Me sorprenden cada dia con visiones nuevas sobre la teoria del todo en este universo nuestro; busco por ahi en la red lugares donde gente muy preparada o... muy alucinada escribe sobre el tema. Tratan de explicar el porqué de las cosas, las dimensiones, los distintos universos que co-existen con el nuestro en función de una grandisima explosión que lo creó todo hasta hoy.
Mentalmente, mi cerebro intenta transformar en hermosos gráficos todo lo que mis ojos van leyendo y el lo interpreta a su manera; la última reflexión que me ha mandado es la siguiente: Ya que todo lo que yo observo en la naturaleza tiene tendencia a lo esferico... que sentido tiene que las dimensiones en plan rebanada de pan de molde, las cortinas o velos que unen una dimensión con la otra etc... el quid de la cuestión es precisamente eso... lo esférico. si miramos hacia arriba, todo es esferico: luna, sol, jupiter etc... pero si miramos hacia dentro... osea dentro de mi... mis atomos han de ser por fuerza esféricos... mi jodido sentido común así me lo indica entonces... la siguiente dimensión por encima de mi, ha de ser esférica y la interior tambien...cielos que simple eh???. átomo, molécula, tierra, sol, vía láctea y universo... TODO ESFERICO. capishi?.
Pero por si acaso, el universo elegante sigue ahí con sus teorias. lo último que he encontrado aún en inglés os lo transcribo para que vayais abriendo boca. Un saludo esférico.
How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?”
Brian Greene, The world's leading string theorist, Professor of Physics at Columbia University and author of The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space. Time. And the Texture of Reality.
The stunning complex of coincidences that render the universe fit for life and intelligence, is captured by British astronomer Sir Martin Rees: "There are deep connections between stars and atoms, between the cosmos and the microworld."
Scientists have been aware of this great puzzle for decades, but two recent discoveries have given the quest for an answer to why the universe seems life-friendly a new set of urgency. The first was the discovery of Dark Energy—although the predominant constituent of the universe—its strength is so astonishingly small that were it even slightly stronger, the universe would be void of galaxies, solar systems and life.
The second great discovery, which is yet to be proved, is M-theory, the reincarnation of superstring theory which posits that the subatomic world are just different modes of vibration of tiny one-dimensional strings of energy of which only a fraction corresponds to the sub-atomic particle world described by the Standard Model.
For string theory to have the kind of acceptance of general relativity, it's got to make a prediction that is borne out by some experiment. And as yet, we haven't quite gotten to the stage where we can make definitive predictions which, if they're found, the theory was right, and if they're not found, the theory was wrong.
But we have gotten to the stage where we can make some rough predictions for things that might happen at the accelerator built near Geneva, Switzerland, called the Large Hadron Collider. If some of the predictions that string theory says might happen are borne out through experiment at that accelerator, then it's quite possible that string theory would be as accepted as general relativity.
However, Steve Giddings a theoretical physicist at the University of California states that: "No longer can we follow the dream of discovering the unique equations that describe everything we see, and writing them on a single page. Predicting the constants of nature becomes a messy environmental problem. It has the complications of biology."
Posted by Casey Kazan.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario