There is little more demoralizing than when someone mistakenly questions your honesty, and then when you insist, they double down on the insult. Like I say, take it to my thread.
TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics
- Thread starter Kaiduorkhon
- Start date
We've already established that when someone does 'take it to your thread' you refuse to answer so there's no point in Guest doing so. All you want to do is to avoid answering Guest's comments here, in an attempt to minimise the number of threads someone says "You're wrong" or "You're a liar" in.
You made the claim in this thread. If you didn't intend to follow up any comments people make about such a claim don't make it. If you wanted to defend yourself in another thread, make the statement in another thread. Did you really think no one would query your claim? I doubt it, even you aren't that naive.
You are nowhere near the ability and knowledge level expected of people passing exams at top 10 universities. I speak from experience since I, like Guest, went to a top 10 university. The fact you're American makes your claim all the more unbelievable since the US has 5 times the population of the UK so our top 3 or 4 would be your top 15~20. You are not Ivy League material, in knowledge, intelligence or attitude. Feel free to prove us wrong by putting your physics where your mouth is but experience has shown time and again that you won't. You'll call us liars or fish bait or whatever but the simple fact remains, you can't back up your claims.
Hell, give me 1, just 1, link to a post of yours where you demonstrate working knowledge of an area of physics typically tested at undergraduate level exams. And to demonstrate that I practice what I preach, here is just such a thread for Guest and myself. Beyond undergrad level physics being talked about, with both of us demonstrating a detailed working knowledge of the subject.
You made the claim in this thread. If you didn't intend to follow up any comments people make about such a claim don't make it. If you wanted to defend yourself in another thread, make the statement in another thread. Did you really think no one would query your claim? I doubt it, even you aren't that naive.
You are nowhere near the ability and knowledge level expected of people passing exams at top 10 universities. I speak from experience since I, like Guest, went to a top 10 university. The fact you're American makes your claim all the more unbelievable since the US has 5 times the population of the UK so our top 3 or 4 would be your top 15~20. You are not Ivy League material, in knowledge, intelligence or attitude. Feel free to prove us wrong by putting your physics where your mouth is but experience has shown time and again that you won't. You'll call us liars or fish bait or whatever but the simple fact remains, you can't back up your claims.
Hell, give me 1, just 1, link to a post of yours where you demonstrate working knowledge of an area of physics typically tested at undergraduate level exams. And to demonstrate that I practice what I preach, here is just such a thread for Guest and myself. Beyond undergrad level physics being talked about, with both of us demonstrating a detailed working knowledge of the subject.
Alright, pile on here. I have no intention of proving anything or any interest in what you or guest or others who haven't yet piled on think.
Scaramouche
Registered Member
Creating new thread for this discussion.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Continued form Post #190, p. 19
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
How can an 'object' (a manifest physical space-time occupying entity) be a 'physical' manifestation, when it has only length, with no depth, and breadth, with no depth? ”
AlphaNumeric:
What does 'manifest physical space-time occupying entity' mean? Does a point occur a region of space-time? Yes. Does a line? Yes. Does a plane? Yes. Does a volume? Tes. Can objects of all those dimensionalities contribute to the dynamics of space-time curvature in relativity? Yes. Can all those objects interact within one another in quantum field theory? Yes. Can they all carry charges, momentum, energy, spin etc? Yes.
Please explain why, other than the disdain you have for non-3D objects, such facts still don't allow for non-3D things to be viable objects.
Kaiduorkhon:
The intersection of two or more one dimensional straight lines establishes a non dimensional 'point' in space. That is a geometric point, a coordinate of location, for which there is no physical qualities. This is what I understand about one and two dimensional considerations - they don't occupy real space, though, indeed, they do mark 'regions' of space. Likewise, a volume can - and does - contain real events, but does not effect what occurs within it.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Mass points', to be specific - at the center of which is a neutron, proton or photon. ”
Alphanumeric:
No, points. As in no extension in any direction. No length, breath or depth. No size at all. All fundamental objects in quantum field theory are points. Neutrons, protons etc are not fundamental and their size is in some way measured by the seperation of the quarks which form them. The quarks are points.
Kaiduorkhon:
"All fundamental objects in quantum field theory are points." ('no extension in any direction'.) - AlphaNumeric. I do not see how such a qualification is applicable to anything but a mathematical context, having no counterpart in space-time.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Space-time is at least 6-Dimensional, it manifests as 'solid' matter in 4 dimensions, which invariably generate the 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism. A 3-Dimensional entity is not undergoing accelerating expansion and consequently may be a black hole - an entity that becomes as physically small and dense as the 4-D universe becomes large and tenouous around it. ”
AlphaNumeric:
You mention people who don't like string theory because of extra dimensions but you ignore the fact their criticism would apply to your work too. You have no evidence of extra dimensions.
Kaiduorkhon:
Einstein proved that there is an 'extra dimension' (4-D space-time), in what is recognizied as only 3 dimensions. Electricity moves perpendicularly out of 4-D matter, identifying itself as the 5th dimension. Magnetism moves at right angles to electricity, identifying itself as the 6th dimension.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
As previously qualified, it is not clear to me how - in many cases - mathematics transcends the realm of physical measureability; particularly in the case of string 'theory', which, as I have said before, utilizes one dimensional considerations as palpable instruments of real space-time. ”
AlphaNumeric:
My point is that being highly mathematical in education or detail does not preclude the possibility of viable physics. The entity of quantum mechanics follows from Dirac realising that the classical mathematical object of a Poisson bracket could be generalised and applied to quantum mechanics. If you know how to do calculus doing Poisson brackets much of quantum theory is familiar ground. It was only because Dirac remembered an old mathematics lecture he'd once been in that he made the connection.
Kaiduorkhon:
"...does not preclude the possibility of viable physics." - AlphaNumeric
Is this not a very cautious way of possibly introducing a 'highly mathematical education of detail'? I do not question what you are saying, I - at times -question the application of higher mathematics to conditional reality.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Kaiduorkhon:
'M theory' is a more recent way of alluding to string 'theory'. Is it not? ”
AlphaNumeric:
No. When you construct a quantised string theory which includes both fermions and bosons you find you can do it in a number of ways which lead to a consistent theory. 5 ways infact. This wasn't very good if 'string theory' is supposed to be a unique theory but then Witten realised if you viewed the string as a wrapped up membrane then the 5 ways were just different low energy theories of the same underlying membrane theory, M theory. Its like electric and magnetic fields. You can tell there's something relating them and they are both consistent but they only rreally make sense when you realise they are one and the same, the electromagnetic field.
(Actually, I've just realised that's a poor example as you gon't get electromagnetism either....)
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
M 'theory' is just as mysterious to me as is string 'theory'. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Emphasis mine....
I can tell you more about M theory than I can about semiconductor technology, fluid mechanics or British politics (I'm British).
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Kaiduorkhon:
The longevity of a given proposition may or not have bearing on its tenability. ”
AlphaNumeric:
No, but generally if its been out in the public domain for a long time and no one has taken any interest its likely they aren't going to.
Kaiduorkhon
When the spelling and prounciation of a world like 'nuclear', is transfromed to be spelled and pronounce 'nucular', don't we have an example of a mistake being carried out to (philologically) include itself in the 'accepted' vocabulary? The same process is applicable to the month of 'February', being transformed into the month of 'Feburary'. These examples are to summarise that an hypothesis is no more a theory, just because 'a rose is a rose by any other name'. Calling a daisy a rose doesn't make it a rose. Besides the correction of string 'theory' to string 'hypothesis', I don't know of any corrections being made, but, submit that it is there to be made, regardless of how long it goes on uncorrected.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Of course I don't follow that - it's mathematical, innercircle shop-talk among string 'theorists'. ”
AlphaNumeric:
It's technical talk. Doesn't make it wrong or nonsense. Doctors talk technical stuff all the time but I'm damn glad they do. I'd prefer a doctor who knows all the technical work with regards to an illness I might have compared to one who says "What the hell is one of those!". Wouldn't you?
Kaiduorkhon:
I agree.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your subjection of string 'theory' is a transposition of contexts, as it responds to my statement - 'gravitational waves are the expanding charges of matter'. That is, string 'theory' embraces a mathematical world of unmanifest 'space-times'. ”
AlphaNumeric:
GW are not expanding charges of matter. Electromagnetic waves are not expanding charges, they are caused by accelerating charges, just as GW are caused by accelerating masses.
Kaiduorkhon:
In my contextual usages of the word 'expanding', I intend accelerating expansion. I did not specify that in this case, so your point is well taken.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
How can an 'object' (a manifest physical space-time occupying entity) be a 'physical' manifestation, when it has only length, with no depth, and breadth, with no depth? ”
AlphaNumeric:
What does 'manifest physical space-time occupying entity' mean? Does a point occur a region of space-time? Yes. Does a line? Yes. Does a plane? Yes. Does a volume? Tes. Can objects of all those dimensionalities contribute to the dynamics of space-time curvature in relativity? Yes. Can all those objects interact within one another in quantum field theory? Yes. Can they all carry charges, momentum, energy, spin etc? Yes.
Please explain why, other than the disdain you have for non-3D objects, such facts still don't allow for non-3D things to be viable objects.
Kaiduorkhon:
The intersection of two or more one dimensional straight lines establishes a non dimensional 'point' in space. That is a geometric point, a coordinate of location, for which there is no physical qualities. This is what I understand about one and two dimensional considerations - they don't occupy real space, though, indeed, they do mark 'regions' of space. Likewise, a volume can - and does - contain real events, but does not effect what occurs within it.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Mass points', to be specific - at the center of which is a neutron, proton or photon. ”
Alphanumeric:
No, points. As in no extension in any direction. No length, breath or depth. No size at all. All fundamental objects in quantum field theory are points. Neutrons, protons etc are not fundamental and their size is in some way measured by the seperation of the quarks which form them. The quarks are points.
Kaiduorkhon:
"All fundamental objects in quantum field theory are points." ('no extension in any direction'.) - AlphaNumeric. I do not see how such a qualification is applicable to anything but a mathematical context, having no counterpart in space-time.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Space-time is at least 6-Dimensional, it manifests as 'solid' matter in 4 dimensions, which invariably generate the 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism. A 3-Dimensional entity is not undergoing accelerating expansion and consequently may be a black hole - an entity that becomes as physically small and dense as the 4-D universe becomes large and tenouous around it. ”
AlphaNumeric:
You mention people who don't like string theory because of extra dimensions but you ignore the fact their criticism would apply to your work too. You have no evidence of extra dimensions.
Kaiduorkhon:
Einstein proved that there is an 'extra dimension' (4-D space-time), in what is recognizied as only 3 dimensions. Electricity moves perpendicularly out of 4-D matter, identifying itself as the 5th dimension. Magnetism moves at right angles to electricity, identifying itself as the 6th dimension.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
As previously qualified, it is not clear to me how - in many cases - mathematics transcends the realm of physical measureability; particularly in the case of string 'theory', which, as I have said before, utilizes one dimensional considerations as palpable instruments of real space-time. ”
AlphaNumeric:
My point is that being highly mathematical in education or detail does not preclude the possibility of viable physics. The entity of quantum mechanics follows from Dirac realising that the classical mathematical object of a Poisson bracket could be generalised and applied to quantum mechanics. If you know how to do calculus doing Poisson brackets much of quantum theory is familiar ground. It was only because Dirac remembered an old mathematics lecture he'd once been in that he made the connection.
Kaiduorkhon:
"...does not preclude the possibility of viable physics." - AlphaNumeric
Is this not a very cautious way of possibly introducing a 'highly mathematical education of detail'? I do not question what you are saying, I - at times -question the application of higher mathematics to conditional reality.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Kaiduorkhon:
'M theory' is a more recent way of alluding to string 'theory'. Is it not? ”
AlphaNumeric:
No. When you construct a quantised string theory which includes both fermions and bosons you find you can do it in a number of ways which lead to a consistent theory. 5 ways infact. This wasn't very good if 'string theory' is supposed to be a unique theory but then Witten realised if you viewed the string as a wrapped up membrane then the 5 ways were just different low energy theories of the same underlying membrane theory, M theory. Its like electric and magnetic fields. You can tell there's something relating them and they are both consistent but they only rreally make sense when you realise they are one and the same, the electromagnetic field.
(Actually, I've just realised that's a poor example as you gon't get electromagnetism either....)
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
M 'theory' is just as mysterious to me as is string 'theory'. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Emphasis mine....
I can tell you more about M theory than I can about semiconductor technology, fluid mechanics or British politics (I'm British).
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Kaiduorkhon:
The longevity of a given proposition may or not have bearing on its tenability. ”
AlphaNumeric:
No, but generally if its been out in the public domain for a long time and no one has taken any interest its likely they aren't going to.
Kaiduorkhon
When the spelling and prounciation of a world like 'nuclear', is transfromed to be spelled and pronounce 'nucular', don't we have an example of a mistake being carried out to (philologically) include itself in the 'accepted' vocabulary? The same process is applicable to the month of 'February', being transformed into the month of 'Feburary'. These examples are to summarise that an hypothesis is no more a theory, just because 'a rose is a rose by any other name'. Calling a daisy a rose doesn't make it a rose. Besides the correction of string 'theory' to string 'hypothesis', I don't know of any corrections being made, but, submit that it is there to be made, regardless of how long it goes on uncorrected.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Of course I don't follow that - it's mathematical, innercircle shop-talk among string 'theorists'. ”
AlphaNumeric:
It's technical talk. Doesn't make it wrong or nonsense. Doctors talk technical stuff all the time but I'm damn glad they do. I'd prefer a doctor who knows all the technical work with regards to an illness I might have compared to one who says "What the hell is one of those!". Wouldn't you?
Kaiduorkhon:
I agree.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your subjection of string 'theory' is a transposition of contexts, as it responds to my statement - 'gravitational waves are the expanding charges of matter'. That is, string 'theory' embraces a mathematical world of unmanifest 'space-times'. ”
AlphaNumeric:
GW are not expanding charges of matter. Electromagnetic waves are not expanding charges, they are caused by accelerating charges, just as GW are caused by accelerating masses.
Kaiduorkhon:
In my contextual usages of the word 'expanding', I intend accelerating expansion. I did not specify that in this case, so your point is well taken.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Dear AlphaNumeric:
This post was placed in a different forum, regarding my work. The author of the statement disappeared from everyone's radar 18 months ago and all we know is that he's from Canada, and wish him the best.
Please say what you think of his proposal...
