Ma. to give his talks (Harvard
and MIT) Nightbat it is very hard for our macro three dimensional
thinking to see into the sub-microscopic realm of the QM world and
our.String theory completely comes from this world. What shall we do
about this situation? Light waves get to long or to forceful to probe
in this tiny arena. We are searching in the blind,and only our brains
can do that. Bert

nightbat

No, no, Bert, ha, ha, String theory is non framed based, it has
no observational evidence, verifiable predictions, or mathematical QM
theory effect correlation's. Your sci fi boys have you confused, and I
got off my Maverick lead stud horse so you could hopefully hear me
better, and now time to ride off like any good action hero would, onward
lightening, onward, my trusted stallion steed, to further help smoke
cloud sci fi string based drivers in the mist.


the nightbat

Hi nightbat There you go again with the great theoretical thinkers being
just sci-fiction writers. Well Theories like GR SR,and QM give
sci-fiction writers lots of material,but strangely "string theory" does
not. Is it to hypothetical? My thoughts are string theory is in
the tiny Planck world,and that is worlds apart from our macro thinking.
nightbat we make good use of a heavy iron hammer,and don't realize it is
made up almost entirely of empty space. We know it is,and that is what
makes our universe so interesting. Bert