Listen to this PodcastMore Science Talk
-
Gravity's Engines
We’ve long understood black holes to be the points at which the universe as we know it comes to an end. Often billions of times more massive than the Sun, they...
Read More »
George Musser talks about his new book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to String Theory. Plus, we'll test your knowledge of some recent science in the news.
Podcast Transcription
Welcome to Science Talk, the weekly podcast of Scientific American for the seven days starting July 16th, 2008, I'm Steve Mirsky. This week on the podcast: something for the complete idiots out there, me included. We'll talk with Scientific American editor, George Musser, who is not a complete idiot; plus we'll test your knowledge about some recent science in the news.
George Musser is our resident astronomy and physics editor. He is the author of the brand new book, The Complete Idiot's Guide To String Theory. To become something less than a complete idiot, I spoke to George in the library at Scientific American.
Steve: What is string theory? I mean everybody has heard of string theory; I think it has been on the cover of Time magazine, probably on Newsweek, certainly on our covers and everybody talks about it as some kind of new-fangled big deal in physics, which it is. What is it?
Musser: It's a good question because the theory itself is being developed by scientists. It's not a fully formed theory, so what I'll tell you, the summary version I will give you, is the current level of understanding; but what's so wonderful about string theory is that it seems to open up new levels even below that.
Steve: One of the things in your book that I've not seen before was that string theory really goes back about 80 years.
Musser: Yep.
Steve: The first formulation was back in the '20s.
Musser: Yeah, even most string theorists don't realize that. This is something that Steve Weinberg, the Nobel laureate physicist actually pointed out in a talk that I kind of plucked and put in the book—that the concept of string theory goes way back.
Steve: As most physicists think it started in the '70s.
Musser: Yeah, it started in late '60s, but it was one of those things that was invented and then forgotten and then re ... invented actually isn't even the word, it was more of discovered; it was stumbled upon as a potential theory not even of everything as it is now portrayed, but as a theory of nuclear forces. It didn't work out for that. It was re-branded as a theory of everything; everything meaning everything—electricity, magnetism, matter, space, gravity and you name it, it's supposed to be in the string theory at some level. So the basic idea is that when you zoom in on matter, you zoom in, you see molecules and you zoom in on the molecules, you see atoms and you keep on zooming, you see the particles in the atoms ...
Steve: Protons, neutrons, electrons ....
Musser: Precisely, and then you zoom in on for instance, a proton, it turns as you zoom in and you see quarks and then you keep on zooming and those quarks according to string theory are actually tiny, tiny, tiny little strings that are vibrating and moving around. The beauty of the theory is that one type of thing—namely a string—can vibrate in different ways and give you different types of particles. It can give you an up-quark, down-quark, and electron, photon, the whole zoo of particles that have been discovered.
Steve: What does that give you other than a felicitous kind of aesthetic feeling about the universe, that it's all connected together in some kind of unified whole?
Musser: Well, of course I wouldn't put that down on a felicitous aesthetic view of the universe; I think that's important.
Steve: No, absolutely not!
Musser: No, I am being precocious a little bit, but [a] lot of the big brick theories in physics over the past hundreds of years have come from unification, have come from trying to bring together that which had seemed so impossible to bring together. It seemed desperate. Electricity and magnetism were unified in the theory of electromagnetism. One thing actually we take for granted today—which is that the stars and planets follow the same laws that we observe on the Earth—was really unification that Newton did. Prior to that people had separated those two grounds and Newton unified them into a single theory of motion and of universal gravitation; and in turn, when you boil everything down and unify, then you can build up again, and you can see how many new phenomena you would have no idea even existed. So Newton opened our eyes to all that motion of the universe and the ways that planet systems can form in galaxies and beyond galaxies.
Steve: And one of the great things about the book is that it goes off on a lot of digressions as you just did, because you really do need a background in the entire history of physics, to a certain degree, to understand string theory, even at a relatively rudimentary level. But what is it now that string theory is trying to accomplish that has remained unaccomplished?
Musser: So, I bring up those other examples as it is just historical, like scene setting to this, but string theory has similar consequences in terms of bringing things together and then opening our eyes to new things. So the mere act of bringing together gravity and quantum mechanics, that was Einstein's dream. That was a major accomplishment, because the theory of gravitation, which is Einstein's theory, and quantum theory seems to sync completely incompatible. They are used today in conjunction; they will be applied, like, the first one then the other, but they are not actually used together in any deep sense; so that already is a conceptual breakthrough. Those two theories approached the world in such a different way that to unify them gives you something you didn't have before. And then there is a whole stream of possible phenomena; none has really been proved or observed, but [they] are predicted by the theory. For instance, other dimensions of space and time; other universes that could be out there; different particles in our own universe that we are oblivious to right now, but which might be discovered, at for instance, the Large Hadron Collider when it starts up later this year.
Steve: You talk in the book about what it would feel like if asense being in one of these other dimensions actually try [tried] to touch you.
Musser: Yep.
Steve: And you allege that you would have some sort of sensation, but you wouldn't really know what it was.
Musser: Yeah, that's an amazing thing about extra dimensions—asthey feel so magical; the kinds of things that would to us appear like hocus pocus would be possible in extra dimensions.
And that also feeds into some of the physics as well, but your example of, if you had a multidimensional being or force, does not have to be artificial intelligence, tap you on the shoulder, you would look around you and you wouldn't see it by definition, because it wouldn't exist in the dimensions that you have access to, that you can observe. So, it would feel to you as some ineffable force acting on you, you couldn't localize it, but it would still be there. And that actually comes up in theories of cosmology, for example. If, For instance, the forces that may have caused the universe to expand very early in the history of our universe—they seemed to require a force that lacks direction; it has no directionality to it. It's called a scalar field in the jargon and that's precisely the kind of thing you might get from an extra dimension. You would get a directionless type of force acting on you. Such type of things string theory might give you. I should point out that there are other explanations for scalar fields as well, but string theory does seem to give those naturally to you.
Steve: Well, so let's review: just basically string theory says that there are many dimensions that we're not aware of in our three-dimensional world of perception and that all the fundamental particles are actually tiny little strings that are vibrating in different ways from each other.
