[Bob Campbell]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Maybe we should not be looking at the many different particles but at the stuff they are made of. Is an electron really made of something different than a proton or just constructed differently? Does the matter / antimatter concept really make sense? Why would one say that opposite charge indicates different substance? By understanding the substance of the universe and its properties, you can understand how the particles work; and everything else.

Hi David,

I think that your comment implying that electron and proton are made of the same thing but just constructed differently is very relevant. Particles are all forms of energy that are structured in strict accordance with how the cosmic order works. We can not know the "substance" of the universe directly as an isolated "thing" or object because we are part of how that "thing" works, but we can know its structural manifestations in phenomenal experience. We can know light energy for example, and in a sense every physical thing is a structural manifestation of EM energy. That is really all we can know through ordinary sense perceptions and empirical data, but that is enough to have a coherently holistic understanding.

Best regards,
Bob

[Profpat]

Hi Bob; A very interesting site with great graphics.
So far I only gave a very cursory review, and so I have no direct comments yet as to the actual theory.


" There is a lot of convincing evidence that electrons and protons do exist as hard little lumps of particulate matter "your quote

Does this mean you don't believe the proton is composed of 3 quarks?

Best,

Pat

[Bob Campbell]

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Bob; A very interesting site with great graphics. So far I only gave a very cursory review, and so I have no direct comments yet as to the actual theory. " There is a lot of convincing evidence that electrons and protons do exist as hard little lumps of particulate matter "your quote Does this mean you don't believe the proton is composed of 3 quarks? Best, Pat

Hi Pat,

If you look at the space frame side of the diagram of System 3 you will see that the universal centers are confined within the particular centers that are each spatially closed. Inside the particular proton the universal set has two of its centers oriented in the direction toward the photon and one looking back toward the electron. This can be interpreted as two up quarks and one down quark consistent with QCD.

Best regards,
Bob

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Bob Campbell I think that your comment implying that electron and proton are made of the same thing but just constructed differently is very relevant. Particles are all forms of energy that are structured in strict accordance with how the cosmic order works. We can not know the "substance" of the universe directly as an isolated "thing" or object because we are part of how that "thing" works, but we can know its structural manifestations in phenomenal experience. We can know light energy for example, and in a sense every physical thing is a structural manifestation of EM energy. That is really all we can know through ordinary sense perceptions and empirical data, but that is enough to have a coherently holistic understanding.

Hi Bob;
For the most part I agree with you, however I would not call the substance of the universe “energy”; it tends to confuse the issue of entity and dimension. Energy is a term of measured quantity and thus a dimension; it is not a different entity!

To describe who or what you are (know you) you would use attributes that define you. To know the fundamental substance we use the attributes of that substance to define it. There are many terms that define the attributes of the substance in specific states or forms; the problem is that these terms are not referenced to a fundamental set of absolute terms. Until we know the fundamental set of absolutes we can only define the phenomena of nature in abstract relative terminology. My concept in my Toronic blog is an attempt to show that all our science terminology and measurements can be reduced to the simplest understanding of substance and its properties other than spatial dimension, of self-bonding and absolute motion.

[Bob Campbell]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Hi Bob; For the most part I agree with you, however I would not call the substance of the universe “energy”; it tends to confuse the issue of entity and dimension. Energy is a term of measured quantity and thus a dimension; it is not a different entity! To describe who or what you are (know you) you would use attributes that define you. To know the fundamental substance we use the attributes of that substance to define it. There are many terms that define the attributes of the substance in specific states or forms; the problem is that these terms are not referenced to a fundamental set of absolute terms. Until we know the fundamental set of absolutes we can only define the phenomena of nature in abstract relative terminology. My concept in my Toronic blog is an attempt to show that all our science terminology and measurements can be reduced to the simplest understanding of substance and its properties other than spatial dimension, of self-bonding and absolute motion.

