Not so stringy theory

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Gerhard Kemmerer, May 26, 2012.

  1. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    Thanks for introducing me to string theory, I've heard it before and like the concept of matter being a vibration. I think of matter as a weaving of two paradoxical forces that not only produce the effects of time and space, but all the physical properties we experience. In short matter is a space time oscillation, an effect that dips below the line of perceptible existance. For eg; there are elements that appear and disappear from the stage of perceptability, and the atom itself (or its components) has illusive characteristics.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    The above, was meant to be a post, not a new thread, delete it if you like
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    My take: . . . . your's (conceptualization) is somewhat similar to some of mine . . . . . your 'in-out' oscillations may actually be effected by interactions with quantum "energies" (vibrations?), super-c to sub-c variations, or virtual particles, etc. I hint at these and other possibilities in my EEMU Hypothesis (a Thread in Sciforums Alternative Theories). Great that you have a fertiile visualization process at work here. wlminex
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RoccoR Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    wlminex, Gerhard Kemmerer, et al,

    If "String Theory" is to be embraced, there must be a clear and concise line of progression from the moment The Universe begins through the creation of matter.

    (COMMENT)

    Forget the math, for a moment and tell us (a word description) on what the strings are, and how the relate to what we know now. Capture my imagination!

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  8. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    I look at the Higgs boson and its field as just one of many such 'particles" which can be forced to make an appearance through an accelerator, but sooner or later they will find that the material world we chose to relate to, is supported by far more complex and powerful agents, which although supernatural, are just a natural part of the universe.

    I have no scientific training, but through doing research on another topic, I studied what people in the distant past thought about matter. I did not assume that we are the most advanced race that ever lived. Not disappointed in what I discovered.
    They used to be able to move massive stones weighing up to 2000 tons, over distances of hundreds of miles, across deep valleys in impossible terrain etc. Myths of tribes building a city overnight, etc. I collected enough info to open up the correct meaning of things like the four elements etc. and found a different way of interpreting the universe.

    The string theory is the closest one to what was once understood.

    One of you has requested straight talk without the maths, which is the only way to discuss these matters, because the maths is beyond what a computer can crunch. and it has to be approached from an understanding of broad principles which are not even considered by common science.

    By attempting to post my findings on various topics in this forum, I was hoping that someone would be able to pick up on what was said, but that will take time because the concepts seem childish - such as the four elements, and yet they are extremely difficult to comprehend, and have to be simplified for that reason.

    The opposition to these themes is high, and can only be understood by people with a genuine ability. However, the system of education in science is such that it makes it practically impossible for an educated person to get it. Because that education denies anything that cannot fit into the curriculum,
    and it is also effectively capped off by prejudice.

    I have tried to be inclusive and reasonable with those engaging, despite their offensive and stupid remarks. I have also noticed a blatant disrespect for anything that is sacred, to which the basest of our pioneers in science would have been disgusted. I was a fool for thinking that by being half decent that there could have been a rewarding exchange, and I am forced to accept that such people will never be able to comprehend truth in nature.
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    You should restrict yourself to posting in the religion threads. Also UFOs and Conspiracies.

    So only uneducated people can understand you? :facepalm:
     
  10. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    You are not prepared or capable at this time to a obtain or share knowledge, your statement is one to get a reaction, and you are also prepared to minimise anothers intelligence, as you do in nearly every one of your other posts.

    Your statement about UFO's is designed to be inflammatory, and your question about only uneducated people understanding me, is designed to make out that I am arrogant.

    I am not referring to ones ability to communicate with me, but that the education system is based on looking at things in such a way that will not consider anything outside of the curriculum.

    I am not willing to communicate on your level, unless you want to be fair and intelligent.

    You were quite prepared to criticise and colour my motives, and yet bring NOTHING to the table of discussion, by doing so you remain detached and artificial.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2012
  11. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    Thanks. I will take some time to read your articles.
     
  12. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    looking forward to your contributions.
     
  13. RoccoR Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    Gerhard Kemmerer, et al,

    Thanx!

