An Idea

[dipayankar]

I would certainly want to know from Wick as to how he defines a point particle. Isnt a string also a one diemensional particle? Is a point particle a zero dimensional particle in reality??

Like a point particle? I think our new member, "Wick", has much to say about hyperplaning that can benefit Pat in his endeavor.

[dipayankar]

We never know Felix. A string might actually be an illusion (I never like string theory anyway). Probably the more fundamental particle might be much more easier to describe. More easy to prove and at some length, give the illusion of formation of strings..

Yes Dippy, a string is many, many times longer than the PL and must, indeed, have a structure consisting of something even more fundamental. The PL is about 10^-33 and the quarks/strings exist at about 10^-18 so there's plenty of detail to play with. My hope would be that the string is made of one fundamental 'substance' and the only variation is the length.

The current problem with 'string theory' is that they are trying to make the strings move through space and are endlessly seeking equations to describe this. If the strings don't move then everything is much easier to describe.

[N0B0DY]

Felix,

I'm sure you're aware of the theoretical basis for constants, but the point is they are renormalized. So I would revert to:

"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so called good theory does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!" (Paul Dirac: On Quantum Mechanics and Mathematics)

Dip,

The point particle is t=0 and carries throughout any and all arbitrary measurements extending to strings and membranes. So, essentially, the point particle - and for the above reason, all dimensions - have no reality until observed, intepreted, and categorized as such.

[Profpat]

Yes Dippy, a string is many, many times longer than the PL and must, indeed, have a structure consisting of something even more fundamental. The PL is about 10^-33 and the quarks/strings exist at about 10^-18 so there's plenty of detail to play with. My hope would be that the string is made of one fundamental 'substance' and the only variation is the length.

The current problem with 'string theory' is that they are trying to make the strings move through space and are endlessly seeking equations to describe this. If the strings don't move then everything is much easier to describe.

You are right Felix if the strings don't move that would explain their lack of interaction. I never thought of that.

Best,

Pat

P.S. But they could wiggle and form loops right?

[Profpat]

Hi Felix, Dipayankar and Nobody;

Here is my problem of point particles and strings.

If point particles are 0 dimension and strings are a 1 dimensional entity, what could possibly be between the two. In math it goes from the point to the line, nothing in between.

So what could possibly come between the point particle and the string. In my view there can be no missing link. Only maybe different lengths for the string.

Just my thoughts.

Best to all,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

I think we might have to connect the dots, Pat. Any point along the line essentially must be zero-dimensional to allow for an incremental measurement from that point on the line. Though if infinity is invoked, any such points would then have to be considered infinitesimal 3-d point masses; the center of which could not exist, which is what t=0 is representative of.

[Profpat]

I think we might have to connect the dots, Pat. Any point along the line essentially must be zero-dimensional to allow for an incremental measurement from that point on the line. Though if infinity is invoked, any such points would then have to be considered infinitesimal 3-d point masses; the center of which could not exist, which is what t=0 is representative of.

Thanks for your reponse Nobody.

I agree you could have an infinite number of points on a line segment even if it is Planck length. However once you invoke 3d point masses, you skipped a couple of dimensions to get there. Namely 1st and 2nd dimensions, whether these little spheres or point masses are void inside or not.

You still have to get from the 0 dimension to the 1st dimension and unless there is a 1/2 dimension out there that I'm not familiar with it would have to go from the 0 dimension to the 1st dimension. Again nothing in between that I'm aware of.

Best,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

I think the "void" is the equivalent of the "one" absolute solid, Pat, so the infinite number of points, strings, membranes, etc. are relative extractions subtracted from the fullness of space.

Mathematically, the void by-default can only be divided by zero - 0/0 - to render the infinite number of zero-dimensional points. Once we have this abstract basis for individual reference frames, there can be lines, membranes and spheres created according to the infinite number of velocities and densities that are also created. The spatial "folds" created through motional frames are the equivalent of masses.

The question I ask though, is where exactly are these alleged masses if the absolute universe must be absolutely full of point masses? At this point references to shape, size, direction cease to remain prevalent.

[Profpat]

I'm sorry Nobody but I have no idea what you are talking about in the above post, except to come up with a new definition for void.

In my math class there was a 0 dimension ( point ) 1st dimension ( line ) 2nd dimension ( area ) 3rd dimension ( volume ) 4th dimension ( hypervolume )

Now if you could explain to me what comes between these dimensions I'd love to hear it.

Please dumb down your response so a stupid idiot like myself can understand.

Thanks and best to you Nobody,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

We're all equally stupid and wise under the god I'm awaiting Drifter to clarify, Pat.

Perhaps a new kind of simplified thinking and math is required to correct old habits, and keeping track of what is depicted in your diagram (which imo explains everything quite nicely) I am equating the void with any and all other dimensions by way of 0/0 which can equal 0, 1, 2, 3, infinity, absolute, etc.. It is the means of extending the single time dimension omni-directionally.

The way I interpret your idea is that from zero we get one then two then three then the myriad things, similar to the Tao Te Ching depiction, and working backwards it implies that a 3-d brane consists of 2-d branes which in turn consist of 1-d branes which in turn consist of 0-d branes. The "skip" you referred to is merely another equation following the above implications where the 3-d object must also consist of 0-d branes. So the 0-d brane is the most fundamental and carries throughout the entirety of existence, which is how equate the absolute one (solidity/matter) and absolute zero (vacuity/space).

It's the best I can do in how I express myself, Pat.