Musser: Precisely. I would actually phrase it a little differently than that. I would take the second idea as the primary one and the dimensions are actually derived from that. It isn't as though someone is sitting around one day at the bar and saying, "Hey, wouldn't [it] be great to have 10 extra dimensions of space?" These actually just fall out of that theory naturally. If you didn't have them, the strings could not vibrate in a consistent way. You might, for instance, have reversals of cause and effect, where the string would react to you before you touched it. That might occur if the string didn't have these extra dimensions, to play in, to act, to vibrate in and to move in.
Steve: Early in the history, the modern history of string theory formulations, there were some physicists who really didn't like string theory, because it wasn't testable enough to be other than—in their opinion—kind of, philosophical musings; and they thought it wasn't even really science. And how has the field progressed since then?
Musser: Well, it's kind of, it has been a to and fro, kind of, ping-pong effect. A lot of the criticism for string theory is there even today comes down to that same question of, is it testable? And that's actually a criticism, as I try to discuss in the book, not specific to string theory. It's also true of the various alternatives to string theory; and when I think that, I think I tried to do it in the book that other books haven't done so much, is to really address those theories as well. Although the book is entitled Idiot's Guide to String Theory it's also an idiot's guide to look on gravity, the cause of dynamical triangulations to the other types.
Steve: Supersymmetry.
Musser: Right ... exactly.
Steve: Little idiot's guide.
Musser: Little idiot, or many idiot's guides within the book. So the problem is that gravity is very weak as we experience it, so that implies, just as a matter of course, it's an empirical fact that the unification of gravity with other quantum forces must occur at very, very, very short distances. This isn't a failing of string theory; this isn't failing of loop quantum gravity or anything else. It's a fact to[of] the world. So quantum gravity, of which string theory is an example, is distant from experiment, and we have to live with that fact. So, a lot of the criticism of string theory isn't specific to string theory, it's bemoaning this fact of nature that quantum gravity is such a distant phenomenon. So I think it is important to separate those questions; that there are criticisms of string theory per se, but this most common lack of experimental tests isn't about string theory per se, it's again a broader criticism.
Steve: Most people might be surprised that gravity is so weak, because it's the one we really experience and if you fall down a flight of stairs—which I have done—gravity doesn't seem so weak.
Musser: Yep, exactly. It is ironic, and I actually do have a short discussion in the book about how—did I put it? If gravity is still weak, why does it hurt so much when I fall? And the reason is it is fairly straightforward; gravity is a cumulative force. For instance electrical and magnetic forces have offsetting contributions; you might have a positive and negative charge or a north pole and south pole and those things tend to cancel out. And anytime you have a whole bunch of electrons together, they tend naturally to draw in positive charges to neutralize them. So electromagnetism is self negating in that way whereas gravity is not. Gravity only adds and it only adds up; there is only essentially positive gravitational charge. So in case of the earth, [it] has so many protons, neutrons, electrons and other particles in the earth and they all add up producing what we experience as a fairly large gravitational force. I should point out that large though it is, we are still able to resist it. We can still maintain our integrity. We can avoid falling down stairs. We can lift things up off a table and when we lift a book off the table, we are opposing the entire might of the earth to do so. So the essential electromagnetic forces that let us lift the book are opposing the entire earth's gravitational force. So it's, I think, it's 1039 or it is some other ungodly large number times more powerful than gravity, electromagnetism; and the strong force of the atomic nucleus is even stronger than electromagnetism. So this is just something we have to live with. And that implies, in turn, that whatever unifies gravity with other types of particles and other types of forces occurs at very, very short distances those are the kind of flip side of that.
Steve: These are distances that are not only too small to see, they are too small to even perceive with an electron microscope.
Musser: Oh, yeah, .yeah! This is just a way off.
Steve: They are orders and orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest thing you can visualize with our best microscopic technology.
Musser: Right and even our best microscope or, in a sense, microscope, is the Large Hadron Collider—the one being built or one about to start up, really, now in Switzerland—and it can penetrate to, I think it is 10-19 to -20 meters; in effect it's a microscope down to those distances; and the plank scale, the scale at which strings seem to operate these other types of entities is another 1015 times smaller; it is 10-35 meters. I should point out, just as a caveat, that strings might be a bit bigger than that strictly speaking, but usually people thought by 10-34 and 10-35 meter in size. So it's not something we're ever going to see it directly. In the case of atoms, we can see them now using various kinds of microscopes, but a string will never be directly visible to us. So you have to come out to it indirectly. So I think the way I describe it in the book is you tell physicists, "Hey, you're never going to be able to observe strings, sorry," and what's their first reaction? "Aaakkkhhe ... I've got to find a way to observe strings." They take it as a challenge. So I actually have a list of 10 possible ways not to observe strings, not even to prove that they exist, but to test the idea. And I think that's the way science usually works. You don't ever disprove something strictly or prove something strictly; it's always, sort of like, I think you've tilted it for or against; it's a balancing act. So slowly, over time, you tend to bring more and more evidence for something until we reach a point where, "Wow, it must be true" or conversely we pile up so much negative evidence we say, "No, can't really be true."
Steve: I was thinking if it's a long legal case with an accretion of evidence so that you finally come to a conclusion beyond the reasonable doubt about something.
Musser: Right, exactly, exactly.
Steve: What is the Large Hadron Collider actually going to enable us to start to see in concrete terms? What kind of evidence is it going to supply that we haven't had before that could play into our acceptance of string theory or any of the competing unification ideas?
