[AntonioLao]

a motionless point of spacetime is truly and absolutely a symbol of perfect symmetry. As for the concept of symmetry, two noted physicists have written books about it.

1. Heinz R. Pagels, 'Perfect Symmetry: The Search for the Beginning of Time', Simon and Schuster, NY, 1985.

2. A. Zee, 'Fearful Symmetry: The Search for Beauty in Modern Physics', McMillan, NY, 1986.

In an organizational environment of a complex corporation, it is often said and heard that phrase 'lonely at the top', which in this context, the 'top' means the CEO, the president, the boss or the director. But a question for everyone: can the physical universe similarly possess this hierarchical structure? if it does then what would be the singular lonesome point of spacetime? This point would become a Total Objective Event (TOE) for the existence of the universe.

[subversion]

wouldn't it just be the big bang singularity?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by subversion

wouldn't it just be the big bang singularity?

singular point such as the BB singularity makes sense only for Euclidean geometry. For Riemannian spherical geometry, there are infinite pairs of antipodal points. For Gaussian hyperbolic geometry, the pseudosphere represents two lonesome points, one at negative infinity and one at positive infinity.

[Guille]

I beleive that there is a heriarchry in the universe, but that we, humans, can't, with our knowledge, define which order it is.

Whic is more fundamental?:

force or energy?

mass or matter?

wave or particle?...

[AntonioLao]

all these concepts share a symbiotic relationship.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

all these concepts share a symbiotic relationship.

Why symbolic and not physical, real? Symbols are representations of the real world.

[jonnyflashbang]

strings......everything is strings........

all forces in nature are strings


all matter is made of strings....


strings are made of pure energy


energy and matter have equivelance


everything is strings.......

[Guille]

Originally Posted by jonnyflashbang

strings......everything is strings........

all forces in nature are strings


all matter is made of strings....


strings are made of pure energy


energy and matter have equivelance


everything is strings.......

So, basically you believe string theory is the TOE?

By the way, energy and matter don't have equvelance; energy and mass have equivelance.

Now, if strings are matter and forces, and, let's go on to the new string theory, m-theory, then space-time, forces and matter, which are the three basic physicals (dimensions, forces and matter), adn they are made of energy, then everything, i.e. nature, i.e. the universe (let's exclude multy-universe theory for now), is made of energy? is made of the ability to do work?

This somehow seems extremelly abstract: the idea that matter, forces and dimensions are made of the ability to do work, is a thought of extreme abstraction, non-intuitional, and non-logico-simple, and, thus, too strange to explain the universe (i.e nature, everything), thus, not a TOE.

[jonnyflashbang]

apologeese for my equivelance boo-boo

but...

''....is made of the ability to do work?''

what does that mean?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by jonnyflashbang

apologeese for my equivelance boo-boo

but...

''....is made of the ability to do work?''

what does that mean?

Don't apologize, I just think that sdtring theory is wrong, and thus, that it can't be assumed as knowledge.

In thermodinamics, energy is wrongly (in my opinion) defined as the ability to do work. And, as you say, strings, or p-branes (more generally), are made of energy, and p-branes are what forces, matter and dimensions are made of, tehn forces, matter and dimensions are made of energy.

Let me know if I'm still not explaining myself.