How do mean you before the Universe started? Is the Universe a concept denoting anything startable? You must define your terms properly first, methinks, otherwise you may keep indulging into logical howlers like that with the most serious face. Either the Universe is all that exists making it incompatible with the verb to start or you are talking only about a part of what exists. If that is the case you should not use the term Universe. Using the term Universe together with verbs like start or begin implies that existence could be started from non-existence which is absurd. Simple.
No, I am approaching from the perspective of existence whatever the number of dimension that might imply as the necessary aspect. So far I do not see what all the extra ones postulated by the string and its M version are in aid of. I observe the existence not to be at absolute rest. The dimensions I observe being the mode of existence in relative motion and rest are all the necessary condition of that motion and rest. I don't see how any motion at all may be possible without all the known dimensions being present at once. Now those theories are talking about vibrations which is a type of motion served by the familiar dimensions well enough already. Other actions proposed by those theories include gravity leaking or its transfer from one universe to another, splitting of universes, starting the new ones and finishing old ones while those verbs used in the description are again all types of verbs denoting actions already satisfied with the known dimensions. Therefore until shown otherwise, I have to consider those extra dimensions to be redundant and in need of being shaved with the Occam's razor off the face of physics and I'll continue to stick to the simple definition of the Universe as the sum of all that exists. In this shape the notion of the Universe does not take plural and is perfectly incompatible with the ideas of starting and finishing. Talking about the Universe starting makes no better sense than discussing the relative moisture of momentum. These two ideas simply do not combine to make any sense.
Thank you for your suggestion to learn. I will provided with some substance which I suggest your replies should contain. Otherwise, they may remain an empty declaration. The post you were replying to in its title contained the question what were those dimensions in aid of. Further it expressed my reasons for doubting the extra dimensions were in aid of anything at all really. Instead of answering the question and trying to dissipate my strong doubts you just tell me I need to learn what judging by your tone you supposedly know very well already. So tell me then what is it exactly that you know so well and I am so ignorant of.
Well, yes I understand that the extra dimensions are in aid of predictions following from the equations made by the mathemagicians or rather in aid of preventing two sets of equations that are making an apparent sense separately from resulting in apparent nonsense when used together. Yet you must keep in mind that those equations are in their turn in aid of explaining the phenomenon of gravity the effects of which might have been as apparent to those ancestors whose minds your assume to be so much inferior to the brains of the advanced mathemagicians. Do you leave out the possibility that the same reconciliation of the two sets of equations might be achieved by some other, more simple and elegant means without invoking any redundant entities?
There are two distinct possibilities here. The first possibility is that I am an ignorant fool and after eight years of pouring over the equations like you suggest, I should discover what those putative dimensions are in aid of exactly and how any strings can possibly vibrate while not being attached to anything, how anything possessing zero height can possess any width or length and so on. Study for eight years, understand at last and be ashamed of my previous ignorance is the programme. The second possibility is that it is you who are fooling me, yourself and everybody else here and all those putative extra entities and invisible dimensions in aid of is to enable you to feel important and condescending while juggling around fantastic concepts possible on paper only. Which is it, I wonder?
Is it though a question of the maths being right or wrong? If first I claim that that a leprechaun hides on average seven pots of gold an hour in Ireland and only five in all other places and then claim that I know respective leprechaun populations of several European states, I can easily calculate how many pots of it is hidden by leprechauns in each of those states. I can derive the ratio of Irish leprechaun gold to that outside of the Green Isle and host of other leprechaun gold related vectors and variables suggesting to you that the only thing unknown to me is the precise locations of the gold hidden and that I need some money to do more research into leprechauns' habits and that it is a very good investment you should make and that it is promising to make both of us very rich given how good and precise my maths is so far. What would you be contesting in the case you'd disagree with my conclusions and would not want to invest your money in my project- my maths or something else?
I am sorry, Crankdriver, but I read all those you presume I did not but should. Also you just presume I don't understand what those people who devised the idea intended and would love it to be in aid of. That I do very well. If it does serve none of the intended purposes is another matter. Vast difference. I just wanted to hear his explanation in his own words or your explanation in your own words. You concentrate on the road ahead too much and miss all the side irony, driver. Anyway, instead of own attempts to explain all I get is the usual appeals to the authority of academic experts. By the way, eight years are purely hypothetical and were based on Nuggin's estimation of the number of years it takes to grasp.
No, you are wrong again. The maths is all lovely and ingenious. I fully agree with the maths. It's the concepts that are self-contradictory, self-defeating and physically impossible. Maths is about quantities and their ratios. The ideas behind the maths are about properties and their relations. Vast difference. Before measuring and counting, the measured and counted has to be properly defined. If the definitions are poor, the result of best calculations presents nothing but quantities of absent qualities and ratios of impossible relations.
I read the thread, Crankdriver, and in it you are your usual vague and vacuous self. I am sorry, but you cannot neither define nor explain anything at all. I defined in an earlier post what the familiar dimensions are in aid of in my view. I repeat: they are simply needed all at once- not one less and not one more- to enable motion and rest. Removing a single one of them gets relative objects stuck in relative motion while making the relative objects at relative rest non-existent. As simple as that. They are the intrinsic aspect of existence as I know it. An object in order to be able to move needs to be surrounded by void on all sides separating it from other relative objects serving as a reference to its motion and its rest.
