String Theory

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Beer w/Straw, Dec 15, 2017.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Well, if you go back to my post #50, you'll see that that was my answer also. Embedded in the quoted section.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    It would be anyone's answer who is familiar with fractals. In my case it doesn't mean I'm agreeing that everything can be reduced to math though.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member


    I would guess that spoken language is also part of this phenomenon inasmuch that spoken language consists of different mathematical frequencies and rhythms. Whereas written language is mathematical in that it uses sequences of symbols and spaces representing spoken languages.

    As shown by Roger Antonsen; choreography of tap-dancing is a mathematical language. A musical score is a mathematical sequence of notes or chords. The brain itself is a mathematical organ, similar to, but more sophisticated than a computer. Neural and vascular networks are fractal in shape and function.

    I am still in the Tegmark camp. Actually he proposes that only 33 numbers and a handful of equations could solve all the mysteries of the universe. I like its simple elegance and moreover it seems the most likely in the formation of space itself. The more complicated it is, the lower its probability of occurring. However, time is merely a by-product of change, and seems infinite in scope and availability.

    The simplest equations are usually the most powerful, i.e. E = Mc^2
    (note: I am not saying that the discovery of such powerful equations is "easy" or "simple")

    Question: Why does it necessarily have to be complex? IMO, the probability factor when dealing with enormous spaces and time is responsible for the apparent complexity, but with sufficient "time" and "tries" creative probabilities seem to increase.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    The word mathematics is somewhat misleading in that it is man-made. But I believe that all things in the universe have a "value" (of some kind or other). And the interaction of these values puts it in the domain of what we have named mathematical functions.IMO.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2017
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    And why do you "believe" that?
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    If I had, you'd have accused me of "cherry picking" and asked for context . I gave you the answer "in context".
  10. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Irrelevant, we weren't talking about music.

    Except that language doesn't consist of "different mathematical frequencies and rhythm", so that's false. In fact, "mathematical frequencies" is a non-sense term.

    That's not how mathematics works, so that's false too.

    And all of that is irrelevant.

    Except that I wouldn't have. Selecting from a piece of text because it's the only bit that's relevant (i.e. it contains the answer) isn't cherry picking. By you imagining me doing something that I wouldn't have, you caused a complete failure to communicate your message.

    You gave no specific context or directions; you just posted a bare link. The only context given was the irrelevant first part of your post.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Obviousy, if it is physical it has a value. If it is a potential it also has a potential value. And possibly there are things or potentials with variable values. But, IMO, everything can be qualified, if not quantified.
    Else there would have to be miracles and that seems unlikely to me.

    So the solution lies in finding the answers by doing the right mathematics (Tegmark). I also like Bohm's hierarchy of orders in the "wholeness", the evolution from the very subtle to gross expression in our reality. It would seem strange that the universe should behave differently in various places, even though we can only see part of it . Why should it have to?

    With the exception of BH, it seems that our knowledge and mathematics of GR, QM, and EM holds true for as far as we can see, both in the present as well as in the past.

    Thus if we knew all the values of everything, we should be able to form a TOE. Unfortunately we cannot know everything in the universe, and we can probably never be absolutely sure, but I am confident that science will eventually be able to come to a high confidence concensus of it's cause and how it works at its most fundamental level.

    But my counter question: "is there any reason to suspect that there are things which do not have any value and are not quantifiable or qualifiable? Even the term "zero state" does not mean the "nothing", if I understand it correctly.

    This may be of general interest:
    The Five Pillars of the Great Transformations of Contemporary Science (PDF Download Available). Available from: [accessed Dec 27 2017].
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2017
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    We ARE talking about "string theory", no?
    OK, I'll amend it to "different (mathematically quantifiable) frequencies and rhythms".
    Or if you prefer "grunts and clicks"
    Yes, I know we have a different interpretation of "mathematics".
    Well, it was there, you just failed to see it.
    There it is, I posted a quote (link) to something which included the answer to your question and the context in which it was given.

