String Theory: Right or Wrong?

[dleviwing]

String theory uses dimensions which can not be objectively confirmed. Thus it is little better than numerology.

They should try to solve the problems of physics in the 4 dimensions we can verify.

Aireal;
You should keep in mind that “dimension” infers a quantitative measure. String Theory simply is predicting something they have numbers for in the equations but not the quantitative measure in the science lab experiment. I also think they have their head too far up their math.

[Profpat]

I'd love to David;

I went to your blog and see you have a few entries; any specific one or order, that I should know about first?

Charles;

I not only need strings for my theory, but also those extra internal dimensions rolled up into a proton.
And there is evidence of these internal dimensions.
It's the spectrum you see when you pass light through a prism.
Please take a look at my thread. The link is 6 posts above.

You too please David if you haven't already.
And any comments regarding it would be welcomed.

Best to all,

Pat



P.S. Once the music (Motion) stops then I guess all would colapse back into that dimensionless point.

[dleviwing]

Pat;
Many claim that they have theories that explain physical existence. The problem is the lack of empirical data to support such theories. Understanding wave mechanics is helpful, but understanding the medium of the waves is essential.

From your diagrams I get the impression that you have an occupation within the photographic realms. They are excellent for explaining photographic dye couplers and image processing, but not so good at explaining particle physics.

My blog attempts to reduce the complexity of QM and Relativity terminology to simple understandable language. Anyone proclaiming a theory that infers existence of dimensions outside the realm of our spatial dimensions is WRONG….. The dimensions stated by M-theory are not mystical dimensions but parameters of quantitative measure beyond our ability to measure. All parameters however will reduce to the simplest parameters of the motion and bonding properties of fundamental substance. This is when you can truly apply Ocum’s Razor.

Know the difference between “Entity” and “Dimension” within my blog:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/blogs/viewblog.php?userid=233&entry=116

BTW: The spectrum you see when passing light through a prism is the separation of EM energy into bands of frequencies; just like an AM Radio separates it stations.

[Profpat]

Thank you David for looking at and commmenting on my idea.

Mind you David I still believe that is 99% correct, even without empirical data. I will let time and experimental physicist to prove it. ( I'm sure I'll be long gone. )

The venn diagram is not only a useful tool for color, but also to show sets, octants, etc. ( It also makes for a very colorful idea, complete with harmonics )

God I love my idea its so beautiful.

OK, I think all 3 dimensional space would have to have those 8 octants dividing the 3 dimensional space mathematically. Yes? No?

These octants ( areas, regions, yes dimensions ) are not OUTSIDE of 3 dimensional space but INSIDE.
You have the three outer dmensions and 8 inner dimensions. ( Those octants, which I believe are very dynamic.)

Also isn't TIME a dimension outside of space. So I really think I'm RIGHT and not WRONG.

And finally physicist have been trying to figure out how 7 dimensions can enfold to 3 dimensional space, for a long time. My manifold does just that - right inside the proton. And mystical is part of T.O.E.
And I can explain my idea to a 7th grader and I'm sure he would understand. ( Common sense )

OK to yours:

I really liked it David and didn't see that many inconsistencies between our theories. Totally different presentations ( me drawing with a #2 pencil and yours written ).

I agree that pretty much everything is a wave or a field, but here is where you and I disagree really, and that is string theory.

I need it to give structure and permanence for the proton ( essentially a field in its own right )

When you think of a string David its that: ( and I'm quoting you ) " The fundamental substance of which physical entities acquire form and existence ".

You are so right on this one David, so lets call that fundamental substance STRINGS.

What could be more fundamental than a one dimensional entity that is small as a planck length.
I don't think we can get any more fundamental.

Again thanks for the critique.

Pat

[Profpat]

Pat;


BTW: The spectrum you see when passing light through a prism is the separation of EM energy into bands of frequencies; just like an AM Radio separates it stations.

Dear David;

But why do they seperate into those bands David ?
My theory explains why.

Also back to your blog under Absolute Bonding, You eliminate 7 of the 8 gluons with hardly a mention of why. I eliminated all 8 in my theory because I don't need them.

Also you seem to have problems with light being viewed as a particle, with its dualistic nature.
Light being a transverse wave gives the illusion of three dimensionality (L,W,H.) And we have to view it as a particle for the photoelectric effect, the compton
effect, etc. But you are right in that every particle may be viewed as a wave, which is what you are emphasising about light.

Finally according to Einstein if you can't draw a picture of your theory its probably wrong.

My picture shows why quarks have confinement, but with asymptotic freedom.

Why there is a spectrum ( seperation of EM bands ) in a light particle.

How and why there are 7 internal dimensions in a proton ( 8 when its enclosed and a neutron ).

And also how all of that enfolds into 3 dimensional space.

It even eliminates the electron as a seperate entity being part of the proton itself.
I gave reasons for this in my theory. But one that I didn't mention is the coincidence that a neutron and a free standing Hydrogen atom has the same life time, ~1000 seconds before they flip back and forth changing into one another.

Well I'm anxiously awaiting your reply and picture.

Best to you,

Pat

[Aireal]

Profpat

I also eliminated 7 of the 8 gluon's because they are not needed. In QCD the "extra" gluon's are needed to account for changes between type of quarks. I showed how simple harmonic coupling can do the same thing without particles.

So I needed only one gluon that filled the same job as the photon does for the electron. But in my model the quarks are created by the same waveform that created the electron, as are all 1/2 spin, non composite particles. The quarks are electrons but have a different mass due to being formed in a high density region.

Charles

[Profpat]

Hi Charles.

As I mentioned before I have no problem with your theory.( That which I could understand )

I have no problem with 1/2 spin for quarks. nor even the 1/3 -2/3 charge.

I'm afraid a wave with no substance isn't going to give you the stabilty or structure you need for a spherical wave however.

I think you may be incorrect about the electron being independent of the proton. Where are the free electrons? Or free quarks for that matter.

Again my model requires no gluons ( what does a gluon look like? ). The changes you mentioned in my model requires no gluon to accomplish that. ( Buy three pipe cleaners and you'll see how that is easily accomplished through movement only. I assume you looked at my idea.

Thank you for your input, but I'm still sure my theory is 99% correct'

Best to you,

Pat

[Aireal]

Profpat

Your description of the quarks and mine have a lot in common. The movement you describe is the same wave mechanism I describe. I think we have just approached the problem from different viewpoints. Which is true of much of physics.

I did provide not just one, but several factors that provide stability and structure for the electron, a third of my paper was devoted just to that topic. About 3 pages were devoted as to why there are no free quarks observed. Free electrons are observed however in cosmic radiation.

One of the papers I used was like yours in that it was based on motion alone, no quarks needed.

So I agree that your concept is 99% correct. I wish you had read my early paper before it got all the QED added to it. It would have been easier to see the connection between our two models.
I believe that this is at the heart of our failure to find a TOE. There are many ways to reach the same conclusions. We fight and argue over which is correct, when in fact they mostly agree with each other. Until we can see beyond the tunnel vision of a single theory for everyone, we will make little progress. I tried to build a framework many theories could use. But it seems such a complex structure defeats the very reason for which it was made.

Charles

[Profpat]

Thanks for your response Charles.

I'll have to peruse your theory with more dilligence.

I do wish you had the dumb down version for me.

And I don't have a T.O.E. just an idea about the formation of the proton/neutron using strings and quarks.

Best to you Charles.

Pat

[Profpat]

I forgot to mention Charles your theory looks like a doctoral disertation in physics. Where did you become so smart?

Are you a doctoral candidate in physics?

Best

Pat