""Is it possible that gravity is (always) a repelling force - re: Huygens - and we can get rid of SR and QM altogether? If what I propose is true about light and what you propose is true about gravity, we can extend the "point particle" omnidirectionally by merging the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions as a 3-d composite wave system. I would like to nail this thing in the form of a single omni-(dimensional) force based solely on time. I notice you also cite Newton's action/reaction, and if mass is the equivalent of motion, we can submit that the action (energy) and reaction (mass) are equivalent. This would unify the models because even in particulate theories the graviton is thought to be a spin-2 boson while the photon is a spin-1 boson. If there is no such force as an impelling force, as a first step both can be rendered spin-1 and eventually spin-0; the transitional time for the jumps are then zero because each system is set at 0 Hz. At that point we can then realize the particulate theories and wave theories completely merge, and we can end the war."
- Nobody, Aka, Raven Knight, shoutbox, 2/28/08
This post was placed in a different forum, regarding my work. The author of the statement disappeared from everyone's radar 18 months ago and all we know is that he's from Canada, and wish him the best.
Please say what you think of his proposal...
""Is it possible that gravity is (always) a repelling force - re: Huygens - and we can get rid of SR and QM altogether? If what I propose is true about light and what you propose is true about gravity, we can extend the "point particle" omnidirectionally by merging the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions as a 3-d composite wave system. I would like to nail this thing in the form of a single omni-(dimensional) force based solely on time. I notice you also cite Newton's action/reaction, and if mass is the equivalent of motion, we can submit that the action (energy) and reaction (mass) are equivalent. This would unify the models because even in particulate theories the graviton is thought to be a spin-2 boson while the photon is a spin-1 boson. If there is no such force as an impelling force, as a first step both can be rendered spin-1 and eventually spin-0; the transitional time for the jumps are then zero because each system is set at 0 Hz. At that point we can then realize the particulate theories and wave theories completely merge, and we can end the war."
- Nobody, Aka, Raven Knight, shoutbox, 2/28/08
QuantumWave:
Matter is a disturbed patch of 3-D space. The disturbance in 3 dimensions is an electromagnetic disturbance, i.e. a standing wave, but in 4-D matter is continuously expanding.
Kai:
When matter is 3-D, it may or not be a black hole, but it doesn't manifest in the measureable universe as we know it. Anything 3-D (and relatively static) is becoming as small and dense as the 4-D (relatively expanding) universe is becoming large and tenuous around it; hence my speculation that a black hole 'singularity' is a 3-D entity.
QW: Oh yes, I’ve got you on that. When I made reference to matter I was trying to acknowledge the initial premise that matter is expanding in 4-D, and that to us oblivious to that expansion, matter appears as electromagnet disturbed patches of space.
I do see how you are characterizing any matter that might exist in only three dimensions if there is any at all. The expansion of the 4-D universe would leave anything that is 3-D behind and appearing to be getting smaller and denser. If black holes exist from you stand point, they would fall in that category.
QuantumWave:
The 4-D expanding wave is matter (mass) which generates repelling gravity at or near the surface of mass. The gravity or 4th dimension is equivalent to the expansion of the mass. Is that the same as saying that mass and gravity are equal?
Kai:
I think the answer to this (above) question is contained in your next question, with my response. I think you are referring to the interpretation of mass value as governing gravitational potential, as in the Newtonian sense, which, as far as I can tell, you're right about (if I understand your question correctly, about what constitutes 'mass' - could you be more specific about what you mean as being 'mass'?)
QW: I will say that mass is matter in a gravitational field and the field gives matter its relative weight based on its mass, so as I equate that to TFT, anything that generates the repelling force of 4-D expansion has mass.
QuantumWave:
The law is that regardless of the mass of an object, it expands at the same rate. So an apple falling to the Earth falls at the same rate as an anvil in our apparent 3-D world. The anvil is heavier because it has more mass, but all mass has the same response to the 4th dimensional gravitational field because all matter expands at the same rate.
Kai:
Please keep in mind that a given electron expands outward from its center at a given rate of speed. Whereas, a collective system of electrons expand through more area in a given unit of time, than does a singular electron expand in the same interval of time. The earth is about 25,000 miles in circumference, it expands at 32 feet per second, per second. An apple or an anvil do not move through anywhere near that amount of space in given units of time, although both the earth and the apple/anvil are constituted of electrons, all of which are individually expanding at the same rate of speed. The difference in gravitational potential of the apple and anvil are relatively negligible, compared to the acceleration of the earth, rising upward to meet each and both of them in free fall. Once the earth has overtaken the apple and the anvil, the anvil - having more (inertial) mass value - opposes correspondingly more resistance to the ongoing acceleration; that is, the anvil 'weighs' more - it's 'gravitational (as well as inertial) mass' is greater.
QW: OK, I understand that the Earth expands to meet the apple and the anvil by covering a greater volume or amount of space during equal expansion periods. And I understand that the relative weight difference between the apple and the anvil, though they both exhibit the same or very similar rates of expansion, the anvil weighs more. The weight of an object in TFT is the same as Newtonian and has to do with the energy density, i.e. the anvil has more electrons and for that matter more protons and neutrons per volume than the apple and thus it has more inertia.
Kai:
Please review this alternative perspective:
The false enigma is resolved in the recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - ever enlarging, pinning the fans to their bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accommodating the ball park and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory, which is actually a moving in a straight line ('geodesic'), appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not 'slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object.
QW: I love it when you talk like that. No, seriously that is the perspective of TFT and the crux your book, objects expand four dimensionally. When you put your mind to it and visualize 4-D expansion, the images of fans being pinned to their seats and the cars to the road are examples of the elevator analogy that you carefully convey explaining expansion as the rope pulling the elevator that we and everything around us is on.
QuantumWave:
Expanding 4-D mass emits or generates energy in the form of an electrical field at 90 degree angles to the expanding 4-D mass. The electrical field expands out of the mass along with a magnetic field. The magnetic field expands out of mass at 90 degree angles to the electrical field. They expand out of mass at the speed of light, so while matter is expanding in 4 dimensions, electromagnetic energy is being radiated incrementally to the rate of expansion. The electrical field is the 5th dimension and the magnetic field is the 6th dimension (the 5th and 6th dimensions are separate but perpendicular). But to those of us oblivious to the 4-D expansion of mass, the EM appears to travel at the constant speed of light.
Kai:
Even when the 4-D quality of Matter is not accounted for, the EM appears to travel at the constant speed of light.
QW: Yes. I was using the phrase, “But to those of us oblivious to the 4-D expansion of mass” in the same way as when you say, “Even when the 4-D quality of Matter is not accounted for”. Maybe there is a short phrase that I can use to convey the idea; something like … “Unapparent expansion” or maybe “the 3-D illusion”, or what?
QuantumWave:
The generation of the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions is continuous, not quantized (not emitted in discontinuous packets), but in continuously generated smoothly expanding fields.
Kai:
The 5th dimensions of electricity and magnetism (respectively) are quantized. Please refer to pages 203 - 209 (and chapters 11 - 13), and consider the 'translatory moment', as described in the text. 4-D matter (not 5 & 6 D electromagnetism) is generated in a smoothly expanding (accelerating) field. 3-D matter, I repeat, is not 4-Dimensonally expanding, and, becomes as small and dense as the expanding 4-D universe becomes large an tenuous around it.
QW: My mistake and misunderstanding. You clearly refer to the 5th and 6th dimensions as quantum. My mistake was in interpreting that as “apparently quantum” from the perspective of the “3-D illusion”. I went off trying to visualize how the perpendicular fields of the 5th and 6th dimensions could be continuous and yet when viewed by our eyes and processed by our brain they intersect to appear to our intelligence in “h” increments. It is much easier if, as you say, we are just observing the quantum nature of EM.
QuantumWave:
Gravity, the 4th dimension is generated at 90 degrees to the three Euclidean dimensions and so gravity, the 4th dimension is a continuously generated expanding wave (can it be referred to as a spherically expanding wave? Or is it omnidirectional since a sphere is three dimensional?).
Kai:
In my intention, a 'spherically expanding wave' and an 'omnidirectionally expanding wave', are synonymous. The Buckminster Fuller qualification applies to this consideration, i.e., no matter what the shape of something, when it's four dimensional, it's moving at right angles from its 3 recognized dimensions, omnidirectionally (and doesn't confine itself to the traditionally practiced example of a cube or rectangle). One of 'Bucky's' points here is that 'points' in one dimension don't exist, but are nonetheless (geometrically) 'round', and not 'cubicle' - the expansion concept proceeds from spherically shaped electrons and other charges of electricity constituting the sub atomic realm.
QW: OK good, but I’ll still have to get “omnidirectionally” to be accepted by my spell checker
. (Which I just did)
QuantumWave:
The 5th and 6th dimensions, electrical and magnetic waves are continuously generated fields at 90 degree angles from the 4-dimensionally expanding mass. But again to those of us oblivious to the 4-D expansion of mass, the electromagnetic waves appear to be packets of energy, Planck’s “h”, the photon in TFT.
Kai:
The 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism are discontinuously emitted at 90 degree angles from 4-dimensionally expanding mass. (Refer, the 'translatory moment') - this is why Planck's quantum 'h' is always the same value.
QW: OK, then they are discontinuously emitted at 90 degree angles from the 4-dimensionally expanding masses. The “translator moment” explains the quantum leap. But it seems to me that the translator moment makes for a continuous flow of energy that appears to be quantum. I’ll think about that some more.
QW: Posted earlier. Kia, yesterday I reread chapter thirteen to get a better grasp on the 'translatory moment'. I see how your reference to it applies to my "testing understanding" posts and your replies. Maybe there is a little Tao or Yin Yang in it, but which is better, Yin Yang or quantum leap? At that level of order (or disorder) there is no perfect accounting for energy in other theories. The "@" makes good sense and ties together TFT at the quantum level IMHO. The straight line doesn't close on itself in space, but it closes on itself in time. Thanks.
Happy New Year.
Matter is a disturbed patch of 3-D space. The disturbance in 3 dimensions is an electromagnetic disturbance, i.e. a standing wave, but in 4-D matter is continuously expanding.
Kai:
When matter is 3-D, it may or not be a black hole, but it doesn't manifest in the measureable universe as we know it. Anything 3-D (and relatively static) is becoming as small and dense as the 4-D (relatively expanding) universe is becoming large and tenuous around it; hence my speculation that a black hole 'singularity' is a 3-D entity.
QW: Oh yes, I’ve got you on that. When I made reference to matter I was trying to acknowledge the initial premise that matter is expanding in 4-D, and that to us oblivious to that expansion, matter appears as electromagnet disturbed patches of space.
I do see how you are characterizing any matter that might exist in only three dimensions if there is any at all. The expansion of the 4-D universe would leave anything that is 3-D behind and appearing to be getting smaller and denser. If black holes exist from you stand point, they would fall in that category.
QuantumWave:
The 4-D expanding wave is matter (mass) which generates repelling gravity at or near the surface of mass. The gravity or 4th dimension is equivalent to the expansion of the mass. Is that the same as saying that mass and gravity are equal?
Kai:
I think the answer to this (above) question is contained in your next question, with my response. I think you are referring to the interpretation of mass value as governing gravitational potential, as in the Newtonian sense, which, as far as I can tell, you're right about (if I understand your question correctly, about what constitutes 'mass' - could you be more specific about what you mean as being 'mass'?)
QW: I will say that mass is matter in a gravitational field and the field gives matter its relative weight based on its mass, so as I equate that to TFT, anything that generates the repelling force of 4-D expansion has mass.
QuantumWave:
The law is that regardless of the mass of an object, it expands at the same rate. So an apple falling to the Earth falls at the same rate as an anvil in our apparent 3-D world. The anvil is heavier because it has more mass, but all mass has the same response to the 4th dimensional gravitational field because all matter expands at the same rate.
Kai:
Please keep in mind that a given electron expands outward from its center at a given rate of speed. Whereas, a collective system of electrons expand through more area in a given unit of time, than does a singular electron expand in the same interval of time. The earth is about 25,000 miles in circumference, it expands at 32 feet per second, per second. An apple or an anvil do not move through anywhere near that amount of space in given units of time, although both the earth and the apple/anvil are constituted of electrons, all of which are individually expanding at the same rate of speed. The difference in gravitational potential of the apple and anvil are relatively negligible, compared to the acceleration of the earth, rising upward to meet each and both of them in free fall. Once the earth has overtaken the apple and the anvil, the anvil - having more (inertial) mass value - opposes correspondingly more resistance to the ongoing acceleration; that is, the anvil 'weighs' more - it's 'gravitational (as well as inertial) mass' is greater.
QW: OK, I understand that the Earth expands to meet the apple and the anvil by covering a greater volume or amount of space during equal expansion periods. And I understand that the relative weight difference between the apple and the anvil, though they both exhibit the same or very similar rates of expansion, the anvil weighs more. The weight of an object in TFT is the same as Newtonian and has to do with the energy density, i.e. the anvil has more electrons and for that matter more protons and neutrons per volume than the apple and thus it has more inertia.
Kai:
Please review this alternative perspective:
The false enigma is resolved in the recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - ever enlarging, pinning the fans to their bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accommodating the ball park and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory, which is actually a moving in a straight line ('geodesic'), appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not 'slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object.
QW: I love it when you talk like that. No, seriously that is the perspective of TFT and the crux your book, objects expand four dimensionally. When you put your mind to it and visualize 4-D expansion, the images of fans being pinned to their seats and the cars to the road are examples of the elevator analogy that you carefully convey explaining expansion as the rope pulling the elevator that we and everything around us is on.
QuantumWave:
Expanding 4-D mass emits or generates energy in the form of an electrical field at 90 degree angles to the expanding 4-D mass. The electrical field expands out of the mass along with a magnetic field. The magnetic field expands out of mass at 90 degree angles to the electrical field. They expand out of mass at the speed of light, so while matter is expanding in 4 dimensions, electromagnetic energy is being radiated incrementally to the rate of expansion. The electrical field is the 5th dimension and the magnetic field is the 6th dimension (the 5th and 6th dimensions are separate but perpendicular). But to those of us oblivious to the 4-D expansion of mass, the EM appears to travel at the constant speed of light.
Kai:
Even when the 4-D quality of Matter is not accounted for, the EM appears to travel at the constant speed of light.
QW: Yes. I was using the phrase, “But to those of us oblivious to the 4-D expansion of mass” in the same way as when you say, “Even when the 4-D quality of Matter is not accounted for”. Maybe there is a short phrase that I can use to convey the idea; something like … “Unapparent expansion” or maybe “the 3-D illusion”, or what?
QuantumWave:
The generation of the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions is continuous, not quantized (not emitted in discontinuous packets), but in continuously generated smoothly expanding fields.
