Superstring theory presents a head-turning look at what the universe really is all about. String theory, and more precisely superstring theory, describes the assortment of elementary particles such as quarks and leptons, and the gauge bosons responsible for mediating forces in a unified manner as different modes of vibration of a single extended string. Superstring theory reduces the essential building blocks of all matter and energy to things called “superstrings” and unifies all known forces and interactions.
These superstrings have length. They can form loops. They can interact with other strings. They also vibrate or wiggle back and forth.
The theory says that when these strings vibrate and interact with each other, the vibrations manifest themselves (in our universe) as everything that we see and experience. An analogy is a vibrating guitar string. It will produce different sounds depending on the frequency at which it vibrates. Depending on the “frequency” at which the superstring vibrates, it will produce different manifestations of matter and force!
That means that everything - light, sound, planets and us - is the result of the vibrations and interactions of superstrings.
Even more mind-bending is the observation that everything is just a superstring expressed a different way. The universe is the result of the vibrations and interactions of this superstring substrate.
What's not to love about those little guys, working so hard for our enjoyment.
1,2,3,D,5,6,G.8.......What is next in this series? It makes a predicible pattern for me Fredrick. ( Isn't that the essence of a good theory, to have a model which helps us make predictions?)
According to MJA Apples = Oranges.
OK let's just start out with strings and not worry about whether they were created or eternal. Would that be OK? Our premise will be Given strings. That way we won't have to concern ourselves with a Creator, Prime Mover, Potentialor etc.
Works for me how about you?
Best,
Pat
Pat,
If you want to talk about string as an idea, then that is fine.
But if you want to come to an overall delivery, you cannot cherry-pick. No one can.
String has a serious flaw: it mixes spatial and material concepts.
We are here to inform each other about our thinking. That includes data, but also the formats in which the data exist. My point involves the formats of our thinking.
I understand that the eagerness to deliver one's view can overwhelm any need one feels to follow formatting rules. Yet it makes us captives of our own thinking. I therefore quote a text I believe is in the bible:
Let the truth set us free.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
If you want to talk about string as an idea, then that is fine.
But if you want to come to an overall delivery, you cannot cherry-pick. No one can.
String has a serious flaw: it mixes spatial and material concepts.
We are here to inform each other about our thinking. That includes data, but also the formats in which the data exist. My point involves the formats of our thinking.
I understand that the eagerness to deliver one's view can overwhelm any need one feels to follow formatting rules. Yet it makes us captives of our own thinking. I therefore quote a text I believe is in the bible:
It looks as if it is a two-way interactive system you are showing. What does this dual entity of equal behavior refer to?
About the "??????" I cannot read question marks without a question. Will you elaborate?
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
There are six different types of quark, usually known as flavors: up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom. (Their names do not indicate anything about their properties, but were chosen arbitrarily based on the need to name them something that could be easily remembered and used.) The charm, strange, top, and bottom varieties are highly unstable, and are believed to have decayed within a fraction of a second after the Big Bang – though they can be briefly recreated and studied by scientists. However, the "up" and "down" varieties are abundant and are distinguished by (amongst other things) their electric charge. It is this which makes the difference when quarks clump together to form protons or neutrons: a proton is made up of two "up quarks" and one "down quark", yielding a net charge of +1, while a neutron contains one "up quark" and two "down quarks", yielding a net charge of 0.
I would like to limit it to the up and down quarks. The others being very unstable. and only the up and down make up the proton and neutron,
The question marks is that I found myself unable to express my confusion with words.
Dear Pat,
You are very knowledgeable, and I think you already agree with me on some of the particular statements I made, very much like I agree with you on many things you showed me. My hope is that I was able to show that mixing concepts is not the way to find the answers. Setting the concepts apart and then looking at them separately clarifies the view.
Yet, I also have the feeling that your confusion comes from wanting something more than what is available in science. In religion, we can get to the highest level of unity without much problem, and that position does not need to be given up ever; not even when science cannot come to a unified theory of forces.
Just like the word 'family' is singular and sits on top of every individual, the religious concept of unity sits on top of everything. The scientific parts are part of the lower actual level and cannot by themselves achieve that higher level. We can show their relationship, but we cannot unify them all into one.
And that is what you have: a starting point based on a belief (with either god or string as the belief), and subsequently there are the facts we have gathered from science (plus the many theories as well). It is in our minds that we need to realize the difference between all this. In belief we can do X. In science we start with all the facts and then we must conclude Y. The highest position is available in X, but in Y that highest position is not there.
