Question about String Theory

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by cosmictotem, Apr 18, 2014.

  1. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    In String Theory, is Space (the Universe, including the Multiverse) basically a grid pattern filled with points where each point is a string?

    If not, are there any other Universe theories that postulate the Universe being totally filled with points/particles (some dark, some not)?

    I ask because I'm interested in how our observation itself can effect the appearance of particles and I want to find the theory that most agrees with my own theory. I am not advancing an alternate theory in this forum. I am only describing my theory below to find out which formally proposed theory of the Universe is closest to mine.

    We can't always explain how a particle seemingly can be in two places at once, right?

    But what if the particle was already there? What if the basic particle of the Universe doesn't move? What if they are completely static and fixed in Space/Time and we only see or detect them because the energy moving through them happens to be on the same observational plane as we are? And we only don't see particles everywhere (at every point) because our senses are limited to only a small spectrum/fraction of detection? And any frequency ringing outside our observation or detection is part of one of the Multiverses. So, at the most basic level, the Universe is this tight grid of this basic particle that permeates every single point in Space/Time and therefore, at the most fundamental level equals a big fat Nothing? But because each point might ring at a different frequency and an observer is limited in their detection of those different frequencies, an observer can take shape and observe separate things. And energy particles, by their nature of being small and moving at the speed of light, have the ability to move between Multiverses, so sometimes we detect them and sometimes we don't? Sometimes they're there and sometimes they're not. Could the confusion and observational paradoxes that arise in Quantum Physics be explained because we are dealing with particles or energy that can exist on the cusp between Multiverses? That is, the nature of their smallness and structure combined with our limited plane of observation allows them to appear and disappear in and out of our slice of the Multiverse?

    Ultimately, is this in part what String Theory is proposing or do I have to look to another existing theory to find one more closely aligned to my description?

    Basically, I'm trying to find which theory comes closest to my suspicions on the structure of the Universe. Thanks for any help in this matter. I hope my poor terminology was not confusing to anyone but I'm glad I finally got that out.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    What does "appearance" mean?

    For the sake of clarity let's use the word "theory" to mean "an explanation of observed data".

    Thank Gawd.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I don't think there is anything we call a formally proposed theory of the Universe. You might simply refer to Big Bang theory which drags in all of physics.

    The point I think you're trying to make is that quantum effects are much different than macro scale effects.

    Let me stop you here. That's not a theory, since it's not based on empirical data. Particles do move through space--that's the actual observation. If I were you I would start by discussing the discovery of light spectra, and then discovery of the electron. From there see if you can connect what's on your mind with the actual observations.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748

    Right, it's not a theory. Got it. And by "formally proposed theory", I had heard that there was something like 100-500 different theories (some famous like String Theory, some not) of explaining the Universe by actual physicists. I was talking about them.

    And yes, I was trying to say exactly that: Quantum effects are much different than Marco scale effects.

    I guess by "appearance" I meant effects or thereabouts. Basically, whatever we think or conclude we observe in particles.

    Unfortunately, I am not properly informed enough to discuss the discovery of light spectra, though I probably read about it way back. I might have to read up on it again to understand how you're suggesting I approach this.

    Ever feel like your mind is making all theses connections and coming up with new explanations for how the Universe might work that you can't prove but seem to fit together? Deep down I think we all have a sense of how the Universe actually works. We just have to find the way to express it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,877
    Why don't you give a public lecture and leave the audience completely awed and clueless.
     
  8. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    In our feet? You think that maybe deep down in our feet the truth about how the universe works is known, but it's trapped, because it has no way to express itself using language?

    Do you think you have a deep down understanding of gravity? How much time does it take a bowling ball to hit the ground if I drop it from a height of 54.3754 meters above the surface? Just use an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 just for kicks.

