String Theoryand position of human in Micro universe of particle physics

[pranab]

In the theoretical physics or in theoretical cosmology, Brane is a multidimensional object that can exist in a higher dimensional space. Our universe is one of such a brane and so our solar system & earth .As per String theory our four dimensional universe is restricted to a brane moving in a higher dimensional space known as Bulk. The extra dimensions in the bulk may be much larger than our four dimensional space time or may be compact. As per string theory there are at least 10 dimension ( string theory Type 111) and or more up to 26 dimensions.[ There are five types of string theory and all versions include / involve additional dimensions] We the human beings who are made of billions or trillions nos of cell [ unit of life] which are at finest level made of Quarks again ] and all higher living organs can experiences only three dimensions like up-down,left-right, front- back or at best four dimension when cosidered time present- past- future. According to string theory the extra dimensions are so tiny that they are curled up and can afford at best a particle only and as such they escape our attention
If we consider a human cell it has cell wall or cell membrane and thus it can be also considered as brane the length & bradth (2D)or Length Breadth & height (3D). The humaN Beings can thus be put into three or more dimensional(?) object. What will be then position of human beings in the multi dimensional universe - as per brane cosmology?
--- A very tiny part taken from " Simmon Mitton Review article " Astrophysics and Cosmology " - The Lancet 2006 :367;1692-97
Dr. Pranab Kr Bhattacharya
Mr. Rupak Bhattacharya
Mr. Ritwik Bhattacharya
Mrs. Dahlia Mukherjee
unipathos.com

[Dragon Star]

We are in a multidimensional universe, but if you mean if we had he "10 or more" that ST predicts, there would be no differences once so ever because ST works with all the current models, meaning there is no change for us based on our reality. The extra dimentions would have no change on our lives if they are there or not.

[Blue Fire]

Originally Posted by Dragon Star

We are in a multidimensional universe, but if you mean if we had he "10 or more" that ST predicts, there would be no differences once so ever because ST works with all the current models, meaning there is no change for us based on our reality. The extra dimentions would have no change on our lives if they are there or not.

Is there any current thought about "accessing" the curled up dimensions of ST in such a way that we could extract energy or something useful? Aren't we in the process of using particle accelerators to possibly verify the curled up dimensions? Seems like I remember something about an effort to do so regading a theory that posits that gravity might be much stronger in these small dimensions and that is possibly why gravity is comparatively weak in our own 3 spatial dimensions.

I also wonder if it might be possible, in theory, to uncurl any of these dimensions.

Regarding Pranab's mention of brane cosmology, if I understand correctly, one theory holds that our universe might have been formed by a collision of two branes.

In the case of brane cosmology wherein our "brane"/universe exists within higher/larger dimensions than our commonly known 3 (plus 1 time), then it would strike me that humans would face the same problem that the inhabitants of Flatland would. A circle living in a 2D world, like the surface of a sphere, would have a hard time conceptualizing a sphere. A sphere "being" could rise off the surface of the 2D plane and touch the center of a circle "being" without ever crossing the circle's perimeter. I've often toyed with this concept in trying to imagine higher and larger dimensions and how they might explain some phenomena that we detect but do not understand. This is much like the circle trying to comprehend just how something could end up inside it without that something haveing crossed its perimeter,... so in our world, just how would something be able to produce and effect (or get noticed) inside us without us ever having observed anything crossing our perimeter.

Of course, we could get into analysis of hyperspheres and higher dimensional math/geometry, but the challenge still remains as to how we might go about conceptualizing higher dimensions (or additional smaller dimensions for that matter) without resorting to mathematical analysis only. Big, very big paradigm shift perhaps? In any case, if Pranab is asking what place do we, in our universe, have in a higher, larger dimensional universe that encloses our 4D universe,... then I have to ask What place indeed?! Jeez, wouldn't that really put the nail in the coffin as to how insignificant we mere humans really might be? And here I thought we were already less than noticeable in the universe we Know about!

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by Blue Fire

Is there any current thought about "accessing" the curled up dimensions of ST in such a way that we could extract energy or something useful? Aren't we in the process of using particle accelerators to possibly verify the curled up dimensions?

The resources used to do such a thing would outweigh any conceivable way for this to be. If an atom was stretched to the size of the solar system, a string would be a meer 3 meters long. You are talking about doing surgery on something that would be like trying to poke the moon with your finger from earth.

Seems like I remember something about an effort to do so regading a theory that posits that gravity might be much stronger in these small dimensions and that is possibly why gravity is comparatively weak in our own 3 spatial dimensions.