In the decimal system 1 can be seen as the top, but in the binary system 1 is nothing but the number used to indicate something is there instead of nothing is there. Both concepts are different in structure. I hope I was able to take some confusion away. I think you want something from science that is readily available in beliefs.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
During my search for quarks I came upon this model of a quark. It reminded me of your pyramid or funnel fundamental particles. The site is located at: ( http://www.johnkharms.com/matter.htm )
And during my internet search I came across this nugget of information:
You might argue that such effects are not unmanageable so long as you don't go to scales smaller than the fundamental particles, the quarks and leptons. But the highest energy scattering experiments to date reach a resolution about a thousand times smaller than a proton, and at that extreme resolution you still don't see any evidence of structure for the electron (a lepton) or the quarks, so everything looks like it is made up of point particles. But particles of zero spatial extent would imply infinite energy fluctuations. To avoid this blowup of increasingly violent "fluctuations of the vacuum", Greene and others argue for a limit on how small a scale you can reach with matter. They propose that matter in its most fundamental form is composed of "strings" or "superstrings". Having met a lot of initial resistance, "superstring theory" is now being looked at more carefully as a way to avoid the headlong collision between general relativity and quantum mechanics at the submicroscopic scale.
And during my internet search I came across this nugget of information:
You might argue that such effects are not unmanageable so long as you don't go to scales smaller than the fundamental particles, the quarks and leptons. But the highest energy scattering experiments to date reach a resolution about a thousand times smaller than a proton, and at that extreme resolution you still don't see any evidence of structure for the electron (a lepton) or the quarks, so everything looks like it is made up of point particles. But particles of zero spatial extent would imply infinite energy fluctuations. To avoid this blowup of increasingly violent "fluctuations of the vacuum", Greene and others argue for a limit on how small a scale you can reach with matter. They propose that matter in its most fundamental form is composed of "strings" or "superstrings". Having met a lot of initial resistance, "superstring theory" is now being looked at more carefully as a way to avoid the headlong collision between general relativity and quantum mechanics at the submicroscopic scale.
Thank you, Pat, you áre quite an amazing source of information.
I really like where John Harms is going. I recognize a lot, and I will email him.
What I would like to make clear is that I have no objections to string; I object to the inconsistencies in string theory that blur our vision. Picking up information from his site to inform our discussion:
"So, particles are not vibrations on a string (as in superstrings), but the vibratory motions of quantum defects (holes) in space. Hence, matter is essentially a negative energy defect in the fabric of space. One can understand from this the intimate link between space, matter and energy. As is mentioned subsequently, an excited particle is caused by the vibratory motions of these millions of holes (in stable configurations) that compose a piece of matter."
In effect, but then translated into my words, he creates the original potential state, and then states that matter is the secondary step (and he describes that as negative energy). Yes, Pat, that is very similar to what I and others, too, propose. So, there are two levels that are incongruent, yet one level can inform the other level. Just like science and religion, they exist on different levels in their own overall set up. Similar in many way, but following their own drum.
I also think, Pat, you and I are not that far removed from one another either, but we have some linguistic problems to overcome. To get back to it, I do not mind if the entire world says that one can express one's emotions into kilometers, but I will not do the same; I know one cannot express feelings in distance because that's a mix-up of two systems. Of course one can say to have a mortgage on the house that stretches from the moon and back, and we'd all get what the person is telling us, but the two systems of distance and finance are not related. One cannot say that love is 2 X 2 = 4. That's the problem: one dimensionality is a spatial expression. Matter is matter, and space is space. Matter takes up space, but it is following its own set up; at its core/smallest level matter should not be expressed as having a spatial fabric to help us understand matter, because that is confusing.
Can I share one more thing after reading the information on the link you provided: I am amazed how much scientists and explorers are all moving towards the toe. I have been amazed about this slow creeping movement ever since the moment I realized scientists were looking for a toe (back in the 70's and early 80's I thought they had the general idea of the toe already). And I have been amazed at how slow this is going. I believe that especially language is and has been the main obstacle with string just another example of creating misdirections through word use. Scientists are not good at understanding language. But visualization may also be quite important of course. The four blind guys describing the elephant is naturally a classic example, too, of how one can have trouble getting the whole correct picture.
Thank you, Pat, for finding/presenting this link. I hope there is no confusion any more. String is just another way of describing the same overall picture, but it needs to be done correctly. The main thing is that string theory also does not contain everything; it exists within its own overall concept, giving good information about the overall picture, but not equaling the overall picture.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Linear Mode
