SBS doco tonite - The Elegant Universe

[Argonavis]

At 8.30pm tonight SBS is screening "The Elegant Universe".

My TV guide says "How modern physics - being composed of two theories that are ferociously incompatible - reached its schizophrenic impasse", which I assume will cover quantum theory and relativity and the attempt by modern physics to combine them into a Grand Unified Theory of everything.

[drmorbius]

I read the book and it's excellent at explaining String Theory to the layman. Thanks for the heads up...

[astroron]

I watched it on my very grainy tv,I think it is a three part series, part 2 next week.
It is also out on DVD which I will probably get so I can see and understand it a bit better:P

[Gargoyle_Steve]

SBS has previously screened this show, I watched it aroud a year ago(?) and found it fascinating.

Part 2 will take some 20-odd minutes from memory just recapping on part 1, but it's worth it anyway. Later on they move from "simple" 11 dimensional String Theory to the 21 or 22 dimensional Super String version. It's an amazing concept, and it does finally allow for a kind of Unified Field Theory (eg. the comparitively weak gravitional forces we observe can be explained, etc.)

For anyone who wants to work their mind a bit, this is a must see! I'd love to get this on DVD, I did check into it at the time, it's handled by a Brisbane company from memory, but not cheap at all. Their website has all the info(details elude me at preset, check the credits I think for web address, or SBS announcement after show).

[sheeny]

I have both the book and the DVD, fortunately, as I didn't see this post yesterday to watch it last night... so I actually managed some clear skies and got the scope out last night!!!:thumbsup:

I can recommend both the book and the DVD. From memory I think there are some gaps between my knowledge and what's in the book. Not sure if that's due to my ignorance or lack of education in some areas or due to some big assumptions on the part of the author, or even just some big compromises having to be made in writing/editting, but I still think its a good read! I don't have any issues with the DVD - good viewing!:thumbsup: (Wouldn't mind a follow up a bit deeper....:D )

Al.

[Dujon]

I too saw this series on its last airing. Greene is not only a good author he's a good presenter. The series, to my way of thinking, is well directed and constructed. I cannot comment on what it's like for others who have not read the book as I had at the time - it's dogeared and falling apart on my bookshelf as I type.

I recommend the book wholeheartedly to anyone who is interested.

[rogerg]

I just watched the whole 3 hours online.

Two comments:

1) Great that they have it available free to watch online (legally), as my SBS reception here is very static.

2) Having watched it: I'm confused. That's about all I have to say.

:whistle:

Roger.

[sheeny]

:lol: Fair enough! That's an honest response!

There are some weird concepts on string/brane theory, aren't there? ...if it proves to be correct!... "curiouser and curiouser"...

Al.

[rogerg]

It was all very interesting - I loved watching it and thinking about the possibilities. I just can't retain much of the information to form a good understanding hand hence make sense of it :)

Roger.

[sheeny]

The retention an be improved by watching (reading) it over and over... as for making sense of it... well...:rofl:

But seriously, I suppose it depends on what you call "making sense of it". Am I comfortable that what I understand of the theory suggests that the whole theory could ultimately describe the way things are - yes. Do I understand the maths, and therefore the details of the theory... aaaahhhh... nuh! But I'm Ok with that!:rofl:

It's good exercise for the brain though!

Al.

[avandonk]

The real problem with string theory is that it is not testable by experiment at this time. The high energies needed to show structure at ten to the minus forty+ power in length are far beyond our current accelerators. Unless the theory can come up with something predictive and testable it remains what it is a theory. Observational cosmology may give some insights. Nevertheless conjecture may point to the truth it just takes time and effort.

Of course the other way this theory can be shown to be correct is to predict from It's first principles the masses, charges, spin etc of all the elementary particles and all the Universal Constants. Never mind this very weak thing called Gravity.

I personally think that since everything was once in the same place and time (the 'singularity?' before the big bang) hence that all 'particles' are forever entwined or linked (see Einstein action at a distance or Quantum entanglement) there is something that is connecting everything that exists through space AND time to everything else through space AND time. I wonder if gravity is an indicator of these connections.

My guess is as good as any other guess. The test is, is it testable!

Bert

[sheeny]

Very true, Bert. If you can't test it, it's philosophy, not science.

Al.

[Argonavis]

Rather it is a hypothesis, and the testing is going to be very difficult. To date there is zero evidence. I read that if an atom (say hydrogen) was blown up to the size of the solar system, a string would only be a few meters long. These string things, suggested as the basic constituant of matter, are puny even on the subatomic scale. Given time, effort and money, it will be tested as it does elegantly explain many aspects of our Universe.