Kai:
The 5th dimensions of electricity and magnetism (respectively) are quantized. Please refer to pages 203 - 209 (and chapters 11 - 13), and consider the 'translatory moment', as described in the text. 4-D matter (not 5 & 6 D electromagnetism) is generated in a smoothly expanding (accelerating) field. 3-D matter, I repeat, is not 4-Dimensonally expanding, and, becomes as small and dense as the expanding 4-D universe becomes large an tenuous around it.
QW: My mistake and misunderstanding. You clearly refer to the 5th and 6th dimensions as quantum. My mistake was in interpreting that as “apparently quantum” from the perspective of the “3-D illusion”. I went off trying to visualize how the perpendicular fields of the 5th and 6th dimensions could be continuous and yet when viewed by our eyes and processed by our brain they intersect to appear to our intelligence in “h” increments. It is much easier if, as you say, we are just observing the quantum nature of EM.
QuantumWave:
Gravity, the 4th dimension is generated at 90 degrees to the three Euclidean dimensions and so gravity, the 4th dimension is a continuously generated expanding wave (can it be referred to as a spherically expanding wave? Or is it omnidirectional since a sphere is three dimensional?).
Kai:
In my intention, a 'spherically expanding wave' and an 'omnidirectionally expanding wave', are synonymous. The Buckminster Fuller qualification applies to this consideration, i.e., no matter what the shape of something, when it's four dimensional, it's moving at right angles from its 3 recognized dimensions, omnidirectionally (and doesn't confine itself to the traditionally practiced example of a cube or rectangle). One of 'Bucky's' points here is that 'points' in one dimension don't exist, but are nonetheless (geometrically) 'round', and not 'cubicle' - the expansion concept proceeds from spherically shaped electrons and other charges of electricity constituting the sub atomic realm.
QW: OK good, but I’ll still have to get “omnidirectionally” to be accepted by my spell checker
. (Which I just did)QuantumWave:
The 5th and 6th dimensions, electrical and magnetic waves are continuously generated fields at 90 degree angles from the 4-dimensionally expanding mass. But again to those of us oblivious to the 4-D expansion of mass, the electromagnetic waves appear to be packets of energy, Planck’s “h”, the photon in TFT.
Kai:
The 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism are discontinuously emitted at 90 degree angles from 4-dimensionally expanding mass. (Refer, the 'translatory moment') - this is why Planck's quantum 'h' is always the same value.
QW: OK, then they are discontinuously emitted at 90 degree angles from the 4-dimensionally expanding masses. The “translator moment” explains the quantum leap. But it seems to me that the translator moment makes for a continuous flow of energy that appears to be quantum. I’ll think about that some more.
QW: Posted earlier. Kia, yesterday I reread chapter thirteen to get a better grasp on the 'translatory moment'. I see how your reference to it applies to my "testing understanding" posts and your replies. Maybe there is a little Tao or Yin Yang in it, but which is better, Yin Yang or quantum leap? At that level of order (or disorder) there is no perfect accounting for energy in other theories. The "@" makes good sense and ties together TFT at the quantum level IMHO. The straight line doesn't close on itself in space, but it closes on itself in time. Thanks.
Happy New Year.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Double entry
Last edited:
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Brian Greene is a Keen Flying Machine
Spellbound, I will forever be under the baton of Nova's PBS broadcast Elegant Universe. Physicist Brian Greene is a Supreme and Empirical example of what it takes to become an American Idol. Anyone who can begin his fiat in real space-time with a one dimensional loop has my goat, I mean vote. There's no business like show business - like no business I know. The toughest business in the world. No I haven't stood in line to see the movie yet but I've read portions of the introduction to his book and all I can say is I've lost my ability to punctuate and misplaced any semblance of scientific inclination in the potent shadow of such a conspicuously talented and charming master of ceremonies.
In lieu of his Nobel Prize, room must be made for him in the house of Pulitzer, with Golden Globes suspended from the ceiling directly above the staging for the Academy Awards Oscar. Lord of the Strings, Brian Greene is as every bit as elegant unto science & mathematics as Mike Tyson is unto pugilism in the international championship arena. The author is a model of what it takes to make it in the challenging world of political and social vertical ascension today. If Brian Greene and his 11 to 26 oscillating and undulating regular and Super Strings don't vibrate all the way to the top of where it's at and stay there for another millennium, displacing even the mighty big bang and black hole sensations, there is no Rex Reed or god particle... Meanwhile, the unhorsed, pagan history of physics is kaput. My socks roll up and down in contemplation of the unfathomable depths that Lewis Carroll forsook, in his mathematical expeditions to and from Alice's Wonderland.
The destiny of science and humanity lies in the architectural ambition of designing multi-dimensionally articulating god particles constituting a Castle in the Sky, where all that is needed is more bricks, mortar, universal joints, wiring and an occasional - mathematically manifest - Sky Hook formula: when occasion behooves it. The Sky Hook's irreproachable mathematics rest on the backs of winged turtles. Forego talk of gravity. Any and all comprehensive understanding yields to highly classified. esoteric equations and formulae and elite societies of authorities ensconced in inscrutable coordinates.
Bewildered and beguiled public interrogatives may placate themselves with knowing with absolute certainty that the apparent complexities of reality are reducible to something that explains it with a burst of blinding lights that incapacitate all but the most refined, vitally youthful, specially educated and talented observers. A stronger, faster, more sentient class of scholars than there were before.
The Past, Present and Future is an anachronism.
As for me, I'm investing in #2 pencils and a tin cup. My goodness gracious in these editorial waves of future shock, what Joy of Cooking books will be Magically, Mystically & Mathematically Microwaved by String Theory's 'Mother', next? When Mother needs another string dimension, she summons Father to rustle some up. Hence 10 dimensions beget 11, and if need be, 11 beget 26, and more superstring symmetries if you have need for them. Creating a begotten bustle of iconoclastically inbred bastards to rival - if not sink - Noah's Ark.
The Ministry of Plenty has merged with a Star Trek inspired Hollywood Guild, founded in the Top Guns of Geneva & Stockholm, where the answers proliferate in the parameters of a jungle of particular particles inventoried in collisions of ponderous protons. The reinstallment of Einstein's 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant - Lambda /\ - is a public secret wrapped in dark energy and quintessence, while it is forgotten that Einstein (Who?) was returned to working on what he had earlier called the 'biggest blunder' of his life, before he perished at Princeton in '55.
Without a quantitative prediction in over 30 years the New Age string 'theory' advocates are push-pinned to the academic bulletin board, with the young school following the Ministry of Justice, the mathematicians following the funds and the physicists following the grants.
The Lost Platoon's objective is to bag a metaphorical lion Einstein spoke of in a parable - of a Unified Field that would unite electromagnetism, gravity and/or quantum theory - and, according to the latest reports from the inscrutable inner circle, quite possibly eliminate any need for gravity altogether.
Pretenders may fall with confidence upon the old saw of talking about something that they understand no one comprehends in the first place. Only string 'theorists'. ouija board masters, and certified table levitators will penetrate the mathematical entanglements, equations and collapsations of the triple canopy wet woodlands and thick snarling masses of tropical vegetation where Einstein's (!) fabled, Mighty King of the Jungle Makes and Maintains his Mystical Magic.
The lion is too large to be seen in the thick foliage and wilderness right now but the leading scatologists are reporting that soon rare paw prints will be located and the equation and formula slingers will be in gifted sight of the Jungle King's legendary one half inch of tail and then his mighty, hirsute caboose is predicted to emit a roar that may disable all sensory-wave & field equipment from any further detection of him. The universe (one verse) has been modified by the New Age World Order to mean as many and more universal point dimensions than there are grains of sand on all the beaches in all the world. The sparkling possibilities are as endless as the New Age revised, revolutionary new approach to the 21st century TOE. The *Ministry of Truth has erstwhile cleared the path for the industriously unstoppable safari - by way of dismissing reality, for lack of evidence.
(*Co-authored "Battered & Bullied Women Make Better Pancakes & Burgers")
Spellbound, I will forever be under the baton of Nova's PBS broadcast Elegant Universe. Physicist Brian Greene is a Supreme and Empirical example of what it takes to become an American Idol. Anyone who can begin his fiat in real space-time with a one dimensional loop has my goat, I mean vote. There's no business like show business - like no business I know. The toughest business in the world. No I haven't stood in line to see the movie yet but I've read portions of the introduction to his book and all I can say is I've lost my ability to punctuate and misplaced any semblance of scientific inclination in the potent shadow of such a conspicuously talented and charming master of ceremonies.
In lieu of his Nobel Prize, room must be made for him in the house of Pulitzer, with Golden Globes suspended from the ceiling directly above the staging for the Academy Awards Oscar. Lord of the Strings, Brian Greene is as every bit as elegant unto science & mathematics as Mike Tyson is unto pugilism in the international championship arena. The author is a model of what it takes to make it in the challenging world of political and social vertical ascension today. If Brian Greene and his 11 to 26 oscillating and undulating regular and Super Strings don't vibrate all the way to the top of where it's at and stay there for another millennium, displacing even the mighty big bang and black hole sensations, there is no Rex Reed or god particle... Meanwhile, the unhorsed, pagan history of physics is kaput. My socks roll up and down in contemplation of the unfathomable depths that Lewis Carroll forsook, in his mathematical expeditions to and from Alice's Wonderland.
The destiny of science and humanity lies in the architectural ambition of designing multi-dimensionally articulating god particles constituting a Castle in the Sky, where all that is needed is more bricks, mortar, universal joints, wiring and an occasional - mathematically manifest - Sky Hook formula: when occasion behooves it. The Sky Hook's irreproachable mathematics rest on the backs of winged turtles. Forego talk of gravity. Any and all comprehensive understanding yields to highly classified. esoteric equations and formulae and elite societies of authorities ensconced in inscrutable coordinates.
Bewildered and beguiled public interrogatives may placate themselves with knowing with absolute certainty that the apparent complexities of reality are reducible to something that explains it with a burst of blinding lights that incapacitate all but the most refined, vitally youthful, specially educated and talented observers. A stronger, faster, more sentient class of scholars than there were before.
The Past, Present and Future is an anachronism.
As for me, I'm investing in #2 pencils and a tin cup. My goodness gracious in these editorial waves of future shock, what Joy of Cooking books will be Magically, Mystically & Mathematically Microwaved by String Theory's 'Mother', next? When Mother needs another string dimension, she summons Father to rustle some up. Hence 10 dimensions beget 11, and if need be, 11 beget 26, and more superstring symmetries if you have need for them. Creating a begotten bustle of iconoclastically inbred bastards to rival - if not sink - Noah's Ark.
The Ministry of Plenty has merged with a Star Trek inspired Hollywood Guild, founded in the Top Guns of Geneva & Stockholm, where the answers proliferate in the parameters of a jungle of particular particles inventoried in collisions of ponderous protons. The reinstallment of Einstein's 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant - Lambda /\ - is a public secret wrapped in dark energy and quintessence, while it is forgotten that Einstein (Who?) was returned to working on what he had earlier called the 'biggest blunder' of his life, before he perished at Princeton in '55.
Without a quantitative prediction in over 30 years the New Age string 'theory' advocates are push-pinned to the academic bulletin board, with the young school following the Ministry of Justice, the mathematicians following the funds and the physicists following the grants.
The Lost Platoon's objective is to bag a metaphorical lion Einstein spoke of in a parable - of a Unified Field that would unite electromagnetism, gravity and/or quantum theory - and, according to the latest reports from the inscrutable inner circle, quite possibly eliminate any need for gravity altogether.
Pretenders may fall with confidence upon the old saw of talking about something that they understand no one comprehends in the first place. Only string 'theorists'. ouija board masters, and certified table levitators will penetrate the mathematical entanglements, equations and collapsations of the triple canopy wet woodlands and thick snarling masses of tropical vegetation where Einstein's (!) fabled, Mighty King of the Jungle Makes and Maintains his Mystical Magic.
The lion is too large to be seen in the thick foliage and wilderness right now but the leading scatologists are reporting that soon rare paw prints will be located and the equation and formula slingers will be in gifted sight of the Jungle King's legendary one half inch of tail and then his mighty, hirsute caboose is predicted to emit a roar that may disable all sensory-wave & field equipment from any further detection of him. The universe (one verse) has been modified by the New Age World Order to mean as many and more universal point dimensions than there are grains of sand on all the beaches in all the world. The sparkling possibilities are as endless as the New Age revised, revolutionary new approach to the 21st century TOE. The *Ministry of Truth has erstwhile cleared the path for the industriously unstoppable safari - by way of dismissing reality, for lack of evidence.
(*Co-authored "Battered & Bullied Women Make Better Pancakes & Burgers")
Last edited:
Whew, Kai.
A link might be in order: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
The Elegant Universe
(Special 3-Hour Mini-Series with Host Brian Greene)
String theory: It's the Holy Grail of physics—the search for ultimate law and order in the universe. And in the last few years, excitement has grown among scientists as they've pursued a revolutionary new approach to unifying nature's forces. To the uninitiated, it's totally mind-boggling. But physicist Brian Greene has a rare gift for conveying physics in vivid everyday images, a gift that has turned his recent book, The Elegant Universe, into a mighty bestseller. Now Greene brings his talent, youth, and vitality to television for the first time. A highly innovative, Matrix-like production style makes the surreal world of string theory spring to life on the screen.
Original broadcast dates:10/28/2003 and 11/4/2003
A link might be in order: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
The Elegant Universe
(Special 3-Hour Mini-Series with Host Brian Greene)
String theory: It's the Holy Grail of physics—the search for ultimate law and order in the universe. And in the last few years, excitement has grown among scientists as they've pursued a revolutionary new approach to unifying nature's forces. To the uninitiated, it's totally mind-boggling. But physicist Brian Greene has a rare gift for conveying physics in vivid everyday images, a gift that has turned his recent book, The Elegant Universe, into a mighty bestseller. Now Greene brings his talent, youth, and vitality to television for the first time. A highly innovative, Matrix-like production style makes the surreal world of string theory spring to life on the screen.
Original broadcast dates:10/28/2003 and 11/4/2003
Then you understand wrong. There is nothing intrinsically different about 3d than 2d in the construction of relativity or quantum mechanics or physics in general. Yes, the world we see is three dimensional but that doesn't imply the world of the very small is inherently built of 3 dimensional objects.
And I don't see how your claim has any evidence other than "Because I say so". I don't deny the possibility that an electron is actually an extended object, possibly even 3 dimensional, but there's no reason to think its going to be more likely to be 3d. Every 3d object you know is built of objects, ie particles, whose size is at least smaller than $$10^{-18}$$ metres. You can define a cube by 8 points, its corners. The cube is 3 dimensional but the objects used to built it are not.
