None of the researchers are really claiming to have proven anything. They've demonstrated that their model, combined with our best information, can predict what we observe. They've shown that, if string theory is true, then it could explain what we observe, which sounds oddly tautological, but that's theoretical physics for you.

It's easy - God just clicked "File -> New -> Universe" and it was done.

Or He used "import universe.lib" - one or the other...

There's a lot of good content on physorg.com. It's such a shame that it's all trapped in the 90s.

t3knomanser: None of the researchers are really claiming to have proven anything. They've demonstrated that their model, combined with our best information, can predict what we observe. They've shown that, if string theory is true, then it could explain what we observe, which sounds oddly tautological, but that's theoretical physics for you.

In before dozens of people call you retarded for daring to doubt our scientist overlords.

They are always infallible, even when they themselves say they aren't.

FTA:

If one goes far enough back in time, space is indeed extended in 9 directions, but then at some point only 3 of those directions start to expand rapidly. This result demonstrates, for the first time, that the 3-dimensional space that we are living in indeed emerges from the 9-dimensional space that superstring theory predicts.

So basically, this is kind of corroborating the FTL inflation that occurred after the big bang? Is that right? That's pretty neat (if so).

Utilize means to use something for a purpose other than its intended. For instance to utilize a book as a door stop. If you use a doorstop as a doorstop, it's just use. So unless these scientists are utilizing the yoyos as cat toys, you're likely just guilty of pretentiousness.

Dumb people utilize the word utilize to make what they are saying seem more important or complicated.

apeiron242: Utilize means to use something for a purpose other than its intended. For instance to utilize a book as a door stop. If you use a doorstop as a doorstop, it's just use. So unless these scientists are utilizing the yoyos as cat toys, you're likely just guilty of pretentiousness.

Dumb people utilize the word utilize to make what they are saying seem more important or complicated.

Are you sure about that? I know that's what Talk-Talk say (new window), but I wouldn't rely on them for word definitions any more than I'd rely on them to deliver fast broadband.

J. Frank Parnell: In before dozens of people call you retarded for daring to doubt our scientist overlords.

Ironic, since I'm actually giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they're correct.

What a ten-dimensional yoyo might look like.

apeiron242: Utilize means to use something for a purpose other than its intended. For instance to utilize a book as a door stop. If you use a doorstop as a doorstop, it's just use. So unless these scientists are utilizing the yoyos as cat toys, you're likely just guilty of pretentiousness.

Dumb people utilize the word utilize to make what they are saying seem more important or complicated.

pedantic semantics yo

t3knomanser: Ironic, since I'm actually giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they're correct

Hardly ironic, and even though you did assume they were correct in the end, you still mentioned the possibility they were wrong. I did that exact same thing regarding the higgs boson and was swarmed here.

/not bitter

If these jokers keep at it they'll end up proving gravity can't exist and then we're all farked.

Came for poking fun at string theorists.
All the good stuff is taken.
Thus, this post is rather boring.
But now I know what a ten-dimensional yo-yo may look like.
And now, you all know what a three-dimensional yo-yo posts like.

/you're welcome

apeiron242: Utilize means to use something for a purpose other than its intended. For instance to utilize a book as a door stop. If you use a doorstop as a doorstop, it's just use. So unless these scientists are utilizing the yoyos as cat toys, you're likely just guilty of pretentiousness.

Dumb people utilize the word utilize to make what they are saying seem more important or complicated.

Dictionary.com (new window) disagrees. To utilize something is simply to use it well. Which is a pet peeve of mine when people use "utilize" to mean "use". I prefer that they utilize the term.

Perhaps the term's proper use can be seen in its root of "util" of quantum of value...

My cats are also highly interested in oscillating strings.

t3knomanser: They've shown that, if string theory is true, then it could explain what we observe, which sounds oddly tautological, but that's theoretical physics for you.

