An Idea

[Fredrick]

Hi Frederick;

Harmony to me doesn't mean it is static, rather the opposite, in that to harmonize it must be dynamic.

Superstrings and universal harmony

If you go by the number of researchers involved in it, string theory is the candidate for a theory of quantum gravity that is most actively studied these days. String theory is descended from the ordinary models of particle physics, but with a crucial difference: Its basic constituents are not point-like particles, but one-dimensional objects, strings.
Strings can do what point particles cannot: they can oscillate in intricate patterns, as sketched in the following animation:


[Animation © Thomas Klose, AEI]
One basic postulate of string theory is that the plethora of possible oscillatory states of a string is responsible for the variety of the different elementary matter and force particles that occur within the standard model of particle physics. Put simply: there is only one species of string, but depending on how this tiny string oscillates, it acquires the same properties as an electron, a photon, a specific kind of quark or some other elementary particle. It can be shown quite generally that one of the possible oscillation states of a string will automatically correspond to the properties of a graviton, a carrier particle of the gravitational force - but without any of the attendant difficulties that arise from trying to include gravity in any of the ordinary quantum theories of forces. This makes string theory a natural candidate for a quantum theory of gravity, but string theory promises much more: Nothing less than a complete unified description for all forces and all matter particles - the whole world as a consequence of the harmony of strings.

Thank you for the further explanation, Pat.

Great visual, I like it.

In my pentaist toe, string theory is using the wrong ideas to deliver the right outcome. Wrong in that the entire set of dimensions used in string theory are in essence still the same three directions we all grew up with. Right, in that the concept of 3D contains static components that do not vibe with reality and that as such this concept is therefore not applicable as the backdrop for a toe. The string theory correctly wants to circumvent this problem, and while pointing to what is correct the delivery itself in specifics is not correct.

The pentaist toe has only two dimensions, yet they are fields. As such your excellent image is covered, since two fields contain both the static and the relative positioning we find in our materialized universe.

[dipayankar]

Which brings to an interesting topic:

The earth revolves around the sun (center of the solar system)
The solar system revolves around the center of Milky Way
The Milky Way revolves around what?

Does the Universe any kind of a geometric center?

The more I watch that animation, the more mesmerizing it seems. The curve highlights that the observer is oblivious to his own motion. For us, the Earth is always moving. Not only does it spin, but our orbital speed is over 65,000 MPH, and who knows the speed of our solar system as it careens around our galatic center nor the speed and motion of our galaxy in its complicated journey across the universe.

Can any of these motions, which we seemingly ignore, have any affect on our experiments leading us to believe that particles spin but, in fact, such a notion is tainted by our own motion? (Chaos theory highlights the significance of insignificance - the Butterfly Effect.) So, what if some motion affecting us is yet unknown, just as dark matter was seemingly unknown throughout all of history until the past decade or two? (I recognize that dark matter is still controversial - just like gravity.)

The Coriolis Effect keeps haunting me. Are all of our experiments and observations tainted by some other unseen and undetected motion, perhaps on a microscopic scale, which distorts what we see and believe?

[Profpat]

Which brings to an interesting topic:

The earth revolves around the sun (center of the solar system)
The solar system revolves around the center of Milky Way
The Milky Way revolves around what?

Does the Universe any kind of a geometric center?

Hi Dipayankar;

Good to see you posting here again.

As far as I know the universe doesn't have a geometric center, or a center of gravity and that is why physicist put the center of gravity at the tip Of Dipayankar's nose.

I would imagine our Milky Way Galaxy revolves around it's own center of gravity.

Now here is a question for you.
I guess those farthest away galaxies are receding from our galaxy at near light speed; or is our galaxy receding away from them at near light speed?

Best to you,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Agree, it does not, unless we view the universe as a single 'entirety' and decide on it having a geometric center. Most likely, the location of the Big Bang (or the area of the Big Bang I should say) is a strong potential candidate.

[Fredrick]

Instead of more dimensions as string theorists propose, it is important to discover the flaw in 3D (handy as the concept may otherwise be). Flaw: there is no such thing a 1D, each direction can only take place in either 2D (picture, movie) or 3D (reality), and cannot exist independently.

I wrote about this in post http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...html#post52739
Once you get the picture, 2 field dimensions are easy to understand, but you have to see 3D and 2D+ as English and Chinese describing the same reality, but in two slightly different ways. In this case, Only 2D+ captures the full range of aspects of reality.

[dipayankar]

I searched the tip of my nose, didnt find any. I agess with Fedrick that the Universe should have some kind of a center..

Hi Dipayankar;

Good to see you posting here again.

As far as I know the universe doesn't have a geometric center, or a center of gravity and that is why physicist put the center of gravity at the tip Of Dipayankar's nose.

I would imagine our Milky Way Galaxy revolves around it's own center of gravity.

Now here is a question for you.
I guess those farthest away galaxies are receding from our galaxy at near light speed; or is our galaxy receding away from them at near light speed?

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

And I agree with you and Frederick, that it should have one. If you find it please let me know. My personal center of gravity is somewhere around my navel, but I don't know where the universe's navel is located.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Where is the center of the Universe?
Here, there, and everywhere.
by Paul Doherty, Exploratorium Teacher Institute

When astronomers look at distant galaxies to determine how fast they're moving, it looks like they're all moving away from us. Does that mean we're at the center of the universe? Well, no. It turns out that every point in the universe sees itself as the center!

[Profpat]

Instead of more dimensions as string theorists propose, it is important to discover the flaw in 3D (handy as the concept may otherwise be). Flaw: there is no such thing a 1D, each direction can only take place in either 2D (picture, movie) or 3D (reality), and cannot exist independently.

I wrote about this in post http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...html#post52739
Once you get the picture, 2 field dimensions are easy to understand, but you have to see 3D and 2D+ as English and Chinese describing the same reality, but in two slightly different ways. In this case, Only 2D+ captures the full range of aspects of reality.

Hi Frederick;

You may be correct about " Flaw: there is no such thing a 1D,.."

But in mathematics and string theory there is:

Unified theory of the universe postulating that fundamental ingredients of nature are not zero-dimensional point particles but tiny one-dimensional filaments called strings. String theory harmoniously unites quantum mechanics and general relativity the previously known laws of the small and the large, that are otherwise incompatible. Often short for superstring theory

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Hi Fredrick;

You may be correct about "Flaw: there is no such thing as 1D."

But in mathematics and string theory there is.

That's the whole point, Pat.

The specialists you refer to, or even the entire planet as a whole for that matter, can agree on something as truly existing. But if that something we all agree on is in reality not there, but simply a misconception, then we are believers instead of scientists. I hope you understand the implication, Pat (you seem to take this rather lightly), because working with incorrect concepts is an easy way to not-finding the toe.

The toe can only be found when using the correct concepts. 3D is fantastic in daily use, just like words are fantastic in daily use. But just like you cannot eat the word bread, scientists won't find the toe if they do not comprehend their religious behavior in regards to the dimensional concept they are holding on to. Just like I can paint an dragon on canvas, that doesn't mean I actually delivered the evidence that there are dragons. Scientifically stating something to be one-dimensional is easy, but believing a statement does not make a good scientist (because there is no scientific evidence).

It took the Catholic church a long time to accept Galileo's view. The concept of the sun in the middle and not the earth was so simple, and yet they could not or were stubbornly unwilling to accept it. Are scientists similar in this respect? Will they hold on to 3D simply because they cannot imagine or are unwilling to admit it contains a vital flaw in respect to understanding the whole?