Musser: Yeah, the Large Hadron Collider will really be the most closely watched instrument in physical science, at least over the next few years. It is actually the most expensive scientific instrument of any sort ever built. It involved, a tour de force of engineering and of organization and computing and all the rest. So I am really excited about it. It is not specific to string theory, of course. It's meant generally to prove beyond the current standard model of particle physics, and I want to emphasize that, because the standard model of particle physics is pretty much at the end of its rope when it comes to the energies probed by the Hadron Collider. Something has to happen at the Hadron Collider. There has to be some new physical process of some sort or other that current theories can handle. There [are]is just too many loose threads in the standard model and they all seem to kind of begin to matter. They began to affect observational predictions at the energies probed by the Hadron Collider. So number one, whatever comes out of the Hadron Collider will be a guide to [the] unification of physics, be it string theory, be it one of these other theories I have mentioned. Now there are specific types of phenomena that string theory would prove or would predict that the Hadron Collider might see. Now it's, again—as I've emphasized earlier—it's not a question of strictly proving or strictly disproving string theory; that's beyond even the Hadron Collider's ability. It's more of a hint level. and one is called super symmetry; and this is the idea that the two main types of particles in nature which are basically particles in matter and particles of force. So, particle matter might be an electron, a particle force might be a photon, a particle of light. Those are the two kinds of families of particles, the two types of particles, and super symmetry says they are actually united. There is actually, in essence, one type of particle that has these different manifestations, be it a matter or be it a force. So the electron is related—like a family relationship—to the photon, which is related to other types of particles as well; and that is the prediction of string theory [that] seems to be required—though not strictly required—but seems to be required by the behaviors of the strings and probably would be observable at the Hadron Collider. And you would see it because you would see a whole new gaggle of particles just start to pop out of thin air when they start to collide these particles at the Collider. So you are going to smash the protons together. They spew out countless other types of particles that we know of and hopefully that we don't know of. That's the whole purpose: is to find something that we don't know, some of which may be the super symmetric particles. Bottom line: the discovery or non-discovery of super symmetry, the Hadron Collider will be a huge clue. It's just going to be the elephant in a room holding the dagger clue.
Steve: The elephant in the room holding the dagger ...
Musser: Okay ...
Steve: So the elephant did it ...
Musser: The elephant did it, exactly, so it makes metaphor or whatever.
Steve: So, the results that we see from the Hadron Collider should start coming in pretty soon actually.
Musser: Let's see they are supposed to start up July, so this month or maybe August.
Steve: By the time papers come out with new particles, if there are any discovered—I mean, they're going to come out pretty quick.
Musser: Probably, but no, they have to take it slowly. Their actual first goal at the Collider is to rediscover the standard model.
Steve: Right.
Musser: So they are going to just recreate all the models they know, then remeasure them and ...
Steve: That will make sure that the Collider itself is working properly.
Musser: And also to really add another decimal place beside the measurements, so they can then look for deviations at a finer level than they were before. Now there are all sorts of exotic predictions that people have made about the Hadron Collider; about looking for black holes that it might produce for example; that if they did see, it would just already just be it like, start handing out Nobel prizes to the string theorists. Now most people think that's pretty unlikely, even if string theory is true that those black holes could be found, but the possibility is there and if they see a black hole already they just start ticking off names on who they are going to send to Stockholm, because it is going to be a huge, major discovery; not to mention they will be humanity's look into extra dimensions because of black holes—should they be creatable at the Hadron Collider—will be an indication that space has extra dimensions.
Steve: We're talking about teeny, tiny black holes, because I know that there are people out there who are afraid to press the start button on the Hadron Collider because they think it could destroy the world, the whole universe.
Musser: Yeah, forget the world, the universe. The thing about these little black holes—and this is actually something I talk about [a] lot in the book and which is essential to unifying physics—little black holes, you've [got] to think of them very differently from the big ones. They are all black holes, but the little ones aren't the monsters that the big ones are; they are kind of tortured souls. They are, kind of, they come on[in] to this world and they wink out almost as fast as they appear. So you shouldn't think of the little black holes as these, kind of, cosmic monsters or[that can] just, kind of, tear you apart.
Steve: It's not the doomsday machine.
Musser: It's not [a] doomsday machine. These are just going to form and they go pop; they form and pop; and they don't pose any threat to us, because in order to be created, that very fact that they can be created in the laboratory necessarily implies that they would also go pop and they would also destroy themselves almost instantly.
Steve: So we'll see some, you know, within the next couple of years, we are going to start to see some very interesting things or not come out of the collider. But let me ask you, there is this search for unification. It's been really this dream of physics now for, you know, a pretty much a century. Why do physicists believe that there is unification to be found? How do I know that that's the way the universe is and how do I not know that, well, as you said at the beginning of our conversation, this is just the way it is and you have to deal with it? How do I know that this isn't just the way it is and I can't unify gravity with the other fundamental forces, and I just have to live in a universe that is aesthetically unpleasing that goes on its merry way without unification?
Musser: I think there is [are] really three ways. One is just that nature itself is a unity. There don't seem to be lines in the sand drawn around natural phenomena in the world. Everything seems to just click together, so it suggests that underlying the natural world is a unifying set of principals. Second is really historical example—that in the past, every time we had seen disparate phenomena and that we think of just, "Oh completely different," they turn out to have a common cause; they turn out to stem from some unified description of them. And third, there are particular sign posts up ahead that tell us that there seems to be a unity to the particles and even to gravity and particles. For example, if you extrapolate the strengths of different forces of nature, they still vary; they are not constant. Electromagnetism strengthens a little bit as you probe to higher and higher energies; to strong force seems to weaken a little bit as you probe to higher and higher energies; gravity seems to strengthen as you probe to higher and higher energies. These trends among the forming forces of nature all converge; they all converge on a point up near this plank scale I was telling you about earlier. It happens about 10-35 meters; it is the distance or equivalent energy—because those two concepts are related—at which all the forces of nature seem to be unified.
Steve: And what we mean by that is: it's not that there is a single set of equations that describe them all so much as they are all the same.
Musser: Right.
Steve: At the point of the big bang, gravity is electromagnetism, is the strong force, is the weak force. They are force X, they are all exactly the same, and it is only when we get that expansion, then the forces themselves also start to separate from each other.
Musser: Exactly, exactly, exactly. So, at the dawn of our universe—and I have to emphasize our universe, because there could be others—so, dawn of our universe, physicists think there was one type of force, one type of matter and that as the cosmos expanded, as space expanded, it cooled and things started to condense out like snow flakes, and over time that single force broke, it differentiated; and something similar happens in the human body as we develop from a single cell; we differentiate, different tissues form in our bodies, different layers of tissues. Something similar happened, physicists think, in our universe, that over time this single force somehow differentiated into the four forces that we know today. The two nuclear forces—gravity and electromagnetism—and in turn electromagnetism seems to differentiate into electricity or magnetism, depending on our own velocity, for example; depending how we perceive what our perspective on that force is. So the idea is that because the forces seem to converge in strength it is taken as a clue as a sign post that they are actually manifestations of a single force. It's not proved, but it's, you know, go to battle with the army you have; you have to see what's you have got here and it seems to be a clue; what's interesting in particular about that clue is that the two components of it—namely gravity on the one side and the three quantum forces, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces on the other—act independently in their convergence. For instance, the forces of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces seem to converge and there are laws of quantum mechanics that dictate that convergence and they actually are fairly modest in their variation with scale, with energy. So they just, kind [of], lackadaisically they come together to a point and meet. Gravity, which varies hugely with a scale of with a scale of energy that you probe it out, just kind of swoops in from afar like a falcon and lands exactly where this[these] other three forces are. That is a coincidence rather than something that had deep meaning rather then, "Boy, God has really played a trick on us".
Steve: (laughs)
Musser: So the indications are there. There seems to be some unity to nature. It's coming out in the measurements that scientists can now take.
Steve: Well, these are certainly interesting times to be a physicist or to follow physics.
Musser: I think so. I mean, everybody thinks to live in a special time, wouldn't that be great, to see Einstein's theory proved in 1919, demonstrated in 1919; and today we have something similar. So as we see these results come from the Hadron Collider, we are going to see something new, and I think most physicists would like to speed it up, if they were wrong, because that it would open up new doors for them.
(music)
Steve: Now its time to play TOTALL....... Y BOGUS. Here are four science stories; only three are true. See if you know which story is TOTALL....... Y BOGUS
Story number 1: A species of chameleon has been found whose eggs, while the chameleons are in them developing, can change color to match their surroundings.
Story number 2: Historians have dated Caesar's invasion of Britain to August 26th and 27th in the year 55 BC, but a new analysis by astronomers shows that the actual invasion dates had to be earlier.
Story number 3: Keeping a food diary doubled the pounds taken off by participants in a weight loss program.
And Story number 4: After suffering from a stroke, an Ontario woman started to speak with a Newfoundland accent.
Time is up.
Story number 4 is true. An Ontario woman sounded like a "Newfie" after a stroke. So-called foreign accent syndrome affect[s] some people who suffer brain damage. Their speech changes to something that listeners think sounds like a foreign accent. In this case, however, the changes are more reminiscent of maritime Canadian English. The case was reported in the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences.
Story number 3 is true. A study of participants in a weight loss program found that those who simply wrote down everything they ate lost twice as much as those people who just tried to follow the program. The researchers published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine; for more check out the July 11th edition of the daily podcast, 60-Second Science.
And story number 2 is true. Because of gravitational forces exerted by the sun and moon, the English Channel would have been flowing the wrong way on the dates usually given for Caesar's invasion of Britain. Caesar's own descriptions of the tides along with the new astronomical calculations indicate that he probably invaded Britain four days earlier than the accepted dates of August 26th and 27th 55 B.C. The research appeared in Sky & Telescope magazine.
All of which means that story number 1, about a chameleon whose eggs exhibit color mimicry, is TOTALL....... Y BOGUS. But what is true is that a species of Madagascar chameleon has been discovered to spend three-fourths of its life span inside the egg. It then lives free for only four or five months. No other known four-legged animal has such a rapid growth rate after hatching or birth along with such a short life span.
(music)
Well that's it for this edition of the weekly SciAm podcast. Visit http://www.SciAm.com for the latest science news, content from our magazines and all our podcasts. For Science Talk, the weekly podcast of Scientific American, I'm Steve Mirsky. Thanks for clicking on us.
Click below to watch a brief version of Steve's interview with George Musser about his new book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to String Theory. Listen to the complete audio podcast above.
Science Talk is a weekly podcast, subscribe here: RSS | iTunes
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentFar too childish for this discussion. Everybody already knows all of this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink for a minute. Cite the exact equations that you want to talk about. This is not seseme street!
This is popular science after all, it has to be suitable for the general public who might not necessarily have an extensive scientific background. I thought it was good, not very informaive per se but it was a nice general summary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Busy Scientists Guide to String Theory: philosophical wankery
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrect where I am mistaken: What I understood from his comments made in 22:52-23:13, is that gravity is a slightly dynamic force. Is he implying that a more energetic mass will emit a greater gravitational field strength than its less energetic counter-part?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what about the Transcripts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, Steve Mirsky, the Science Magazine already has their podcast, WITH TRANSCRIPTS, of 1 AUGUST 2008. It's not incredible? What you say?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, Steve Mirsky, the transcript of the 7th August edition of the weekly NATURE Podcast is already available. This says something to you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisString theory is so yesterday.
But I suppose the astrologers and new-age crowd will buy this crap and put it on their bookshelves.
Actually, their crap is a helluva lot more 'scientific' - at least it's PROVABLE and it doesn't take 10^5000 years to prove it....
Hallelujah! Thanks Sir! Tomorrow I will go hear and read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPart 1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the things that could have been better brought out in the article is that although there has been some attempt to unify it by adding extra dimensions etc., String Theory itself is not a unified theory, but more like a whole class of theories with many variations. It seems like each String Theorist adds or subtracts his own variations so that in the end instead of one set of predictions generated by string theory to be tested by new findings such as those that might come from the new Large Hadron Collider, there are many sets of predictions that range from minor differences to those that are mutually exclusive. With so many variations it is likely that some predictions will be found to be true, but the question is whether this will signify that a new more in depth understanding of the universe has been found or if it is more like the idea that if you have a thousand monkeys typing on computers for a long enough time something that appears to be an intelligent understanding is bound to come out on one computer sometime even though the monkey that typed it doesn’t really understand any of it. The only thing that you can be sure of is that the theories that don’t predict any new observations are either completely wrong or are at least partially wrong or incomplete. The theorist’s usual response is to add new variables that make the theory look good again until the next time.
Much of the problem is that although in past times most theories were directly derived from observations in reality, current theories are often complete mathematical constructs that are either based on various derivatives of other theories or even completely new theories both of which are based on assumptions that have no basis in observable reality. As the theorist develops his mathematical construct many functions and constants often appear to be necessary for the math to work out in an acceptable way to avoid infinities etc., but the theorist often has no understanding of what the functions and constants represent in the real world or if they really apply to the real world at all. The real challenge then is to determine if a successful prediction (of a new particle, for example) is because the theory is actually truly describing reality or if it just happens to generate a result in some area that is similar to or parallel to the result generated by reality, but may actually be completely different from reality in its principals and deeper understandings of how things really work in the universe. Even if the theory does truly represent a description of reality, it is of limited use until the meanings of the various functions and constants are understood in terms of what things and interactions of things generates them in the real world.
