Skip to comments.How to map the multiverse
Posted on 05/05/2009 5:33:31 AM PDT by LibWhacker
BRIAN GREENE spent a good part of the last decade extolling the virtues of string theory. He dreamed that one day it would provide physicists with a theory of everything that would describe our universe - ours and ours alone. His bestselling book The Elegant Universe eloquently captured the quest for this ultimate theory.
"But the fly in the ointment was that string theory allowed for, in principle, many universes," says Greene, who is a theoretical physicist at Columbia University in New York. In other words, string theory seems equally capable of describing universes very different from ours. Greene hoped that something in the theory would eventually rule out most of the possibilities and single out one of these universes as the real one: ours.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
It is worth noting that you can buy a used copy of the hardcover version of this book for about $7 including shipping on Amazon. That's less that half the price you would pay for the paperback at the local Borders.
Both are great books, but I HIGHLY recommend The Elegant Universe.. probably one of the most well written and fascinating books on cosmology I have ever read. It’s the kinda book you want to go back over and re-read sections of. I give it 2 thumbs up.
It was the best NOVA program, and one of the clearest explanations of Quantum Mechanics, that I'd ever seen.
Definitely second that - cannot recommend The Elegant Universe highly enough.
I certainly agree with all of the praise offered for “The Elegant Universe.” It was virtually my only companion during a rainy week in Virginia Beach, and I was fascinated and entertained by it from cover to cover. Green’s string theory was elegant, but it was, by definition, impossible to observe and to verify. Too bad because the rising possibilities inherent in it of alternate universes really appealed to me. It was quite soothing to think that somewhere, in one of those alternate universes, I was in Virginia Beach with the hottest babe in the world and we were indescribably happy together. :)
· Google ·
Quantifying time is the key IMO. If that is not done, all physical theories fall apart, again just my opinion.
To GGG: Regarding your keywords belongsinreligion and
notasciencetopic - when you start posting your threads into religion or chat, you can add such keywords. Until then, dont.
I put “belongs in religion” on some evo posts because the evos have been tagging my posts with that forever. And if you click on the keywords “belongs in religion” “propellerbeenie” “notasciencetopic” “spammer” etc, you will see that I (and a number of other Creationists and IDers) were the subject of an evo keyword attack yesterday. So I retaliated. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have done that, I should have just complained to the mods. But then again, certain mods tell me to “shut up” or “stop hitting the abuse button” no matter what.
I’m sure you will be giving the evos who launched the keyword attack yesterday the same warning, so I’m quite confident that this will cease to be a problem on all sides of the origins debate after today.
All the best—GGG
If you have issues with keywords, bring them to the attention of the moderators.
Please try bringing it to our attention on the specific threads - the keywords are tied to those threads. Oh, and not all keywords are abusive if they are an expression of a poster's opinion on the thread subject and are not profane or personal attacks.
Ok...so if I sincerely believe evo threads “belong in religion” than I’m in the clear. Got it.
Sorry for the hijack of your string theory thread.
GodGunsGuts (GGG) is a creationist that spams the news forum with several creationist threads every day.
He believes anything that is not in line with a 6000 year old earth or the rest of the bible to be an atheist, liberal, Nazi, communist, racist, etc (people have been called all of those by GGG or his groupies)plot.
Please ignore him and go back to your interesting discussion.
I haven’t read the Fabric of the Cosmos yet, but I loved the Elegant Universe. Excellent read.
sounds like a good read
Stay off of this thread!
Put some ice on that.
Please include me in your string theory list if you have one, SC, and btw, this thread even has potential in making the catastrophism list if you really think about it.
He believes anything that is not in line with a 6000 year old earth or the rest of the bible to be an atheist, liberal, Nazi, communist, racist, etc
You forgot God-denying, monkey loving kicker of small poodles.
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·|
Hard for me to make a comparison. I liked Lisa Randall's book. Readable and it got me interested in manifolds and such. Kip Thorne's book is sitting by my bed but I really haven't got into it yet. But I like his style. It should be a good read. But Greene is quite the writer for sure.
Fun in its own right not not any sort of a key to the workings of the universe. Einstein tried to describe gravity as some sort of a four dimensional differential geometry thing and there are two overwhelming problems with Einstein's claims regarding gravity: one is that there is no way to start with the gravity as differential geometry thing and believe that it (gravity) ever could have changed significantly near the surface of our own planet while it is an easy demonstration that it has, and that sauropod dinosaurs would be crushed by their own weight (the square/cube thing) in our present world; the other is the known fact that gravity propagates instantaneously, violating Einstein's claim that information cannot be passed around faster than C.
Disillusioning people is a dirty job but somebody's gotta do it....
Hmmmm. References please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.