No, Newtonian physica already had 4 dimensions, it just treated time and space separately. Einstein said they depend on one another. You haven't even got your understanding of basic science correct.
And I question anyone who thinks they can come up with a 'total field theory' when they don't have any knowledge of any field theory.
The rest of your post seems to be purely you quoting back and forth exchanges you and I have already had. If you aren't replying to something, don't copy and paste it. Its hard enough to read your posts already.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The intersection of two or more one dimensional straight lines establishes a non dimensional 'point' in space. That is a geometric point, a coordinate of location, for which there is no physical qualities. This is what I understand about one and two dimensional considerations - they don't occupy real space, though, indeed, they do mark 'regions' of space. Likewise, a volume can - and does - contain real events, but does not effect what occurs within it. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Then you understand wrong. There is nothing intrinsically different about 3d than 2d in the construction of relativity or quantum mechanics or physics in general. Yes, the world we see is three dimensional but that doesn't imply the world of the very small is inherently built of 3 dimensional objects.
Kaiduorkhon:
It is not at all clear to me how and why you are gainsaying the point you are responding to. What is it that I 'understand wrong'?.
The microcosmic world is inherently made up of charges of electricity having no absolute boundaries - quite unlike the macrocosmic world that they collectively manifest in. Whereas, the 'electrical charges' do occupy three or more dimensions. That is a status quo in microcosmic and macrocosmic physics. Why do you proclaim I understand it wrong? We've talked about this before, my station on this issue is that if it's under 3 dimensions, it doesn't manifest in real space. Two dimensional space is 'Flatland'. It doesn't emerge in 3 palpable dimensions. You are very quick to say that I am wrong when that 'correction' isn't well grounded.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
"All fundamental objects in quantum field theory are points." ('no extension in any direction'.) - AlphaNumeric. I do not see how such a qualification is applicable to anything but a mathematical context, having no counterpart in space-time. ”
AlphaNumeric:
And I don't see how your claim has any evidence other than "Because I say so". I don't deny the possibility that an electron is actually an extended object, possibly even 3 dimensional, but there's no reason to think its going to be more likely to be 3d. Every 3d object you know is built of objects, ie particles, whose size is at least smaller than metres. You can define a cube by 8 points, its corners. The cube is 3 dimensional but the objects used to built it are not.
Kaiduorkhon:
A geometrically considered cube may be defined and described by eight corners. But the intersecting corners and the straight line intervals joining them do not occupy space, neither, for that matter, does a cube - of it's geometirc self - occupy space or have any 3d manifest content. This is not because 'I say so'. It is conventional geometry. If and when a geometrical expression of length, and/or breadth, does not have depth: it doesn't manifest in three dimensions. Tantamount to non existence.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Einstein proved that there is an 'extra dimension' (4-D space-time), in what is recognizied as only 3 dimensions. Electricity moves perpendicularly out of 4-D matter, identifying itself as the 5th dimension. Magnetism moves at right angles to electricity, identifying itself as the 6th dimension. ”
AlphaNumeric:
No, Newtonian physica already had 4 dimensions, it just treated time and space separately. Einstein said they depend on one another. You haven't even got your understanding of basic science correct.
Kaiduorkhon:
This is the second time this issue has emerged in this thread. Yes. Newton did contemplate a 4th dimension, but it was the motion of the three dimensions in other than omnidirectional space from center. That is, Newton did not foresee that the value of time and space were changing with the linear or circular movement of 3d objects through space - he did not allow for the 3d system's radius to be growing ever larger, internally.
He did conceptualize time and space and being separate from each other. On the other hand, when the motion of three dimensions is omnidirectional from the center of any and all three dimensionsional objects, that constitutes a fourth dimension of time.
'You haven't even got your basic understanding of science correct', indeed. Sounds just like you must be right, whereas the proclamation is not grounded at all. It's a psychological ploy.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Is this not a very cautious way of possibly introducing a 'highly mathematical education of detail'? I do not question what you are saying, I - at times -question the application of higher mathematics to conditional reality. ”
AlphaNumeric:
And I question anyone who thinks they can come up with a 'total field theory' when they don't have any knowledge of any field theory.
Kaiduorkhon:
Your response deliberately and categorically excludes an entire book which establishes that the entire universe is made up of waves and fields; including experimental and mathematical evidence that there are no 'particles'. A book which you have not read, and, out of foreordained determination, will not read.
AlphaNumeric:
The rest of your post seems to be purely you quoting back and forth exchanges you and I have already had. If you aren't replying to something, don't copy and paste it. Its hard enough to read your posts already.
Kaiduorkhon:
Although there are some redundancies in our exchanges, they occur for the most part, due to extended disagreements yet to be resolved. Your reiteration that Newon forsaw a 4th dimension, for example. Something I am altogether aware of, which you apparently presume that I'm not aware of (Because so many people aren't aware of it and are surprised to learn of it).
Also, your 'scrolling past' my copies and pastes, for example, is omitting germane information from our discourse, disabling yourself from understanding my points, and myself from making them.
The intersection of two or more one dimensional straight lines establishes a non dimensional 'point' in space. That is a geometric point, a coordinate of location, for which there is no physical qualities. This is what I understand about one and two dimensional considerations - they don't occupy real space, though, indeed, they do mark 'regions' of space. Likewise, a volume can - and does - contain real events, but does not effect what occurs within it. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Then you understand wrong. There is nothing intrinsically different about 3d than 2d in the construction of relativity or quantum mechanics or physics in general. Yes, the world we see is three dimensional but that doesn't imply the world of the very small is inherently built of 3 dimensional objects.
Kaiduorkhon:
It is not at all clear to me how and why you are gainsaying the point you are responding to. What is it that I 'understand wrong'?.
The microcosmic world is inherently made up of charges of electricity having no absolute boundaries - quite unlike the macrocosmic world that they collectively manifest in. Whereas, the 'electrical charges' do occupy three or more dimensions. That is a status quo in microcosmic and macrocosmic physics. Why do you proclaim I understand it wrong? We've talked about this before, my station on this issue is that if it's under 3 dimensions, it doesn't manifest in real space. Two dimensional space is 'Flatland'. It doesn't emerge in 3 palpable dimensions. You are very quick to say that I am wrong when that 'correction' isn't well grounded.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
"All fundamental objects in quantum field theory are points." ('no extension in any direction'.) - AlphaNumeric. I do not see how such a qualification is applicable to anything but a mathematical context, having no counterpart in space-time. ”
AlphaNumeric:
And I don't see how your claim has any evidence other than "Because I say so". I don't deny the possibility that an electron is actually an extended object, possibly even 3 dimensional, but there's no reason to think its going to be more likely to be 3d. Every 3d object you know is built of objects, ie particles, whose size is at least smaller than metres. You can define a cube by 8 points, its corners. The cube is 3 dimensional but the objects used to built it are not.
Kaiduorkhon:
A geometrically considered cube may be defined and described by eight corners. But the intersecting corners and the straight line intervals joining them do not occupy space, neither, for that matter, does a cube - of it's geometirc self - occupy space or have any 3d manifest content. This is not because 'I say so'. It is conventional geometry. If and when a geometrical expression of length, and/or breadth, does not have depth: it doesn't manifest in three dimensions. Tantamount to non existence.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Einstein proved that there is an 'extra dimension' (4-D space-time), in what is recognizied as only 3 dimensions. Electricity moves perpendicularly out of 4-D matter, identifying itself as the 5th dimension. Magnetism moves at right angles to electricity, identifying itself as the 6th dimension. ”
AlphaNumeric:
No, Newtonian physica already had 4 dimensions, it just treated time and space separately. Einstein said they depend on one another. You haven't even got your understanding of basic science correct.
Kaiduorkhon:
This is the second time this issue has emerged in this thread. Yes. Newton did contemplate a 4th dimension, but it was the motion of the three dimensions in other than omnidirectional space from center. That is, Newton did not foresee that the value of time and space were changing with the linear or circular movement of 3d objects through space - he did not allow for the 3d system's radius to be growing ever larger, internally.
He did conceptualize time and space and being separate from each other. On the other hand, when the motion of three dimensions is omnidirectional from the center of any and all three dimensionsional objects, that constitutes a fourth dimension of time.
'You haven't even got your basic understanding of science correct', indeed. Sounds just like you must be right, whereas the proclamation is not grounded at all. It's a psychological ploy.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Is this not a very cautious way of possibly introducing a 'highly mathematical education of detail'? I do not question what you are saying, I - at times -question the application of higher mathematics to conditional reality. ”
AlphaNumeric:
And I question anyone who thinks they can come up with a 'total field theory' when they don't have any knowledge of any field theory.
Kaiduorkhon:
Your response deliberately and categorically excludes an entire book which establishes that the entire universe is made up of waves and fields; including experimental and mathematical evidence that there are no 'particles'. A book which you have not read, and, out of foreordained determination, will not read.
AlphaNumeric:
The rest of your post seems to be purely you quoting back and forth exchanges you and I have already had. If you aren't replying to something, don't copy and paste it. Its hard enough to read your posts already.
Kaiduorkhon:
Although there are some redundancies in our exchanges, they occur for the most part, due to extended disagreements yet to be resolved. Your reiteration that Newon forsaw a 4th dimension, for example. Something I am altogether aware of, which you apparently presume that I'm not aware of (Because so many people aren't aware of it and are surprised to learn of it).
Also, your 'scrolling past' my copies and pastes, for example, is omitting germane information from our discourse, disabling yourself from understanding my points, and myself from making them.
Last edited:
The charge of an electron is entirely contained within a region of radius smaller than $$10^{-18}$$ metres. That's an experimental fact. The electromagnetic field produced by that charge extends in all directions and so can form multidimensional structures when you combine it with other charges. An atom has volume if you define it as the region of space within the orbital of the outer most electron. Similarly, a proton has volume if you define it as the region of space within the outer most orbital of the quarks it is made of. At present the quarks and electrons have entirely point-like physics, absolutely no experiment has even hinted at them having a non-pointlike nature.
The physical model of building 3 (or any) dimensional objects from points is entirely consistent with experiments. Quantum field theory is inherently built of points. In general relativity points, lines, planes and volumes can all contribute to space-time curvature and so can have valid physics.
Nothing you have said retorts that, you simply reword your "I don't like the idea of non 3d objects" views.
If you configure 8 electrons into the arrangement of a cube then you have an object which, from a distance, appears to have 3 dimensional structure. Fire another electron at the cube and it'll deflect as if fired at an object with volume, because the electromagnetic fields of the component electrons merge into a single structure. Tables, chairs, people, they can all be built like this. The particles can be points but due to the fact they produce electromagnetic fields things feel 'solid'. When things don't produce or interact with such fields they pass right through one another. Neutrinos don't interact with electromagnetic fields and you can send them straight through solid rock. Trillions just passed through you while you read the last sentence. Things seem solid not because of having physical extension but because of interacting force fields.
It isn't a ploy. The preceding two paragraphs of yours read like someone who hasn't actually done any of Newton's work, doesn't know the details of any of his theories and who is labouring under the misapprehension that such ignorance doesn't impair his understanding.
It doesn't 'establish' anything. Even if it predicted and matched every experimental result it wouldn't establish anything, it would imply be a highly successful model. And your 'there's mathematical evidence for no particles' just illustrates my point. Firstly, you admit you don't know 'higher math' (which you consider to be pretty much anything beyond high school) so how you go about proving such a claim is dubious to begin with. Secondly, mathematics has no bearing on reality. Newtonian space-time is 100% mathematically consistent. Einsteinian (ie Minkowski) space-time is 100% mathematically consistent. This proves NOTHING about their physical validity. The construction of a point based dynamical system is mathematically possible and consistent. Whether it matches experiment is entirely a separate matter! Your claim shows you have a fundamental lack of understanding about the relationship between mathematics and physics. Despite you worrying that 'higher maths' might be taking too prominent a place in physics you believe mathematical statements have bearing on physics. All physics of the last few centuries has been on sound mathematical footing but not all of the models were right. Being excluded by experiment doesn't invalidate them mathematically, nor does being mathematically valid make them physically valid.
You're right, I haven't read your book. I, unlike quantum_wave, do not have the time to read books on possible pseudoscience. I, unlike quantum_wave, have plenty of knowledge of maths and physics, particularly on a working level, and your posts give me absolutely zero reason to think you have anything worthwhile to say in your book. You show serious misunderstandings of what is textbook physics (textbook physics so simple even quantum_wave claims to have covered it!) and your grasp of 'higher' physics like relativity, quantum field theory and the more abstract string theory or M theory is laughable. When you want to learn about something you don't reach for a set of lecture notes or textbooks or published papers, you reach for pop science books and YouTube. You talk about 'foreordained determination' but your comments about string and M theory show you have plenty of that yourself. You quote other people, admit you don't know even the mathematics the work is written in and you think explaining the name implies you grasp the theory. You didn't go and find out information for yourself, on the actual work, you just parroted people who you had read because you knew they said things you wanted to hear. Now you complain I'm engaged in some "psychological ploy" because I point out your knowledge is shoddy and your learning lacking.
Time is a dimension. Any theory with 3 spacial directions and time is a theory wiith 4 dimensions. Newton didn't invent such a concept, its endemic to anyone doing any kind of real physics. Einstein merged them into a single structure but that's all. There's no 'forseeing' in Newton's work, you don't need any fore sight to see that things move in 3 dimensions and you describe how they move as a function of time. Its your basic misunderstanding of such things which undermines your claims about 5th and 6th dimensions and having a model of electromagnetism. You shoot yourself in the foot.
And who are these people? Physics professors? Physics lecturers? Physics postdocs? Physics postgrads? Physics undergrads? Or layman you know? Yes, 'many people' is true but then 'many people' don't know anything about physics so its hardly surprising. You'll find that anyone whose studied physics properly (and I don't include quantum_wave's 'studying' in that) will say "Of course Newtonian physics involves 4 dimensions, 3 of space and one of time". Just because basic vector calculus was a shock to you doesn't mean it is to others.
If you can't say it in your own words, in defence of your own work, then why should I read it? If all you can show is you parrot other people's views than why should I read your posts if I'm already aware of the views you're repeating back to me? I am certain I know a great deal many more 'issues' with string or M theory than you, just as I do with any other area of mainstream physics. When you know the inner workings of something you know its pros and its cons. Try it sometime.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
It is not at all clear to me how and why you are gainsaying the point you are responding to. What is it that I 'understand wrong'?.