If, for example, you do not understand that all entities in the real world are composed of motions in the various dimensions that they exist in and that the most fundamental law of nature is that mass equals motion and motion equals mass, you might say (as the article did say) that the photon and electron are in the same family when the photon actually only possesses motions in the first four dimensions (as long as you restrict your theory to a single fifth vector structural level) while the electron possesses motions in the first five dimensions.
In the case of the photon it has velocities in the first three dimensions that together generate the composite velocity of C=1 (the speed of light) for the photon in some composite direction in the first three dimensions. Any addition of velocity that would cause a three dimensional velocity greater than C=1 is induced into the fourth dimension where it generates the variable mass, wavelength, and frequency effects possessed by the photon. The greater the fourth vector (dimensional) velocity possessed by the photon the greater its maximum mass effect and frequency and the smaller the wavelength. The perceived quantum structure of photons such that all photons with a certain frequency and wavelength possess the same mass effect (amount or quantity of energy) is really just saying that they all have the same composite velocity in the first three dimensions and all have the same fourth vector velocity so they all have the same total motion quantity, which generates the same mass effect. If you add fourth vector velocity to the photon it will then be the same as all photons with that fourth vector velocity. Since the electromagnetic spectrum is continuous at least from a very low value to a very high value, the fourth vector velocity is also continuously variable in that range so there is no real quantum nature to it when it is properly understood. It all just represents different aspects or results because of one variable, which is the fourth vector velocity.
Part 2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMatter particles like the electron basically contain the same velocity structure in the first four dimensions as the photon, but they also possess a velocity in the fifth dimension (vector) that causes curvature of their path so that it curves back upon itself to form an enclosed path. This enclosed path is basically the particle. This allows the particle to remain in one place, but at the same time have a rest mass effect due to the sum of its velocities in all five dimensions. It is more complicated than that in reality because there are various fourth and fifth vector angular components that have to do with the generation of mass and inertia effects and variations in the path that generate motions of the particle in the first three dimensions etc. must also be considered. The greater the fifth vector velocity, the greater the rest mass effect of the particle and the greater the curvature of the path. The fact that a matter particle has a fourth vector velocity is why matter particles also have wave like properties similar to those of photons.
The formula E=MC^2 is really basically a comparison between the total motion (energy in terms of mass effect) of a photon of light and a particle of matter at rest. The E is the photon, the M is the matter particle and the C^2 is the multiple expansion factor necessary because of the matter particle’s velocity in an additional dimension (the fifth vector) compared to the photon. Unlike the dimensional interface between the first three dimensions and the fourth dimension that causes any composite three dimensional velocity greater than C=1 to be induced into the fourth dimension, the interface with the fifth dimension requires the presence of certain angular components to transfer velocity into the fifth dimension so it is possible to have a photon with about .511 MEV with all of the velocity greater than C=1 stored in the fourth vector and at the same time to have an electron with the same .511 MEV with some of the excess velocity stored in the fourth vector and some of the velocity stored in the fifth vector. This transfer of velocity (motion) between the fourth vector and fifth vector can, of course, go in either direction under the proper conditions so a photon can be changed into a matter particle and a matter particle can be changed into a photon.
Part 2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMatter particles like the electron basically contain the same velocity structure in the first four dimensions as the photon, but they also possess a velocity in the fifth dimension (vector) that causes curvature of their path so that it curves back upon itself to form an enclosed path. This enclosed path is basically the particle. This allows the particle to remain in one place, but at the same time have a rest mass effect due to the sum of its velocities in all five dimensions. It is more complicated than that in reality because there are various fourth and fifth vector angular components that have to do with the generation of mass and inertia effects and variations in the path that generate motions of the particle in the first three dimensions etc. must also be considered. The greater the fifth vector velocity, the greater the rest mass effect of the particle and the greater the curvature of the path. The fact that a matter particle has a fourth vector velocity is why matter particles also have wave like properties similar to those of photons.
The formula E=MC^2 is really basically a comparison between the total motion (energy in terms of mass effect) of a photon of light and a particle of matter at rest. The E is the photon, the M is the matter particle and the C^2 is the multiple expansion factor necessary because of the matter particle’s velocity in an additional dimension (the fifth vector) compared to the photon. Unlike the dimensional interface between the first three dimensions and the fourth dimension that causes any composite three dimensional velocity greater than C=1 to be induced into the fourth dimension, the interface with the fifth dimension requires the presence of certain angular components to transfer velocity into the fifth dimension so it is possible to have a photon with about .511 MEV with all of the velocity greater than C=1 stored in the fourth vector and at the same time to have an electron with the same .511 MEV with some of the excess velocity stored in the fourth vector and some of the velocity stored in the fifth vector. This transfer of velocity (motion) between the fourth vector and fifth vector can, of course, go in either direction under the proper conditions so a photon can be changed into a matter particle and a matter particle can be changed into a photon.
So although all matter particles could be said to be of the same family because all have velocities in the same five dimensions, the photon is somewhat different because of its lack of a fifth vector velocity. Also, the sub-energy particle (you may like to call it dark energy) which only has velocity in one or more of the first three dimensions because its composite three dimensional velocity is less than C=1 could be considered another family. It does not have frequency and wavelength properties due to the lack of a fourth vector velocity, so it only has a small mass effect due to its composite three dimensional velocity (it has not yet been discovered by man in this world). It generally does not interact with matter due to its low energy level, but it does interact a small amount with photons. Interactions generally tend to decrease the velocity in one or more of the first three dimensions of the photon, but this causes fourth vector velocity to be induced back into the first three dimensions to restore the composite three dimensional velocity to C=1. The net effect of this small reduction in fourth vector velocity is to slightly reduce the mass effect and frequency of the photon and to slightly increase its wavelength. This causes a slight red shift in the photon. This effect is usually only detectable in photons that travel great distances and is proportional to the distance traveled.
