[Profpat]

OK first about pole reversal. I believe you are right JAK. There is pretty good evidence that the Earth reversed poles and very likely will again in the future. ( Maybe 12/21/12 when the Mayan calendar ends )

The sun appears to reverse it's poles ~ every 11 years. It also has more than one dipole but many.

Sreaking of more than one dipole there is the quadrupole, something I believe the proton may consist of, since there are 4 positive areas ( male) and 4 negative areas ( female ) in the quadrant.

Radiation from a lateral quadrupole source

If two opposite phase monopoles make up a dipole, then two opposite dipoles make up a quadrupole source. In a Lateral Quadrupole arrangement the two dipoles do not lie along the same line (four monopoles with alternating phase at the corners of a square). The directivity pattern for a lateral quadrupole looks like a clover-leaf pattern; sound is radiated well in front of each monopole source, but sound is canceled at points equidistant from adjacent opposite monopoles. The animated GIF at left shows the pressure field produced by a lateral quadrupole source. At the center of the pressure field you can see the quadrupole motion as the particles alternate motion in the horizontal and vertical directions. back and forth caused by the dipole motion. The regions where sound is cancelled shows up along the diagonals (where the grid motion is almost zero). Furthermore, there is a 180o phase difference between the horizontal and vertical wavefronts.



This I believe would be constantly changing poles as the colors change. ( Which they do with color force theory.)

[Profpat]

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.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by Profpat Superstrings and universal harmony ... 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 ...

One thought which came to mind ... a "string" oscillates and seems to have a finite length (unless strings stretch). I am reminded of the old notion of a photon as being a "wave packet". This, too, implies a finite length. First, is a "wave packet" still viable, or has this notion been refuted? If it survives, might the length of a photon packet be the length of a "string"?

[Profpat]

Hi JAK;

In string theory electrons, quarks, photons are all viewed as strings. I believe the wave packet of a photon is still part of the underlying theory of light;




In 1900, Maxwell's theoretical model of light as oscillating electric and magnetic fields seemed complete. However, several observations could not be explained by any wave model of electromagnetic radiation, leading to the idea that light-energy was packaged into quanta described by E=hν. Later experiments showed that these light-quanta also carry momentum and, thus, can be considered particles: the photon concept was born, leading to a deeper understanding of the electric and magnetic fields themselves.
The Maxwell wave theory.

The packet being from amplitude to amplitude. Notice it being a transverse wave it has 3D characteristics i.e. LWH.

A sting can be as small as a 1 dimensional Planck length entity, to as large as a stretched out brane the size of our universe, according to some string theorist.

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

The illustration of a light wave did not want to post above.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat 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?

Originally Posted by JAK 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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.