    (COMMENT)

    Of all the people in this Discussion Group, I am probably the least knowledgeable. That's why I always ask for explanations. I can't even spell "Quantum Field Theory;" let alone know how Bosons carry force. or how Fermions build matter.

    And to be quite honest, I have a very hard time understanding how something can be, simultaneously, a particle and a wave; or why, when you detect burst in the "double slit experiment," the wave turns into a particle. And absolutely, I don't understand how some"thing" can be "one dimensional." (How does a one dimensional any"thing" vibrate?)

    So (sorry), I make virtually no contribution --- I merely study contributions and look for insight; dumbed down enough for the likes of me to understand. Not because I am being a pain in the ass, but because I'm incompetent.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2012
  14. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    In regards to the string theory, I know very little about it, and I am not afraid of the processes of discussion and thought.
    It is often an advantage not to be familiar with science terms, when it comes to unchartered ground.

    The few scientists who have made headway in their own field of study, find the themes of matter extremely challenging, and are ready to admit that they do not understand electricity, magnetism, gravity, particles and waves etc. unlike the parrots that glean on their material.

    It is another thing to be able to reiterate the results of an experiment and or the conclusions of peers, which is passed of as "knowing" but real intelligence is not so brash.

    If you cannot understand for eg, dimentional talk, like 'one dimension' 'seven dimensions' etc, its because 'dimensions' are not a thing, as you seem to imply, but people try to theorise with these self defeating and meaningless terms.
     
  15. RoccoR Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    Gerhard Kemmerer, et al,

    Yes, I understand. But are they meaningless? OR Are they concepts beyond (my) imagination?

    (COMMENT)

    I'm not some much interested in the totality of "String Theory" as I am in the description of the "string."

    As I understand the basics of the theory, string(s) oscillate (vibrate) as a "one Dimensional" (1D) ultimate component that forms primary particles (eg: photons, quarks, electrons). I've read about the six dimension theory and the eleven dimension theory (Kaluza-Klein).

    Dimension: So other than being small, what defines a dimension?
    • Can a single dimension truly exist? Or is it imaginary?
    • Can there be an object that only has one dimension?
    • Can there be more than four dimensions (x,y,z,time)?
      • What is the geometry?
      • What do the other dimensions represent?
    What is a string?
    • Is it energy?
    • Is it something other than energy?
    • What geometry allows it to assemble into a three dimensional object?

    I realize, like imaginary numbers, strange math has it uses in reality. No Double-E will forget the time spent on Kirchhoff's laws and the equations showing current flowing in both directions at once. But in reality is doesn't, yet it makes accurate predictions in other ways. I'm wondering if these added dimensions are similar.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  16. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    The single dimension is a puzzle, I suppose they point the stick in one direction and say that's one dimension.
    As you said its smaller, less than whatever. A one dimensional object ! *

    I override that concept by going bigger than matter, instead of less than.

    The ancient concept was that matter is an effect, a product, a thing caused by forces far more powerful, enduring, etc and that matter stands by those forces. We don't have to go smaller with this model, and if we do, it is accounted for.

    The modern concept is that matter is the greatest thing in the universe, and that everything else is etherical, illusive and intangible. A little bit like the earth is the centre of the universe! And a little bit like "we are the most advanced society that has ever lived!" If we weren't how would we know? !

    Most will even go further and say that whatever is intangible does not exist - "If I close my eyes it is not there ... now if I can't see it, how can it be there for you.. you arrogant so and so!"
    Ironically they invent 'dimensions' - like weird numbers, the more predictable ghosts of modern science.
     
  17. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    I read the EEMU Hypothesis and understand it... completely. It has come to my attention years ago, and I remembered it by thinking that a rock crystal is often the exact expression in shape as the first impetus that caused its growth, and that its outward properties are the truth about its whole character.
    It has also crossed my mind that organic material is an expression of a blueprint on a subatomic level, that whatever has been caused to exist, does so because the PATH of least resistence is followed.
     
