[dleviwing]

There are many theories that envision space as a particulate structure. The concept promoted by mainstream science seems to be that of a structure formed by force particles called "Bosons". Let's see if we can envision why scientist would conceive such notions.

If we look at the wave interference produced with a double slit experiment, we see patterns that depict the areas of summation and areas of difference as the waves interfere with one another. Now picture the universe with EM waves of many wavelengths and from infinite number of directions. This will produce a dynamic interference of waves divided into summation and difference areas that are in a constant flux of change (elusive to measurement and detection); however these areas produce domains of variance and thus produce the electromagnetic properties ascribed to the bosons or other such entities defined as "ether particles". Volantis (ToeQuest member) seems to have worked out the mathematical framework for these dynamic domains of ethereal substance in terms of the electromagnetic properties they produce.

The greatest problem is the profound exaggeration of simple wave interactions. These wave functions are only part of the dynamic interactions resulting from various influences of a moving substance. They extend from the cosmos to the microcosm of subatomic particles. The symmetry of standing wave functions of particles and space between the structures of matter produce the aspect of solidity to our existence.

[baudrunner]

I made a plea to smart thinkers recently (RE: Robert's weekly report), in not so many words, that any discussion pertaining to other dimensions, parallel realities etc. be categorized under the heading of metaphysics and to not be a part of any discussion about the fundamental nature of reality.

I think, David, that your opinion on that matter agrees with mine from what I have read of some of the contributions you have made in the past in other discussions.

To synopsize, I stated that analysis of that most fundamental of all the constituents of reality beyond which analysis in greater depth reveals nothing, that is string theory, must incorporate empirical evidence which we find in the study of waves and wave interactions at the macro level. For example, if we were to superimpose any number of random wave forms of assorted and random shapes and viewed their product on an oscilloscope we would see their mathematical sum, which would be represented by a single wave. Furthermore, we have only the experiential evidence of a single reality, so this must be it!

At the level of strings, which incidentally will probably never be observed (although I wouldn't commit myself to that at this point, after all we have femto-second lasers and I just figured out how they are probably constructed) we have a similar principle at work, so the logical conclusion is that this three dimensional framework is the only practical reality that exists in all of creation. A reality which is represented by a composite of all the possibilities, which are not otherwise realized as fundamental in their own right.

Having said that, there must also be quantum effects at that scale and those effects separate force particles from each other and from matter particles, and all the matter particles from each other, all progressive quantum thresholds crossed in the realization of matter.

The point is this: those bosons that comprise space are the composite of those reinforcing/destructively interfering waves settling into the quantum homogeneity we call space/time. The other force particles represent spectral bands created by progressive quantum thresholds of more homogeneous composites which assure their place in the cosmic scheme of things and the progression continues into matter particles so all the particles are related and constructively compose elements which themselves represent quantum threshold experiences.

Modern science has the ability to effect alchemy-like changes to matter by forcing combinations and re/deconstructions because all those particles, while unique in their own right, are all a part of the one and only reality, wherein we find ourselves. We are currently in the stage of discovering that we are in the process of understanding the fundamental nature of reality.

To my thinking, that means that science has come a long way.

[dleviwing]

Steven;
I agree that we have many views in common as to the physical nature of existence and the importance of wave functions of matter.

I am not certain of your comments of "String Theory", are you saying you support it or do you oppose it?

I personally oppose M-theory since it has been hyped without any means of supporting evidence. Its only real claim is the mathematical renditions of gravity produce higher accuracy. This speaks more of the nature of gravity and not as a foundation for a GUT.

Many refer to the way you and I think as being too classical without really knowing what the term classical physics really means. Classical simply infers objective analysis whereas QM and Relativity are theories that takes into account the subjective nature of the measurements. Until a classical objective interpretation can be found, science will continue to wander into the realms of subjective fantasies created by the abstract nature of the mathematics.

[baudrunner]

Until a classical objective interpretation can be found, science will continue to wander into the realms of subjective fantasies created by the abstract nature of the mathematics.

Good point. Coincidentally, I just said as much to Michelle in the "When will the Theory of Everything be Solved" discussion.

I am not certain of your comments of "String Theory", are you saying you support it or do you oppose it?

For lack of anything else approaching the most fundamental construct of reality I support it mainly because it is the 'science of the day' if for no other reason and it's fun to play with. Anything else we suggest to replace it is no more provable but I am more than willing to listen. Only, it has to make logical sense, and set the stage for greater insight.

I personally oppose M-theory since it has been hyped without any means of supporting evidence.

No argument from me there. But then, what possible supporting evidence could there be for anything that would replace it? The following link is a tongue in cheek look at the actual depth that theoretical physicists will go to avoid scrutiny. I'll bet they feel perfectly secure with string theory. (You may already have seen this).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/scale.html

[dleviwing]

Hi Steven;
Yes, I have been to Dr Greene's promotional page. I was no more empress than I was when it was on PBS.

