Comments on: The Hidden Reality: Brian Greene Explains the Universe(s)

By: Dr. Jinx

Dr. Jinx — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 01:40:52 +0000

Oooooooo! I am not really a brainiac or a Dr. But I really love Brian’s books because he writes them in a way that I can comprehend these theories….I thoroughly enjoyed reading all your posts too….i love all the possibilities of physics and the universe and love to hear & read these discussions…rock on super brainiacs-without you the rest of us would be lost!!!

By: Holdenis55Caulfield

Holdenis55Caulfield — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:05:24 +0000

Pompous Dave:
…and what’s wrong with “comments like mine?”
If you really are the Galactic Public Relations point man for string theory, I think you need to be a lot less touchy. Try being business-like instead of emotions show; that’s professional.
As far as your recommended reading, I would start somewhere in the Emily Post area. That’s a historical reference; I apologize if I’ve overshot your cultural exposure.

By: David

David — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:41:30 +0000

Charles,

I am not familiar with the CERN findings you mention. Please cite them to defend the integrity of your comment.

Holden, branching is but one of many current ideas on the structure/creation of multiverses, I suggest more reading before making comments like yours.

Prof Enead, I have no idea what you are talking about, please gather your thoughts before making comments.

Dr. Hoo, you need to read more about particle physics, and then try to understand string theory. Your comment is misguided and off point.

You all seem to dismiss that math is driving a lot of the current theories, and math may be the only way we can test string theory. Or at least until we have the ability to “see” and analyze Planck dimensions (time, spatial and what ever else we discover along the way). Mr. Greene is trying to bring a theory that betrays all of our senses to a level of understanding for the rest of us. In doing this, I allow his analogies some latitude because how do you describe 10 spatial dimensions, 7 of which we have not seen yet? Keep open minds, I am not sure all of this can be dismissed as easy as someone not familiar with the concepts seem to be trying to do.

By: Holden is55 Caulfield

Holden is55 Caulfield — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:33:59 +0000

Mr Greene says, “…in an infinite expanse of space, particle arrangements must repeat too—there just aren’t enough different particle configurations to go around” and that’s where we get the multi- from in multiverse. That sounds a lot like, “I’ll betcha…”
I thought the multiverse idea was based on branching that occurs at (I suppose) all decision points, or something logical and theoretical-sounding like that.
Seems rather inelegant the way he says it.

By: Stranger Strangeland

Stranger Strangeland — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:20:49 +0000

Generally new facts that clash with existing theory provide incentive to dream up new theoretical frameworks into which the new facts fit. What are the new facts that are supposed to be explained with string theory or multiverses? I enjoyed a science fiction novel titled Starman Jones when I was a kid. It was based on the idea that space is folded so that going from here to there is not lightyears if you can calculate where the shortcuts are and take them by reaching lightspeed. It was nifty speculation, and about as factually based as string theory, I’ve read.

By: Prof. Enead

Prof. Enead — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:47:58 +0000

It is too bad that in such an advanced field of knowledge we would entertain speculation and pretend it’s anymore intelligent than the hokus pokus concept of a god personally involved in granting our individual wishes. Infinite Plausibility? Philosophical Satisfaction? These are still the concepts of a disturbed mind trying to validate irrationally some sense of lost satisfaction.

By: cgauthier

cgauthier — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:20:26 +0000

…the descent of theoretical physics into increasingly fantastical speculation, disconnected from the reality that we can access empirically.

Is Horgan an idiot? How does an idiot maintain a post at Scientific American?

Physics is bored with “the reality that we can access empirically”. Things are happening that we cannot account for with empirical observation (yet), so we use theoretical physics to tease out the mathematical possibility of hypotheses for what these hidden aspects of reality are, so that we can eventually test them.

We may never actually be able to test some of them, due to technological shortcomings, but that alone does not invalidate the usefulness, or at least the rational satisfaction, of the speculation.

I mean, if the multi-verse hypothesis never leaves the realm of speculation, ever, it is still infinitely more plausible and philosophically satisfying than God or Karma or “this is the only possible universe and everything is the way it is because :-p”.

By: Kamrava Pirouz

Kamrava Pirouz — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:59:35 +0000

If this theory that we have existing replicates due to particles being arranged the exact same way is true, then there must be many, many, many other universes; which leads me to believe that the theory isn’t the best, although, of course, there is the slightest chance that it may be true.

By: David George

David George — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:02:54 +0000

Dr. Hoo writes,

“There are some incontrovertible bifurcations in simple physics that indicate something is, then isn’t, then is. Like the electron, for example, is an infinitely small point of no size that is either a wave or particle, but not all at the same time. Bifurcation, like when the electron tunnels right through solid matter is another example. We make every day use of these happenings. Television has to use these happenings to work at all. It would be a conveyance and possibly true to assume that it is possible to step out of this universe and then back again.”

So — an infinitely small point/wave/particle of no size and indeterminate status at any time tunnels through an arrangement of infinitely small point/wave/particles of no size and indeterminate status at any time, and television uses these happenings in order to work?

Are you certain (or even 95% probably certain, or 85%) of this?

By: Dr Hoo

Dr Hoo — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:32:24 +0000

There are some incontrovertible bifurcations in simple physics that indicate something is, then isn’t, then is. Like the electron, for example, is an infinitely small point of no size that is either a wave or particle, but not all at the same time. Bifurcation, like when the electron tunnels right through solid matter is another example. We make every day use of these happenings. Television has to use these happenings to work at all. It would be a conveyance and possibly true to assume that it is possible to step out of this universe and then back again.

By: Andrew Moseman

Andrew Moseman — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:13:36 +0000

@Charles
From the context of her piece, I believe the Times writer meant not that string theory is commonsensical to physicists, but rather in that simple in comparison to some of the far-out multiverse ideas Greene explores in the new book.

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:48:26 +0000

Quote: “By now, the 11-dimension string theory models of his earlier books … are looking downright commonsensical.” Whoever wrote this for the NY Times should see the recent report from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN that experiments there have shown the 11-dimension version of string theory unlikely to be true. The quote is typical of these fantastical books and their fans. Just because the Standard Model and relativity are probably going to be superseded by another model of nature doesn’t mean that every hare-brained idea that comes along is true even if it works mathematically. There are any number of theories that work mathematically that have nothing to do with nature. String theory has a good number of challengers these days, including physicist Lee Smolin, who argues in his book “The Trouble with Physics” that it hasn’t produced an iota of proof in several decades and that it dominates the science like a mandate, freezing out any number of young scientists who want to work in alternative theoretical areas. The Big Bang has a lot of verifiable proof behind it. Please show me some proof for either string theory or the multiverse before you call any skeptic a closed-minded old fogey.

By: nick

nick — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:58:18 +0000

In any *currently conceivable* experiment.

Who was that famous guy, said something about imagination being more important than knowledge? IIRC, he did something that will be remembered longer than Mr. Who’s articles.

The multiple worlds theory makes just as much sense as the Copenhagen interpretation, especially when you get down to the fact that quantum mechanics can’t currently explain what it means by a ‘conscious observer’ in the role of collapsing quantum probability into our observed reality.

Everyone who’s said we’ve reached the end of knowledge has been shown a fool in the history books. There will be, there has to be a successor to general relativity and the standard model, because they can’t explain everything, or each other, but they both ‘work.’