Some Things about Strings Pt III

[RascalPuff]

A Critique of Brian Greene's Elegant Universe, by Miles Mathis Pt. III

This brings us to another question: is it even possible for a one-dimensional string to vibrate sideways? I have reminded the reader that a longitudinal wave is impossible to imagine without some subdivision of the string. There has to be some sort of longitudinal variation to propose compression; but this variation is not possible without subdivision. In the end this is because without subdivision you cannot insert any space into the string. You need space in between the particles making up the string in order to propose variation in compression. But a closer analysis shows the same problem with transverse waves on a one-dimensional string. How is a one-dimensional string bendable without some "give" between particles making up the string? If the string is absolutely indivisible and undifferentiated, then it is not clear that we can bend it. A bend would occur at the bond between particles, in a macroscopic string. In a string-theory string, there is no bond between particles, since there are no particles making up the string. Bending or vibrating a string-theory string is like proposing to bend or vibrate a cube or a cone or a sphere. If our fundamental particle were any of these instead of the string, you would laugh if someone proposed that it bent. Imagine a cube bending. How would a fundamental, undifferentiated cube bend? Or a fundamental, undifferentiated sphere? But bending a fundamental, undifferentiated string is just as silly. It is just another postulate that is impossible to explain or justify.

Likewise, tension is a pretty complex concept. It is not a fundamental motion or event. In fact, tension is a force. But string theory is supposed to be explaining the four fundamental forces, not creating more. What causes the tension? How is it possible to have a tension across an undifferentiated ultimate string? How is it possible to have tension in a closed loop, unless that loop is being expanded by some outside force? None of this is explained. Tension is just an assumption, another axiom.

After a first reading, I had already discovered that string theory has more basic postulates than any theory I had ever seen or imagined. To any logical person from past centuries, string theory would look like a comedy of errors. Newton has been all but laughed at by string theorists for not giving a mechanical explanation of force at a distance. But these theorists are in no position to throw stones. Newton would look at string theory and say something like, "Well, of course, if you are allowed to make enough unprovable assumptions at the beginning, you can formulate a theory to contain anything. Especially if you are allowed to beg the question so egregiously. String theory is the attempt to unify the four basic force fields. To do this it creates, as a postulate, a huge force of uncaused tension. Then it adds to that a basic 'particle' that can morph into anything, just by changing its 'tune.' All these morphs are uncaused and act as further postulates—as postulates they do not require proof or any justification. Then, whenever the math stops spitting out numbers they want, they postulate new branes, donuts, tubes, three-holed buttons, frisbees, and anything else that tickles their fancy. None of these new objects has to be justified beyond the fact that they needed them to fill a hole in the math. 'It fit the hole, therefore it must be real!' Then, when the going gets really tough, they add a new dimension. M-theory gives them the 11th dimension, and why stop there? I predict that, like Feynman, they will finally understand that the sky is the limit. Why not predict an infinite number of curled up dimensions, sum over them in some fudgy way, and achieve any answer you like, to fit any occasion. Only then will the madness come to its illogical end."

This is the basic technique of string theory: if you run into some dead-end at any point in the math, transport that dead-end back to the string. For example, perhaps you find the need for a new particle but your math at that level of size or theory does not allow it. Well, simply make it another axiom of string theory. Postulate that your basic string takes that shape under the circumstances you have discovered, and your work is done. In this way, every conceivable problem can be collected at the foundational level and made into an axiom. Since you don't have to prove axioms, you will never be pestered to supply a proof or explain anything. All problems can be collected, reinserted at the axiomatic level, and treated ever after as assumptions. In this way string theory really is the perfect theory. Using this technique, nothing is beyond mathematical expression.

String theory is actually even more inelegant than QED (Quantum ElectroDynamics), and QED is not exactly a poster child for elegance or simplicity. Greene tells us that string theory was invented to simplify the huge number of "elementary" particles in QED, as well as to combine QED and Relativity. But he seems oblivious to the fact that string theory has a record-setting number of axioms and an ever-increasing number of vibrations, dimensions, blobs, branes, and jellies. The only object not yet incorporated into string theory is the moss-covered three-handled family gradunza. It also has a truly impressive number of manufactured manipulations, such as the set of instructions for orbi-folding a Calabi-Yau shape or the tearing of space in a flop transition. These manipulations come provided with no theory, and are basically added to the list of postulates: postulate #89,041—we can flop-tear an orbi-folded 3-brane goofus as long as we can say afterwards that the math made us do it (and provide a sexy little computer-generated diagram).

