Math made with brane theory perfectly predicts some things we see. The same thing could go for general relativity. We can't prove spacetime is curved but that math predicts things correctly.
Math is an indispensable tool for science. It models our world, it suggests directions for investigation, it supports and, like statistics, provides scientists with "most likely" sceneries. However, it is at its best when used to disprove theories. If the math works, then maybe the theory is correct, but if the math doesn't work, then the theory can't be correct.
You've read more Trek stuff than I have. My fan-fic is just a whim and that it is in Gene Roddenberry's universe is only because I'm lazy and didn't want to develop a whole new world around my characters.
Indeed - we know either general relativity or quantum mechanic is incorrect as they are inconsistent with each other. Possibly both are incorrect. String theory, while it appeared to offer a promising resolution, has been going for four decades or so and has yet to provide a single, testable prediction. Brane theory (pick one of many varieties) looks attractive but it is relatedly and similarly flawed. The standard model of particle physics is an embarrassing hotchpotch of adhoc fields and numerous free parameters.
The idea of dimensionality is as much mathematical slight-of-hand as the idea of the number '2'. There is plenty of real world application, but conceptually it is nothing but a construct of convenience.
Where'd you hear this from? Inconsistency just means there's something we don't understand yet, not that the inconsistent things are wrong.
Attempts to construct a theory of quantum gravity produce infinities because of the inherent inconsistencies - therefore one or both theories must be corrected or replaced.
I'm talking about the dimensionality of how we formulate mathematics as essentially a 1-D string of symbols - albeit with occasional hyperlinks. My intuition - and it is only that - is there might be higher dimensional ways of representing mathematical objects, manipulating them and constructing proofs. We know there are limits to what we can be shown with strings of symbols. I don't know what the limitations might be for higher dimensional representations.
First, of all at this level of science, one should cite papers not Wikipedia. I cannot find what you are referencing in this article. If you are referring to the nonrenormalizableness of gravity and perturbative theory, to quote your own citation:
I don't know if I'm just misunderstanding you, but this is arbitrary and vague enough to be meaningless to me.
I think that statement says it all.
Not at all. What Zaprudder is trying to say is, the model we are using to represent all conceptual space, real world 3D space, extra-dimensional space, inter-dimensional and quantum space, is essentially a one dimensional string of symbols (numbers and operators). It is like trying to represent a cube when all you have is a one-dimensional line to draw on; no 2D piece of paper or 3D piece of clay.
You don't give any peer-reviewed references when making your bold assertions, so why should I?
Quantum gravity - Scholarpedia
Indeed. It's a well-known problem to anyone who has ever skimmed the subject. There are many, many review papers, articles and books on the subject. Wikipedia is but one stepping-off point. I doubt I can solve it. People much more talented than me have tried and failed.
I'm suggesting something more abstract than constructive Euclidean geometry, but essentially, yes. I find M C Escher to be inspirational. What if there exists a symbology beyond the 1-D kind?
Well, he did write in Latin and I always found it could be an ambiguous language - perhaps deliberately so - like Italian, which is amenable to playing many subtle word games. Some would say that Newton wasted many years studying alchemy and other arcane arts. It was remarkable what he did achieve in the relatively small portion of his life that he devoted to advancing mathematics and natural philosophy.
It is "conceivable," as Disposable_Ensign quotes, in the "correct" theory of extra-dimensional mathematics, a non-linear or poly-linear calculus may be developed that can efficiently resolve many open problems around complex space and imaginary states.
I was pointing out that your own source disagrees with you.
That's what I'm saying. I'm not qualified to discuss that. Kudos to you that understand that.
You're also posting in a thread called "The Nature of the Universe", on this Trek message board.
It really doesn't as @Will The Serious pointed out. I doubt you did more than skim the Wikipedia article to find a contrarian quote, only to fail abjectly. The review by Rovelli is perhaps more succinct and direct as to the nature of the problem and the possible resolutions.
No-one here is really qualified to discuss any of this, not should we expect them to be. I obtained my PhD in a much easier area of physics a long time ago and I've never felt my mathematics was anything like good enough to be a theoretician. If someone in this thread is qualified, they should perhaps direct their intellect somewhere else where it would be usefully applied.
My point exactly. It's not an arena where one is going to find serious, reasoned intellectual discussion by current experts in the field of theoretical physics. It a forum for people with various degrees of assumed Dunning-Kruger adequateness to spout ideas that ideally should have some basis in actual mathematics and physics. In reality, some of the stuff posted in this subforum is complete gibbering nonsense lately. I shall leave it up to the readers of this particular thread to decide whether that applies to the contributors, including myself.
