[Bob Campbell]

Originally Posted by neutralino

Hi Bob,

But anything else that you decide is a fundamental building block of matter would be unimaginally smaller than the proton as well. An electron, for example, is far smaller than a proton. (well, ok, so it probably makes no sense to formally talk of the "size" of the particles, but an electron is definitely a lot less massive than the proton, and thus I would say it is "smaller" for this argument).

I don't how it is more difficult to believe that particles are made up of strings, than particles are made up of smaller point particles.

I've never heard a theory where strings are supposed to be the source of space and time. All the versions of string theory that I have heard involve a spacetime manifold on which string move (just like 4-space and particles). Perhaps you could enlighten me if I've missed something?

This is somewhat of a valid point. String theory is a mathematical theory, and will remain so until it makes predictions for experiments that can perceivably be undertaken in the future.

Einstein invented a theory that said that massive particles curve spacetime. How more mathematical a theory can you get?

Hi Neutralino,

If you check out my website you will see that I consider the hydrogen atom as the primary building block of matter. Electron, proton and photon are intimately bound as one coherent atom in an electrically neutral universe. All light comes from within atoms and defines space in a discontinuous projection of matter that defines time. Space and time are a posteriori, not a priori. This view is consistent with the evidence.

Someone once observed that smashing atoms in colliders is like trying to figure out how a watch works by smashing it to bits. There is no compelling reason to believe that highly transient sub atomic "particles" are fundamental building blocks of the universe.

The space reference was a poor choice of words, a Freudian slip if you like. You were right to pick it out. To my mind particles of long lived matter - atoms - define space by the distance between them bridged by the transmission of light. There is no direct evidence that there is such a thing as an independent spacetime contunuum. This is another mathematical conjecture. Einstein's theory of gravity does make predictions based on spacetime curvatures associated with gravitational mass, but similar curvatures are introduced in a discontinuous universe by the contraction of space associated with galactic angular velocities and the related nucleosynthesis of heavy elements in stars. This leads to a more credible cosmology that avoids philosophical contradictions associated with a beginning in time and offers alternate reasons for the red shift, missing mass and other phenomena. The methodology accomodates mathematics but offers new insights into the nature of different kinds of identities on which mathematics is based. It offers new mathematical approaches in specific contexts and limits others. It is not itself mathematical or even linguistic. It facilitates direct intuitive insight into the structural dynamics of the cosmic order which must find confirmation in phenomenal experience of some kind. The creative process becomes transparent. Otherwise we dealing in a language of conjectural fantasy that can never find unequivocal confirmation. There are no mathematicians out there is space calculating how to run the universe. It runs all by itself.

At the end of his life Einstein also questioned the continuum assumptions on which his gravitional theory was based, thus indicating that physics might better be based on discontinuous structures. He was deeply concerned about the direction physics was taking especially in quantum mechanics but also in cosmology. Others are too.

Best regards,
Bob