Another of the inelegances of string theory is the required energy of a string. The unbelievable amount of tension [1039 tons] on a single string gives it a mass of some 1019 protons. This is about the mass of a grain of dust. The theorists need all this force on the string since they have gathered all the other forces here at the axiomatic level. This has the added benefit, they think, of making the mass too great to be discovered in an accelerator. Unfortunately, the mass is so huge that it should make the string discoverable by macroscopic means. I might suggest a sieve. Seriously though, the theorists admit that "all but a few of the vibrational patterns will correspond to extremely heavy particles," meaning particles many times heavier than a grain of dust.4 It is hard to believe that masses of this sort floating around are undetectable. Greene says that they are unlikely because "such super-heavy particles are usually unstable."5 It is interesting to note that string theory never says why all such super-heavy particles should be unstable. In fact, there is no theoretical reason they all should be. It is another postulate: postulate #76,904—super-heavy particles are all unstable because if they weren't we might be able to find one. The instability is another axiomatic convenience of the theory.

Here's another inelegance. In a subchapter ironically entitled, "The More Precise Answer,"6 Greene develops this idea: the "violent quantum jitters" can be quieted by imagining a collision of point particles as a collision of strings instead. One string represents an electron, say, and the other a positron. The two strings join for a moment as a string that represents a photon and then re-separate as two new strings. The reason this is an improvement, we are told, has to do with Relativity. Greene uses his two observers George and Gracie (the Burns and Allen ghosts are due massive apologies for being brought into this mess, I think) to "slice" his strings into different events. George sees the strings meeting at one time and Gracie see the meeting at another time. Among all possible observers the meeting point will be smeared out over some time. This smearing calms the quantum jitters.

This is among the most dishonest uses of Relativity and diagramming I have ever seen. In order for his argument to work, Greene has to diagram the strings as three-dimensional objects. For it is not the length of the strings that causes the Relativistic difference in his argument, it is the thickness. But he began the subchapter by admitting that the strings were one-dimensional. He brags that one-dimensional strings can do what zero-dimensional points cannot. Remember that strings have only a length dimension. They have no thickness. As a matter of width or thickness or radius, they act just like points. They have zero radial dimension. This means that Greene's Relativistic slicing is flat wrong. His diagrams are a big fat lie, since they cause you to visualize something that cannot be happening. His words are saying one thing and his diagrams are saying the opposite. If the strings are one-dimensional lines, then the fork where they meet will also be one-dimensional. If you slice it at a dt, then the fork will be in the same exact place for all viewers. String theory adds absolutely nothing to QED or the point problem. It simply adds another layer of lies to cover it up.

- Excerpt, The Inelegant Universe, by Miles Mathis http://milesmathis.com/string.html
http://milesmathis.com/

[austintorn@aol.com]

And there are something like 10**500 or more solutions to the math?

[Profpat]

Hi RP;

What if strings are 1 dimensional (vector only) but the pos/neg charges the moving string creates are 2 or 3 dimensional.

The problem of course with point particles is that you have an infinity of nothing (dimensionless points) and so you have to tell me how did we get something from nothing?

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. Also the one dimensional string can close in on itself (loops) to create area a circle a 2 dimensional entity.

[RascalPuff]

Hi RP;

What if strings are 1 dimensional (vector only) but the pos/neg charges the moving string creates are 2 or 3 dimensional.

The problem of course with point particles is that you have an infinity of nothing (dimensionless points) and so you have to tell me how did we get something from nothing?

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. Also the one dimensional string can close in on itself (loops) to create area a circle a 2 dimensional entity.

Hey Prof:
MJA has told me he talked to the guy (Prof. Greene) on the phone - maybe you can learn how to contact Greene through MJA, and interview the author...
(There will be an answer, let it be...? Anything is possible in the theorist community of strings - just attach more strings where needed.
Join the innercircle exotic equation cartel and liberate everything? History may yet escape the past?)

Can't tell you how something is begotten from nothing.
Although they were mere philosophers, both Hume and Locke independently stated that, 'Nothing begets nothing'.
That's their story and I'm sticking to it.
Without any puns intended, I can't make any more poignant points in contention with string 'theory', than the venerable Mr. (Maverick) Mathis already has.

Post Script:
Always good to hear from you, Prof. Best regards to you and yours.