No, that's just string theory for you. Theoretical physics actually has a lot of cool and interesting things going on, which have the benefit of being testable and making predictions and are therefore useful (the standard model, quantum fields, superconductors, graphene, relativity, nonequilibrium stat mech, et cetera). Most theory is not even high energy related, that's just what gets a lot of pop sci press.

I guess there are a few other bullshiatty topics like LQG and SOC out there, but most theory people outside of sitcoms are working on "real" stuff.

Well that's because your cats are locked in those boxes.

Just stay the hell away from the 8th dimension...


/String Theory is just theology for now
//hot like an overheated oscillating overthruster

What about the big bang being caused by waves colliding between sheets of the strings?

Ten universes is rather arbitrary.

I would surmise it's more of an all or nothing situation.

davynelson: Ten universes is rather arbitrary.

Dimensions, not universes. Crappy science-fiction has confused the general public, but dimensions and universes have as much to do with one another as cars and bobcats.

The dimensionality of a space is defined by the number of values required to uniquely identify a point in that space. On a Cartesian plane, for example, you only ever need two values: (x,y), (theta,d), or any other combinations. You can never identify a point without a minimum of those two values.

We live in a four-dimensional spacetime, as far as we can tell. It takes four pieces of information to uniquely identify an event in our spacetime. String theory requires a minimum of 10 pieces of information to uniquely identify an event in spacetime. The theory is that the remaining 6 dimensions are "very small"- that is to say huge variations in values along those dimensions have very little impact on events. And the best way to figure out if that's true is to slam elementary particles together as hard as we can and see what falls out.

...And that's when you came up with the idea for the Flux Capacitor... Which... is what makes time travel possible. Right?

What's the matter fark? Why am I the first one to post this?

Dimension is a little more complicated than that. In a nice enough space, it's the cardinality of a linearly independent spanning set (so add the basis elements together, each multiplied by some scalar, and if you have more than n elements, then there is a set of scalars that makes the sum 0 without each scalar being 0, but if you have too few elements, the sum is restricted to lying in just a part of your space). The problem is that not all spaces are nice enough for all bases to have the same cardinality. For example, a module only has this property if it is over a commutative ring.

Also, modules don't always have bases. Take the additive group of rational numbers with the integers as scalars.

We can still define dimension without resorting to the module structure by saying that it is the number of elements in a chain of irreducible closed subsets of a noetherian space (actually the supremum of the set of those, taken over the irreducible subsets of the space).

Thus, you could have a space with two irreducible subsets, one of dimension 4 and one of dimension 1. A point in the second could be identified easily without four coordinates, but the dimension of the space would be 4.

Because of what I mentioned about modules, well, say you're working in a free module over a non-commutative ring. You could identify a point (x,y,z) in one basis, but some other basis could require more coordinates, because losing the ability to divide scalars destroys intuition. Sadly.

The problem with the word dimension is that it's not always obvious if it means anything intuitive.

/Your ignorance is demonic.

Znuh: [www.timecube.com image 528x359]

/Your ignorance is demonic.

Gotta wonder what would happen if that guy were put on some anti-psychotics.

/"Jeeze, I wrote that? I was an asshole."
//his site is now even more crazy than I remember it; did he add new content?

Could a supercomputer prove why Fark TV wasnt funny?

BalugaJoe: Could a supercomputer prove why Fark TV wasnt funny?

Sure, but an abacus would be just as effective without the additional costs involved.

apeiron242: Utilize means to use something for a purpose other than its intended. For instance to utilize a book as a door stop. If you use a doorstop as a doorstop, it's just use. So unless these scientists are utilizing the yoyos as cat toys, you're likely just guilty of pretentiousness.

Dumb people utilize the word utilize to make what they are saying seem more important or complicated.

I speak English.

If people speaking or writing English utilize the word "utilize" to mean "use" then the word "utilize" means "use".

Definitions are DESCRIPTIVE not PROSCRIPTIVE.

Oh boy...

Marine1: //his site is now even more crazy than I remember it; did he add new content?