Part 1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the things that could have been better brought out in the article is that although there has been some attempt to unify it by adding extra dimensions etc., String Theory itself is not a unified theory, but more like a whole class of theories with many variations. It seems like each String Theorist adds or subtracts his own variations so that in the end instead of one set of predictions generated by string theory to be tested by new findings such as those that might come from the new Large Hadron Collider, there are many sets of predictions that range from minor differences to those that are mutually exclusive. With so many variations it is likely that some predictions will be found to be true, but the question is whether this will signify that a new more in depth understanding of the universe has been found or if it is more like the idea that if you have a thousand monkeys typing on computers for a long enough time something that appears to be an intelligent understanding is bound to come out on one computer sometime even though the monkey that typed it doesn’t really understand any of it. The only thing that you can be sure of is that the theories that don’t predict any new observations are either completely wrong or are at least partially wrong or incomplete. The theorist’s usual response is to add new variables that make the theory look good again until the next time.
Part 1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the things that could have been better brought out in the article is that although there has been some attempt to unify it by adding extra dimensions etc., String Theory itself is not a unified theory, but is more like a whole class of theories with many variations. It seems like each String Theorist adds or subtracts his own variations so that in the end instead of one set of predictions generated by String Theory to be tested by new findings such as those that might come from the new Large Hadron Collider, there are many sets of predictions that range from minor differences to those that are mutually exclusive. With so many variations it is likely that some predictions will be found to be true, but the question is whether this will signify that a new more in depth understanding of the universe has been found or if it is more like the idea that if you have a thousand monkeys typing on computers for a long enough time something that appears to be an intelligent understanding is bound to come out on one computer sometime even though the monkey that typed it doesn't really understand any of it. The only thing that you can be sure of is that the theories that don't predict any new observations are either completely wrong or are at least partially wrong or incomplete. The theorist's usual response is to add new variables that make the theory look good again until the next time.
Much of the problem is that although in past times most theories were derived from observations in reality, current theories are often complete mathematical constructs that are either based on various derivatives of other theories or even completely new theories both of which are based on assumptions that have no basis in observable reality. As the theorist develops his mathematical construct, many functions and constants often appear to be necessary to make the math work out in an acceptable way to avoid infinities etc., but the theorist often has no understanding of what the functions and constants represent in the real world or if they really apply to the real world at all. The real challenge then is to determine if a successful prediction (of a new particle, for example) is because the theory is actually truly describing reality or if it just happens to generate a result in some area that is similar to or parallel to the result generated by reality, but may actually be completely different frome reality in its principals and deeper understandings of how things really work in the universe.
See part two for more of my comment.
A test for string theory is to add five string theory equations 2+2=4.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd add apples to apples and get apples. If we can prove we are adding apples to oranges to get apple/orange.Then five string theories do not add up to the theory of everything M theory.Because they are a contradiction of forces and states.And Whitehead would say the maths isn't then valid.
Wow. So much negativity!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI personally, as an 'average citizen' found this truly informative. This particular podcast has sparked my interest on the subject to watch every relevant String Theory video I could find on YouTube and I have ordered George Musser's book.
So sorry to be such a 'complete idiot', but isn't there a far advanced String Theory forum all you so highly intellectual confidants could whine on.
I admit I am recently returning to educating myself in modern science discoveries and theories. Over the last month I've been catching up on the last years worth of podcasts from sciam and other sources. I have found the information provided to me very inspiring. And if I hear about something I feel wasn't discussed enough or I need to investigate further,... get this, I investigate further.
On this note I would like to thank Steve Mirsky and George Musser and all the other staff of Scientific American that provide this insightful information to us scientifically curious Americans.
Dr. F. Tengelin was quicker than me or more brave than me. I was just thinking of saying the same thing. Let me make his statement more precise. Prof. Steve Weinberg who developed the electro weak theory and shared the Nobel prize with two others is the author of the most authoritative book on quantum field theory. In volume 3 of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields published by Cambridge University Press in 2000 he states on page 192 that the inverse super symmetric unification coupling of all fundamental gauge forces is 17.5. This value is given by his equation 28.2.19. Finding this result scared me quite a bit because I used Prof. El Naschies result which comes to 24.28. This is a large discrepancy. I repeated the calculation again and again but I always found 24.28 and never 17.5. To make things worse Prof. El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 must be a miscalculation and said that the exact integer value must be 26. That means 17.5 must be wrong and 24.28 is only an approximation to the exact value which is 26. He said it is obvious that 26 must be correct. He directed me to his paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 35, p. 862 (2008) entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling. I am desperate to know who is right and who is wrong? This result will not affect either the career of a Nobel laureate or the career of a well established professor but it could be devastating for me. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who could help me decide who is right, Prof. Weinberg or Prof. El Naschie. Please send me your answers as quick as possible to the address below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAyman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria
Egypt
Dr. F. Tengelin was quicker than me or more brave than me. I was just thinking of saying the same thing. Let me make his statement more precise. Prof. Steve Weinberg who developed the electro weak theory and shared the Nobel prize with two others is the author of the most authoritative book on quantum field theory. In volume 3 of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields published by Cambridge University Press in 2000 he states on page 192 that the inverse super symmetric unification coupling of all fundamental gauge forces is 17.5. This value is given by his equation 28.2.19. Finding this result scared me quite a bit because I used Prof. El Naschies result which comes to 24.28. This is a large discrepancy. I repeated the calculation again and again but I always found 24.28 and never 17.5. To make things worse Prof. El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 must be a miscalculation and said that the exact integer value must be 26. That means 17.5 must be wrong and 24.28 is only an approximation to the exact value which is 26. He said it is obvious that 26 must be correct. He directed me to his paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 35, p. 862 (2008) entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling. I am desperate to know who is right and who is wrong? This result will not affect either the career of a Nobel laureate or the career of a well established professor but it could be devastating for me. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who could help me decide who is right, Prof. Weinberg or Prof. El Naschie. Please send me your answers as quick as possible to the address below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAyman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria
Egypt
Nothing wrong with super string theory if we little modify our concept. Let us think that we live in ether which is nothing but vibrating points of exotic energy so close to each other that we may think it as space with solid property to give quantum entanglement but varying in field density due to presence of matter near by . So ether near neutron star will be very high powered field strength so that light even slow its progression as gravity is very high to even cause entropy to flow at slow rate in any process like atomic clock to give us a time dilation . That is why time dilation is related to gravity. So we also can think of whirls of ether around sun to cause planets to rotate. The concept of rubber string open or close and eleven dimension is due to cartesian co- ordinate and instead we may apply spherical geometry co -ordinate and time as entropical phenomena not dimension will solve some extra dimension problem. As we know a point can vibrate spherically with many frequencies and wave length as per dispersion and its vicinity of matter vibrration ,that is why what kind of exotic energy is generated by collission of matter and anti matter at speed much higher than light speed is very difficult to visualise as we know ether is generated at the common spherical boundary of matter and outer anti matter universe on opposite entropy path. Today BOSE CONDENSATE theory is based on a statistical mistake which we can explain with ether theory. As we are taking out heat and reaching zero kelvin , we are slowly reaching a stage where entropy flow tends to zero in the condensate causing condensate local time tends to zero and the quarks in the condensate form a big string or rather an unit of blob stopped vibration but quark soup of no identity with time zero where ether plays a role of time horizon. We can develop a suitable mathematics to explain mathematically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Hallelujah !! String Theory !!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this==.