  18. GASHOLE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    64
    Seems legit
     
  19. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Kaluza-Klein models aren't about a specific number of dimensions but rather about constructing models with more than 4 space-time dimensions and then curling the extra ones up into circles. It's the simplest form of compactification. In string theory you have 10 dimensions, so 6 of them must be curled up very small. The simplest example is, as just said, doing it so they are all circles. This doesn't lead to the right sort of physics so more exotic and elaborate 6 dimensional compact shapes are considered. This lead to Calabi-Yau manifolds, needed to preserve the right amount of supersymmetry. These then lead to orientifolds, which break supersymmetry further. These then lead, via a sequence of other spaces of more and more complicated names, to .... bear with me on this.... generalised non-geometric twisted Calabi-Yau spaces with SU(3) structure.

    • A dimension is a direction, like up/down or left/right. Dimensions are degrees of freedom in the position and motion of objects.

      That's like saying "Can up truely exist?"
      You mean can one dimensional objects exist. The grammar of that statement is subtly different from how you said it but it is important. Considering the standard model views all particles as zero dimensional one dimensional isn't too much of a leap.
      Nothing is wrong with the concept, constructing higher dimensional generalisations of things is pretty easy when you know the right mathematical tools. Mathematicians regularly deal with infinite dimensional things, though that isn't to do with physics but mathematical spaces.
      People often think extra dimensions are something like energy or thought or essence or whatever. They are just more up/down, left/right directions to pick from.
      As in what is a string theoretic string? That's like saying "What is the electron in the Standard Model". It is what it is and it is not what it is not. If they are fundamental you cannot describe them in terms of something more fundamental. Eventually, when you get down to the building blocks of reality you cannot describe the building blocks in terms of anything else.
      No, energy is a property of things, it is not a thing in and of itself.
      See answer 2 quotes previous.
      It doesn't. Consider a square. It has 4 corners, each corner is a 0 dimensional point. Thus if you arrange 4 zero dimensional points in the shape of a square you have something which has properties somehow related to a 2 dimensional construct, despite all it's pieces being 0 dimensional. Tables, chairs, bricks, are (according to the Standard Model) a sea of points. What gives them the illusion of being solid 3 dimensional objects is that many of these points repel one another. When you sit down the electrons in the molecules which make up your backside interact with the electrons in the molecules making up the chair. They are all points but they don't want to go near one another so they push one another way. Thus you don't fall through the chair. Turn off the electromagnetic repulsion and you'd fall through the chair and down through the floor. Neutrinos have the same weak charge as an electron but no electromagnetic charge. Right now trillions are passing through your body and you don't notice any of them. Perhaps one might hit an electron in your body some time this year. Maybe.

      To give another example of how much empty space solid objects really are, consider Lead. It's a very dense metal. Run into a wall made of Lead and you'll know about it. A beam of 100 neutrinos could be fired into a wall of Lead 30,000 LIGHT YEARS thick and 50 of them would come out the other side. That's 9.5 thousand million million metres of solid Lead and only half of them will be blocked, the other half won't be affected. That's how much empty space even solid materials really are, because they are made up of essentially zero volume points. It's only their layout and the fact they repel one another that the particles in your arse know about the particles in your chair.

      String theory and it's extra dimensions allow you to build a single construct which includes cosmology, gravity and particle physics. The dynamics of the extra dimensions allow you to model inflation, dark energy, the cosmic microwave background power spectrum, particle mass towers, etc. Even the things current models consider 'constant', such as the electromagnetic coupling or Newton's constant, are in fact determined by their equations of motion, rather than being set by hand in current models. There's lots of nice stuff you can build string constructs to explore but since it has so much to say it's extremely elaborate and ever growing in complexity. It's driving many areas of pure maths research because string theorists need new tools to explore the implications. Before string theory made people interested in Calabi-Yau spaces few people looked at them and very little was known. Now we have massive generalisations of them within our ability to explore, where before we didn't even have the right language to define them!
     

Share This Page