M Theory

There has been alot of talk about the M Theory over the past few years; the greatest theory ever that will unite all of the other theories. Finding it would be amazing, but does anybody know how close they are to finding a logical answer, or something at all? I think the discovery of a theory that encompasses all the laws of the universe would revive science, and propel it foward into the 21st century.

I agree wholeheartedly! Why M theory (formerly known as String Theory) isn't taught as early as High School is beyond me. For anyone who is clueless as to what String theory is, click here. It's a complete website dedicated to the task.

superstringtheory.com...

I agree that it holds great potential, but it's hard to teach something that even physicists admit to not understanding.

that is very true. in my high school during a physics class we watched a NOVA video which discussed M Theory, but it was not in the ciriculium, strictly enrichement. however, if it is discussed and exposed to students at early stages in their academia carrers, then it may open up their minds more and give them a greater chance of discovering the possibilites in the M theory.

Fully agree; exposure would be the way to go. Not only do many/most physicists not really understand it all, to learn String/M-theory requires an insane amount of knowledge in physics, mathematics, and cosmology (mainly math and physics though).

Heck, even exposure to relativity would be great. If students were shown the real world implications for these 'abstract theories', then perhaps it would spark their interest. No harm in trying to educate.



[EDIT]: moronic typo

[edit on 6-7-2005 by backtoreality]

I'm glad none of my professors ever went over String "Theory" for more than 15 minutes, actually. I think it's good to have something rather than nothing, but I like a lot of proof.

Special relativity is pretty easy and I agree that it could be taught early in life. General relativity can get messy though.

yeah general relativity can be tough to wrap your head around unless you have a somewhat extensive background in physics. that is one of the areas where M theory can get complicated in schools. its excellent to expose it, just to present another way of looking at the world. just like quantuam mechanics and therodyanmics. i think it shows the progress that sceince has made in the last few centuries.

hey if you are going to bring up M-theory you need to discuss the topic and cast your opinion, not just simply going " i think m-theory is cool" or "what do you all think about m-theory?" The topic is extremely interesting and different sciencitsts have different views on it, so how about you describe m-theory to the rest of the forum and then cast your opinion?????

If hey would find it I would be happy... but you got to remember... that afterhigh school, the logical part stopps exsisting...

m theory-the theory of everything.
Info

This Site shows some pictures of strings, and how they are related to atoms and quarks. M theory is basically a theory that would unite all of the theories of the universe. it would unite the theories about big objects (planets, stars, moons) to very very small objects (atoms, molecules, etc.), beucase currently they do not follow the same set of laws. there are things like strong nuclear forces, when it comes to atoms, which do not hold true to obejects liek planets.

Joshm2u, you probably saw the "Elegant Universe" from PBS in highschool. I just watched it on DVD as someone got it for me as a present and its great. I had seen bits a pieces on TV but never the whole thing.

www.pbs.org...

I would highly recommend this series to anyone who is interested. They cover everything in mankind’s quest to understand Newton, Einstein and his theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, explain how they each work up until a point but then conflict and how string theory and M theory unite them. I plan on watching it at least a few more times as it will probably take that long for me to really absorb everything they cover. I think its the kind of thing you watch a lot of pick up new things each time.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by warpboost]

yes that is exactly what i watched in my physics class a few months ago. it is a very good DVD, which intereviews some of the top scientists researching M theory. i believe there is also pieces about CERN and ohter research stations in the movie. if you want to learn for about the M Theory i highly recomend it.

This sounds like the Unified Field Theory to me. So what is the difference?

Originally posted by Frosty
This sounds like the Unified Field Theory to me. So what is the difference?

Its not a field theory, its a TOE from the ground up inclusing field.

Field theory was intent on uniting forces into one, however this is a true TOE in that it starts with a base idea and builds upward to include forces, particles, and even empty space. It then goes on to extend into Brane Theory and other implications.

Originally posted by Toelint
I agree wholeheartedly! Why M theory (formerly known as String Theory) isn't taught as early as High School is beyond me.

Because even the people researching it agree that its entirely hypothetical and its not backed by rigourous experiments?


String theory was wild and hypothetical enough, but it wasn't working in lots of situations, and couldn't account for everything, so now there's M-theory and other variations of it, its definitly not time to teach these things in high schools. The University Physics Professors are still researching it.

Heck, most high schools don't even teach Quantum Mechanics properly, and thats something that's been around since before Einstein. String theory is far too new and untested to go into textbooks.

joshm2u
if it is discussed and exposed to students at early stages in their academia carrers, then it may open up their minds more and give them a greater chance of discovering the possibilites in the M theory.

Its a nice thought, but what most of use read and watch and learn about things like Quantum Mechanics and the far more 'advanced' string and m-theories and branes, is nothing like what the actual research is. Its all entirely mathematical. Infact, M-theory and branes and multiple dimensions are hypotheses that arose because of major problems with things like the String hypotheses, they're ideas that try to 'account' for those problems, and its all done entirely mathematically. High School students don't have the math to study these things. The most high school students anywhere get is introductory calculus. The guys working on these things have to use entire mathematical systems that people spend years researching in university to come up with, let alone apply to advanced physics problems. There's no way it can meaningfully be taught to high school students. It'd be like trying to teach statistical analyses to kindergardeners who haven't learned algebra yet.

M theory is basically a theory that would unite all of the theories of the universe

From my understanding its trying to explain the more 'basic' laws of physics that we know today (involving things like gravity, the forces that hold atoms together, light, quarks and other subatomic particles and high energies) in terms of even more fundamental processes, like the intersections of branes.
Thats another reason why it doesn't make sense to really try to teach string theory. No high school students are really taught about the things that are problems that string theory is trying to address. It'd be like ignoring the history of the civil war and just teaching students about the notes that one of Lincolns pyschologists took (pretending for a moment that he saw one), or teaching students about punctuated equilibrium without ever having mentioned evolution and organisms in the first place.

backtoreality
Heck, even exposure to relativity would be great

Yeah, students get 'told' about einstein, but rarely actually learn his theories and their implications. Physics in high school is really just newtonian physics and atomic theory, with some of maxwell and radiation and the like mixed in.


[edit on 7-7-2005 by Nygdan]

Yea, I think the problem here is that this whole thing sounds good conceptually, because they make it sound good. There is little mathematical data (that makes sense), and virtually no experimental data. I can rattle off a whole list of theories and describe them in detail, it doesn't mean they should be in textbooks.