Superstring Theory Predicts Emergence of 3+1 Dimensional Universe

The mechanism that explains why our universe was born with 3 dimensions:
a 40-year-old puzzle of superstring theory solved by supercomputer

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Further reading:
Expanding (3+1)-dimensional universe from a Lorentzian matrix model for superstring theory in (9+1)-dimensions
Expanding universe as a classical solution in the Lorentzian matrix model for nonperturbative superstring theory.
I had a brief debate whether to post this here or in P&M, as it's one o fthose stories that blurs the line between them.

 

Did you ready any of the stuff I linked to? Or the title of the thread for that matter?

 

I can tell, do you want to know how I can tell?

What's the title of the thread?

It's: "Superstring Theory Predicts Emergence of 3+1 Dimensional Universe". Therefore the thread (and the articles) are discussing the prediction of string theory, thus we have context for these statements:

Now, within this context, which you yourself admit you have failed to follow (by reading the content behind the links), we can rephrase these to demonstrate them within the context of the discussion (IE the thread title) and the context of the other supporting material provided (the links), heck, even within the context of the snippet you yourself quoted (I'll get to that in a minute):

Rephrased as such, your questions have the apperance of disingenuity and trolling, or at least a level of prose literacy that falls far below what one should reaosnably expect of someone claiming to have a PhD, even if it is in Geology.

The answer to the questions, when one is able to retain context, is fairly trivial. The answer is 'Really' because these really are predictions made by string theory. Whether or not they will be born out (for example, space becoming 9D in the very early universe) is a matter of ongoing reasearch.

Now, I believe I mentioned about the context within the snippet you quoted. Here again is the snippet you quoted:
"If one goes far enough back in time, space is indeed extended in 9 directions, but then at some point only 3 of those directions start to expand rapidly. This result demonstrates, for the first time, that the 3-dimensional space that we are living in indeed emerges from the 9-dimensional space that superstring theory predicts."

And here its with the relevant context emphasized:
"If one goes far enough back in time, space is indeed extended in 9 directions, but then at some point only 3 of those directions start to expand rapidly. This result demonstrates, for the first time, that the 3-dimensional space that we are living in indeed emerges from the 9-dimensional SPACE THAT SUPERSTRING THEORY PREDICTS."
In other words, even within the portion you quoted, the third part of the second sentence implies that the entire paragraph is discussing the predictions of suprestring theory, so all we're left with is your inability to understand what you're reading.

Nowhere did I comment on my personal beliefs. The only thing you commented on was an out of context misrepresentation that you used to construct a strawman hypothesis, and it was that strawman you commented on.

 

Off topic. If you have an axe to grind, please refrain from doing so in this thread.

I'm going to be polite, and call this confused, and make the point that, once again, the problem here is your comprehension, not my clarity. Nothing in my post states or implies what you appear to be suggesting here. I address your followup post by addressing your first post. All posts are properly referenced, becaus unlike some other's on this forum, I've figured out how to use copy and paste to do that.

And once again we come back to your lack of prose literacy as the source of the problem.

Nothing I have said suggests that they are facts. The article does not present them as facts, it is ONLY your disingeuine misrepresentation by presenting the statements out of context that presnts them as facts.

When they are presented within their correct context, IE the context of:

1. The paragraph that I originally quoted
2. This thread
3. The original article, linked to in the OP

It is clear (or should be clear) to anybody with at least average prose literacy, that those 'facts' as you call them, are predictions made by superstring theory, and are only presented as such.

Now kindly stop trolling this thread.



BTW: I prefer analog (actual, working, testable models, using real data) to digital models that predict based only on unproven presumptions that are built into the digital model.[/QUOTE]

 

Liar.

The permanent written record suggests otherwise.

 

Thanks.

:Shrugs:

Because it was the closest thing to a relevant image I could find? (Help me out here, I'm 'just a chemist').

If you can direct me to something more relevant?

 

I wondered about that, and almost went with the manifold, but decided on the lie group instead.

Heh.

Oh well, fixed ^_^