42...?
Interesting stuff. I started out thinking it was a 10 minute film and about an hour later, have watched all its 10-minute parts. :28: Very thought provoking though, that's for sure. This new M theory they're referencing, while very poignant and quite plausible, in my opinion, is loosely based upon the string theory... which is the part I can't get my brain wrapped around. I do understand the string theory itself, but the theorem
evolution from the particle theory
into the string theory is what is confusing me. The only research I'm finding is calling the 'strings' a "different manifestations of particles" (originally referenced in the Standard Theory.) Different manifestations? Um, ok? Right, so a lighter's flame and a roaring forest fire are 'different manifestations' but by this definition, would be the same thing.... a female human and a chipmunk are 'different manifestations' of the same basic principals... yet these things are vastly different. Can this explanation of "different manifestations" be any broader?
Ok, so can anyone offer some info on the formation of this theory for me? If I understood where its logic was coming from, the M theory and everything that followed could "flow"... As it is, the M theory, I identify with; the particle theory I also identify with, but I'm left with a big "black hole" (ha ha, bad pun) ...in the middle of the two.
Another thought:
(Granted, I don't have any more than a very basic knowledge of physics, so I could be coming off as a moron to those who do know more, but...) Why are scientists assuming that because particles don't remain in any particular location that they're hopping parallel universes? Did that theory change when the theorems changed in general from the Standard to String and then to M? It seems more logical to me that particles are shared and intertwined with the things they are surrounding- everything has a molecular structure and thus, atoms with their protons and neutrons doing what they do. IF neutrons are moving within space and time to different destinations, it seems more likely to me that the 'sharing' taking place between these moving atoms would be shared amongst the 'things' surrounding it. (This could also be used to loosely explain the "connectivity" within the human species, broadly expanded to encompass empathy, telepathy, etc.)
It rather seems that scientists are trying to grasp at whatever fits into what is already thought to be 'known', though I do see a lot of the plausibility in their hypotheses discussed in those video segments.
...So far as someone arguing that there wouldn't be any alternate universes, I'll ask my husband for you- I'm sure he has some basis for argument's sake available in his back pocket to throw out there. He doesn't believe in
anything unless it's directly in his line of sight- though he's not one of those 'cause I said so' kinds of people, he actually has a legitimate reason and intelligent argument behind his conjectures. --I'll ask.
~BB~