    Seems I just can't do it right , but it's the best I can do, so live with it, or not....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    I am, but are you? Search the links you posted about the history of string theory, or the ones we have been arguing about for the last couple of posts. I see no references to the mathematics of music there?

    The theory in physics called string theory has nothing to do with music. There may be some superficial similarities, but there's no fundamental connection between the two. So talking about music and its mathematics is off-topic in this thread.


    And that's indeed more like language. Change of wording accepted.

    Well, I'm using the scientific/official/mainstream one. And look at that; we are in the main science sections of the forum! So I'd appreciate it if you do the same, or preface/footnote your non-standard usage of words and terms every time you use them.

    You're talking about mathematics and philosophy that are in no way related to mathematical strides made by string theory. It's all irrelevant to the discussion.

    If you think differently, please explain how the brain being a "mathematical organ" (it's not) has to do with mathematical strides made by string theory.

    Because you failed to indicate it.

    Right, so next time, I'll just post a link to a textbook of 200 pages without a page number, and that would be fine too? Good to know!

    The context of your post was included in the link? That makes no sense; can you rephrase that?

    If that's your best shot at communicating, you should learn to live with people misunderstanding you. It makes me wonder why you bother attempting to communicate at all?
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    That's becayse we covered that a long time ago.
    Why repeat it?

    But does not apply to wavelengths (sounds) of the grunts and rhythms of the clicks?
    Seems you are still stuck in Science I of 1950.
    Science is making enormous strides (mostly through mathematics) in many fields and are beginning to find relatioships between seemingly unrelated phenomena.
    No it isn't, you're just stuck in the old scientific/official/mainstream science. Don't let Phase II of the new architecture of science pass you by.
    The brain is a processor of electro/chemical input values, thus a mathematical processor. When I read something my mind processes it and compares it to existing knowledge which I have gained over many years of reading scientific narratives.
    If you are referring to the "5 pillars of science" link, it is a PDF and you can download it at your leisure. You might just find some new insights therein.
    I know the definition of science and it's changing, especially now that we are able to crunch enormous amounts of numbers and variables and are busily exploring the world at the atomic (nano scale.
    Well somebody has to do some communicating, I can see no one else come forward with any new findings in string theory.
    Consider that I did not start this thread. And I have learned to live with your mode of communiation which I find narrow and firmly locked in the box of old mainstream Science I.
    Step out once in awhile and look around with an open mind. It's all connected , you know that very well, but you seem reluctant to explore how and why things are connected

    At least I go out on a limb and as I have many times explained before, my posts are not definitive statements, but always of a "probing nature". Unfortunately I seldom get any comprehensive narrative responses, exept blunt rejection and derision for even trying to keep a potentially interesting thread alive, by presenting several different viewpoints, derived from what I assume to be reliable links. I ususually refer to University links and on occasion may refer to Youtube for actual presentations by qualified scientists when it seems relevant, but you'll never see me link to Twitter or Facebook. I don't visit those sites.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2017
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Can you give me an example. I am really very interested and I do understand the "falsification" process.

    And please understand that with maths, I mean in context of processing quatifiable of values and patterns, not necessarily just numbers. I did that for 15 years as bookkeeper/payroll/quarterly tax preparations for a multimillion dollar corporation with seven seperate bank accounts for seven different divisions. I never failed our yearly audit.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2017
  16. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Because it's wrong? Just because something was covered a long time ago, doesn't mean it can't be falsified anymore.

    I don't see any mathematics there; it's just an analogue. As I said, superficial similarities.

    What doesn't apply to wavelengths?

    Source of the quote?

    True, and I never claimed otherwise, but it's irrelevant for the discussion at hand here anyway.

    Erm, with all due respect, but you don't even understand half of the science of this Phase I, let alone Phase II. You are in a terrible position to accuse people of letting science pass them by.

    The word you are looking for isn't "mathematical", it's "deterministic".

    Sure, but be aware that it is thus also possible to come to bad conclusions if at some point in the learning proces bad assumptions of derivations weren't corrected.

    Reading scientific narratives for many years doesn't guarantee an understanding of science. The best course of action is taking science classes at university level (or at least rigorously going through the relevant textbooks), and I doubt you've done that.

