Do you have any more (on topic) string theory enlightenment.
I'm struggling to understand what these 10 or 11 curled up dimensions are and how did they come to believe that there had to be that number?
The theory is a crock in my book, but understanding the enemy is the best way to lead to his defeat. I intend to rewrite my criticism of string theory and obsolete the old one but need some practical input.
In 'The Trouble with Physics', Lee Smolin notes that string theory is background-dependent; however, since the background (space) evolves in time, such as gravity acting on itself—so, we really need a background-independent theory, like what forms space, but that's not easy. M-"theory" wishes to be background independent form of string theories, but it doesn't yet exist even in name only, for the 'M' doesn't yet stand for anything and it isn't a theory, just a hope!
String theory got any result it wanted by the choice of a convenient background and by using many dimensions. As such, there are too many solutions to it now and they can't tell which is the preferred one,
I summary, Smolin thinks string theory wasted 30 years, although there were, as always, a few side benefits, like insights into new concepts of math.
String theory says that vibrating strings give rise to all the now fundamental particles and forces (around 40 of them?) and predicts more particles that are far too large for any bombardment ring to ever find.
But the real question is what the strings could be made of, how they came to be compressed with such astronomical tension.
In 'The Trouble with Physics', Lee Smolin notes that string theory is background-dependent; however, since the background (space) evolves in time, such as gravity acting on itself—so, we really need a background-independent theory, like what forms space, but that's not easy. M-"theory" wishes to be background independent form of string theories, but it doesn't yet exist even in name only, for the 'M' doesn't yet stand for anything and it isn't a theory, just a hope!
(snip)
It is actually a very good explanation of the current state of physics. So far we have one perceived reality as we know it and many varied theories.
This was the challenge that Einstein faced when he devoted the latter stages of his studies to finding a unified theory. There is no easy way to use the known theories because they find a boundary or mathematically undefinable point where they just do not make sense any more.
That is not to say the quest is wrong but it may mean we are not yet defining the right universal shape. So at this point each of the theories within its zone is very accurate.
As for unified theory or the TOE the Theory Of Everything, well if it was hard for a genius like Einstein then perhaps we shouldn't beat ourselves up to much for struggling to find one. It would be nice to think that in his papers he did come up with a unified theory no matter how strange ... because it may just be a starting point for lesser mortals.
He was such an inspired genius that maybe he did overestimate our potential to come up with a unified theory or even that for the time being we may even be safer not knowing. Remember he lived in turbulent times.
I like the quote
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein
__________________ "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."...Albert Einstein
I too am a staunch supporter of Cyclic Universe. Though I am not aware of such mathematics, logically the Universe has to be cyclic (either through Big Bounce or Big Rip)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentient marine
Cyclical Universe based on Big Rip Scenario
I propose to offer a few mass distribution diagrams to demonstrate why the portion of the universe we are in is cyclical.
First Attachment 303
To describe the beginning based on the last big rip starting our section of the universe requires that the trends to infinity correspond. This occurs first at derivation of four.
Based on our section of the universe drawn in the thinning would occur most at the edge of the metric expansion. Surface of the sphere being x^2 and volume being x^3.
I could include a diagram of filaments of density but as you already would have seen them they are the best description of Professor Stephen Hawking's "Spaghetti over the event horizon" possible.
I too am a staunch supporter of Cyclic Universe. Though I am not aware of such mathematics, logically the Universe has to be cyclic (either through Big Bounce or Big Rip)
True those are two of the possibilities. The big rip is that a new universe will spawn from the torn apart remnants of the old universe due to dark energy causing a break in space time at some as yet undetermined weak point.
The big bounce is being explored by a New Zealand scientific team based on the law of thermodynamics. At some point the heat generated by the nature of a big crunch would not need to go to a singularity to provide the bounce to restart or make the universe cyclical.
I suppose that I am just being difficult with a third perhaps not yet considered option. A third option in that the second derivative requires an equation with a quadratic or power to four. That means during the life of the universe there are four crossings of the line Y=0. I needed the multi inversions to allow the cooling of the energy fireball in a spatial frame for this model where space is very energy intensive.
So in other words there was no Guth free lunch to expansion, the cooling energy ball inverted through its own centre or near enough and the proton became the boundary of the universe in the bounce. It mirrors quantum six dimensions with shaped gravity and provides for the many universe concept in one universe model.
I needed to match gravity to the quantum forces as a very high density, much like the atmosphere. Now as much pressure as we are under our movement is not impeded beyond normal momentum and inertia. Much the same for atoms or more specifically protons with gravity acting at the level of atoms. The problem is that for the action of gravity I needed the quantum forces of flow. That just leaves electromagnetism. While I had the strong nuclear force as a binding force and the weak nuclear force as a lifting or raising the stability of atoms to iron as the most stable ... neither the strong or the weak forces show affinity to flow or act at a distance and so it leaves the entire effect of gravity to some split effect in the electromagnetic force.
I had hoped the difference would be in the electroweak interaction but then discovered there is no distance associated with the weak nuclear force even though it bonds with the electromagnetic force at or above 10^15 K. I have been working at the unified idea for nearly a year and physics as a hobby since about September - October 2006. I am not a scientist so the idea is still formative and needs an awful lot of work to get it beyond description.
The good news is that the universities have on-line studies here so if I can't find someone who would like to run with this idea it may sit on the shelf for a few years until I can learn to present it correctly.
__________________ "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."...Albert Einstein
Do you have any more (on topic) string theory enlightenment.
I'm struggling to understand what these 10 or 11 curled up dimensions are and how did they come to believe that there had to be that number?
The theory is a crock in my book, but understanding the enemy is the best way to lead to his defeat. I intend to rewrite my criticism of string theory and obsolete the old one but need some practical input.
Rufe
Hi Rufus;
Actually according to M theory there are 7 dimensions which enfold to make up our 3 spatial dimensions and our 1 dimension of time a total of 11 dimensions.
Now if you go back to my Idea you'll see exactly that. The 7 internal dimensions of the proton enfolding to make up the 3 spatial dimensions and of course there is the dimension of time. I think it's very easy to understand how this happens, if you buy 3 pipe cleaners and superpose and interweave them according to my diagram.
Best,
Pat
P.s I HOPE YOU DON'T LEAD TO MY DEFEAT
Last edited by Profpat; 01-07-2008 at 01:22 PM.
Reason: spelling
I too am a staunch supporter of Cyclic Universe. Though I am not aware of such mathematics, logically the Universe has to be cyclic (either through Big Bounce or Big Rip)
Dipayankar
Logically both the BB abd the BR scenarios make no sense whatever. They both surmise pre-conditions and don't address a beginning at all, although they try to explain it.
I am not aware of any form of logic that can be used to come up with such speculative conclusions.
BB Rip is the 'wild guess' theory and belongs on sci-fi with cap'n Kirk
The big bounce is being explored by a New Zealand scientific team based on the law of thermodynamics. At some point the heat generated by the nature of a big crunch would not need to go to a singularity to provide the bounce to restart or make the universe cyclical.
Mike
Please take one moment to put into words the compartment in which this all takes place.
You can not do that. There is NO theory relating to that
Without a compartment you are left with an ever expanding idea of nothingness of a real nature. Both ideas are preposterous.
Re: Many competing theories 
Linear Mode
