[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Bang on target Prof. Somehow strings seem too complicated to be the TOE. And probably Vincent is right about the vortices. However if String Theory is proved right, I will eat my words ...

Hi Dipayankar;

Like I said IF there is a fundamental substance my thought would be that it would be strings, it being a 1 dimensional entity and therefor the most fundamental thing. I'm not to big on point particles being the fundamental substance, because by definition they would be 0 dimension and therefor no substance.

As I stated maybe there is no fundamental substance and everything is an interaction.

What are your thoughts.

BTW if there are such a thing as strings, instead of eating your words maybe a plate of spaghetti, and pretend they are strings.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

I need to think about this. Can you recommend a site which explains the 'colour' in QCD clearly?
Felix

Hi Felix;

There are so many different sites which explain this force. I am posting not the best but perhaps the simpliest for all to view.

What Holds it Together? Color Charge

Quarks and gluons are color-charged particles. Just as electrically-charged particles interact by exchanging photons in electromagnetic interactions, color-charged particles exchange gluons in strong interactions. When two quarks are close to one another, they exchange gluons and create a very strong color force field that binds the quarks together. The force field gets stronger as the quarks get further apart. Quarks constantly change their color charges as they exchange gluons with other quarks.

How does color charge work?


There are three color charges and three corresponding anticolor (complementary color) charges. Each quark has one of the three color charges and each antiquark has one of the three anticolor charges. Just as a mix of red, green, and blue light yields white light, in a baryon a combination of "red," "green," and "blue" color charges is color neutral, and in an antibaryon "antired," "antigreen," and "antiblue" is also color neutral. Mesons are color neutral because they carry combinations such as "red" and "antired."

Because gluon-emission and -absorption always changes color, and -in addition - color is a conserved quantity - gluons can be thought of as carrying a color and an anticolor charge. Since there are nine possible color-anticolor combinations we might expect nine different gluon charges, but the mathematics works out such that there are only eight combinations. Unfortunately, there is no intuitive explanation for this result.
Important Disclaimer:

"Color charge" has nothing to do with the visible colors, it is just a convenient naming convention for a mathematical system physicists developed to explain their observations about quarks in hadrons.

Please notice the last sentence before the IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER regarding the 9 difeerent gluon charges, but there are really only 8 which fits my 8 areas "purr-fectly"

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

P.S. To Felix;

I should point out that there is no real understandable description as to the interactions between the gluons and the quarks that I understand. This is one the reasons I eliminated the gluons from my idea. I can explain the color force ( really a form of EM force ), the binding of the quarks, the asymptotic freedom of the quarks, in what I believe IS understandable without the confusion of the gluons.

Best

Pat

[dipayankar]

Good idea about the spaghetti.. about strings, my only contention is the difference in size between strings and the plank's length somehow tells me there we are missing an even more fundamental particle here...

Originally Posted by Profpat

Hi Dipayankar;

Like I said IF there is a fundamental substance my thought would be that it would be strings, it being a 1 dimensional entity and therefor the most fundamental thing. I'm not to big on point particles being the fundamental substance, because by definition they would be 0 dimension and therefor no substance.

As I stated maybe there is no fundamental substance and everything is an interaction.

What are your thoughts.

BTW if there are such a thing as strings, instead of eating your words maybe a plate of spaghetti, and pretend they are strings.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Good idea about the spaghetti.. about strings, my only contention is the difference in size between strings and the plank's length somehow tells me there we are missing an even more fundamental particle here...

Hi Dipayankar;

Actually string theory has strings to be planck length, there is no difference in size. It also sets the limit as to how small the universe can be, no smaller than the basic unit ,the string. It would solve the old something from nothing paradox in that you would have something from something. A partial reprint from Wiki:

Basic idea
The basic idea is that the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of the Planck length (about 10−33 m) which vibrate at resonant frequencies. Every string in theory has a unique resonance, or harmonic. Different harmonics determine different fundamental forces. The tension in a string is on the order of the Planck force (1044 newtons). The graviton (the proposed messenger particle of the gravitational force), for example, is predicted by the theory to be a string with wave amplitude zero. Another key insight provided by the theory is that no measurable differences can be detected between strings that wrap around dimensions smaller than themselves and those that move along larger dimensions (i.e., effects in a dimension of size R equal those whose size is 1/R). Singularities are avoided because the observed consequences of "Big Crunches" never reach zero size. In fact, should the universe begin a "big crunch" sort of process, string theory dictates that the universe could never be smaller than the size of a string, at which point it would actually begin expanding.

So if there is a fundamental substance strings would have my vote. It would also favor the cyclic universe theory, in that you can't condense the universe smaller than the size of a string, without it exploding.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. Strings also resonate and vibrate which would account for color and sound, and it fits so well into my theory.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Good idea about the spaghetti.. about strings, my only contention is the difference in size between strings and the plank's length somehow tells me there we are missing an even more fundamental particle here...

