String theorists had believed that a total of 10 dimensions exist, including height, width, length and time. The other six dimensions exist largely as unknowns, but everything is based on hypothetical one-dimensional strings. A newer theory, called M-theory, suggests that those strings all vibrate in yet another dimension. Manipulating that additional dimension would alter dark energy in terms of height, width, and length, Cleaver and Obousy theorize.That 'other dimension' is the Eleventh and is based 'Super Gravity' which was pooh-poohed until theoretical physicists realized (finally) that without it their String Theory didn't 'work' because their was FIVE of them, and that ain't good in physics. Only by adding the Eleventh Dimension of Super Gravity did they see that all five string theories were basically the same thing being approached from different directions. And more importantly the M-Theory solved the leetle problem the String Theory couldn't -- The Big Bang and The Singularity (not to mention Alternate Universes, but that's another matter (pun intended).
As to Einstein; There's already a problem with E=mc2. Super Gamma Ray Bursts blow it to hell. The 'answer' arrived at to make it work is laughable (IMO). So if he's wrong there ...??? Oh and Leptons appear in two places at the same time. How do they do that, Alternate Universes or Time Travel?
I'm not a Theoretical Physicist, nor a Cosmologist, I just play one on FR.
Wonderful point! However, why do people persist in using the misleading term “string theory”? Did i miss it, or did someone devise an observable experiment that can empirically prove or disprove “string hypothesis”??
The wilder the claim, (invisible dimensions, leptons simultaneously being in differing places, time travel, observer based reality,,ie, “what route did the particle travel,,well it depends, were you watching it?” etc,,,,)
Then the stronger is the demand for evidence beyond the chalkboard. When someone won’t even properly use and follow the basic terminology of the scientific method, (hypothesis vs theory) and shows no respect for even basic epistimology, i am free to conclude they may have consumed the bong water.
They freely label a mere mathmatical hypothesis a “theory”, and i am supposed to assume that all their other work doesn’t take sloppy shortcuts?