Circumscribed by a sphere in other words. Defined as a separate physical entity as opposed to the rest of the existing entities and not as just an aspect of some other entities as a virtual particle, energy, field and the rest of similar abstractions are. Simplified that gives just two dimensions- space and time as height, width and depth should really be thought of as three inseparable aspects of a single dimension of space. Lacking any one of them stops all motion and physical existence science can deal with right in its tracks. Specified you get six aspects of these two dimensions- 3 spatial and three temporal. For the purposes of modelling each temporal aspect is orthogonal to one spatial and is parallel to another. That's all the needed and possible coordinates for you. Nothing extra.
You, on the other hand failed to provide any sensible explanation as to what is it exactly all the additional dimensions are adding to the above. Leaking is perfectly happy to take place in the familiar framework. Extra temporal dimension? To measure negative change and motion or what? Negative motion is already fully covered with the familiar positive motion in the opposite direction, I am afraid.
Colliding of brains does not seem to require anything extra either. Just bash your head against the illustrious cranes of Susskind or Greene to get an observable collision in the common-or-garden fashion.
Now the core,staple postulate of the theory is vibrations while vibrate is again a type of motion fully enabled by the familiar observable dimensions.
Vibration of a string involves that string being attached and is defined by what it is being attached to and is coming from the resulting tension. That is elementary physics, something you learn in school and something you seem to be sadly ignorant of. In the thread there you dismally failed to explain how any purported vibration is possible while intrinsically lacking anything to be attached to. Next, vibration of a height-less objects are possible on theoretical paper only. I observe vibrating strings of my piano to be surrounded with empty space enabling the vibrations. On all sides. Otherwise, all the music is nipped in the bud. Thus whole concept seems to be nothing more but attributing physical existence of a territory to poorly executed maps.
Try travelling through a map from London to New York. Maps are cheap so it saves the price of an air ticket nicely, unfortunately is not possible quite. No justification of tensionless vibration is provided anywhere in the thread. All your descriptions leave with the impression that anything goes as long as it is supported by a set of equations fitting another set of numbers. Not good enough, I am afraid. With that level of vagueness instead of teaching physics you are fit to clean latrines only. There you can move the mop all over the place and satisfy the job requirements without a need for any definitions and further explanations.
That is the only correct criticism, Crankdriver, your bring to the table. I did not have time enough to be succinct. When I have more time I'll find all the geodesics to connect all those points. Otherwise, note, even if I copiously use ad hominems, my input unlike yours is not confined to them. If I sent you back to latrines anybody can read why. Whereas why you don't want to teach a pig like me to sing remains everybody's guess. You still can't explain to yourself what is the mechanism behind the unattached strings vibrating.
The analogy is actually the best possible reflection of what is meant. If a better one were available it would be used instead. The thing giving rise to the analogy is an abstraction of energy or force in the shape of string in theory capable of action on itself to change its own tension, the ratios of its length ie intervals along its semi-dimensional length resulting in different notes that in this case are different observable phenomena. The same conceptual difficulty remains with the field equations; the actual meaning derived is that the strings are attached to space-time while space-time is made of the same strings. That is where the analogy of loop is coming from. The underlying problem is again that the energy or force is only an aspect of something not the thing itself capable of possessing dimensions. It's an abstraction of its ability to act and make move. Now saying that this abstraction vibrates is like saying that strings of love press themselves to vibrate inducing people at different intervals to love and hate, ie., attraction and repulsion. On quantum level that means that electrons get passionate about protons and that their particle interactions is a tale of wooing and rejection.
Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Yes, but a theory does not become scientific or creationist by decree. If creation is involved like it is the case with both Genesis and the Big Bang theory, they both assume creation and deal with creation. Dropping the assumption invalidates both in equal measure. Both assume non-existence of the Universe. The difference is that Genesis teaches that God still was in the absence of the Universe, the Big Bang theory that God was not present, ie, both Universe and God were totally absent. That means that nothing was present at all. Now as far as magic is concerned Genesis teaches that it was God doing magic when creating the Universe, the Big Bang theory that magic was doing itself.
Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Mindless physical processes involve no magic only when it is something inside the Universe that is being the nature of those processes. When it is the nothing in a total absence of the universe that is assumed to be behind the processes, it sounds like magic with a vengeance.
Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Colliding branes is strictly speaking no Big Bang theory already. It excludes any time zero as colliding, whatever might be meant by that exactly, is certainly doing something. Doing means existing and that introduces all the familiar aspects of existence ie, colliding takes space to occur, that space takes time to measure and energy that is being translated from object to objects and so on. Therefore in this scenario it is meaningless to talk not only about the age of the Universe but about the Universe as such since it is assumed that the local brane is an but an infinitesimal fraction of some indeterminate whole. The same goes for fluctuations. To fluctuate is a verb denoting motion, while motion takes all the familiar dimensions to occur, so implies the Universe that is very much in existence already.