[g__day]

String theory is catching increased heat nowadays, not because it can't predict anything or be tested, but it is simply too open at present and any possibility at all can be handled within it by simply adding more dimensions or tweaking. As it can simultaneously account for diammertically opposed views its critics say its sitting on the fence and diverting the brain pool; focus it or forget about it is their message.

[xelasnave]

My 1st wife would say to me "when you can give me an answer you take your time and at first I think I understand but when I go away I really cant say that you have answered my questions"
Mr Greene I know how my 1st wife felt.
Is it just me? but the show said nothing to explain the concept...if it said anything please tell me as I feel it was a total waste of time.
Apart from pointing out that the recognition of being the next Einstein is the driving force behind this philophosy what did he say. How does a string work? where does it fit in an atom ? a quark?.. Further I was under the impression that when string theory spoke of upto 11 dimentions it was not in the sence of parrallel Universes but in the sence of degrees of measurement. I use the following to explain...
Looked at from a distance a peice of sting appears to have only one dimention, length, get closer we see it also has width, closer and we perceive depth. I dont know that string theory says anything much different.. Greene plays the showman and that is understandable as there could be no drier subject even for those intensely interested in the theory, but the content its not confusing it is simply empty.
String theory has had a long time to come up with something but we still are wating, it should move over and let the minds currently engaged direct their powers to developing something tangible, er and testible even.
Is there anyone out there who understands string theory sufficient to tell me I am wrong re the dimention thing or if I am being too harse on the show.
Those of us who pooh who black magic should take a long look at what we are being asked to accept as the cornestone of our current human intelect, if you take a deep look at it you have every right to feel taken in and foolish. It is so tantalizing it makes you feel as all is being answered yet it is not..sound familar?? The great man himself said of any theory that it is of no use if it can not be explained in simple terms to a layman, the math being the book keeping of the events, as he explained.
Get past the excitement of such material being presented in prime time and ask are you getting "feelings of understanding" or any facts that expalins anything.
String supportors can now go for it tie me up with some real knowledge. You have my view but that can be changed with better information without me feeling hurt or unloved;)
alex
alex

[xelasnave]

Further..the representation of the space time grid in the show is wrong. Space time is not bent by a "mass" like a ball on a sheet. If you look at what reaslly happens the only way you can use a sheet and a ball is to place the ball under the sheet with the "bend" pointing towards the ball.. draw a point of mass in "space" and try to represent the space time grid and you will see how misleading the ball and sheet anology really is.. the use of such an anology reveals little thought about the subject. The rubber sheet and ball(when used correctly as suggested) is used to explain gravity but it does not.... it can only show that mass distorts space time.
There is no explanation as to how mass bends space time and more infuriating no one involved has ever seen a necessity to have an explanation... simply mass bends space time thats all we need know??? to think this has been about for such a long time and no one sees that as a difficulty is beyond my comprehension. Space time removes the necessity of a force being attached to gravity which all have been happy to live with but that is putting a hand over one eye and looking sideways at the problem thru the other.
Finally what all this says to me people are content to have anything sold to them without asking what is really being said. Space time is such a scarey matter to engage however when it all boils down it says much less than we believe it does..it is geometry after all...
String theory exsists because no one has demanded what science demands of any new concept..proof, evidence, prediction etc. I have no problem with string theory as a proposition, as a philoposhy, as a great idea but to call it science..well I can see why the inteligent design folk think they deserve a go.. string theory is really on no better footing.
The subject to focus upon is how does gravity work. It is the engine of the Universe and all we can do is expalin it by a bend in space time and provide no physical explation of how interactions take place.
If one worked out how gravity works rather than simply push that to one side how many other mysteries would resolve to us.
If string theory can show me how the strings provided a mechanism for interaction I will come on board with support and praise it more, but it should provide some experiments in support before it has the right to continue.
All I can find on gravity via quantum physics, (which is presumably still beyond me but ) there is an attempt to explain the physical interaction between particles... but it is clear that how gravity works is a still a mystery. Understanding how gravity works may see the necessity for dark matter dissappear.. how can anything be contemplated without an explanation of the machinery of gravity??? It is such an important part of everything and gets little attention.

alex

[Argonavis]

next episode tonite

[h0ughy]

I thought it was a great show, thought provoking! bring on the nerds!

[netwolf]

Alex, i appreciate where your comming from but i dont think its neccessary for people to stop investigating string theory simply because it may have not produced anything that you would conisder as proof yet. Lets not go around and tell people what they can and can not apply the scientific method to, lest we narrow our field to only what has been proved and leave everything else unexplored. Is that what we want to teach our kids, that hey dont investigate that its pointless. As i have said in another thread we lost 100 years because of the popularity of Newton over Hyguen, shall we repeat that error. It took somone brave enought to conteplate a unification of there two theories 100 years on to bring that to an end.