The microcosmic world is inherently made up of charges of electricity having no absolute boundaries - quite unlike the macrocosmic world that they collectively manifest in. Whereas, the 'electrical charges' do occupy three or more dimensions. That is a status quo in microcosmic and macrocosmic physics. Why do you proclaim I understand it wrong? We've talked about this before, my station on this issue is that if it's under 3 dimensions, it doesn't manifest in real space. Two dimensional space is 'Flatland'. It doesn't emerge in 3 palpable dimensions. You are very quick to say that I am wrong when that 'correction' isn't well grounded. ”
AlphaNumeric:
The charge of an electron is entirely contained within a region of radius smaller than metres. That's an experimental fact. The electromagnetic field produced by that charge extends in all directions and so can form multidimensional structures when you combine it with other charges. An atom has volume if you define it as the region of space within the orbital of the outer most electron. Similarly, a proton has volume if you define it as the region of space within the outer most orbital of the quarks it is made of. At present the quarks and electrons have entirely point-like physics, absolutely no experiment has even hinted at them having a non-pointlike nature.
The physical model of building 3 (or any) dimensional objects from points is entirely consistent with experiments. Quantum field theory is inherently built of points. In general relativity points, lines, planes and volumes can all contribute to space-time curvature and so can have valid physics.
Nothing you have said retorts that, you simply reword your "I don't like the idea of non 3d objects" views.
Kaiduorkhon:
"The electromagnetic field produced by that charge extends in all directions and so can form multidimensional structures when you combine it with other charges." - AlphaNumeric, Ibid
Long ago an entire afternoon passed with a teacher explaining that all of the - practically innumerable - positions he put a universal joint in, were 'dimensions'; this was his definition of the meaning of dimensions. No. I don't do vector calculus, but the point he was trying to make was out of context, and I knew it because of what little I do know of calculus as it is used to measure acceleration. Your statement that an "electromagnetic field extends in all directions can form multidimensional structures when you combine it with other charges" does not apply to the definition of dimensions that I base the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions on - which is, among other things, vector calculus.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
A geometrically considered cube may be defined and described by eight corners. But the intersecting corners and the straight line intervals joining them do not occupy space, neither, for that matter, does a cube - of it's geometirc self - occupy space or have any 3d manifest content. This is not because 'I say so'. It is conventional geometry. If and when a geometrical expression of length, and/or breadth, does not have depth: it doesn't manifest in three dimensions. Tantamount to non existence. ”
AlphaNumeric:
If you configure 8 electrons into the arrangement of a cube then you have an object which, from a distance, appears to have 3 dimensional structure. Fire another electron at the cube and it'll deflect as if fired at an object with volume, because the electromagnetic fields of the component electrons merge into a single structure. Tables, chairs, people, they can all be built like this. The particles can be points but due to the fact they produce electromagnetic fields things feel 'solid'. When things don't produce or interact with such fields they pass right through one another. Neutrinos don't interact with electromagnetic fields and you can send them straight through solid rock. Trillions just passed through you while you read the last sentence. Things seem solid not because of having physical extension but because of interacting force fields.
Kaiduorkhon:
"The charge of an electron is within the range of a region smaller than metres" - AlphaNumeric, paraphrased.
When the cube you are creating with eight electrons posited at the corners occupies less than a square metre, yes, an electron fired at that so constructed cube is probably deflected in accordance with the fields generated by the eight electrons constituting the parameters of the issued cube.
I spoke only of a geometrically formed cube, generated by straight lines intersecting each other at the corners. I said nothing of any electrons at the corners, which is an entirely different setting; of your notable construance.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
This is the second time this issue has emerged in this thread. Yes. Newton did contemplate a 4th dimension, but it was the motion of the three dimensions in other than omnidirectional space from center. That is, Newton did not foresee that the value of time and space were changing with the linear or circular movement of 3d objects through space - he did not allow for the 3d system's radius to be growing ever larger, internally.
He did conceptualize time and space and being separate from each other. On the other hand, when the motion of three dimensions is omnidirectional from the center of any and all three dimensionsional objects, that constitutes a fourth dimension of time.
'You haven't even got your basic understanding of science correct', indeed. Sounds just like you must be right, whereas the proclamation is not grounded at all. It's a psychological ploy. ”
AlphaNumeric:
It isn't a ploy. The preceding two paragraphs of yours read like someone who hasn't actually done any of Newton's work, doesn't know the details of any of his theories and who is labouring under the misapprehension that such ignorance doesn't impair his understanding.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your response deliberately and categorically excludes an entire book which establishes that the entire universe is made up of waves and fields; including experimental and mathematical evidence that there are no 'particles'. A book which you have not read, and, out of foreordained determination, will not read. ”
AlphaNumeric:
It doesn't 'establish' anything. Even if it predicted and matched every experimental result it wouldn't establish anything, it would imply be a highly successful model. And your 'there's mathematical evidence for no particles' just illustrates my point. Firstly, you admit you don't know 'higher math' (which you consider to be pretty much anything beyond high school) so how you go about proving such a claim is dubious to begin with...
Kaiduorkhon:
It is not a requirement for me to personally establish what is de rigueur in contemporary physics: there is overwhelming mathematical and experimental evidence for 'no particles'.
AlphaNumeric:
Secondly, mathematics has no bearing on reality.
Kaiduorkhon:
Certainly, it need not necessarily have any such bearing.
AlphaNumeric:
Newtonian space-time is 100% mathematically consistent. Einsteinian (ie Minkowski) space-time is 100% mathematically consistent. This proves NOTHING about their physical validity. The construction of a point based dynamical system is mathematically possible and consistent. Whether it matches experiment is entirely a separate matter!
Kaiduorkhon:
Please elaborate on what you mean by 'mathematically consistent'.
G.P. Thompson experimentally and mathematically proved that 'points' demand three dimensions of space to themselves; disallowing the occupation of their occupied space by any other point at the same time. This was in the mid 1930's. Do you mean that the mathematics conformed to the experimental results - as it is obliged to do, i.e., is not math arbitrary if and when it does not comply with experimentally measured results.
AlphaNumeric:
Your claim shows you have a fundamental lack of understanding about the relationship between mathematics and physics.
Kaiduorkhon:
I do not dispute your point here.
AlphaNumeric:
Despite you worrying that 'higher maths' might be taking too prominent a place in physics you believe mathematical statements have bearing on physics. All physics of the last few centuries has been on sound mathematical footing but not all of the models were right. Being excluded by experiment doesn't invalidate them mathematically, nor does being mathematically valid make them physically valid.
Kaiduorkhon:
All physics of the last few centuries has been on sound mathematical footing but not all of the models were right. Being excluded by experiment doesn't invalidate them mathematically, nor does being mathematically valid make them physically valid. -AlphaNumeric, Ibid
Kaiduorkhon, continued:
The underlined portion of the above excerpt from your quote does not exclude experimental results, whereas, it does find mathematical results to sometimes be ambiguous. Is it not true that two different mathematical formulas can each be correct, while at the same time, mutually contradicting each other? I know of no counterpart for this in correcty performed physical experimentation.
AlphaNumeric:
You're right, I haven't read your book. I, unlike quantum_wave, do not have the time to read books on possible pseudoscience. I, unlike quantum_wave, have plenty of knowledge of maths and physics, particularly on a working level, and your posts give me absolutely zero reason to think you have anything worthwhile to say in your book. You show serious misunderstandings of what is textbook physics (textbook physics so simple even quantum_wave claims to have covered it!) and your grasp of 'higher' physics like relativity, quantum field theory and the more abstract string theory or M theory is laughable. When you want to learn about something you don't reach for a set of lecture notes or textbooks or published papers, you reach for pop science books and YouTube. You talk about 'foreordained determination' but your comments about string and M theory show you have plenty of that yourself. You quote other people, admit you don't know even the mathematics the work is written in and you think explaining the name implies you grasp the theory. You didn't go and find out information for yourself, on the actual work, you just parroted people who you had read because you knew they said things you wanted to hear. Now you complain I'm engaged in some "psychological ploy" because I point out your knowledge is shoddy and your learning lacking.
Kaiduorkhon:
I concede that my formal education in physics is lacking (I have 2 yrs of Liberal Arts for college credits). On the other hand, my book is primarily based on the work of others, where limitations have been set on the findings of said work - limitations that prove to be invalid and restrictive of phenomenologically prevailing facts of reality. My work is thereby authenticated by the (esteemed) work of (many) others - culminating on the shoulders of giants... In a brief description, my work determines that corporeal, physical, material entities are in a state of constantly accelerating expansion, without imposing on the law of conservation and energy. This fact has been proved many times in formal physics, but consistently rejected, because: "obviously, everything is not expanding".
("Obviously, the earth is not spinning on its own axis, generating the illusion that the entire universe is revolving around it every 24 hours.")
Many portions of my work have been refined and sometimes altogether corrected by people such as yourself. People who shared time with me. People who are better educated than I am - due to formal exposure to 'papers' and refined classroom information'.
One of the main reasons I encourage the reading of my book, by laymen or physicists, is because it clarifies many unrecognized facets of the evolution of physics - where it came from, how it got here, and what is its present conditional status. Although, as I have said, the work may be disqualified, that doesn't seem a likelihood, since it is principally based on the foundations of modern physics. But, allowing a disqualification of the work's central theme:
Theoretical Physics w'out Mathematics: The Everyday Unified Field
The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field (Steady State) Theory
1) Matter is in a constant state of accelerating expansion.
2) Einstein's Cosmological Constant is a repelling force responsible for the accelerating universe.
3) The Steady State Theory is reinstated.
4) Gravitational and inertial mass are identical because of the established accelerating expansion of physical matter; i.e. 'the universal rate of descent of objects in free fall in the absence of air resistance'.
5) Time dilation is due to the accelerating expansion of matter, i.e., the value of time varies with the - smaller or larger - coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is associated. C is constant, regardless of the velocity of its source, because it is an extension of that - given - source.
6) Lorentz Transformations are, basically, Doppler effect, as applied to expanding matter.
7) So called nuclear binding forces are electromagnetic gravity in the microcosms associated with the 'particle charge' - at earlier moments in the 4-D spacetime continuum.
This interpretation finds nuclear binding forces being what macrocosmic gravity is, in its earlier microcosmic moments in the continuum; hence, 'strong' and 'weak' forces of gravity are simply considerations of earlier and later moments in the accelerating expansion of the prevailing matter-field continuum.
9) This reduces - to two - the chore of unifying 'four forces' to the unification of electromagnetism and gravity, which are simply two different 'earlier' and 'later' considerations of the same phenomena. Mass is condensed energy, and energy is dispersed, transitory mass.
10) When the book is read, several pages of it explicate QM - why 'h' always has the same value - and the so called, enigmatic, 'quantum leap' - a sobriquet from chemistry's subjection of 'valence'. As an outsider, immune to the physics police, and as the world's #1 Einstein groupie I am recreationally ignored as passe; even while Einstein's 'abandoned' work is reinstated, camouflaged in the name of 'quintessence' and 'dark energy'.
11) It is well known that Einstein 'blundered' on the CC, it is not so well known that he was returned to working on it when he perished at Princeton in 1955.
12) The SOUND and SIGHT of ('unimaginable') 4-Dimensional acceleration.
13) The 'curvature' of light passing nearby a major gravitational mass, such as that determined in during a total eclipse of the sun, in the expedition of 1919 - which Einstein attributed to his example of an accelerating elevator and a light beam passing through it from side to side.
14) Black holes - if they exist - are 3-D singularities, becoming as small and dense as the accelerating expansion of the 4-d material universe becomes large and tenuous around it.
15) The comprehensive demystification of a subject which was previously accomodated only by authorities, on an esoteric and non mathematically incomprehensible subject. Simplifying what was previously and conceptually incomprehensible; especially to the majority without a specialized education.
16) It presents a panorama of thought provoking issues, questions and answers, which, of themselves - even if proven wrong - are a contribution to the contemplation of the physical universe, certainly including the unified field theory (Lambda - /\ ). Yes, even if disproven, it presents a reasonable riddle, any correctional solution to which only lets in even more light, and resolves what in the meanwhile has yet to be gainsayed.
17) All of these results (and more) are based on the same premise: matter is in a constant state of accelerating expansion; because that's what it's microcosmic constituents - fields and waves - are undergoing.
18) Regarding the hierarchical division of particles into ever smaller particles, the realm of the very small is as endless as the realm of the very large. In the words of Anorexus: "There's always something smaller than small, and always something larger than large'. "The universe is finite at any given moment in space, but infinite in time." - Einstein "There is no space empty of field." - Ibid
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toeth...mological-constant-steady-state-theories.html
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your reiteration that Newton forsaw a 4th dimension, for example. Something I am altogether aware of, which you apparently presume that I'm not aware of (Because so many people aren't aware of it and are surprised to learn of it). ”
AlphaNumeric:
Time is a dimension. Any theory with 3 spacial directions and time is a theory wiith 4 dimensions. Newton didn't invent such a concept, its endemic to anyone doing any kind of real physics. Einstein merged them into a single structure but that's all.
Kaiduorkhon:
Einstein determined that all manifest physical entitites are 4dimensional. Whether they are linearly or orbitally moving or not... That matter, and time, are - co-dependently - the 4th dimension.
AlphaNumeric:
There's no 'forseeing' in Newton's work, you don't need any fore sight to see that things move in 3 dimensions and you describe how they move as a function of time. Its your basic misunderstanding of such things which undermines your claims about 5th and 6th dimensions and having a model of electromagnetism. You shoot yourself in the foot.
Kaiduorkhon:
Our discourse has again returned to the difference between the definition of time as the interval beteen two or more events, in context of linear and orbital motion, and, time as an integral quality of omnidirectionally accelerating, expanding matter itself.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
(Because so many people aren't aware of it and are surprised to learn of it). ”
AlphaNumeric:
And who are these people? Physics professors? Physics lecturers? Physics postdocs? Physics postgrads? Physics undergrads? Or layman you know? Yes, 'many people' is true but then 'many people' don't know anything about physics so its hardly surprising. You'll find that anyone whose studied physics properly (and I don't include quantum_wave's 'studying' in that) will say "Of course Newtonian physics involves 4 dimensions, 3 of space and one of time". Just because basic vector calculus was a shock to you doesn't mean it is to others.
Kaiduorkhon:
Because you initiated the Newtonian 4d physics on a previous occasion, which I acknowledged then, and, because you initiated it here again, it appeared to be your way of re-making an already resolved issue.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Also, your 'scrolling past' my copies and pastes, for example, is omitting germane information from our discourse, disabling yourself from understanding my points, and myself from making them. ”
AlphaNumeric:
If you can't say it in your own words, in defence of your own work, then why should I read it? If all you can show is you parrot other people's views than why should I read your posts if I'm already aware of the views you're repeating back to me? I am certain I know a great deal many more 'issues' with string or M theory than you, just as I do with any other area of mainstream physics. When you know the inner workings of something you know its pros and its cons. Try it sometime.
