A replacement for string theory.

dleviwing · 11:27 PM

The concept of a band or string of energy as being the core component to physical structure is resisted due to the fact that nature has proven herself to function in the realm of spherical domains; So let's look at the possibility of a spherical replacement for the string.

Looking at the space of the universe, we can imagine many EM waves of many wavelengths. These waves form random interference patterns throughout space comprised of different frequencies. This can be viewed as the broken wave symmetry of the universe. Now, if we imagine that a quantity of spatial matter acquires angular motion such that it confines the waves to a smaller volume, the waves will interact until only a single wavelength can be determined in this volume. This results in wave symmetry at the surface of the object that has the nature of standing waves and the interior of the object has a symmetrical pattern of interference. You now have the initial building block for matter and the cause of quantum increments of spin and energy.

dleviwing · 05:19 PM

M-Theory is said to require 11 dimensions to define reality. If we truly look at these dimensions as quantitative measurements, as stated by the math, we see that they are not mysterious realms of existence.
They are:
(1)…3 spatial dimensions defining location.
(2)…6 dimensions of degree of freedom for defining the motion of waves.
(3)…1 dimension of uniform motion (linear plus angular).
(4)…1 dimension of time (reference of motion).

A total of 11 dimensions of measured vector quantities to define any entity in M-theory. 2 and 3 are often stated in terms of permeability, voltage, flux, energy, and so on that tend to confuse the actual physical processes of interactions and understanding.

davidgow77 · **Strings n Things.... -** 03-07-2006, 03:46 PM

the spherical "strings" you are describing may already be catered fro in string theory by the concept of Branes... I am still of the opinion that string theory is not actually a theory of physics, but a philosophical construct of the way in which our minds interpret the spatial environment. It's not that things are made up from pieces of string, but rather that our brains probably have a limit in terms of how accurately we can measure things (i.e. the planck length is the lower limit of the brain's power of interpretation), so philosophically speaking, it appears to us that everything should be made up from strings.

Anyway.... I've been trying to explain this in a paper for the past 18 months, and I still haven't succeeded, but I am pretty sure that there is a link between Pi, the fact that we see 3 dimensions of space, and the fact that mathematics (string theory) says there should be 11.

DG

dleviwing · **Relating to the brane. -** 03-07-2006, 04:47 PM

Hi DG;
Prior to the concept of the brane or membrane, string theory was viewed as 10 dimensions. The addition of the brane produced the 11th dimension and thus the name M-theory replaced String-theory. I agree that M-theory is not a physical theory as it stands, but it provide some interesting mathematical gauge models. Wave interference from 6 directions will momentarily produce a brane commonly referred to as a boson. Add the dimension of uniform angular motion to this brane and it becomes an autonomous unit with its own wave functions confined to the volume of the brane. If the total quantity of motion is absolute, the unit will be stable and capable of being referred to as a particle (Quantum unity particle). If the unit does not acquire this quantity of motion it will simply disperse back into the spatial medium's wave function. This is the first fundamental unit of structure. Planck's constants provide the fundamental values for this unit of fundamental matter.

The universe is purely physical. The bizarre interpretations of measured quantities (dimensions) are getting out of hand and producing a science that appears to be pure nonsense. It is not! It appears that scientist like Brian Greene are out to sell books and not promote reality.

davidgow77 · 03-07-2006, 07:19 PM

Interesting.... I cannot claim to have an in depth understanding of the issues from a mathematical point of view, but I do believe that the route taken by Greene et al is simply not credible.... abstract mathematics must be related in some way to physics, but string theory represents a departure from the standard way that philosophical theories are developed.... namely that a model or paradigm is developed, and then maths is used as a tool for developing a proof (a la Einstein and General Relativity). String Theory is stating that things must be a certain way because that is what maths dictates or suggests, ignoring the considerably significant issue that we just do not have a complete understanding of mathematics.

I suppose you could say that string theory is an evidence based philosophy, rather than a thought experiment. The problem is that sooner or later the evidence will have to substantially change in order to explain certain phenomena. This renders string theory particularly vulnerable to becoming completely obsolete the next time a discovery is made that is as significant as general relativity.

And I'm still absolutely convinced that string theory is more about the workings of the human mind and the way we interpret space and matter, than the workings of the universe.

DG

dleviwing · 03-07-2006, 07:33 PM

I fully agree with you DG. My post was to show that the string theorists are making a mystery out of simple aspects of physical motion relationships and interactions. This is nothing new; it was done with both Relativity and QM gauge theories.

davidgow77 · 03-07-2006, 07:35 PM

That is what I have always thought when reading it. String theory seems to be a re-statement of work already done..... I just can't get past the mathematics, which is what is so frustrating about it.

CHeers

DG

tornado_sun · **com. -** 03-07-2006, 08:30 PM

why did you give the Nature a female proposition?
Herself?
can it not be itself?
You are so democrat

baudrunner · 03-07-2006, 09:30 PM

That is what string theory is, just mathematics.

Quote:

I suppose you could say that string theory is an evidence based philosophy, rather than a thought experiment.

That is just so out of the question! There is and never will in the history of humankind ever be evidence of string theory.

Mathematics is just a tool, that's all. It will never provide evidence of anything! Experimentation does that.

mkirkpatrick · **The hour is at hand? -** 03-08-2006, 12:08 AM

The only thing good about the string theory is that if you give it enough string,it will eventually hang itself.what can you replace it with,another theory,and then another after that.The holographic universe seems pretty good,but no doubt it will attract its knockers.For me it is very simple,a grand
unified theory,that will unite all the anomalies into one glorified whole,and will
answer all the questions,and make sense ofall the utter none-sense,that is spouted out,that all manifestation,all of the universe is a product of mind,and that energy and matter are all properties of mindful ideation.Science will eventually accept this as fact,some already have!Time grows short,soon the
hour and the realization will dawn on the rest,and they will stop kicking against the pricks.

kind regards michael.