- #1
MathematicalPhysicist
Gold Member
- 4,699
- 371
what is the relation between the two theories (if there is a connection between them)?
thaks in advance.
thaks in advance.
Originally posted by Eh
F is for "father". It seems to be a 12D string theory that has 2 time dimensions. I'll see if I have any links.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
An idea:
Could two time dimensions allow for the future and the past to exist at the same time? Then, time travel to the past could make sense without breaking the first law of thermodynamics. If someone went to the past, the energy/mass of the universe will remain the same, because the person who went to the past would exist in the future. Since both the future and the past exist, energy/mass is not being lost.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
So, 2 time dimensions would mean two directions of entropy! how cool is that??
Originally posted by Mentat
You mean, "how impossible is that?", don't you? Entropy can't go in more than one direction, it isn't logical (or at least doesn't seem to be).
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
why?
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
do you agree that the future might already exist? i think it makes sense, as it solves the paradox involved with time travel to the past.
You are using the term "future", which is any point in time that has not already come into existence.
Originally posted by Mentat
Think of the terms you're using, Majin. You are using the term "future", which is any point in time that has not already come into existence. This means that the future cannot "already exist", by definition.
Originally posted by Mentat
Because entropy is one effect. It cannot both be increasing and decreasing at the same time, can it? This would be self-contradictory/paradoxical.
Then, time travel to the past could make sense without breaking the first law of thermodynamics
Originally posted by Zefram
We don't know that the future doesn't exist anymore than we know the past has ceased to exist. We only know what our perceptions tells us and, unfortunately, we only perceive a single slice of time.
Or as Richard Feynman said:
It may prove useful in physics to consider events in all of time at once and to imagine that we at each instant are only aware of those that lie behind us.
Who knows?
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
If I go to the past(from the future)...
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Mentat, the increasing of entropy in two directions could be constant. It does not have to be increasing and decreasing.
The use of the words "future" and "past" do not, by definition, allow them to "all exist at the same time". Sure, it would be useful to consider them as such. But the words used do not allow for it.
Originally posted by Zefram
I doubt the universe is bothered much by semantics.
Past and future in this sense refer (obviously) to a location in time (say, if you were assigning coordinates to something); "events in all of time at once" means that all possible coordinates you could assign to an event do in fact exist (as opposed to some coming into existence at some later time, whatever that would mean). Which means yesterday and tomorrow would both be in existence, even if we presently can only view a single slice of time and perceive only the particular point in time we are at.
Good point!Originally posted by Zefram
I doubt the universe is bothered much by semantics.
Originally posted by Mentat
This is where the problem lies. If you go to the past, then the "past" has to currently exist, making it the "present". Thus, you wouldn't be traveling to the "past". In fact, since it takes a certain amount of time to get to the point that you might consider "the past" you are actually traveling to the future.
Originally posted by Mentat
You say that the increasing of entropy doesn't have to be increasing?
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
no, it could be increasing in two directions at a constant rate. Like a balloon that is being inflated.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Mentat, assume the universe is unbalanced=disorderly. If it is unbalanced, then it could be both at onece. That's what makes it disorderly.
F Theory and M Theory are both attempts to unify the fundamental forces of nature, but they differ in their approach. F Theory is a 12-dimensional theory that combines string theory with field theory, while M Theory is an 11-dimensional theory that combines string theory with supergravity. F Theory also includes an extra dimension, while M Theory does not.
F Theory and M Theory are closely related and are thought to be different aspects of the same underlying theory. M Theory can be seen as a special case of F Theory, where the extra dimension "collapses" and becomes unobservable. In other words, F Theory is a more general theory that includes M Theory as a subset.
The main goal of studying F Theory and M Theory is to find a unified theory that can explain all the fundamental forces of nature, including gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. This would be a major breakthrough in physics and could potentially lead to a better understanding of the universe and its origins.
Since F Theory and M Theory involve dimensions that are not directly observable, they are difficult to test directly. However, scientists can look for indirect evidence by studying the predictions of these theories and comparing them to experimental data. So far, some predictions of both theories have been confirmed, but more research is needed to fully test their validity.
If F Theory and M Theory are successfully unified, it would revolutionize our understanding of the universe and potentially lead to new technologies. It could also help us solve some of the biggest mysteries in physics, such as the nature of dark matter and dark energy. Additionally, it could provide a more complete understanding of the fundamental forces and particles that make up our world.