Big Bangs are easier to understand...

[Max™]

Exactly, thats why I said I am with him on String Theory.

[AntonioLao]

I am with him on String Theory

What's your criticism about string theory?

[Max™]

The same one I have with Quantum Theory, which is actually different from Smolin's exact view right now.

Matter is not non-local and spread as a spatial probability function.

Strings attempt to model this in a novel way, but it's too caught up in it's own mathematical navel gazing to see the problems in it's own formulation.

Take the -~^v/\v^~- spread of a particle as it is currently viewed in space, and rotate it.

|
/
\
<
>
I
>
<
/
\
|

Into the time direction, so the way that we model objects as probabilities of finding them at various locations was actually correct, but we took the spatial aspect too literally.

The probability represents the influence that a particle has on the near parts of it's worldline, and the resulting influence it receives from those parts.

[AntonioLao]

Strings attempt to model this in a novel way

It's more like imaginary way since string uses the complex variables of imaginary multi-valued multi-periodic functions in the complex manifold of 7 imaginary space dimensions and 1 imaginary time dimension.

[Max™]

Well, again, it is a new way to attempt to resolve the problems caused by describing particles as spatially spread bodies.

This is where the infinities come from, you consider the interaction of a wave with a wave, and the interaction of the interaction of the wave with the wave, and the wave interacting with the interaction of the interaction of the wave with the wave, and it just splits and spreads fractally towards infinity.

This is a sign that we're doing something wrong.


As an aside, my idea to rotate the wave spread into time, and having the interaction with time as implied by relativity, NATURALLY renormalizes the possibility of infinities away, by putting a simple cap on the spread of the function.

[AntonioLao]

This is a sign that we're doing something wrong

The atheist Nobel Prize winner S. Weinberg of electroweak fame did question about the finality of the gauge invariance of the complex imaginary phase factor of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.

[Max™]

Indeed, every time I begin to dig into quantum theory, looking for something I can salvage to describe my temporal interaction version, I just come away feeling like I've been lied too.

Going to have to build it from the ground up unless I can find someone who has another impression of a form that will fit.

[AntonioLao]

I can find someone

Have you tried searching for the inner true scientist inside the second half of your brain by meditation and concentration and more meditation and concentration?

[Max™]

That's how I live my life my man.

That's how I worked out everything that I have, thinking and pondering and relaxing and opening my imagination up like a net to catch whatever random thoughts may float past.

The problem is, I don't naturally think in numbers, they only come in flashes from time to time, my E=(d/T)c² came to me as I was laying in bed about to fall asleep, and I had to jump up and go write it down.

Same with the graph that led to that.

Been laying awake the last few nights pondering how to properly describe the mathematics of a particle interacting with it's near future and past, and the influence that has on interactions with the present.

[AntonioLao]

it's near future and past

Let go of the past and stretch out your arms for the future and strode the path of happiness and prosperity but only if you dont want to be a true scientist.