    Wait, since you think we all have an understanding, we just lack communication skills, I think Fraggle Rocker, then, has been holding out on us, 'cause he's the best darn communicator I know! He knows the secret deep down, AND he's the ultimate communicator, so what's the hold up?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    I don't think we can even know why there has to be a universe in the first place, let alone why the one we inhabit has the laws that it does. What would be logically wrong with having a universe where there's just one particle that never does anything?
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,596
    You may want to look at David Bohm's book "wholeness and the implicate order"
    He speaks of the universe(s) as a single holomovement.
    IMO this may be the first recognition of the now emerging 11th dimension in M-theory, a flowing movement of universal potentials which may be causal to an infinite number of universes..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ds47ozzSrU
     
    cosmictotem likes this.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    String theory and its derivatives are an eloquent theoretical framework that describes present accepted particle physics points, with one dimensional strings.
    String theory also incorporates gravity, and as such is a ToE.
    The nagging problem that exists, is that these strings are at an astronomical small scale, much much smaller then the present scales that protons, neutrons and electrons exist at, and we as yet do not have the instrumentalities to observe and/or measure at those scales.
    It's mathematical beauty has assured that it remains in top contention for the long sort after ToE.
    That's not to say string theory is wrong, just that at this time, we are unable to observe and/or measure.

    Going on what we already are able to observe and measure with today's knowledge, data, and instruments, the BB/Inflationary theory [coupled with SR and GR] plus quantum theory are still the best we have, and any new proposal hypothesis needs to encompass them.

    Then ask yourself, how close is your theory, to the above tried and tested models, and does it unite them in a way that can be tested and observed.
     
  12. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Cosmictotem: google on string theory pseudoscience. It's been around for forty years and it doesn't predict anything. The multiverse is pseudoscience too. Try to avoid junk like that and focus and proper physics.
     
  13. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,367
    I don't think you have any right to tell people what proper physics is.

    You know I looked up probability theory and the law of large numbers. Do you have any qualifications like that?

    Also, I could drop my physics major and become a math major if I so choose.
     
  14. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    Oh? And how many predictions have you ever made, then? At least String Theory can be used to recover all the successful results of existing theories, which is far more than one can say for your own "work".
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Pseudoscience???
    No, not really. As I have mentioned, the problem in verification is we are unable to probe at those scales.

    Now that is far different from the real pseudoscience that you see fit to pass off as real science.
    You know what I mean....silly claims like seeing time stop at a BH's EH from a local FoR....and many more fairy tale stories you have manufactured with your Hans Christian Anderson like hypothesis.
     
  16. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    You are right.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    We do not know that with any degree of confidence for the reasons already stated.
     
  18. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Plenty.

    Phoooey. It's a busted flush. It's woo. It's quackery. It's a dead duck, and it has been for years. Again, google on string theory pseudoscience. Oh, and for a bit of fun, go and ask this: what are the strings made out of of?

    LOL. I might have know you'd be rooting for it.
     
  19. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    Please give us one testable prediction made by your theory which isn't made by present science.

    Actually no, I'm not a huge fan of String Theory in its present state, but I still think it's infinitely better and more useful than anything you've ever come up with.
     
  20. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    am i misunderstanding this comment ?

    i hope so.
     
  21. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    it's obvious you are clueless.
     
  22. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    again, it's very obvious you are just spewing nonsense, with lack of knowledge and understanding.
    do you even work as a scientist.
    do you even have a degree in such things ?

    there are plenty of actual scientist who are actually working on such things.
    typical.

    and yet, instead of writing a white paper and submitting it,
    he's here spewing, which speaks volumes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    It isn't my theory. But: drop an electron into a black hole and it disintegrates before it gets to the event horizon.

    So what are the strings made of? Cat got your tongue? Pah. String theory doesn't even qualify as a theory, and now it's a dead duck. It's pseudoscience. What I talk about isn't. I refer to Einstein and Minkowski and Maxwell and the evidence, and you dismiss it all. Because you side with pseudoscience and quackery and the censorship that comes with it.
     

Share This Page