Science has always been a source of heresy.
====.
Lee Smolin wrote:
I have written this book in the hope that it will contribute
to an honest and useful discussion among experts and
lay readers alike.
/ ‘ The trouble with Physics’. Page XVIII. /
I will take Smolin’s proposition and try to explain my
amateur’s thoughts about that was called ‘String theory’.
=============.
#
Three years ago I posted an article ‘ The Special Theory
of Relativity’ I wrote:
‘ String theory acts in 11- D space.
But if we don't know what 1+1 = 2 is
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 is?
And if we don't know what 4-D negative Mincowski space
is how can we understand 11-D space ( String theory) ?’
I wrote: . . . .
‘If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every physicist who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense".
Why?
Because they have won us using the
absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza. ‘
This was a reason that I refused to read any information
about ‘String theory’.
And later on different forums I posted emails, trying
to explain, that the point is only a shadow of real particle,
that it is impossible to understand Physics and Nature
thinking of particle as a point.
I wrote: In 1915 Einstein connected Mass with Geometry.
Maybe now, in 2010, somebody will try to understand the
interaction between an elementary particle and geometry.
I wrote:
If physicists think about a particle as a " mathematical point"
the result can be only paradoxical. And I am sure if somebody
takes into consideration the geometrical form of particle
the paradoxes in Physics will disappear.
#
Travelling in Scotland, by chance, in a secondhand shop
I bought a book: ‘ The trouble with Physics’ by Lee Smolin.
This book changed my opinion about ‘String theory’.
Now I say: Hallelujah ! Hallelujah ! Why? Because
‘… particles could not be seen as points, which is how
they always been seen before. Instead, they were ‘stringlike’,
existing only in a single dimension, and could be stretched, . .
And . . . they vibrated.’ / Page 103. / ‘ . . the idea of particles
as vibrations of strings was the missing link that could work
powerfully to resolve many open problems.’ / Page 124./
It is nice. It is pleasant to read this idea.
So, the string particle is a dynamic particle. And the string can
have different geometric forms: ‘String can be both closed and
open. A closed string is a loop. An open string is a line;
it has ends’. / Page 106./ And now few physicists try to connect
forces, movement and geometry of the quantum particle together.
Hallelujah ! It is a progress. It is a step to truth.
Now I say: the truth is hidden in the ‘ String theory ’.
#
But there are many string theories. And the growing catalogue
of string theories evokes trouble. Because one theory is better
than the other one, but at the same time each new theory brings
new problems. Maybe therefore Lee Smolin wrote:
‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing.
How do we find that missing idea?’ / Page 308. /
Interesting: What was missed by ‘ the brightest and
best- educated scientists’ who worked very hard doing
many complicated calculations ?
New particle? New D ? New force? New idea?
Where did they have an error?
I will try to understand this situation.
#
If I were professor I would great super – super 55D for
explaining everything. But I am a peasant and the best way
for me is to take the simplest reference frame – the Euclidean
space ( 2D) . And maybe (who knows ?) Newton was right
saying: ‘ Truth is ever to be found in simplicity,
and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.’
Now I will put a virtual- ideal particle in this 2D.
The 2D is a thin and flat homogeneous space, so my particle
also must be thin and flat and very symmetrical.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited line- string?
No. In my opinion even this very thin and tiny line
under good microscope will be looked as a rectangle.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited loop?
No. The geometrical form of a loop is too complex,
needs supplementary forces to create it.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited circle?
Yes.
From all geometrical forms the circle is the most symmetrical.
The surface of a circle takes up the minimal area it can and
I will write it by formula: C/D= pi= 3.14. (!)
But I can put many particles there, for example,
Avogadro’s number of particles: N(a). (!)
#
What is my next step?
If I were a physicist I would say that 2D must have some
physical parameters like: volume (V), temperature (T)
and density (P). Yes, it seems the idea is right.
Then, volume (V) is zero,
temperature (T) is zero
but . . but density (P) cannot be zero if 2D is a real space
then its density can approximately be zero.
#
What can I do with these three parameters?
I have only one possibility, to write the simplest formula:
VP/T=R (Clapeyron formula !)
What is R? R is some kind of physical state of my 2D.
And if I divide the whole space R by Avogadro’s
numbers of particles then I have a formula R/ N(a) = k,
then k ( as a Boltzmann constant) is some kind of
physical state of one single virtual- ideal particle. (!)
#
But all creators of Quantum theory said that this space,
as a whole, must have some kind of background energy (E).
And its value must be enormous.
But the background mass of every Avogadro’s particles
in 2D has approximately zero mass, it is approximately
massless (M).
So, if I divide enormous energy (E) by approximately
massless (M) then the potential energy/ mass of every single
virtual- ideal particle ( according Einstein and Dirac) is
E/M=c^2 (potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 ! )
( I don’t know why physicists call E/M= c^2 ‘rest mass’
and never say potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .)
In potential state my particle doesn’t move,
so its impulse is h = 0.
#
My conclusion.
I have virtual- ideal- massless particle which has
geometrical and physical parameters:
C/D= pi= 3.14 . . . . , R/ N(a) = k, E/M=c^2, h=0.
All my virtual- ideal- massless particles are possible to call
‘ bosons’ or ‘antiparticles’ . These bosons are approximately
massless but have huge potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .
But I have no fermions, no electric charge, no tachyons,
no time, no mass, no movement at this picture.
#
Smolin wrote: ‘ – the missing element – must have been
one of the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’/page 102/
Where was ‘the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’?