Hi Dippy and Prof; let me add some length to this string debate with a different concept:

The world is made of string. Everything consists of matter particles which consist of it and we need it because it enable us to build up a variety of these matter particles in the real world which we perceive. The string itself must consist of something - but what?

I presume we all played with lego when we were kids? Take a 'oner' (a brick with just one male and one female end). This is fundamental but it's not a 'particle' until it becomes 'real' matter. This is very small but even then it is very much bigger than the planck length. Whilst it is fundamental it still exists in three spatial dimensions. Now if we join another brick, and another, we have a string made up of these bricks which we can build to any length we want. Assuming that we want to maintain some form of symetry we will need two types of brick say red ones (negative) and blue ones (positive). We can now make as much string as we want and use it to build the particles which we see in nature.

How does this relate to 'String Theory'? Well it doesn't relate at all. Conventional physics believes (despite the contra evidence of WP duality) that particles physically move through spacetime. When described mathematically, using point particles, this results in uncontrolable infinities which need another explanation in order to eliminate them - hence string theory. This assumes that the basic particles are in the form of loops which move through space creating curved planes rather than the simple lines we see in Feynman diagrams. These interactions can be mathematically described without the annoying infinities resulting in the most expensive version of the ENC in history! This should not, therefore, prevent anyone coming up with a more practical version using string as the basic component. We must diffentiate, when talking about 'string', between the loops evident in 'string theory' and alternatives ideas based on simpler models which utilise string.

Felix

[Profpat]

Hello Felix;

Thank you for your post. An excellent question as to what are strings made of?

It’s a question which I have been thinking about for some time now. I agree with you that our reality is made up of strings, and indeed my theory, strings are the foundation. The question of what is the world made of, yields atoms; and what are atoms made of, yields protons, neutrons and electrons; and what are protons and neutrons made of, yields quarks; and what are quarks made of, in my theory, strings.

Now we are at the fundamental question. Given everything is made up of mass or energy, and as discussed above, I believe mass is made up of strings, so what are strings made up of?

My most recent thoughts are that perhaps strings are not SUBSTANCE in the usual sense, but rather energy itself. Now the question is what is energy made of? Let us go back to the sine waves of EMR.


The most energetic are vertical and the least energetic are horizontal. Gamma rays are the most energetic and is the energy from the “ big bang “.
Now for some down the rabbit hole speculation. Perhaps these original strings were so energetic that they actually leaned to past time and therefore broke off into separate one dimensional entities of Planck length..

I am still thinking and would appreciate your thoughts and other member thoughts regarding this “MATTER”. I believe this is the key to T.O.E..

Very best,
Pat

[Profpat]

ADDENDUM ( To the previous post)

[dipayankar]

Felix, I do not have any issues with strings as long as they do not demand 10 dimensions. Now on the point of extra dimensions, apart from the fact that they might be curled up etc. etc. I liked another idea that we are probably oriented in such a way in the Universe that we percieve only thyee dimensions. I wonder how much water this theory holds..

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

Hi Dippy and Prof; let me add some length to this string debate with a different concept:

The world is made of string. Everything consists of matter particles which consist of it and we need it because it enable us to build up a variety of these matter particles in the real world which we perceive. The string itself must consist of something - but what?

I presume we all played with lego when we were kids? Take a 'oner' (a brick with just one male and one female end). This is fundamental but it's not a 'particle' until it becomes 'real' matter. This is very small but even then it is very much bigger than the planck length. Whilst it is fundamental it still exists in three spatial dimensions. Now if we join another brick, and another, we have a string made up of these bricks which we can build to any length we want. Assuming that we want to maintain some form of symetry we will need two types of brick say red ones (negative) and blue ones (positive). We can now make as much string as we want and use it to build the particles which we see in nature.

How does this relate to 'String Theory'? Well it doesn't relate at all. Conventional physics believes (despite the contra evidence of WP duality) that particles physically move through spacetime. When described mathematically, using point particles, this results in uncontrolable infinities which need another explanation in order to eliminate them - hence string theory. This assumes that the basic particles are in the form of loops which move through space creating curved planes rather than the simple lines we see in Feynman diagrams. These interactions can be mathematically described without the annoying infinities resulting in the most expensive version of the ENC in history! This should not, therefore, prevent anyone coming up with a more practical version using string as the basic component. We must diffentiate, when talking about 'string', between the loops evident in 'string theory' and alternatives ideas based on simpler models which utilise string.

Felix

[Profpat]

Hi Dipayankar;

So what is wrong with my theory of color and/or sound being those extra dimensions. There is a new theory that has 12 dimensions. 3 spatial 1 time 7 enfolding and 1 for the null set. Exactly what my An Idea has. 8 extra dimensions, which enfold to make a little tiny ball of 3 dimensional space. Light and Sound are real and quantifiable ( different vibrations ). Where do you think they come from. You have to have 8 internal dimensions for inner 3 dimensional space, they are called octants.

Something to think about,

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. The theory that has 12 dimensions is called F Theory.