I also wonder if it might be possible, in theory, to uncurl any of these dimensions.

Again, read above.

Regarding Pranab's mention of brane cosmology, if I understand correctly, one theory holds that our universe might have been formed by a collision of two branes.

Correct. Well, 2 or more, it could have been a third although extremely unlikely.

In the case of brane cosmology wherein our "brane"/universe exists within higher/larger dimensions than our commonly known 3 (plus 1 time), then it would strike me that humans would face the same problem that the inhabitants of Flatland would. A circle living in a 2D world, like the surface of a sphere, would have a hard time conceptualizing a sphere. A sphere "being" could rise off the surface of the 2D plane and touch the center of a circle "being" without ever crossing the circle's perimeter. I've often toyed with this concept in trying to imagine higher and larger dimensions and how they might explain some phenomena that we detect but do not understand. This is much like the circle trying to comprehend just how something could end up inside it without that something haveing crossed its perimeter,... so in our world, just how would something be able to produce and effect (or get noticed) inside us without us ever having observed anything crossing our perimeter.

Of course, we could get into analysis of hyperspheres and higher dimensional math/geometry, but the challenge still remains as to how we might go about conceptualizing higher dimensions (or additional smaller dimensions for that matter) without resorting to mathematical analysis only. Big, very big paradigm shift perhaps? In any case, if Pranab is asking what place do we, in our universe, have in a higher, larger dimensional universe that encloses our 4D universe,... then I have to ask What place indeed?! Jeez, wouldn't that really put the nail in the coffin as to how insignificant we mere humans really might be? And here I thought we were already less than noticeable in the universe we Know about!

Bah, it's all conceptualization, and all way beyond anything we can image or comprehend for now, so lets work on what we can physically have a possibility of testing/experimenting now so we have a better idea about that tomorrow.

[Blue Fire]

Originally Posted by Dragon Star

[snip]
Bah, it's all conceptualization, and all way beyond anything we can image or comprehend for now, so lets work on what we can physically have a possibility of testing/experimenting now so we have a better idea about that tomorrow.

Well, in any case, ideas have to start somewhere. Seems to me that someone once speculated that the Earth wasn't flat. Someone else speculated that gravity curved spacetime, and probably spent a lot of time trying to conceptualize his "far out" ideas. So I'm not sure why your attitude toward this evoked a "Bah" response. I most humbly defer to your greater expertise in cosmology and I think I understand your seeming desire to concentrate on, for example, experimental physics. But I think theoretical physics is of great value also. Don't you agree that a lot of advancements have come from ideas that were at first met with a "Bah"?

I don't mean to start a conflict in any way - just wondering where exactly you are coming from. Please excuse me if I misunderstand - I'm still on a high learning curve here.

[dmill1220]

My 2 cents! or my Opinion,
Since we are 3 dimensional creatures, plus 1 for time, it would be extremely difficult to see beyond our senses unless math and computers and accelerators,or tools, are employed in the lab, to help us visualize anything more, But it is very intriguing Indeed!, heck, we didn't even know of the full spectrum of light or radio until not too long ago and that took help from equipment and not our senses. yes the world used to be flat , the sun revolved around the earth , we were the only galaxy, the were no other planets around the universe, but how did we find the truth?
Technology and experimentation via Mathematics or equipment and the ability of abstract thought explained in mathematics, and verified thru Observation or experimentation thru equipment.
Truly a wonderful and exciting road ahead!
Dennis

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by Blue Fire

Well, in any case, ideas have to start somewhere. Seems to me that someone once speculated that the Earth wasn't flat. Someone else speculated that gravity curved spacetime, and probably spent a lot of time trying to conceptualize his "far out" ideas. So I'm not sure why your attitude toward this evoked a "Bah" response. I most humbly defer to your greater expertise in cosmology and I think I understand your seeming desire to concentrate on, for example, experimental physics. But I think theoretical physics is of great value also. Don't you agree that a lot of advancements have come from ideas that were at first met with a "Bah"?

I don't mean to start a conflict in any way - just wondering where exactly you are coming from. Please excuse me if I misunderstand - I'm still on a high learning curve here.

Oh boy, sorry you've mistaken me, I didn't mean it as a "BAH HUMBUG!" kind of "bah", but more of like a "well..." My mistake, bad choice of words.