Kaiduorkhon:
Many, if not most, of the copies and pastes that I have included in this thread, are my own words, copied from my book and pasted in this thread. Some of the copies and pastes are indeed quotes from other sources, but, they augment - and authenticate - the cogent points I wish to make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For liberated access to an alternative paper on string theory, refer: http://milesmathis.com/string.html
If this URL slows to a stop, Google: Miles Mathis String.)
The Inelegant Universe
by Miles Mathis
(Introduction)
"Readers coming here from a web-search or from other chapters of mine may assume I have nothing to say about the math of string theory. They will assume that since I am neither an insider nor a famous mathematician, the subtleties of 11-dimensional math are beyond me. And since the first part of this paper attacks the theory and not the math, many will assume that I am just making a philosophical critique. They are quite mistaken. In Part II of this paper I will make a foundational critique of the math, revealing some astonishing facts that even the princes of the theory will not want to miss. So if you tend to nod off at any stretch of sentences that fails to contain a number or a variable, there is something for you here, too. The big laughs are in the first part of this paper, but the lasting interest lies in the last part."
Although Miles Mathis occasionally crosses lines of etiquette - that is by no means the only reason he is in disfavor from the incumbent physics cabal, as the attentive reader will see. Apart from his sometimes harsh innuendo, he is also an unusually astute source of unapproved information in a storm of balanced, 'New Age' propaganda - an element of ostracization of which he is defiantly aware, and at times, perhaps, overcompensates for in his uncommon, rogue monologue.
In the paraphrased words of an early American patriot, I do not always agree with Mathis, but, will not forsake his opportunity to express himself and be heard. - Kaiduorkhon
It is not at all clear to me how and why you are gainsaying the point you are responding to. What is it that I 'understand wrong'?.
The microcosmic world is inherently made up of charges of electricity having no absolute boundaries - quite unlike the macrocosmic world that they collectively manifest in. Whereas, the 'electrical charges' do occupy three or more dimensions. That is a status quo in microcosmic and macrocosmic physics. Why do you proclaim I understand it wrong? We've talked about this before, my station on this issue is that if it's under 3 dimensions, it doesn't manifest in real space. Two dimensional space is 'Flatland'. It doesn't emerge in 3 palpable dimensions. You are very quick to say that I am wrong when that 'correction' isn't well grounded. ”
AlphaNumeric:
The charge of an electron is entirely contained within a region of radius smaller than metres. That's an experimental fact. The electromagnetic field produced by that charge extends in all directions and so can form multidimensional structures when you combine it with other charges. An atom has volume if you define it as the region of space within the orbital of the outer most electron. Similarly, a proton has volume if you define it as the region of space within the outer most orbital of the quarks it is made of. At present the quarks and electrons have entirely point-like physics, absolutely no experiment has even hinted at them having a non-pointlike nature.
The physical model of building 3 (or any) dimensional objects from points is entirely consistent with experiments. Quantum field theory is inherently built of points. In general relativity points, lines, planes and volumes can all contribute to space-time curvature and so can have valid physics.
Nothing you have said retorts that, you simply reword your "I don't like the idea of non 3d objects" views.
Kaiduorkhon:
"The electromagnetic field produced by that charge extends in all directions and so can form multidimensional structures when you combine it with other charges." - AlphaNumeric, Ibid
Long ago an entire afternoon passed with a teacher explaining that all of the - practically innumerable - positions he put a universal joint in, were 'dimensions'; this was his definition of the meaning of dimensions. No. I don't do vector calculus, but the point he was trying to make was out of context, and I knew it because of what little I do know of calculus as it is used to measure acceleration. Your statement that an "electromagnetic field extends in all directions can form multidimensional structures when you combine it with other charges" does not apply to the definition of dimensions that I base the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions on - which is, among other things, vector calculus.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
A geometrically considered cube may be defined and described by eight corners. But the intersecting corners and the straight line intervals joining them do not occupy space, neither, for that matter, does a cube - of it's geometirc self - occupy space or have any 3d manifest content. This is not because 'I say so'. It is conventional geometry. If and when a geometrical expression of length, and/or breadth, does not have depth: it doesn't manifest in three dimensions. Tantamount to non existence. ”
AlphaNumeric:
If you configure 8 electrons into the arrangement of a cube then you have an object which, from a distance, appears to have 3 dimensional structure. Fire another electron at the cube and it'll deflect as if fired at an object with volume, because the electromagnetic fields of the component electrons merge into a single structure. Tables, chairs, people, they can all be built like this. The particles can be points but due to the fact they produce electromagnetic fields things feel 'solid'. When things don't produce or interact with such fields they pass right through one another. Neutrinos don't interact with electromagnetic fields and you can send them straight through solid rock. Trillions just passed through you while you read the last sentence. Things seem solid not because of having physical extension but because of interacting force fields.
Kaiduorkhon:
"The charge of an electron is within the range of a region smaller than metres" - AlphaNumeric, paraphrased.
When the cube you are creating with eight electrons posited at the corners occupies less than a square metre, yes, an electron fired at that so constructed cube is probably deflected in accordance with the fields generated by the eight electrons constituting the parameters of the issued cube.
I spoke only of a geometrically formed cube, generated by straight lines intersecting each other at the corners. I said nothing of any electrons at the corners, which is an entirely different setting; of your notable construance.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
This is the second time this issue has emerged in this thread. Yes. Newton did contemplate a 4th dimension, but it was the motion of the three dimensions in other than omnidirectional space from center. That is, Newton did not foresee that the value of time and space were changing with the linear or circular movement of 3d objects through space - he did not allow for the 3d system's radius to be growing ever larger, internally.
He did conceptualize time and space and being separate from each other. On the other hand, when the motion of three dimensions is omnidirectional from the center of any and all three dimensionsional objects, that constitutes a fourth dimension of time.
'You haven't even got your basic understanding of science correct', indeed. Sounds just like you must be right, whereas the proclamation is not grounded at all. It's a psychological ploy. ”
AlphaNumeric:
It isn't a ploy. The preceding two paragraphs of yours read like someone who hasn't actually done any of Newton's work, doesn't know the details of any of his theories and who is labouring under the misapprehension that such ignorance doesn't impair his understanding.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your response deliberately and categorically excludes an entire book which establishes that the entire universe is made up of waves and fields; including experimental and mathematical evidence that there are no 'particles'. A book which you have not read, and, out of foreordained determination, will not read. ”
AlphaNumeric:
It doesn't 'establish' anything. Even if it predicted and matched every experimental result it wouldn't establish anything, it would imply be a highly successful model. And your 'there's mathematical evidence for no particles' just illustrates my point. Firstly, you admit you don't know 'higher math' (which you consider to be pretty much anything beyond high school) so how you go about proving such a claim is dubious to begin with...
Kaiduorkhon:
It is not a requirement for me to personally establish what is de rigueur in contemporary physics: there is overwhelming mathematical and experimental evidence for 'no particles'.
AlphaNumeric:
Secondly, mathematics has no bearing on reality.
Kaiduorkhon:
Certainly, it need not necessarily have any such bearing.
AlphaNumeric:
Newtonian space-time is 100% mathematically consistent. Einsteinian (ie Minkowski) space-time is 100% mathematically consistent. This proves NOTHING about their physical validity. The construction of a point based dynamical system is mathematically possible and consistent. Whether it matches experiment is entirely a separate matter!
Kaiduorkhon:
Please elaborate on what you mean by 'mathematically consistent'.
G.P. Thompson experimentally and mathematically proved that 'points' demand three dimensions of space to themselves; disallowing the occupation of their occupied space by any other point at the same time. This was in the mid 1930's. Do you mean that the mathematics conformed to the experimental results - as it is obliged to do, i.e., is not math arbitrary if and when it does not comply with experimentally measured results.
AlphaNumeric:
Your claim shows you have a fundamental lack of understanding about the relationship between mathematics and physics.
Kaiduorkhon:
I do not dispute your point here.
AlphaNumeric:
Despite you worrying that 'higher maths' might be taking too prominent a place in physics you believe mathematical statements have bearing on physics. All physics of the last few centuries has been on sound mathematical footing but not all of the models were right. Being excluded by experiment doesn't invalidate them mathematically, nor does being mathematically valid make them physically valid.
Kaiduorkhon:
All physics of the last few centuries has been on sound mathematical footing but not all of the models were right. Being excluded by experiment doesn't invalidate them mathematically, nor does being mathematically valid make them physically valid. -AlphaNumeric, Ibid
Kaiduorkhon, continued:
The underlined portion of the above excerpt from your quote does not exclude experimental results, whereas, it does find mathematical results to sometimes be ambiguous. Is it not true that two different mathematical formulas can each be correct, while at the same time, mutually contradicting each other? I know of no counterpart for this in correcty performed physical experimentation.
AlphaNumeric:
You're right, I haven't read your book. I, unlike quantum_wave, do not have the time to read books on possible pseudoscience. I, unlike quantum_wave, have plenty of knowledge of maths and physics, particularly on a working level, and your posts give me absolutely zero reason to think you have anything worthwhile to say in your book. You show serious misunderstandings of what is textbook physics (textbook physics so simple even quantum_wave claims to have covered it!) and your grasp of 'higher' physics like relativity, quantum field theory and the more abstract string theory or M theory is laughable. When you want to learn about something you don't reach for a set of lecture notes or textbooks or published papers, you reach for pop science books and YouTube. You talk about 'foreordained determination' but your comments about string and M theory show you have plenty of that yourself. You quote other people, admit you don't know even the mathematics the work is written in and you think explaining the name implies you grasp the theory. You didn't go and find out information for yourself, on the actual work, you just parroted people who you had read because you knew they said things you wanted to hear. Now you complain I'm engaged in some "psychological ploy" because I point out your knowledge is shoddy and your learning lacking.
Kaiduorkhon:
I concede that my formal education in physics is lacking (I have 2 yrs of Liberal Arts for college credits). On the other hand, my book is primarily based on the work of others, where limitations have been set on the findings of said work - limitations that prove to be invalid and restrictive of phenomenologically prevailing facts of reality. My work is thereby authenticated by the (esteemed) work of (many) others - culminating on the shoulders of giants... In a brief description, my work determines that corporeal, physical, material entities are in a state of constantly accelerating expansion, without imposing on the law of conservation and energy. This fact has been proved many times in formal physics, but consistently rejected, because: "obviously, everything is not expanding".
("Obviously, the earth is not spinning on its own axis, generating the illusion that the entire universe is revolving around it every 24 hours.")
Many portions of my work have been refined and sometimes altogether corrected by people such as yourself. People who shared time with me. People who are better educated than I am - due to formal exposure to 'papers' and refined classroom information'.
One of the main reasons I encourage the reading of my book, by laymen or physicists, is because it clarifies many unrecognized facets of the evolution of physics - where it came from, how it got here, and what is its present conditional status. Although, as I have said, the work may be disqualified, that doesn't seem a likelihood, since it is principally based on the foundations of modern physics. But, allowing a disqualification of the work's central theme:
Theoretical Physics w'out Mathematics: The Everyday Unified Field
The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field (Steady State) Theory
1) Matter is in a constant state of accelerating expansion.
2) Einstein's Cosmological Constant is a repelling force responsible for the accelerating universe.
3) The Steady State Theory is reinstated.
4) Gravitational and inertial mass are identical because of the established accelerating expansion of physical matter; i.e. 'the universal rate of descent of objects in free fall in the absence of air resistance'.
5) Time dilation is due to the accelerating expansion of matter, i.e., the value of time varies with the - smaller or larger - coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is associated. C is constant, regardless of the velocity of its source, because it is an extension of that - given - source.
6) Lorentz Transformations are, basically, Doppler effect, as applied to expanding matter.
7) So called nuclear binding forces are electromagnetic gravity in the microcosms associated with the 'particle charge' - at earlier moments in the 4-D spacetime continuum.
This interpretation finds nuclear binding forces being what macrocosmic gravity is, in its earlier microcosmic moments in the continuum; hence, 'strong' and 'weak' forces of gravity are simply considerations of earlier and later moments in the accelerating expansion of the prevailing matter-field continuum.
9) This reduces - to two - the chore of unifying 'four forces' to the unification of electromagnetism and gravity, which are simply two different 'earlier' and 'later' considerations of the same phenomena. Mass is condensed energy, and energy is dispersed, transitory mass.
10) When the book is read, several pages of it explicate QM - why 'h' always has the same value - and the so called, enigmatic, 'quantum leap' - a sobriquet from chemistry's subjection of 'valence'. As an outsider, immune to the physics police, and as the world's #1 Einstein groupie I am recreationally ignored as passe; even while Einstein's 'abandoned' work is reinstated, camouflaged in the name of 'quintessence' and 'dark energy'.
11) It is well known that Einstein 'blundered' on the CC, it is not so well known that he was returned to working on it when he perished at Princeton in 1955.
12) The SOUND and SIGHT of ('unimaginable') 4-Dimensional acceleration.
13) The 'curvature' of light passing nearby a major gravitational mass, such as that determined in during a total eclipse of the sun, in the expedition of 1919 - which Einstein attributed to his example of an accelerating elevator and a light beam passing through it from side to side.
14) Black holes - if they exist - are 3-D singularities, becoming as small and dense as the accelerating expansion of the 4-d material universe becomes large and tenuous around it.
15) The comprehensive demystification of a subject which was previously accomodated only by authorities, on an esoteric and non mathematically incomprehensible subject. Simplifying what was previously and conceptually incomprehensible; especially to the majority without a specialized education.
16) It presents a panorama of thought provoking issues, questions and answers, which, of themselves - even if proven wrong - are a contribution to the contemplation of the physical universe, certainly including the unified field theory (Lambda - /\ ). Yes, even if disproven, it presents a reasonable riddle, any correctional solution to which only lets in even more light, and resolves what in the meanwhile has yet to be gainsayed.
17) All of these results (and more) are based on the same premise: matter is in a constant state of accelerating expansion; because that's what it's microcosmic constituents - fields and waves - are undergoing.