Hi David,

I think that you misinterpret my comment a bit. Perhaps it was not worded well. And it seems that I may have misinterpreted your initial comment a bit. If you have a look at my website you will see that the only way we can really know things is through active interface processes between inside and outside. We can never know the inside of anything to the exclusion of the outside or vice-versa. All information comes to us through active energy processes of some kind across the interfaces between a common inside and a common outside. And it is possible in this way to delineate all structural possibilities to experience in a way that is independent of language and that universally applies. It is possible to see directly that nothing is excluded, that all of the structural possibilities to experience are covered. It is not possible to add or subtract from the method. The structural dynamics of the cosmic order never changes but it prescribes the pattern of all change. You can think of this as absolute if you like.

This approach seems to me as different to what you suggest as defining attributes of substance in language. Philosophers have been attempting to define experience in language for a few thousand years. And there are several thousand languages in the world so attributes can be described and categorized in any number of ways. But language inherently deals in abstracted concepts that are referenced to sensory input in some way. Sensory input depends upon energy transformations across active interfaces, whether it is the retina of the eye, ear drum or whatever, and it is further processed by active energy transformations across interfaces at synaptic junctions in our brains that integrate and relate our subjective perceptions to objective phenomena perceived outside the active interface of our body. That is how we normally know phenomena directly, although it is possible for direct phenomenal experience to also transcend the physical body on rare occasions, as in near death experiences for instance.

I did not mean to imply that all energy transformations directly involve electromagnetic energy. There is kinetic, potential, chemical, mechanical, and heat energy etc. which may only be indirectly related to EM energy. But there is a direct relationship between physical matter and electromagnetic energy. For example the experiments in high energy physics dramatically demonstrate that physical particles and EM energy can interchange and transform into a menagerie of transient forms. Special relativity established that there is a direct correspondence between mass and energy. But even if mass is a form of energy we can not know the fundamental substance that subjectively constitutes either inside it as an isolated “thing” in itself. Phenomenal experience is not presented to us in this way.

I don’t think it is possible to completely define in language what anything is as a fundamental substance. Nor do I think it is possible to contrive an absolute set of fundamental terms that can describe substance as an absolute. Maybe I misinterpret your intension. Our experience of the world is not that rigid. Life is an ongoing structured process. Being is a verb. But we can identify structural interfaces and the energy transformations relating to them. We can understand how the cosmic order works by taking this approach. It is a methodology that has never been explored before. It is only in recent decades that enough empirical evidence has accumulated to make the approach fruitful.

Best regards,
Bob

www.cosmic-mindreach.com

[PoPpAScience]

Very well put Bob.

I feel that the hardest part about expressing the make up off the Universe, is trying to use words that express meaning, without conjuring up arguments. Unfortunately most get fixated on the word and not the context it is used in. We can only use the words that best activate our sensory perception, to the Ideal trying to be conceived.

I feel that 50% of the arguments in this forum are on the context of the word, and not the meaning trying to be conceived. This is no better seen in 'Nobody's' tread, about "Nothing". All those posts arguing over the word Nothing, instead of the concept that is trying to be conceptualized.

[RascalPuff]

Sincere thanks to you, Mr. james I digol, for eliciting this remarkably educational string of distinguished posts, with your initiated thread.

With regard to your title - 'An Intro to what Superstrings are', until further notice, aren't they an accumulation of avante garde, tentatively prescient mathematics?

Best regards,
- RP

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Sincere thanks to you, Mr. james I digol, for eliciting this remarkably educational string of distinguished posts, with your initiated thread.

Amen to that but where have you gone, James?

[rick]

Hi James,

I really enjoyed and appreciated your efforts helping bring others including myself up to date with string theory.

What is your opinion of the Garrett Lisi model shown on this You Tube video :

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=-xHw9zcCvRQ

I personally like the geometries which remind me in part of Kabbalistic Tree of Life Geometries, but then I don't have your powers of discrimination on this topic. So what do you make of it ??

Many thanks, Rick.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by rick What is your opinion of the Garrett Lisi model shown on this You Tube video : http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=-xHw9zcCvRQ

Hi Rick

Very clever but can't see that it makes any sense???

regards
Felix