Can you more clearly state what it is about gravity we do not understand yet? Appart from it can be measured and is inversly porportional to the distance between masses. I never really got much into relativity beyond that the bending of light caused by the Sun (observer during solar eclipse) indicates that Gravity bends space time or the curve of space time causes gravity. Oh and the principle of equivalance that realtes Gravity to Acceleration. Withing a closed frame of refrence external acceleration of that frame would appear internaly as Gravity. Similar to how the induce weightlessness in a plane by dropping down from a high altitude, the accelaration is made such that it cancels the gravitiation accelartion of the eart.

Edit:

Found this link for those who want to see it online.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Regards

[xelasnave]

Thank you for your kind and gentle responce NEtwolf, probably more than I deserved, however it is a matter I get passionate about. Gravity or rather how it works is a big thing to me and I get frustrated when space time says effectively dont worry how it works just be content that you can measure the effects in various situations.
AND strangely I did like the show I just wanted all the mysteries answered in 60 minutes.
Still I think those involved in investigating the theory must address concerns such as mine because if they can not be resolved it will not matter how long they work on it if we can not have proof. It surprises me that the theory has lived for so long without this necessity being seriously addressed. I dont think I am the only one with such a concern and sence many in the scientific world wonder how demands of proof are required for their work yet this area has escaped for 20 odd years. To me its like living in a fairy tale, everything has names, we feel we can visualise the lay of the land, but it is only a fairy tale that can not move from the world of make believe to the world of fact and experimental demonstation.
I would be interested to hear your opinion as to my understanding of the representation of the parrallel universe idea (derived from 11 dimentions) and if (or not) my understanding is similar to that as put forward by the theory. Also the representation of the bending of space time gets to me because I think it is misleading and therefore wrong to present it the way it was in the show.
Again thank you for your input and gentle reply.
alex

[netwolf]

Alex, appologies if i appeared to indicate i knew anything about string theory. I have not really looked into it. Nor do i know much about the concept of multi dimensions. I am bringing myself up to speed on the last 20 years of development and i will get back to you for a heated debate when i am done. Could be a while ;).

I appreciate that perhaps the investigation has not answered some questions you feel are the burdens of proof for them to continue or might even help them. But if we all follow a single path then we all reach a single destination. Allowing people to explore sometimes in a diffrent perspective to us can be benifical. This is why i like using the example of the duality of light theory so much. Neither Newton nor Hyugen were incorrect in there initial perceptions, yet because one was more popular we suffered a great loss in time. In the end it took Neils Bohr to suggest we use both based on what we are investigating. So sometimes we need to accept the approach to a given problem from a perspective we dont fully understand but perhaps the person investigating it can see what we can not. Lets give them the time to investigate. But i agree we should also raise the questions as you have so that there investigation does not go unchecked.

Regards

[astroron]

I get the feeling that science is clutching at straws (strings) with very little proof and very little to go on.
It seems to me that a lot of scientist like to make things fit even if the parts of the puzzle wont quite go in.:screwy:
Just my opinion;)

[Argonavis]

Ron, as you know there is no evidence to support string "theory" (an overused word - hypothesis really), but there is no other competing explanation for the fundamental forces that operate in the Universe.

[netwolf]

Argonavis, its intresting thing you have noted. It has also been something i have wondered about. In the last 50 years it seems that the advances in science have been based more on assumptions and theories based on other theories, rather than proven fact. I suppose when your dealing the physics of the universe its rather hard to prove things. Things like darkmatter anti gravity are based on derivations of what we can observer at a far away distance. Can we be certain what we see and observe is real. What other things in space have we yet not discovered that could tamper with how we percive events in the far away heavens. We are clutching at something that is perhaps beyond our reach. Have you noticed in the last 20 years ther have been more books in the bookstores about theories rather than facts. And the lay person is more at peace reading one of these books as facts rather than learning any proven science from textbooks.

Alex made some good points yet we are all enthraled by a tv show that makes sense to us but what sense does it really make when our knowledge is just theories not funadamentals. They are converting complex systems into things lay people will understand and eat up without question or skeptisim.

People are happier with simple to understnad concepts that are not convaluted with mathamatics. But then whre are the checks and balances, that equations, and profs provide. Where is the data and its validation. No one would read a book filled with maths and data, it would not sell. Peopl want things explined simply and hence make science a Faith rather than a method to find truth.