I very much value theoretical physics, without it we wouldn't have any knowledge beyond fire and pointy sticks. But I think you must agree that trying to picture extra dimensions is beyond anything we know of in the world. Although history repeats it's self, I believe we have an amount of technology to where if we don't know something, then it is in no way simple, and I believe this applies here.

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

Watch all of that...and you will get some idea. Finding our extra dimensions is riddled with problems.

[Blue Fire]

Originally Posted by Dragon Star

Oh boy, sorry you've mistaken me, I didn't mean it as a "BAH HUMBUG!" kind of "bah", but more of like a "well..." My mistake, bad choice of words.

Thanks for the clarification.

But I think you must agree that trying to picture extra dimensions is beyond anything we know of in the world.

Not really. Folks have been deeply involved in representing extra dimensions for a long time. Some with very clever techniques. Check out Knit Theory as only one interesting endeavor. Most scientists have to admit that envisioning extra dimensions is tough at the very least but that hasn't stopped them from the attempt. The danger here in lies in giving up before you even start by assuming that something is beyond us and that therefor we shouldn't even try for fear of wasting some time.

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

Watch all of that...and you will get some idea. Finding our extra dimensions is riddled with problems.

Interesting demonstration - thanks for the link! But this is just one way of addressing the issue, not necessarily the only way. Granted that actually finding extra dimensions is going to be problematic, but witness the history of string theory itself - from the original proposition creating a quite a stir (at least in come circles), to almost fading to obscurity, to a surprising revival that led to Superstring theory or M theory wherein the 5 main string theories are potentially unified as just different "dictionaries" or points of view leading to the same place, so to speak. So, I believe, riddled with problems or not, it shouldn't stop us from the attempt or asking questions or theorizing some more or even attempting a simplification. I like to credit human enginuity more than some perhaps - I've lived to long and seen too much history in the real world to lose faith now. We've already come a long way, baby! I couldn't have imagined where we are now when I was a teenager.

[Dragon Star]

Wait now, , I never said anything about not trying and working on getting there, what I said is, in a nutshell, "We need to set this book down while it's on page 5, and finish the other books we have started, some nearly finished, that tell us how to better understand this book."

There, that should clear up my stance. I only believe it to be slightly ambitious, not wrong in any way.

Fact is we need better science before we can prove M Theory, no matter how you look at it, so I say we focus on that science. Don't count your chickens before they hatch, so to say. We have already surpassed given possibilities of M Theory theoretically in a generalized way, and now it is time to work on proving it right or wrong...I think.

[Blue Fire]

Originally Posted by Dragon Star

Wait now, , I never said anything about not trying and working on getting there,

Perhaps it boils down to our slightly different interpretations of the discussion of problems and approaches to those problems.

what I said is, in a nutshell, "We need to set this book down while it's on page 5, and finish the other books we have started, some nearly finished, that tell us how to better understand this book."

And yet Einstein started an entirely new book when his extaordinary insight allowed a leap of inspiration that shook the prevailing books from cover to cover.

There, that should clear up my stance. I only believe it to be slightly ambitious, not wrong in any way.

Hmmm... I'm still thinking our relative positions are a bit muddled, possibly due in part to our different styles of communication.

Fact is we need better science before we can prove M Theory, no matter how you look at it, so I say we focus on that science. Don't count your chickens before they hatch, so to say. We have already surpassed given possibilities of M Theory theoretically in a generalized way, and now it is time to work on proving it right or wrong...I think.

I really don't think we disagree all that much, as I continue to think about it. On a more basic level, it appears that perhaps our general philosopies about our approach to and method of evaluating the issues are a simply bit different. For example, there are plenty of people concentrating on M Theory, but there are also those that are toying with a Holgraphic view of the universe and it's phenomenon as a mere "holographic" projection of things we observe. These two camps may not be mutually exclusive but they are certainly very different takes on the nature of reality itself. I see nothing wrong with this - plenty of folks in both camps to go around in my view. And if by chance somebody sees an inspirational whole new book that hold outs great promise over our current books, then I say let them start writing it. Sometimes you don't have to finish a book at all to know that a new book would be much better!

So, as I said, I'm just thinking our philosopies of approach and preferences differ. No big deal. Personally, I'm always trying to think ahead of the game, in an abstract, philosophical way. Was it Socrates that described our interpretaions of the world as shadows projected on a cave wall resulting from the unknown figures dancing in front of a fire? Holographic Theory reminds me of this. But then, that's just how I amuse myself sometimes. No harm done I think.

Hey, at the very least, you've inspired me to more detailed thought and consideration of the problems and issues facing astronomy and cosmology today.