18) Regarding the hierarchical division of particles into ever smaller particles, the realm of the very small is as endless as the realm of the very large. In the words of Anorexus: "There's always something smaller than small, and always something larger than large'. "The universe is finite at any given moment in space, but infinite in time." - Einstein "There is no space empty of field." - Ibid
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toeth...mological-constant-steady-state-theories.html
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your reiteration that Newton forsaw a 4th dimension, for example. Something I am altogether aware of, which you apparently presume that I'm not aware of (Because so many people aren't aware of it and are surprised to learn of it). ”
AlphaNumeric:
Time is a dimension. Any theory with 3 spacial directions and time is a theory wiith 4 dimensions. Newton didn't invent such a concept, its endemic to anyone doing any kind of real physics. Einstein merged them into a single structure but that's all.
Kaiduorkhon:
Einstein determined that all manifest physical entitites are 4dimensional. Whether they are linearly or orbitally moving or not... That matter, and time, are - co-dependently - the 4th dimension.
AlphaNumeric:
There's no 'forseeing' in Newton's work, you don't need any fore sight to see that things move in 3 dimensions and you describe how they move as a function of time. Its your basic misunderstanding of such things which undermines your claims about 5th and 6th dimensions and having a model of electromagnetism. You shoot yourself in the foot.
Kaiduorkhon:
Our discourse has again returned to the difference between the definition of time as the interval beteen two or more events, in context of linear and orbital motion, and, time as an integral quality of omnidirectionally accelerating, expanding matter itself.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
(Because so many people aren't aware of it and are surprised to learn of it). ”
AlphaNumeric:
And who are these people? Physics professors? Physics lecturers? Physics postdocs? Physics postgrads? Physics undergrads? Or layman you know? Yes, 'many people' is true but then 'many people' don't know anything about physics so its hardly surprising. You'll find that anyone whose studied physics properly (and I don't include quantum_wave's 'studying' in that) will say "Of course Newtonian physics involves 4 dimensions, 3 of space and one of time". Just because basic vector calculus was a shock to you doesn't mean it is to others.
Kaiduorkhon:
Because you initiated the Newtonian 4d physics on a previous occasion, which I acknowledged then, and, because you initiated it here again, it appeared to be your way of re-making an already resolved issue.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Also, your 'scrolling past' my copies and pastes, for example, is omitting germane information from our discourse, disabling yourself from understanding my points, and myself from making them. ”
AlphaNumeric:
If you can't say it in your own words, in defence of your own work, then why should I read it? If all you can show is you parrot other people's views than why should I read your posts if I'm already aware of the views you're repeating back to me? I am certain I know a great deal many more 'issues' with string or M theory than you, just as I do with any other area of mainstream physics. When you know the inner workings of something you know its pros and its cons. Try it sometime.
Kaiduorkhon:
Many, if not most, of the copies and pastes that I have included in this thread, are my own words, copied from my book and pasted in this thread. Some of the copies and pastes are indeed quotes from other sources, but, they augment - and authenticate - the cogent points I wish to make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For liberated access to an alternative paper on string theory, refer: http://milesmathis.com/string.html
If this URL slows to a stop, Google: Miles Mathis String.)
The Inelegant Universe
by Miles Mathis
(Introduction)
"Readers coming here from a web-search or from other chapters of mine may assume I have nothing to say about the math of string theory. They will assume that since I am neither an insider nor a famous mathematician, the subtleties of 11-dimensional math are beyond me. And since the first part of this paper attacks the theory and not the math, many will assume that I am just making a philosophical critique. They are quite mistaken. In Part II of this paper I will make a foundational critique of the math, revealing some astonishing facts that even the princes of the theory will not want to miss. So if you tend to nod off at any stretch of sentences that fails to contain a number or a variable, there is something for you here, too. The big laughs are in the first part of this paper, but the lasting interest lies in the last part."
Although Miles Mathis occasionally crosses lines of etiquette - that is by no means the only reason he is in disfavor from the incumbent physics cabal, as the attentive reader will see. Apart from his sometimes harsh innuendo, he is also an unusually astute source of unapproved information in a storm of balanced, 'New Age' propaganda - an element of ostracization of which he is defiantly aware, and at times, perhaps, overcompensates for in his uncommon, rogue monologue.
In the paraphrased words of an early American patriot, I do not always agree with Mathis, but, will not forsake his opportunity to express himself and be heard. - Kaiduorkhon
Last edited:
So you can't do vector calculus but you think you have a description of a multidimensional time dependent system? Yet more evidence you make silly claims.
The number of dimensions of a space (in the manifold sense) is the number of linearly independent vectors required to span its tangent space. Put another way its the number of independent directions or the number of independent coordinates required to uniquely define an event. I can't be blamed for you not knowing what 'dimension' means and then finding that people don't believe you when you make claims about electromagnetism and extra dimensions. It's your fault you don't understand the terminology you use.
I was going to respond to the rest of your post but I frankly can't be bothered. I have to hand in my thesis by the end of this week and have to do the tedious job of citations and references. You admit you don't know basic terminology and then complain when people don't accept your use of it. You admit you don't know any relevant mathematics but you make claims about it. You have no working model of anything, you have no experimental evidence, you have no mathematical justification. You have nothing. The very fact you're arguing about your claims on an internet forum illustrates you've got nothing.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Long ago an entire afternoon passed with a teacher explaining that all of the - practically innumerable - positions he put a universal joint in, were 'dimensions'; this was his definition of the meaning of dimensions. No. I don't do vector calculus, but the point he was trying to make was out of context, and I knew it because of what little I do know of calculus as it is used to measure acceleration. Your statement that an "electromagnetic field extends in all directions can form multidimensional structures when you combine it with other charges" does not apply to the definition of dimensions that I base the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions on - which is, among other things, vector calculus. ”
AlphaNumeric:
So you can't do vector calculus but you think you have a description of a multidimensional time dependent system? Yet more evidence you make silly claims.
The number of dimensions of a space (in the manifold sense) is the number of linearly independent vectors required to span its tangent space. Put another way its the number of independent directions or the number of independent coordinates required to uniquely define an event. I can't be blamed for you not knowing what 'dimension' means and then finding that people don't believe you when you make claims about electromagnetism and extra dimensions. It's your fault you don't understand the terminology you use.
I was going to respond to the rest of your post but I frankly can't be bothered. I have to hand in my thesis by the end of this week and have to do the tedious job of citations and references. You admit you don't know basic terminology and then complain when people don't accept your use of it. You admit you don't know any relevant mathematics but you make claims about it. You have no working model of anything, you have no experimental evidence, you have no mathematical justification. You have nothing. The very fact you're arguing about your claims on an internet forum illustrates you've got nothing.
Kaiduorkhon:
To the best of my mathematically limited knowledge, you are correct in all that you say of my shortcomings in mathematics.
What you have not done, however, is taken the opportunity to evaluate how my work approaches and resolves issues without mathematics, in unprecedented approaches and resolutions. As I have said before, regarding a working model - functional examples of what constitute a working model are manifest - abundantly - in existential reality, as Einstein innovated. The same is true of experimental evidence.
"The very fact that you're arguing your claims on an internet forum illustrates you've got nothing".
Kaiduorkhon:
The fact that you fault work for its argument on an internet forum - proclaiming that this fact illustrates I've 'got nothing', gives sway to the (frequently denied) observation that there is indeed a 'physics cabal'.
The complimentary reviews that have been directed at the work were not those of people who had not read the work, but rather, from those who had.
I understand and sympathize with your skepticism regarding my bereft knowledge of maths. What I don't understand is how you can generously provide as much time to a thread such as this, without reading the book that accompanies it - which transcends and nullifies much of what was formerly required, mathematically.
The central obstruction to accessing the previously unconsidered alternatives to many if not most of the key problems in contemporary theoretical physics, is the unqualified rejection of a physically/materially expanding-accelerating universe; where the constituent foundations - neutrons, protons, electrons, and all that constitutes - or is constructed of - them, are in fact objectively found to be in a state of constantly accelerating expansion, while subjectively denied as being in that dynamic state.
Presently, it is understandable that you are fully preoccupied with your academic and other obligations. On the other hand, since you have invested your valuable time, while still not reading the proffered book which you could easily accomodate in much less time than you've already invested in this discourse - I respectfully request that you address yourself to the work at issue, and return to this thread with a critique that points to the specific issues at hand, rather than subjects which are not the focus of the book.
Progress in theoretical physics - without math - can be and is demonstrated in these regards. You do not anticipate this, and reject it out of hand, without a fair review of the subjected material.
Long ago an entire afternoon passed with a teacher explaining that all of the - practically innumerable - positions he put a universal joint in, were 'dimensions'; this was his definition of the meaning of dimensions. No. I don't do vector calculus, but the point he was trying to make was out of context, and I knew it because of what little I do know of calculus as it is used to measure acceleration. Your statement that an "electromagnetic field extends in all directions can form multidimensional structures when you combine it with other charges" does not apply to the definition of dimensions that I base the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions on - which is, among other things, vector calculus. ”
AlphaNumeric:
So you can't do vector calculus but you think you have a description of a multidimensional time dependent system? Yet more evidence you make silly claims.
The number of dimensions of a space (in the manifold sense) is the number of linearly independent vectors required to span its tangent space. Put another way its the number of independent directions or the number of independent coordinates required to uniquely define an event. I can't be blamed for you not knowing what 'dimension' means and then finding that people don't believe you when you make claims about electromagnetism and extra dimensions. It's your fault you don't understand the terminology you use.
I was going to respond to the rest of your post but I frankly can't be bothered. I have to hand in my thesis by the end of this week and have to do the tedious job of citations and references. You admit you don't know basic terminology and then complain when people don't accept your use of it. You admit you don't know any relevant mathematics but you make claims about it. You have no working model of anything, you have no experimental evidence, you have no mathematical justification. You have nothing. The very fact you're arguing about your claims on an internet forum illustrates you've got nothing.
Kaiduorkhon:
To the best of my mathematically limited knowledge, you are correct in all that you say of my shortcomings in mathematics.
What you have not done, however, is taken the opportunity to evaluate how my work approaches and resolves issues without mathematics, in unprecedented approaches and resolutions. As I have said before, regarding a working model - functional examples of what constitute a working model are manifest - abundantly - in existential reality, as Einstein innovated. The same is true of experimental evidence.
"The very fact that you're arguing your claims on an internet forum illustrates you've got nothing".
Kaiduorkhon:
The fact that you fault work for its argument on an internet forum - proclaiming that this fact illustrates I've 'got nothing', gives sway to the (frequently denied) observation that there is indeed a 'physics cabal'.
The complimentary reviews that have been directed at the work were not those of people who had not read the work, but rather, from those who had.
I understand and sympathize with your skepticism regarding my bereft knowledge of maths. What I don't understand is how you can generously provide as much time to a thread such as this, without reading the book that accompanies it - which transcends and nullifies much of what was formerly required, mathematically.
The central obstruction to accessing the previously unconsidered alternatives to many if not most of the key problems in contemporary theoretical physics, is the unqualified rejection of a physically/materially expanding-accelerating universe; where the constituent foundations - neutrons, protons, electrons, and all that constitutes - or is constructed of - them, are in fact objectively found to be in a state of constantly accelerating expansion, while subjectively denied as being in that dynamic state.
Presently, it is understandable that you are fully preoccupied with your academic and other obligations. On the other hand, since you have invested your valuable time, while still not reading the proffered book which you could easily accomodate in much less time than you've already invested in this discourse - I respectfully request that you address yourself to the work at issue, and return to this thread with a critique that points to the specific issues at hand, rather than subjects which are not the focus of the book.
Progress in theoretical physics - without math - can be and is demonstrated in these regards. You do not anticipate this, and reject it out of hand, without a fair review of the subjected material.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Dear AlphaNumeric:
The following urls are but fragments of culminating world phenomenological trends; the messages therein may not portend the company that you and others keep, but, it is the company that keeps you and others.
The entire world, from eco-systems to academia, science, art and culture, is going south; the following blogs are some narrow beams of light still finding a way through the culminating darkness. One of these blogs is about the abuse of Dr. Brian Greene's sensational 'String Theory', and how it extends far beyond Dr. Greene or his theory, revealing 'a world that cannot scratch itself without becoming entangled in its own web'. http://milesmathis.com/string.html
Another is about control of information, which is directly related to how 'educational reform' is bearing down upon us like the 'New Math' (which was taught for decades before it summed up its own undoing).
http://milesmathis.com/wiki.html
Of course, anyone who may seriously consider these sources of information is at hazard of perishing beneath a hail of crank stigmatized darts. That - mud-slinging, back biting, rat packing, ostracizing dynamic of character assassination - also, is subjected in the proffered materials.
Then, there are those who would understandably ask, 'Why?' What is to be gained by methodologically mass producing misinformation and crazymaking? What is there to be gained, by whom, for such proposed, contrived dynamics?
The answer is simply, that a higher gross national product is to be gained, by the 'corporate state' (big business): Masses of people in a general state of harmony, consume much less - of everything that there is to be consumed - than do masses of people in a general state of chaos, confusion and fear.
Operant conditioning, neurolinguistic programming, psychomolecular restructuring, behavior modification - brainwashing by any other magnetically exotic, Orwellian NewSpeaking name. Reality is being dismissed for lack of evidence. It's not reality, it crazy-making actuality.
(*'What difference does it make? Nobody cares. It's always been this way. There's nothing you can do about it.' - Familiar calls to surrender. Give ye up all hoopex, who roll in *herex.)
'Those who are not willing to defend freedom and democracy, are not worthy of enjoying any of it'. - Ben Franklin (paraphrased)
Readers may draw their own conclusions.
The following urls are but fragments of culminating world phenomenological trends; the messages therein may not portend the company that you and others keep, but, it is the company that keeps you and others.
The entire world, from eco-systems to academia, science, art and culture, is going south; the following blogs are some narrow beams of light still finding a way through the culminating darkness. One of these blogs is about the abuse of Dr. Brian Greene's sensational 'String Theory', and how it extends far beyond Dr. Greene or his theory, revealing 'a world that cannot scratch itself without becoming entangled in its own web'. http://milesmathis.com/string.html
Another is about control of information, which is directly related to how 'educational reform' is bearing down upon us like the 'New Math' (which was taught for decades before it summed up its own undoing).
http://milesmathis.com/wiki.html
Of course, anyone who may seriously consider these sources of information is at hazard of perishing beneath a hail of crank stigmatized darts. That - mud-slinging, back biting, rat packing, ostracizing dynamic of character assassination - also, is subjected in the proffered materials.
Then, there are those who would understandably ask, 'Why?' What is to be gained by methodologically mass producing misinformation and crazymaking? What is there to be gained, by whom, for such proposed, contrived dynamics?
The answer is simply, that a higher gross national product is to be gained, by the 'corporate state' (big business): Masses of people in a general state of harmony, consume much less - of everything that there is to be consumed - than do masses of people in a general state of chaos, confusion and fear.