In the hope to understand Smolin’s thought I will draw
historical scheme: Quantum Theory ---->
----> Thermodynamics ----> Theory of gases ----> Ideal Gas.
So, ‘the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’ was connected
with idea of an ‘Ideal Gas’. From Ideal Gas our trouble with
physics begins. I think the ‘Ideal Gas’ cannot be an abstract
hypothesis. In my opinion the ‘Ideal Gas’ must be a real model
of vacuum: T=0K .
===================..
Now, thinking logically, I must explain all the effects of
motions. And. . . and I cannot say it better than Newton:
‘For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover
the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions
and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces.’
#
How can one single virtual- ideal particle start its movement?
At first, it will be right to think about some simple kind of
movement, for example: my particle will move in straight line
along 2D surface from some point A to the point B.
What is possible to say now?
According to the Michelson-Morley experiment my particle
must move with constant speed: c=1 and its speed is independent.
Its speed doesn’t depend on any other object or subject, it means
the reason of its speed is hidden in itself, it is its inner impulse.
This impulse doesn’t come from any formulas or equations.
And when Planck introduced this inner impulse(h) to physicists,
he took it from heaven, from ceiling. Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this inner impulse (h) intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced his unit (h) phenomenologically.
At any way, having Planck’s inner impulse (unit h=1) my
particle flies with speed c=1. We call it photon now.
Photon’s movement from some point A to the point B
doesn’t change the flat and homogeneous 2D surface.
Of course, my photon must be careful, because in some local
place some sun’s gravitation can catch and change its trajectory
I hope it will be lucky to escape from the sun’s gravity love.
#
My photon can have other possibility to move. This second
possibility was discover by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck
in 1925. They said the elementary particle can rotate
around its diameter using its own angular inner impulse:
h * = h /2pi. So, when photon rotates around its diameter
it looks like a string ( open string) and this string vibrates.
My god, that is a strange technical terminology the physicists
use: ‘ vibrate, vibration’.
If I were a physicist I would say no ‘ vibrate, vibration’ but
‘ frequency’, ‘the particle rotates with high frequency’.
The frequency is a key to every particle, by frequency we know
the radiation spectrum of various kinds of waves.
Now I can say: then my photon starts to curl its rotation
goes with enormous frequency, faster than constant speed
of photon. Now its speed is c>1. We call it ‘tachyon’.
The tachyon’s spinning creates electric charge and
electrical waves and now we call it ‘electron’ or ‘fermions’.
So, in my opinion, virtual- ideal particle, photon, tachyon
and electron are only different names of one and the same
particle – quantum of light.
The frequency of every string particle can change.
( The various states of vibration . . . Page 103.)
The geometrical form of string can change.
( When they gained energy, they stretched; when they
gave up energy, they contracted - Page 103.)
Thanks to rotating movement the ‘massless’ of particles
increased and it became real observed particle.
Stop ! !!
I have missed here something important.
What have I missed?
#
( When they gained energy, they stretched; when they
gave up energy, they contracted - Page 103.)
What does it mean? What did Smolin want to say?
How can I understand this process ?
. . . . . . . . . . .
My particle is a circle. When this circle started to curl around
itself its form changed. Now it has volume and looks like a sphere.
What is the law between particle’s volume and energy?
I think: big volume – low energy, small volume – high energy.
The more speed / impulse ----> the more particle (as a volume)
compress ----> the more energy .
And when the speed decrease – - the energy decrease too –
but the volume of particle will increase.
My particle behaves like ‘a spring circle’ (!)
This spring circle can curl into small sphere which must
have volume and therefore can be describe as a
‘stringlike particle with vibrations’ only approximately .
You don’t believe me?
Well, then I ask you: before the particle started to curl
what form did it have?
#
Once more.
Quantum of light has potential energy (- E=Mc^2 ).
When it starts to curl around its diameter the potential energy
(- E=Mc^2 ) is hidden and we can observe its electronic
energy ( E=h*f).
But there is situation when this hidden potential energy goes
out and we can see its great active power ( + E=Mc^2 )
looking the destroyed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And maybe the particle’s transformation from one state into
the other was legalized as ‘ The Law of mass/energy
conservation and transformation’.
#
Different geometrical forms of string particle
( open - closed ), different frequencies of string particle are
reason of different radiation (from ultraviolet to infrared ),
are also reason of new situation in 2D.
Now the surface of my 2D in local area is changed.
On one hand it is electromagnetic field now,
on the other hand the spinning electron
changed the temperature of the surface in local area.
Now this local area has Debye temperature: Q(d)= h*f(max) / k.
Maybe in this space a grain of gravity theory is hidden.
Who knows?
==================..
My conclusion.
It is no bad idea to ask question:
what are physical parameters of your new super D?
It is possible to understand many things using 2D.
The missing ‘big idea’ in ‘String theory’ is hidden in the
simple question: ‘ What was the form of particle before
it started to curl?’
I ‘mix bosons with fermions’ (page 105) without using
many symmetries. And I have:
a) In potential state the impulse of particle is h = 0. ( boson)
b) Having Planck’s inner impulse (unit h=1) my
particle moves straight with constant speed c=1. ( photon)
c) Having Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck inner angular impulse
h * = h /2pi. the particle rotates around its diameter.
( electron/ tachyon/ fermion).
Maybe the different conditions of (h) is the key to all
other phenomena.
Maybe this process can explain ‘the dualism of particle.’
Maybe this interpretation can explain where the energy comes from.
Maybe . . . . .
Maybe it is time to end now.
I reread my article. It is not bad, not bad for amateur,
who thinks about philosophy of physics for 28 years.
Of course, my interpretation is only scheme. And if
I were a physicist I would make from this scheme a theory:
‘ Elementary particle as a spring circle’.
But as a peasant I can only hope that maybe somebody
from Smolin’s ‘few . . . most talented and accomplished
physicists’ will do it. Who knows? Why do I doubt?
Because I read Smolin’s opinion: ‘ Not that every scientist
is a seeker, most are not.’ (!) Ce la vie !
#
Now I must go to my farm, to my garden.
I want to plant some trees and flowers today.
=.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
====================.
==============================…
…
There is a string theory based system of experiments located at:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://qesdunn.pbworks.com
According to the author, string theory might be able to model functioned quantum entanglements to provide a system of extreme relativity.