M-theory

Does anybody think that this theory would be in workable.

Type I, Type IIA, type IIB, heterotic SO(32) and heterotic E8XE8
are difficult enough on their own own, but the Unification of them?!

I just saw an attempt at unifying Type IIA and heterotic SO(32) and it's unlike anything else I've ever seen for complexity.

I couldn't imagine how they would ever work M-theory out.

What do you guys think?

Does anybody think that this theory would be in workable.

Type I, Type IIA, type IIB, heterotic SO(32) and heterotic E8XE8
are difficult enough on their own own, but the Unification of them?!

I just saw an attempt at unifying Type IIA and heterotic SO(32) and it's unlike anything else I've ever seen for complexity.

I couldn't imagine how they would ever work M-theory out.

What do you guys think?

*whoosh*

That just went totally over my head. Can you say that again in English please?!

Bart.

The five different string theories on their own is difficult enough.
And the unification of two of them surpasses anything I've ever seen.

So does anybody think M-theory will go anywhere?

The five different string theories on their own is difficult enough.
And the unification of two of them surpasses anything I've ever seen.

So does anybody think M-theory will go anywhere?

Hmmm .... I'm not sure it will but right now it is the most promising thing I have yet heard of so I hope it does!

Bart.

I don't know if it will though. It took a group working for 10 years to unify two seperate string theories.
Imagine unifying all five of them into one framework.

Even then they wouldn't have M-theory, cause they'd have to make all the theories background independant and find the correct Calabi-Yau space for the theory.

Well, now that I'm reading 'The Elegant Universe' (Brian Greene) I suppose I'm as good a physicist as the next gobshite :roll: It does seem to be an exciting time as the various sub-theories are revealed to be complementary or 'dual' to each other: studied together, each reveals aspects of a unified concept that's yet to be fully defined. Greene uses the analogy of the blind men encountering an elephant: one describes the trunk, the next the tail, another the leg, and so on. It seems that we have several theories describing aspects of the same beast. Now that's as far as I go before I make a complete elephant of myself. It's a good read anyway, and illuminates a universe (multiverse?) that's far weirder than even general relativity led us to conceive.