Brian Greene: The universe on a string

TEDtalksDirector asked:


www.ted.com n clear, nontechnical language, string theorist Brian Greene explains how our understanding of the universe has evolved from Einstein's notions of gravity and space-time to superstring theory, where minuscule strands of energy vibrating in 11 dimensions create every particle and force in the universe. (This mind-bending theory may soon be put to the test at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva.)

25 comments:

  1. IslandguyX

    @mishigreene
    Yeah, a lot of slick talk, supposed to be, but nothing of any scientific substance. You can’t tell concepts from reality but put on the big pufferfish attitude, while you insult postal workers for no good reason. You are the religious disciple, following the metaphyiscal pipers, holding you on track by peer pressure. Get a real…

  2. mishigreene

    @mishigreene Now there’s some you can sink your teeth into. i’m outta here Drake, i’m on FB “TheLoneHotNerd” or mishi green or michelle greene or if you want to continue this, but I refuse to further engage a fruitcake who poo poos everything but has neither answers nor suggestions.

  3. mishigreene

    @IslandguyX you’re at the wrong website. The flat earth society meets on the 2nd floor. If you don’t like this stuff find some other place to show ur azz. You are not coherent. But what I strongly dislike is your attacks on a young budding scientist who obviously is seeking knowledge while you are attempting to belittle his spirit. You only talk trash. Since you obviously disagree with 150 yr of science, tell us what is the truth. or is it Jesus like most of the fruitcakes babble?

  4. IslandguyX

    @MultiHotNERD
    What a nonsense! We know 3 dimensions: width, length, heigth. None of these have anything to do with vectors, coordinates or other fancy trendy words such as “queesbots”. Vectors are dynamic, dimensions static, coordinates are points with zero size (it doesn’t get any more not-dimensional than that). Mathematicians want to play scientists, that’s pretty much all it is and it doesn’t work. Mathematics’s a HELPER SCIENCE to physics, not a substitute. You might want to remember that.

  5. IslandguyX

    I think everybody following the little spin doctoring commenting by “mishigreen” and “runedrake” sees immediatly through the charade. After you failed to refute me in a discussion relating to the issue at hand, you weak souls now resort to adhominem and (supposed) authority parading. Still the simple fact remains that there are only (obviously!) 3 spatial dimensions and any amount of semanticsplay and term blurring by mathematicians won’t change that. Greene is taking people for fools.

  6. MultiHotNERD

    Professor Greene merely ” sees” the math, hence the multiplicity of “queesbots” in his mind. Finally, an “object” is only a condensation of energy [e=mc2] . String theory, good or bad, is not seeking out 11 dimensions for the object but a multidimension [ sorry multiple queesbots"] for the energy comprising that object. Again, masturbating over words get’s you nowhere

  7. MultiHotNERD

    @MultiHotNERD you’ll find it at different places dependent on time. immediately making time the 4th “queesbot.” [where is the F train? well what time is it?] GOT IT? Then imagine a cube within a cube a Tesseract” and you can readily see a 4 dimensional cube IF THE OBSERVER LIVED INSIDE THE SMALLER CUBE. See it all depends on your point of reference. Mathematics allows one to look inside different points of reference.

  8. MultiHotNERD

    I will attempt clarification. Forget Webster. a “dimension” [or queesbot or hurgaloid whatever u want to call it] is the least number of coordinates needed to define a point within a space. A Plane has 2 “queesbots” a line has one. a cube has 3. each queesbot is also a vector as a line or plane can extend in a give direction that direction being the vector. If you are looking for a given queesbot”

  9. RuneDrake314

    @MultiHotNERD :D Okay…

    I was just like…”OMG WHUT” for a while because the scene was so implausible. Admittedly it’s also hilarious.

  10. RuneDrake314

    @MultiHotNERD Oh…oops…

    Erp…>Feels awkward< I hate calling people names they hate for like a week and then just realizing they hate it.

  11. MultiHotNERD

    @IslandguyX LMAO total bullshit dancing on the english language, tangential, schizoid-like thinking; designed to obfuscate any meaning other than sound intellectual. This guy is not a scientist, he’s Mitch McConnell, an ignorant hillbilly from Kentucky.

  12. MultiHotNERD

    @RuneDrake314 I was being sarcastic BUT when a person attacks the person and not the theory there is always a reason, “insecurity and/or low self esteem being the first two plausible explanations. HE wasn’t really carrying around a porno book in his right hand. He was holding what Ringo means when he sings, “i can’t tell you but i know it’s mine.”

  13. MultiHotNERD

    @RuneDrake314 call him Professor Greene as he prefers that. His Jewish mother prefers Dr. Greene for obvious reasons.

  14. RuneDrake314

    And actually, mishi, I picked on him first ._. He said something about Dr. Greene misusing the word “dimensions” and I said…well…if ya wanna know what I said, you can go back a few pages and look. :D

  15. mishigreene

    @IslandguyX One last question. Why do you dislike Prof Greene personally? Are you the grad student he had ejected from Columbia for running naked in the cyclotron lab while reading “Snow White and the Seven Johns”?

  16. mishigreene

    @IslandguyX Your thinking is so black and white so stuck in concrete that to tell you that using webster’s definition of “dimension” to refute 150 years of mathematics rediculous will certainly fall on deaf ears. Your understand of Pi is nil. Try Buffon’s needle and explain why pi is ubiquitous not merely related to the circumference of a circle. Basically stick to youtube and quit picking on a budding genius like Drake!

  17. mishigreene

    @IslandguyX just plain incorrect. Your invalid assumption is that space is defined as a set of perpendicular lines. Your young colleague Drake has already stood on Minkowski’s shoulders and sees clearly the failings of your myopic vision. I have told Drake to no longer engage you, the disgruntled postal worker. I certainly will not answer your gibberish.

  18. RuneDrake314

    @MultiHotNERD Got it. Thanks. Taking Pre-Cal when school starts. Hopefully I won’t fail…. T.T

  19. MultiHotNERD

    @RuneDrake314 yup. His books are written for money. They are meant to be purchased by people not understanding this stuff at a high level. Learn the ubiquity of Pi, combinatorics, advanced calculus including absolute differential [tensor] calculus and quantum optics to either support or defend string theory. String theory is probably a cohesive approach but the intensity and complexity of the math required has gotten nowhere in 15 years. Keep studying math. MATH IS PHYSICS UNTESTED.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>