Even on these forums, people spend a lot of time trying to process there images to bring out more details using processes we do not fully understnad but know provide the visual result we desire. Our desire to produce visually pleasing vistas is more important than understanding why?

I too have become obssed with imaging more thant understanding how things work. I want goto so i can see more in one night, but what do i learn from this. Our drive is our desire to see more than learn. Appolgies if i have offended i dont mean to genaralise to all memebrs i am just reflecting on myself and what i percive.

Edit: Just look at the title Elegant? why not the ugly? the brutal? why lean towards words that our more desirable than less. I dont imaging planets being hurtled into a black hole (point) would consider the universe Elegant.
Regards

[Argonavis]

I am amazed when I walk into bookshops and see all the books. Who reads them all? Who writes them? However, I am not sure it is that bad that people go off into flights of fanatsy, it is a testament to the human imagination.

People can imagine a bridge or building then go out and build it. They can imagine all sorts of other stuff and go out and write a book or start a religion or cult or fad or fashion and makes heaps of money. It's the way of the world, and science is a cultural endevour that is just as subject to many of the same rules. You hope that scientists are not subject to prejudice and emotion and fads and fashion and wanting to be famous but it is not so. Fortunately science has peer review and the necessity of producing evidence and falsifiability of theories as a means of eventually coming up with the truth (with a small "t").

Humans also love a good story and fantasy which makes science textbooks seem dull.



i think amateurs really enjoy the technical challenge of producing images of celestial stuff, which are also pretty. This is art as much as science, and the two intersect at this point. David Marlin produced gorgeous images that he used science to explain.



A black hole sucking up planets is very elegant to a mathematician who can observe nature obeying a simple set of equations.

String theory (small "t") is a set of equations that explains the fundamnetal nature of matter, so is very elegant.

[netwolf]

Argonavis,

I dont mean we go into flights of fantasy, but the general public has becomre more and more disconnected from factual Science.

Imagination is a grand thing but without science we would have bridges and buildings collapsing arround us.

My point about the visual is that if we dont understand the methods used, perhaps the outcomes achived are not real. As they are derived to appeal visually. I must admit there is much one learns in the process of imaging but there is much we used without understandin it first.

Regards

[g__day]

netwolf - a small set of the things we don't understand about gravity

1. Why is it so weak compared to the other forces - does it leak into other dimensions?
2. Is it quantised into packets or can it have any value?
3. Can it be negative under any circumstances?
4. Does it have a carrier - like the graviton or Higgs bosun or is it more like a Higgs field in which other particles interact?
5. If it has a carrier is their a minimum energy level this carrier can have and if so how? How do you represent a curvature of spacetime with 10 ^ -120 joules of energy?
6. How does it interact with the other 3 forces at sub-atomic distances?
7. How does it operate and propogate in the space between gravitationally bound galactic clusters wherein relativity does not strictly have to apply?

[xelasnave]

Well I saw the last show and was impressed that some attempt was made to explain gravity. Not very happy with their explanation but at least there was an attempt.. which is (even after the explanation) the most important thing we need to know if we are to move forward in understanding everything. Still explaining gravity as being a weak force because some of it leaks into another dimention is rather sad because as far as I can see there is no proof or physical indication that such a belief may have basis in fact..but it seemed like a good idea at the time so lets go with the leaking into another dimention thing....I mean how reasonable does this sound..where is the razor when you need it...this theory would bleed to death if the razor was flashed at it... I wish my ideas on gravity would meet with as little resistance as apparently all those give to this mystical suggested explanation.
How can one "rip" space time? why worry if you do because we have a neat little string which gathers the rip up in a "tube" (which is really a string and if you like to bring it up to date a "brane" er "membrane"). As exciting as it sounds I can not see anyway (other than on paper) space time can be ripped...I mean think about it and if you still feel thats ok after some consideration thats OK with me but dont accept this stuff with wide eyes and a heart expecting all to be revealed. Ask what have I really found out to be new and does it take anything forward in real terms.... My answer is no it does not.
Still I can be easily dismissed, as I, like everyone not getting their pay check from a String theory "patron", do not have the math to add power to my words of "this is nonsence until you have some experiments in proof". Not being sckilled in math leaves me far too ignorant to have a view that this should go to the never to be completed work bin. How presumptuious that a layman seeks to bust the bubble of this make believe world. Still let them continue if they are not engaged in this what other meaningful work could one apply the brain power monopolised by this theory... is there nothing else more worthy of such engagement??? Am I unreasonable? lets see how far this theory progresses in the next 20 years ..I will perhaps then be able to say "I told you so" If not remember I am the layman it should be me who is wrong...time will tell.
alex