||[Jan. 5th, 2009|03:23 am]
cunts talking about kant
let's talk about cosmology for a bit. what do you believe the world is composed of? what, beyond physics, can we say about the universe? does physics have the answers, and if so, why is quantum physics turning everything on its head?|
I personally believe the world is composed essentially from vibration. energy is vibration and matter is energy vibrating at extremely low frequencies to the point of appearing static.
this is an interesting video on the topic:
i think that the whole "matter-form" cosmological conjecture has been accepted dogmatically since aristotle and secured by christianity, and i suppose that further innovation and reinforcement of scientific theories will show that the matter-form paradigm does not correspond to reality well.
here is some suggested reading, if anyone is interested:
well, i started reading "on Physics and Philosophy" (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8329.html
) last month. It's a dense read, so I'm taking my time. But quantum physics pretty much already says this.
"scientific theories will show that the matter-form paradigm does not correspond to reality well."
The reason other areas of science work with a Newtonian model of physics is that it models well with the macroscopic universe. insert cynical joke here
It also allows you to target enemies and drop bombs on them pretty damn effectively too.
i saw this video a couple years ago... very interesting stuff. although, i will admit that i got lost when he started explaining the 3rd dimension as a fold. reminded me of madeleine l'engle and a wrinkle in time. regardless, i think that he has something going with this.
my friend who is big on cosmology tells me that this version of string theory is no longer accepted by most cutting-edge cosmologists; now, they have something called "m theory" which utilizes TWNETY-SIX dimensions (bosonian string theory).
I could be wrong, but from what i know:
Bosonic string theory is actually the earliest developed string theory that I know of (it's form the 60's), and is sort of frowned upon these days, because of a couple of issues (requiring tachyons, and needing 25 space dimensions and one time dimension to cancel out conformal anomalies).
Also, m-theory typically refers to the newer developed theory involving 11 dimensions and d-branes. It's not bosonic, and as far as I know, unlike bosonic theory, it does allow for fermions, and thus admits the existence of matter, though in a manner consistent with the relativistic concept that matter and energy are interchangable.
Though there are issues with the article, i recommend this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
thank you, andrew! this was very insightful. i'm not particularly keen on advanced cosmology in terms of (quantum) physics, so this helped a lot.
I just found much better reading: a "non-technical account" of M-theory. It's 39 pages long though, so I'll give you the abstract and link if you want it:
Current attempts to find a unified theory that would reconcile Einstein’s General
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and explain all known physical phenomena,
invoke the Kaluza-Klein idea of extra spacetime dimensions. The best candidate
is M-theory, which lives in eleven dimensions, the maximum allowed by
supersymmetry of the elementary particles. We give a non-technical account.
An Appendix provides an updated version of Edwin A. Abbott’s 1884 satire
Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. Entitled Flatland, Modulo 8, it describes
the adventures of a superstring theorist, A. Square, who inhabits a tendimensional
world and is initially reluctant to accept the existence of an eleventh
I'll come back later to write my own thoughts on cosmology, as it is something I take great interest in.
lovely! thank you, again.