Originally Posted by baudrunner No argument from me there. But then, what possible supporting evidence could there be for anything that would replace it?

I think you are aware of what will replace it. The EM wave nature of matter! What causes waves to be confined to finite volumes of standing waves that produce structure? What causes the regression of waves to produce gravity? What causes the expansion of the universe and variance of its spatial density? Understanding the EM wave nature, uniform motion, and bonding properties of matter in all its combinations and interactions will replace it.
You seem to have recognized much of this already even though you state it a bit differently.

Regards;

[baudrunner]

Is the longest wavelength, lowest frequence wave the echo of cavity resonance from periphery to periphery of the Universe? Is there a swell when reinforcement of the echoes sums their amplitude? What is the duration and frequency of this ultra-extreme low-frequency swell?

M-theory is an accommodation to the need to establish waves at the most fundamental level, that of the first elementary particles. Since energy is proportional to frequency they would represent the most energetic product of the most minute source, capable of maintaining, for the purpose of our dicussion, spatial definition for infinity. I see no reason why EM-theory should not co-exist with M-theory, or supplement it. For that matter, why not treat them both equally?

I am still a little perturbed that there is a stubborness to accept light propagation theory as I've described it. It doesn't contradict M- or EM- theory. I just find it illogical to accept that photons travel at light speed when Einsteinian relativity theory tells us that anything that travels at light speed has infinite mass and exists in a place where time stands still. I find it more acceptable to view the medium wherein light is propagated to be filled with static components that resonate rather than force particles that streak about colliding with our retinas. Besides, it's just so much more elegant. I could never find a proper explanation for how photons "light things up".

I know it is difficult to reconcile "long wavelength photons" with resonating atoms, but again a couple of explanations make one feel more comfortable with the idea.

A light source can generate a specific frequency of light at different wavelengths. The amount of energy per unit of time represented by n1 oscillations of frequency v1 over 1 cm is greater than that represented by n1 oscillations of frequency v1 over 1 meter (quantum electro-magneto-dynamics?). Also, different wavelengths of the same frequency agree both with M- and EM- theory in that they occur naturally by way of positive wave reinforcement, ie. summing of any two waves propagating in the same direction, ie. swelling.

As to how they create matter may be related to generation of mass by spin velocity, a "spin-off" of relativity. Spatial density as I see it is relative. I mean it is relative to our perception of it when viewed from within the context of our own being. It is most probable (pro-babble?) that matter and space are highly constrained by crowding of energy/force/matter, highly stressed, that there is no "empty space" at all.

Gee, Dave, you've got me going too. Antonio is wondering something along the same lines, how quantum reality determines the structure of DNA just so, to produce genes that determine the nature of life etc. Back to my Anthropic Principle, "...if it were any other way then that is the way that it would be, and there would still be somebody there to observe it".

[Guille]

The main concept with which I disagree with string theory is that it beleives that spacetime is made of what the call membranes which are 2 dimensional, and to which all the ends of the open strings (all the bosons are open strings, and fermions are closed strings, if I remember correctly) are connected. Th thing is:
1. If spacetime is 4 dimensional how can it be made of 2 dimensional objects? (this is impossible conceptually and also physically).
2. If the bosons are really 1 dimensional how can it have ends connecte dto something? (because up to what I know something that is really a 1d string, couldn't have any width in the cross-section).
3. What about the fermions? (we constantly see how matter and forces interact, in fact, alll interaction are reduced to this one (because matter to matter interaction is a cause of matter-force interaction, and also force-force interaction is a cause of force-matter interaction) so how can this be if bosons are limited to spacetime and fermions are denied to spacetime?).

[baudrunner]

Guille, study strings as explained on this link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/scale.html

It's simple but you'll find that strings are resonant entities, not snippets of threads that somehow interact. Forget dimensions for the time being, be practical. We exist within a three dimensional framework where time is the sustaining concept that allows us to appreciate that. Don't bring philosophy into this thread, please.

[Guille]

Baud,

If you see philosophical things in my posts which are irrelevant tell me. But everywhere that there is science, there is philosophy, if there is not the second, then science is not science.

I'm practical enough to talk about science. I may remember you now that there is something called special theory of realitivity wrotten by an old guy called Einstein which shows that time is a dimension, so this idea is not a metaphysical hypothesis, it is a scientific fact.

I know what the strings is all about, I've read books and a couple of articles in the internet, so I know some maths from strings. First, you tell me to leave dimensions to a side... What! But it is string theorists that like so much talk about dimensions, as much that they've invented 6, then 12 for fermions and 20 for bosons... Second, you tell me that strings have reasonance and don't just interact. On this point I have a few equations to point which I have to find, when I do so I'll post them.

Anyway, 33.3% of string theory is hypothesis. 33.3% is mathematics. 33.3% is stupidity.

[michellemfry]

If stupidity exists, and it does, I've contributed my share and then some, it is the vibration that is stupid. Stupidity and intelligence are opposites. It makes sense. You can't have one without the other.