IMHO the funniest thing on that site is that, after you finally scroll your way down to the very bottom of that massive wall of technicolor crazy-text, there's a "Next Page" link. I've never been brave enough to see how far it goes.

Ivo Shandor: Marine1: //his site is now even more crazy than I remember it; did he add new content?

IMHO the funniest thing on that site is that, after you finally scroll your way down to the very bottom of that massive wall of technicolor crazy-text, there's a "Next Page" link. I've never been brave enough to see how far it goes.

Now this I've gotta see.

What do you call non-testable theories about the fundamental nature of the Universe?

A religion based on unprovable mathematical hypothesis is still a religion based faith.

NetOwl: Dimension is a little more complicated than that. In a nice enough space, it's the cardinality of a linearly independent spanning set (so add the basis elements together, each multiplied by some scalar, and if you have more than n elements, then there is a set of scalars that makes the sum 0 without each scalar being 0, but if you have too few elements, the sum is restricted to lying in just a part of your space). The problem is that not all spaces are nice enough for all bases to have the same cardinality. For example, a module only has this property if it is over a commutative ring.

Also, modules don't always have bases. Take the additive group of rational numbers with the integers as scalars.

We can still define dimension without resorting to the module structure by saying that it is the number of elements in a chain of irreducible closed subsets of a noetherian space (actually the supremum of the set of those, taken over the irreducible subsets of the space).

Thus, you could have a space with two irreducible subsets, one of dimension 4 and one of dimension 1. A point in the second could be identified easily without four coordinates, but the dimension of the space would be 4.

Because of what I mentioned about modules, well, say you're working in a free module over a non-commutative ring. You could identify a point (x,y,z) in one basis, but some other basis could require more coordinates, because losing the ability to divide scalars destroys intuition. Sadly.

The problem with the word dimension is that it's not always obvious if it means anything intuitive.

I'm curious as to the point of your post. It seems to indicate a general intelligence but someone with general intelligence would know that anyone who could understand your explanation would already know what a dimension is in that level of detail or greater.

There has been much discussion over the lack of quality science communication aimed towards the masses. I know not everyone has the skill to be really good at both understanding science (or math, in this case) *and* really good at communicating it, but seeing such utter failures as your post always leaves me bewildered.

t3knomanser: dimensions and universes have as much to do with one another as cars and bobcats.



/sorry, couldn't resist

OhioKnight: Definitions are DESCRIPTIVE not PROSCRIPTIVE.

Having been an editor, I have to say that I can't agree with the rigidity and unilateral perspective of this statement. It seems to me that reification is a fundamental force in vocabulary, such that words are defined in large part by the testimony of other words. ("Valley," for example, derives its meaning primarily from the equally solid meanings of words such as "mountain," "hill," and so on.) That implies -- in fact, I'd argue *demands* -- a reflexive quality to vocabulary that inherently implies some degree of proscription in the definition of almost any word. I do not consider the two perspectives mutually exclusive, however. So I might suggest that definitions are partly descriptive, partly proscriptive -- and, through reflexive reification, also partly PREscriptive.

abb3w: Why Yes I Am A Wizard: What do you call non-testable theories about the fundamental nature of the Universe?
A religion based on unprovable mathematical hypothesis is still a religion based faith.

Depends what sense of the word "test" and "prove" you have in mind....

Hell, even an idiot like me knows a calculator trick that turns any number entered into Boobies.

abb3w: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: That implies -- in fact, I'd argue *demands* -- a reflexive quality to vocabulary that inherently implies some degree of proscription in the definition of almost any word.

Only in so far as use of words is associated with the intent to communicate meaning. Otherwise (and in rare cases nonetheless), arbitrary vocabulary can be perfectly cromulent treckle lansing armiphlage.

Sandwiches, certainly. But half-treble farlingtons naren't a calibine coutel, or else bakilling becomes scalatious chartisness. And I generally don't cotton to such showmansies.

But that's just me.