[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger Hi Profpat and Dippy Yes, the concept of a point particle is purely mathematical and has no place in the real word. This is why physics has branched off into string theory as a means to get rid of the infinites that plagued the previous model. As far as the current discussion is concerned, I feel that the much of the problem is semantic - use of the word 'particle' to fit too many different roles. In my definition a particle is a defined entity which has been observed or postulated to exist in the real world if only momentarily. This covers all of those listed in the standard model. In my world these particles consist of string in various combinations, which explains their varied properties. Thus string itself is not a particle - just the constituent stuff that goes to make up matter and it exists in all three spatial dimensions. regards Felix

Hi Felix;

I agree with the above, except that string theory and I think that the electron and quark are only one string. The proton and neutron being made up of three quarks would be made up of three strings.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Thats what I am breaking my tiny brains on. What substance would a string be made of? Could that substance be broken down into still more fundamental substances???

Hi Dipayankar;

As Felix pointed out strings are the basic constituent of matter. It can't be made up of anything else, or it would no longer be the basic building block.

Lets say it's the basic massive unit made up of pure energy. The electron is considered to be a string with an assigned mass of 1, therefore the energy in a string or an electron would be 1XCsquared. a lot of energy for a one dimensional Planck length entity.

This is that beginning point where Mass and energy are the same. Remember our chat discussion as to which came first Mass or Energy? This theory would state both came the same. Energy compacted into the smallest massive form a one dimensional Planck length entity.

Best,

Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger 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. Felix

Remember this?
Felix

[Profpat]

OK Felix, now I'm confused, which is not unusual.
In post #869 you said you viewed strings to be the constituent. Now you are saying strings are made up of legos or some other stuff. What stuff? I guess you need to answer Dipayankar's question as to what makes up strings. As far as I am concerned nothing makes up a string, except energy. They are the lego oners.

An electron and quark are particles. "Part" of the atom and proton, each one according to string theory made up of one string.

So what again do you think strings are made of?

Best to you,

Pat

[PoPpAScience]

Stings could be, "Vortex's of Aware Action".

[Profpat]

[quote=PoPpAScience;51300]Stings could be, "Vortex's of Aware Action".[
They very well could be vortexes ( vortices? ) but I'm not to sure about aware. Leibniz, however thought every point in space had consciousness. But what did he know, he was only a genius.

Best,

Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Profpat [size=2]In post #869 you said you viewed strings to be the constituent. Now you are saying strings are made up of legos or some other stuff. What stuff? I guess you need to answer Dipayankar's question as to what makes up strings. As far as I am concerned nothing makes up a string, except energy. They are the lego oners. An electron and quark are particles. "Part" of the atom and proton, each one according to string theory made up of one string. So what again do you think strings are made of?

Hi Profpat

Sorry if my earlier post was not clear. I see it like this:

1. small fundamental unit (like lego bricks so 'legons'?) which I cannot define further
2. join end to end to make string which are quarks
3. which combine to make the particles we see in nature

As you say it would appear that the electron is a single string but I am not completely happy with this description yet and I have no idea how the photon fits in. The 'legons' (fundamentals) are not point particles and must have size in the three spatial dimensions. They are considerably bigger than the Planck length.

regards
Felix

[PoPpAScience]

Originally Posted by Profpat [They very well could be vortexes ( vortices? ) but I'm not to sure about aware. Leibniz, however thought every point in space had consciousness. But what did he know, he was only a genius.

Profpat;

I even go a little further, then to say that there is consciousness in ever point in space. I say that the points are a more elementary component, called "Aware". "Aware" is to consciousness, as Quarks are to Earth.

Now quarks could be made up of this whirling "Vortex's of Aware Action", and consciousness is the accumulation of all the experiences of "Aware". These experiences are stored in the "Vortex's of Aware Action", and thus help all future evolutionary advancements.

[Profpat]

You may be right Allen. My An Idea has awareness of family, sight, sound, emotion, etc. built right into the 8 inner dimensions ( octants ) of the proton.

Best.

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger Hi Profpat Sorry if my earlier post was not clear. I see it like this: small fundamental unit (like lego bricks so 'legons'?) which I cannot define further join end to end to make string which are quarks which combine to make the particles we see in nature As you say it would appear that the electron is a single string but I am not completely happy with this description yet and I have no idea how the photon fits in. The 'legons' (fundamentals) are not point particles and must have size in the three spatial dimensions. They are considerably bigger than the Planck length. regards Felix

Hi Felix;

Lets take the Borromean Rings;

Unlike the above, imagine the circles to be 1 dimensional. Now there are 7 different areas or dimensions in those rings. Now lets put the rings together so it looks like one circle. Now lets twist that circle so it looks like one string. Since all the lines are one dimensional it would still be one dimensional entity but inside are the 7 inner dimensions and once back to the above figure it could enfold into a 3 dimensional geodesic sphere.

Would that work for you?

Best,

Pat

P.S.


A realization of the Borromean rings as ellipses