Questions: differences between M-theory & Multiverse?

[storyteller]

I am not a physicist, and the physics I have studies in colleges, are only physics applicable to civil engineering course (mid-80s) and computer science course (late 90s), so nothing in regards to astrophysics.

what are differences M-theory and Multiverse?

If they are different, which is likely to be true?

[joigus]

23 minutes ago, storyteller said:

I am not a physicist, and the physics I have studies in colleges, are only physics applicable to civil engineering course (mid-80s) and computer science course (late 90s), so nothing in regards to astrophysics.

what are differences M-theory and Multiverse?

If they are different, which is likely to be true?

They are not different; they are on a different category.

M-theory is a generalisation of superstring theory; a theory about both the classes of geometries (Calabi-Yau manifolds) and fields (super-symmetric conformal fields) that make the two irreconcilable field theories we know (gravity and so-called Yang-Mills fields) compatible.

Once you establish this very general context for field theories, you notice that there is huge freedom in the space of parameters (coupling constants) of the theory, as well as in the way the many dimensions of space-time that this meta-theory[?] suggests compactify (are reduced to tiny curled-up dimensions that we can't see).

The multiverse is the proposal of a general context, within this M-theory, of how a universe like ours may have arisen from the enormously big freedom that M-theory allows.

So M-theory gives you a plausible context for the physical laws as we know them to have arisen.

Multiverse is an idea about how the particular universe that we know may have arisen within that context.

I hope that helped.

Hopefully also helpful:

 

[beecee]

I've read a bit about super string theory and its derivities, including M-theory, and while according to the professionals, they are intrinsically beautiful theories, the problem being that the chances of observation and validation at such levels, [quantum/Planck level] and numerous dimensions above the currently known four,  are virtually nil, as I believe the case to be with any validated QGT,  even with LHC and other such instruments.

Is this a reasonable understanding of it?

One relevant book was "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku.

[joigus]

25 minutes ago, beecee said:

I've read a bit about super string theory and its derivities, including M-theory, and while according to the professionals, they are intrinsically beautiful theories, the problem being that the chances of observation and validation at such levels, [quantum/Planck level] and numerous dimensions above the currently known four,  are virtually nil, as I believe the case to be with any validated QGT,  even with LHC and other such instruments.

Is this a reasonable understanding of it?

One relevant book was "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku.

That's 100 % correct. M-theory is a theoretical framework, rather than a satisfactory theory of Nature.

[storyteller]

10 hours ago, joigus said:

They are not different; they are on a different category.

M-theory is a generalisation of superstring theory; a theory about both the classes of geometries (Calabi-Yau manifolds) and fields (super-symmetric conformal fields) that make the two irreconcilable field theories we know (gravity and so-called Yang-Mills fields) compatible.

Once you establish this very general context for field theories, you notice that there is huge freedom in the space of parameters (coupling constants) of the theory, as well as in the way the many dimensions of space-time that this meta-theory[?] suggests compactify (are reduced to tiny curled-up dimensions that we can't see).

The multiverse is the proposal of a general context, within this M-theory, of how a universe like ours may have arisen from the enormously big freedom that M-theory allows.

So M-theory gives you a plausible context for the physical laws as we know them to have arisen.

Multiverse is an idea about how the particular universe that we know may have arisen within that context.

I hope that helped.

 

So are you saying that Multiverse required M-theory as framework to build Multiverse, just as the Big Bang theory required General Relativity as framework to build the model upon?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, storyteller said:

 

So are you saying that Multiverse required M-theory as framework to build Multiverse, just as the Big Bang theory required General Relativity as framework to build the model upon?

AFAIK they are independent. 

[SergUpstart]

I like the concept of a Multiverse because in it the appearance of a universe like ours ( and therefore the Big Bang ) is not a unique phenomenon and, therefore, it occurs for natural reasons and is not an act of creation. The dream of any atheist is to explain the appearance of the Universe without the participation of God.

[MigL]

But the dream of any scientist is to go where observations take you ...

[beecee]

2 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

I like the concept of a Multiverse because in it the appearance of a universe like ours ( and therefore the Big Bang ) is not a unique phenomenon and, therefore, it occurs for natural reasons and is not an act of creation. The dream of any atheist is to explain the appearance of the Universe without the participation of God.

Multiple fluctuations in the quantum foam. 

[SergUpstart]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

But the dream of any scientist is to go where observations take you ...

Yes, observations of the Outside World ( the Multiverse ) are not available to us. And this translates the concept of the multiverse from the field of physics to the field of philosophy (in combination with mathematics) . Do you not consider philosophy to be a science?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Multiple fluctuations in the quantum foam. 

Exactly