    (For the record: I am obviously not.)


    So you're OK with me just giving you textbook titles or online PDF's, and then you have to figure out what section of text I am referring to?

    Because I wouldn't accept that, and I didn't.

    Are you genuinely insinuating that you are producing new findings in string theory? Well, in that case, I can't wait to read your peer-reviewed published article in one of the respected string theory journals!

    You are so out of the box sometimes, it's not even science anymore. My mode of communication might seem narrow, but at least it's well defined. The goal of communication is to transfer a thought or idea from one place (mind) to another, having its meaning essentially unchanged. Your sloppy terminology is a great hinderance to that. My "narrow and firmly locked in the box of old mainstream Science I" style of communication at the very least doesn't have that problem.

    You don't know how open or closed my mind is, so please stop assuming things about me.

    No, an open mind without a filter will let in an awful lot of rubbish. Look at some members on this very forums: they believe in all kinds of hoaxes and conspiracy theories. They have an extremely open mind, but without a strong "is it really true?" filter.

    The search for truth needs an open mind, yes, but also a restriction to make sure only true things are accepted by that open mind. I am fully willing to explore how everything is connected, but I don't want to waste time on fake connections and nonsense. I'm not in favor of the "let's fill mud at the wall, and see what sticks" method of discovery.

    That's because you are presenting your speculations as facts or truth, when they often clearly are not. You often use word with non-standard definitions, without signaling that. You keep bringing up irrelevant things.

    If you would just focus on the discussion at hand, use words in ways that other people wouldn't misunderstand, and clearly indicate the parts that are speculation, you would find that a lot of people (including me) would respond in a much more positive and constructive way.

    When dealing with the intricacies of string theory, you really should be referring to the published papers and textbooks. Using only popular science sources is terrible when trying to understand fundamental physics. There is a reason the math behind string theory is so complicated. You should know this, as you've given a couple of examples of mathematical strides string theory has made. Can you honestly say that you understand the maths involved?

    If you need an example, just look at equation 1.1 from Schnabel's paper:
    Do you understand what that expression means exactly? (Full disclosure: I don't.)

    If not, you don't understand some of the basic concepts in string theory; what makes you think any of your musing are more than flinging mud at a wall?
  17. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I don't see what bearing your booking experience has to this thread? I haven't been talking about the falsification process either.

    You want a philosophical discussion about numbers, in a thread about string theory, and you also seem to be arguing against the randomness of quantum theory in favor of determinism but I'm not really sure where you are going with any of this other than to continue with another Sciforum unending thread.

    Can you reduce the creation of life to numbers? If you can, you are just talking in terms of philosophy and not in terms of anything that we can test so in a philosophy discussion...everyone is right.

    I don't find philosophy particularly interesting for that reason.
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I can respect that. It's just that I cannot see any other method of translating the workings of the universe.
    So far mathematics have been spectacularly successful in the translation of observed and known phenomena a patterns.
    And I see no fundamental difference in the mathematics of sound (energy) produced by long strings say, violin strings, and the mathematics of string theory which deals with very short strings.
    I can understand that at nano scale or smaller other factors become important, but fundamentally....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    String theory isn't about violin strings (or book keeping) and of course no one is arguing against the usefulness of mathematics in science.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    In case you missed it, allow me to requote what I think is an important condensed version of what my layman's view is, and reinforced by Tegmark's hypothesis that fundamentally the workings of the universe are not quite as complex as it may seem from the necessary complex mathematics required for proving or falsifying a concept.

    Unless this condensed summation is completely wrong, it seems to confirm what I have been trying say, ( in layman's language). Nothing more.

    There is one question which I have about the highlighted portion of the quote, is the definition of "mass" of strings, which produces (bosonic?) particles.
    Given that a photon has zero rest mass, but acquires its mass from it's momentum and kinetic energy, is it possible that the strings also have zero rest mass but that it's specific"oscillation" produces a specific mass, (energy) which can then be identified as a specific type of particle?
    From the definition of the "Polyakov action"

Share This Page