Comments on: The Elegant Universe

By: Gabriel Michæl Anderson

Gabriel Michæl Anderson — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:36:00 +0000

You confuse knowledge with understanding.

By: Nikolina Bratchkova

Nikolina Bratchkova — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:20:00 +0000

I was reading the book, when I came across this documentary. It gives valuable visualizations without which I could not hope to grasp such complex concepts. Fascinating!

By: Megan Attrill

Megan Attrill — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:03:00 +0000

Oh god, not another documentary ruined with this shitty style of narration.. *puke*

By: Duncan Koebrich

Duncan Koebrich — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 03:22:00 +0000

“In some ways reminiscent of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series”? How do you figure, documentary gister? Cosmos was a journey with a pace marching to a different cadence…a smoother, pleasant presentation that assumes the viewer has the intelligence to appreciate the material without flashy, exciting passion-inspiring tactics to hold his/her attention. My love of Cosmos is such that I’m put off by poor comparisons. That’s not to say that this is a poor documentary, I’m inclined to mention that I did enjoy it, just a poor comparison.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:22:00 +0000

Analogies only ever go so far, and even for seasoned physicists M-theory is very complex. Perhaps the holographic principle (google it) offers you further explanation, but I’m not sure that applies. Also, consider that physical dimensions and time aren’t separate, so the property “thinness” is rather hard to define for branes, which are ‘outside’ of spacetime.

I don’t try to really understand cosmological concepts, just get a feel for them. Truly understanding them would involve understanding the actual math (since math is the only process which can describe them), and I’m long passed thinking I could.

By: Bets Mcgee

Bets Mcgee — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:11:38 +0000

For those of you interested in learning more about string theory,
this site might be of interest.
http://superstringtheory.com/index.html

Quoting some of the sections from the site it’s self for an idea of what you’ll find there,
So what is string theory? For that matter, what the heck are elementary particles? If this all sounds totally confusing, try this section first.
What kinds of math do string theorists use and why? And how has string theory changed mathematics?

Each section has a basic and advanced section with the only real difference being the inclusion of the math
Personally it makes my eyes gloss over and my head start to hurt, But others might get more from it then my tiny brain could enjoy.

By: Doc

Doc — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:10:21 +0000

All right they did mention it, sorry

By: Doc

Doc — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:07:22 +0000

How old is this documentary? Because Fermilab is by far NOT the best hope of finding out evidence of this stuff, compared to the LHC at CERN, the latter of which has been around for a long time.

By: college student

college student — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 16:57:17 +0000

if i had a professor like brian g in my college for phisics., belive me.. i would be a 2 or 3 einstein. you can understand him so perfect even with those dificult terms. Tnx professor B.. keep up the good work. i have been folloing your theories. 2 thumbs up-

By: Viewer

Viewer — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:50:27 +0000

Very good site, very good films!

By: Kasking

Kasking — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:14:15 +0000

I have heard, and don’t remember if this documentary states this, that strings on the large end of the spectrum (i.e. universe in size) have been likened to branes (membranes) similar to vocal cords, and their interaction/collision with each other, creates “big bangs.” My question for those better educated in current String Theory, “Is this an appropriate analogy?” In other words, Vocal Chord like “strings” creating multiple big bangs and we just happen to be a result of one of them?

By: emanuel

emanuel — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:09:17 +0000

These kinds of topics are very interesting and as I lay in bed at night spend much time thinking about them..But as of now they are too theoretical for what im after.

Cant wait for 2016 with the projected completion of a new larger telescope dwarfing our current Hubble.

By: Achems Razor

Achems Razor — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:05:15 +0000

@doc-fan:

I know it is all weird stuff. “String theory”, think of lines, lines everywhere, that have there own vibrations similar to say a guitar string, one note represents a vibration that coalesces the atoms that are flickering in and out of existence everywhere, and holds them steady to form the reality that you see, Another note hold atoms steady to form a different reality, and so one.
And all the realities are co-existing simultaneously, nano-meters apart from each other.

Can’t think of any simpler way to describe this.

By: doc-fan

doc-fan — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:39:00 +0000

I just don’t understand how branes’ can be so thin as piece of paper (may be just illustrated concept is just messing me up) and yet stars are seen to be over 14.8 billion years in each direction and still traavel. This have been boggling my mind ever since I have watched first documentary about brane concept. Anyone could point me in direction in which I could have further look on this specific topic? I appreciate any help.

By: tru

tru — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:36:53 +0000

this site rocks….