[Profpat]

Again remember they would be one dimensional strings and not three dimensional tubes. But if you twisted those three strings tightly it would appear to be a one dimensional string, but would have incorporated in it everything we need to make a universe.

Best,

Pat

[MJA]

[quote=Profpat;51336]Hi Felix;

Lets take the Borromean Rings;

quote]

Dear Professor,

I am going to boycott the rings this year for strickly humanitarian reasons, what about you?

And regarding single dimensional anythings, could you show me a real or true example of that?

=
MJA

[Profpat]

No to both MJA.

I think the Olympics should be for the athletes who trained so hard, and not the politicians.

And no I never saw a supersting in reality, only conceptually.

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

But why would the basic building block be only one dimension? Why not 0 dimension or 3 dimensions?

Originally Posted by Profpat 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

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Profpat No to both MJA. I think the Olympics should be for the athletes who trained so hard, and not the politicians. And no I never saw a supersting in reality, only conceptually. Best, Pat

Then maybe the solution to the Olympic problem is to denationalize it, do away with national anthems and such. Do away with national medal counts and perhaps have it at the same site every 4 years, such as the original site in Greece. I'd vote on that.

With regard to never seeing a superstring in reality, it is true that nobody ever has. Then it is also true to say that the conception of superstring is currently unreal, and unreal is untrue.


=
MJA

[Profpat]

Well I guess following your logic MJA God would be unreal and untrue. Also dark matter and dark energy would be unreal and untrue. Have you ever seen Truth or Love MJA? Two more concepts to bite the dust under your philosophy. How about equal MJA show me where I can see that. E=MCsquared MJA is an approximation. What do equal MJA?

Best,

Pat

[MJA]

My truth is my passion is my love is my universe is my nature is my justice is my freedom is my unity is my oneness and is looks simply like this:

=
------------------------------

[Profpat]

Time for you to hit the shoutbox with your platitudes MJA.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar But why would the basic building block be only one dimension? Why not 0 dimension or 3 dimensions?

Hi Dipayankar;

Well I think it would be pretty difficult to build a 3 dimensional reality from a 0 dimensional point particle. That would be the old something from nothing paradox.

From a 1 dimensional object, my An Idea shows how this could become a 2 dimensional quark and finally a 3 dimensional geodesic sphere.

As my above post to Felix suggest, maybe instead of just one string, a string is actually 3 strings combined, which incorporates the essence of 3 dimensional space within it.

This would be something from something. Where did strings come from? Well if you believe in a cyclic universe they could be eternal. An Eternal yet created Universe. Going through cycles of creation and destruction, but not destroying the essence of something, namely the strings.

Best to you and your great questions. Keep them coming as they keep me thinking.

Pat

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

[quote=Profpat;51310]

Originally Posted by PoPpAScience 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

Hi Profat,

Vortexes and vortices both are the plurals of vortex in classical definition.

In another vortex study on fluid dynamics, vortexes was referring to the different sections within a main vortex that are segregated vortices on different sheet layers of viscous mass that composite as the main vortex in a oneness.

In my UVS write-ups, I used vortices for referring to many of such independent standing vortexes of a single vortical form, so as to be specific in a limited way to avoid any confusion that could arise by not using the same terminology defined with vortexes that has specific properties stated in that study.

Hope this would clarify and thanks for this very specific question.

Best regards,