[AntonioLao]

Witten, the father of M-theory, when asked what the 'M' stands for? He added the word 'murky' to the others: 'mystery', 'magic', or matrix. Is he now doubting his own invention?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Witten, the father of M-theory, when asked what the 'M' stands for? He added the word 'murky' to the others: 'mystery', 'magic', or matrix. Is he now doubting his own invention?

You are actually considering that the name of a theory IS everything in it. Definitely Witten is smart enough, and he does this on purpose, can't you see? He knows that with this mystery, he can get a bit more of attention and more people to get to know about the theory. He will finally give it; probably if the theory is solved in his life time.

[subversion]

Maybe this is a good time to say this. I have my reservations about string/M theory. What the heck was the M supposed to stand for originally anyway?

[AntonioLao]

GUILLE, you can put all your chips on Witten, But not me. Math can do anything on paper but it needs experiment such as making a fusion engine at room temperature to solidify the theory. To me a TOE should be able to guide us how to construct this fusion engine.

Subversion, M must stands for matrix since matrix is a math concept. It actually means membrane but the shorten of membrane is just brane. And branes are 2D objects embedded in multi-dimensional space-time. In 1985, topologists discovered the class of spaces with the right properties. These are the Calabi-Yau spaces. Too hardcore math for me to understand. I am sticking to my directional invariance and one dimensional local infinitesimal motion and defining the quantization of space-time as the square of energy. And using Hadamard matrices, I can do simple calculations for the mass ratio of proton and electron with 22 percent different to empirical value.

[Guille]

Antonio,

Of course!

A TOE, for me, should have:
1) unification of forces;
2) mathematical explanations and background;
3) empirical proofs;
4) ability to make estimations of, for example, the mass of a particle.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE

unification of forces

I am holding to the hypothesis that two of the forces namely: magnetic force and electric force cannot be unified at the quantum level of fractal dimension. At fractal dimension, gravity is the difference of magnetic force and electric force.



if the electric force is zero then gravity is equal to the magnetic force.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

i am holding to the hypothesis that two of the forces namely: magnetic force and electric force cannot be unified at the quantum level of fractal dimension. At fractal dimension, gravity is the difference of magnetic force and electric force.



if the electric force is zero then gravity is equal to the magnetic force.

Thanks for that.
What if both magnetic and electric is zero? Then gravity is zero?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE

What if both magnetic and electric is zero? then gravity is zero?

Only if their physical dimension is zero. Magnetic field has a physical dimension of 1 the same as quantized space. Electric field has a physical dimension of 2 the same as continuous space.

[Guille]

Is this theory possible???::::

Neurons are arranged and overact (which means that interact as a whole) by a magnetic field. Neurons interact (which means interact between them) by an electric field or electrical massages. Maybe our sub-consciousness could behave moved by our over (magnetic) actions. Our consciousness by our inter (electric) actions.

[AntonioLao]

So a smart person would have what is called a magnetic personality.