[AntonioLao]

Disappointment is a fact of life. Some human infants show theirs by crying keeping their care providers awake all night long. Some human adults show theirs by punching keeping their law enforcers awake all night long. Similarly, disappointment also arises when searching for a TOE. However, there are no small fries who pry into a TOE will be kept awake all night long unless they try crying dry without single drops of joyful tears.

A now well read cry baby of superstring theories is no other than Lee Smolin. But instead of frowning he is smiling. He is happy simply because he finally understood that any superstring theory causes the fall of fundamental science, theoretical physics in particular. It took him about 30 years to find this out for himself. Even though he had given much wry prying into all string theories and doing calculations that seem to go nowhere, he also questioned their scientific validity and usefulness. He was told not to worry because majority of those small fries believed they are up to something beautiful and would be a shame to let go of what they are doing. Nevertheless, they are crying dry all the way to becoming bigger fries but a few pluses of wyes would certainly allow them to put out all their wet pants to dry and be as big as those dead giant fries of an Einstein, a Maxwell, or a Newton. All three have done major works without as much as frying their brain out until it’s crispy and dry.

[Profpat]

Babies under 2 years old through tamtrums and cry because they are frustrated since they can't express themselves. Maybe that is Lee's problem also.

Best,

Pat

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Maybe that is Lee's problem also

After reading 2 of his books I can say he is quite articulate. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin

[Profpat]

Thanks for the link Antonio, But I like strings. He should just think about the simplicity of a line and not get so confused with a theory still in developement.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Profpat

the simplicity of a line

The 11 dimensions line is quite complicated and if you wrapped it around lower dimensional branes you get entangled spaghetti. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi-Yau_manifold

[Profpat]

So why can't they keep the line as a one dimensional entity like math does? Why not during the "big bang" these little Planck length 1 dimesional pure energy LINES, why can't they form everything? Why is the confusion and complication necessary. Why can't we keep it to a LINE?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Why can't we keep it to a LINE

At the beginning as in a static theory a line is not moving always at rest but the lines in superstring theory are like slippery worms they wriggle and vibrate and that is how they get their different modes of energy. On the other hand, superstring needs a static background where and when all these commotions can take place while in general relativity there is no such thing as a background since the dynamic worldlines of spacetime are already moving frantically, expanding, contracting, twisting, etc.

[Profpat]

OK we have a vibrating dynamic energetic line, that can be open or closed. I can still follow and conceptualize that. No confusion there on my part.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Thanks for the link Antonio, But I like strings. He should just think about the simplicity of a line and not get so confused with a theory still in developement.

Thats right Pat,a straight line of consciousness from A to B.simple.



regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

a straight line of consciousness

Then what is the magnitude of the length of this line between A and B? If the length is zero then A and B are in physical contact and they mean the same thing. FYI, in physics, self-energy or self-interaction is always a theoretical problem because the answer comes out infinity.