Operant conditioning, neurolinguistic programming, psychomolecular restructuring, behavior modification - brainwashing by any other magnetically exotic, Orwellian NewSpeaking name. Reality is being dismissed for lack of evidence. It's not reality, it crazy-making actuality.
(*'What difference does it make? Nobody cares. It's always been this way. There's nothing you can do about it.' - Familiar calls to surrender. Give ye up all hoopex, who roll in *herex.)
'Those who are not willing to defend freedom and democracy, are not worthy of enjoying any of it'. - Ben Franklin (paraphrased)
Readers may draw their own conclusions.
Last edited:
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Excerpts from Part One of *Miles Mathis', The Inelegant Universe, follow; with the permission of the *author:
This is a critique of Prof. Brian Greene's best selling book, The Elegant Universe.
(Editor's note: Having repeatedly read this paper, as a mere science writer and lay physics buff, I was at first in a quandary as to which of the two main characters in this theater is bonkers - Greene, or Mathis. I'm no longer beguiled. Having metaphorically invaded Russia, he shall exit with shuddering fall. Not because I say so, or because the formidably glib and resourceful- if acerbic - Miles Mathis says so, but, because - in my humble (if resolute) opinion - Greene has irrevocably made his fateful entrance. Setting the stage for the future of Orwell's 1984 - just about the time when Brian Greene began this historically celebrated and benchmarked, colossal adventure... Greene's cavalier treatments - especially of 'dimensions' - are particularly slapstick: humor may be his strongest suit, and fortification. - K. B. Robertson, aka, Kaiduorkhon, aka, Kai.)
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the late 20th century it took a lot to interest the top graduate students like Brian Greene. They could see no quick road to fame by studying the boring past. What was wanted was an avant garde math or theory to latch onto. This is what had made Einstein famous, and after him Feynman and Hawking and all the rest. Mathematics had been the key, and it looked to continue to be the key in the near future. For Brian Greene and the other ambitious young physicists of our time, the job is not to try to discover why the old avant garde maths aren't working; no, the job is to create ever newer avant garde maths that are harder to test. This will automatically provide fewer empirical contradictions, and thereby a stronger theory.
In this paper I will use The Elegant Universe (by Dr. Brian Greene), as my scratching post. I do this for a number of reasons, but the main reasons are: 1) It is a recent bestseller and has done as much as any book to popularize the theory, 2) It describes an almost unbelievably inelegant universe, 3) It is as transparent as thinnest glass, setting me up for easy scores on almost every page. As far as the last reason goes, I will show that it is probably a mistake for avant garde maths and theories to allow themselves to be presented to popular audiences, especially if the presentation is in a clear language. Brian Greene is a good science writer: good in the sense that a reader can penetrate what he is saying. But science used to understand that obscure theories should always remain in obscure language. That was the only hope for them, no matter the audience. An honest presentation of a dishonest theory is too dangerous. For one thing, it allows other scientists like me to find the flaws too easily. Fully cloaked in its armor of equations, it is not so easy to sort out, even for a mathematician. But stated baldly it becomes a sitting duck.
I find it astonishing that string theory has made it this far. Greene says that the early years were a bit of a struggle, but I don't tend to believe it. The fact that a theory that is such a magnificent mess is on its feet at all is a very bad sign. It shows the uncritical nature of our milieu, not only in the public and publishing sector, but at the highest levels. The reason for this is clear: graduate students like Greene were well-trained in being uncritical, and they have been for more than half a century. The old uncritical graduate students are now deans and department chairs, and they are all very far gone down the road of non-discrimination. The list of things they have accepted at face value is long and shocking. Greene's first five chapters are a public airing of all the absurd things he has accepted without much analysis. It is clear that he has accepted them because he never really cared if they were true or made sense or not. He, like the others, has from the beginning judged each incoming piece of information based on its likelihood to add to his prestige, and anything that was already a settled question could not help in that area. What he and the other ambitious theoreticians were looking for all along was the end point. "Get me to the end-point as fast as possible." Because then they could begin making their personal contribution. "Put me as close to the front of the line as you can, where I can begin pushing."
For these brightest students, physics was no longer seen as a field they could add to, it was a field they could trump. Their greatest goal was to make all of the past immediately obsolete. Basic physics was digested like a breakfast at the drive-thru, Relativity was duly cut and pasted, and QED was memorized by rote. All this was done by the age of 24 or 25. Another year of all-nighters provided them with the latest hyper-maths and theories, so that they could immediately begin discussing ten-vector fields with full abandon at the coffeeshop and braintrust.
In this way science has become just like Modern Art. The contemporary artist and the contemporary physicist look at the world in much the same way. The past means nothing. They gravitate to novelty as the ultimate distinction, in and of itself. They do this because novelty is the surest guarantee of recognition. The contemporary artist always has his nose to the wind, sniffing the air for the next trend. As soon as he gets a whiff of it he is off running. He is always in a race with time, for it is no longer a matter of being best, it is a matter of being first. He therefore congregates with others of his type. They mass at the same hotspots, antennae erect.
The contemporary scientist is the same. He is a social creature, always trying to impress. Rigor impresses no one in the modern world, so he does not even have to fake it. What impresses are lots of difficult equations, with lots of new variables and terms. The ultimate distinction is coining new words for the new math and the new objects. Calabi-Yau shapes and 3-branes and orbi-folding: that is rich beyond anything.
The art departments have long since dismantled the old schedules: painting and sculpture are passe, studio art a dinosaur, drawing from the nude a sexist embarrassment. The physics and math departments will soon follow suit, no doubt. Mechanics and kinematics will be jettisoned as a theoretical nuisance, a blockage of creativity. Classical algebra and geometry will become an elective, taken only by historians and archivists. Instead, seventh graders will be offered "The Rudiments of Chaos Theory" and "Fun with Tensors" and "Computer Modelling with i."
Let me now show you a few examples of the absurdities that the standard model teaches. I do this to prove that by accepting these absurdities, it encourages a proliferation of more such absurdities. It teaches the graduate students, by example, that mathematical fuzziness pays and that conceptual rigor does not. Let us start with the "messenger particle,"1 a relatively new beast in the physical zoo. The messenger particle is a photon that tells another particle whether it should move away or move near. The messenger particle was invented to solve the problem of attraction. At some point it became clear to physicists that attraction couldn't logically be explained by a trading of particles. Their old blankets over this problem had begin to wear thin, so they needed a new concept. Enter the messenger particle. With the messenger particle, we no longer have to be concerned with explaining physical interactions mechanically. We don't even have to imagine that movement away in a field is caused by bombardment, which was such a simple concept. No, we can now explain both movement away in a field and movement toward in field as due to information in a messenger particle. This simultaneously explains both positive charge and negative charge. How easy: the photon just tells the particle what to do. Why did we not think of that before?
Once you accept that quantum particles are on speaking terms, physics is so much tidier. There is no end to what we can explain this way. We can have the particles trading recipes, emailing eachother, SMSing, watching TV. It is a theoretical goldmine.
Gluons, weak-gauge bosons, and gravitons are also messenger particles of their various forces. The problem of attraction is solved once and for all, for all possible fields. Gravity is not curved space or a physical force. It is a commandment.
The next absurdity is one of Feynman's famous absurdities.2 This one concerns letting an electron going through the two-slit experiment take all possible (infinite in number) paths simultaneously and then summing over these paths to find the wave function. Any idiot can see that this is just a mathematical consideration and has no physical implications, but Feynman was a special kind of idiot. He insisted for some reason that the math was the physics, and all the special idiots since then have taken his word for it. They love to quote or paraphrase him, as Greene does, "You must allow nature to dictate what is and what is not sensible." Which means, "You must allow me (Feynman) to dictate what is and what is not sensible. I am smarter than you are and if you don't allow me to dictate to you, I will browbeat you mercilessly." Even now that Feynman is long in the grave and incapable of personally browbeating anyone, the special idiots still quote and paraphrase and bow to his authority. Feynman himself was bowing to the authority of Heisenberg and Bohr, who first decided, by fiat, that the math of quantum mechanics was the physics. Or perhaps he was only learning from their example. Counterintuitive fiats had made them famous with all the toadies, why not make a few of his own counterintuitive fiats and toadies?
Greene tells us outright: "Quantum mechanics requires that you hold such pedestrian complaints [about things making sense] in abeyance." What could be more convenient for a scientist? He is now in the position of a priest. The priests have always said the same thing to non-believers. "You must not expect it to make sense. You must have faith. Trust the Lord." Trust Feynman. He is smarter than you and understands what you should believe. He has filled the blackboards with Hamiltonians and has cracked safes. He has earned the right to say ridiculous things, like the Dalai Lama or the Buddha or the President.
This is the most important thing that string theorists have learned from quantum mechanics: you do not have to make sense anymore. Any contradiction can be relabeled a paradox, any infinity can be relabeled an axiom, any absurdity can be given to Nature herself, who is an absurd creature, in love with illogic and caprice.
I could go on indefinitely, listing other absurdities like the Twin Paradox and the singularity and so on, but I have analyzed these problems elsewhere in great detail; and besides, you already either accept them or don't accept them, so that my comments are nearly beside the point. You won't judge the concepts based on anything I could say of them, you will only judge me for what I say of them. Therefore, let me proceed to critique string theory, a theory that is not yet set in stone, even for the toadiest.
String theory begins by defining a string. In most instances a string is a one-dimensional loop, we are told. String theory is famous for its ever-increasing number of required dimensions, so that you would think that the theorists would have a pretty tight idea of what a dimension is. But if you think this you would be wrong. String theory is about math, not about concepts, and these brilliant mathematicians don't have a very clear idea what a dimension is or what a one-dimensional "thing" would be. In math, a one-dimensional thing is a line. It always has been, since the time of Euclid, and that has not changed recently. A zero-dimensional thing is a point, a two dimensional thing is a plane, and a three-dimensional thing is a cube or sphere or whatnot. But all of these things are mathematical abstractions. They don't exist and can't exist. Of all these mathematical things, only the three-dimensional things have a potential existence, and then only if you add time. There is a very simple reason for this that has nothing to do with gods or turning on the universe or anything else esoteric or metaphysical. Points, lines and planes cannot exist because they do not have any physical extension. A plane disappears in the z direction, a line disappears in the x and y direction, and a point disappears in all three directions. In mathematical terms, it means that the variable or field has hit a limit—a zero or infinity—at this point in the equations, making existence impossible.
Physicists used to understand simple concepts like this, but no more. Even mathematicians don't appear to understand them. These concepts just get in the way until some self-described genius somewhere finds a clever way around them, and we aren't bothered with them anymore. After that we are allowed to propose the existence of mathematical objects and no one blinks an eye. But it remains a (perhaps unpleasant) fact that a line cannot exist. Even in pure math, a "one-dimensional loop" cannot exist. A one-dimensional loop is false even as a mathematical abstraction. Why? Because a loop curves. Any curve is no longer one-dimensional. A curve is two-dimensional, by definition.
Greene and his heroes imagine that because you can, in a pinch, express a position on a curve with one variable, that it is a one-dimensional object. But it isn't. Greene proves this when he begins talking about his garden-hose world, where the position of a bug on the hose can be expressed with two variables. He then admits in an endnote that if the garden hose has an interior, we must have more dimensions. But when, in a physical situation, is it possible to imagine a garden hose, no matter how tiny, with no interior? It is not possible and his "two-dimensional" garden hose, if physical, must have three dimensions.
Greene makes the current confusion even more apparent when he begins increasing the Type IIA coupling constant.3 This allows strings to expand into two and three-dimensional objects. He says that the two-dimensional string is like a bicycle tire and the three-dimensional object is like a donut. So Greene thinks there is a dimensional difference between a bicycle tire and a donut! If a bicycle tire is not solid rubber through and through, then the third dimension has disappeared? We should at least have to suck the space out of it with some kind of space vacuum, right?
String theory is such a godawful mess right from the first concept that it is painful to go on. But I will. Once we have our impossible one-dimensional loops, we are to imagine that they are vibrating. To vibrate in the right way for the theory, they must be strung very, very, very tight. Now, a sensible person would already have several foundational questions. First of all, why are they vibrating? Second, why are some vibrating one way and some vibrating another way? Third, what causes the tension?
The first concept, basic vibration, we can give them. Vibration is far from being a basic motion, but there has to be some first cause, and so we will allow one unexplainable motion as first cause. But the difference in different vibrations cannot be uncaused. We cannot allow it to be a postulate. Different vibrations should have different mechanical causes. If one string is vibrating in a different way from another, there must be a reason. String theorists have already told us that strings are not made up of subparticles; they are absolutely indivisible. They should therefore be undifferentiated. Ultimate strings that are indivisible should act the same in the same circumstances. If they act differently, then the circumstances must differ. But we are not told what these different circumstances are. The vast variation in behavior is just another postulate.
Besides, even if we admitted the impossible—that a one-dimensional loop could exist—once you give it a vibration it automatically gains a dimension. All you have to do is look at the direction it is postulated to vibrate in. Does it vibrate lengthwise? Of course not. How could it? It is undifferentiated lengthwise, meaning that it is not made up of subparticles. There is no way a pulse could travel lengthwise in a string that was not divisible. So the theorists propose sideways vibrations, of different sizes and wavelengths. In technical terms, we are talking about transverse waves, not longitudinal waves. A transverse wave will automatically push the string into a second dimension. So all talk of one-dimensional strings is a wash from the beginning, for two fundamental reasons, not one.
This brings us to another question: is it even possible for a one-dimensional string to vibrate sideways? I have reminded the reader that a longitudinal wave is impossible to imagine without some subdivision of the string. There has to be some sort of longitudinal variation to propose compression; but this variation is not possible without subdivision. In the end this is because without subdivision you cannot insert any space into the string. You need space in between the particles making up the string in order to propose variation in compression. But a closer analysis shows the same problem with transverse waves on a one-dimensional string. How is a one-dimensional string bendable without some "give" between particles making up the string? If the string is absolutely indivisible and undifferentiated, then it is not clear that we can bend it. A bend would occur at the bond between particles, in a macroscopic string. In a string-theory string, there is no bond between particles, since there are no particles making up the string. Bending or vibrating a string-theory string is like proposing to bend or vibrate a cube or a cone or a sphere. If our fundamental particle were any of these instead of the string, you would laugh if someone proposed that it bent. Imagine a cube bending. How would a fundamental, undifferentiated cube bend? Or a fundamental, undifferentiated sphere? But bending a fundamental, undifferentiated string is just as silly. It is just another postulate that is impossible to explain or justify.
Likewise, tension is a pretty complex concept. It is not a fundamental motion or event. In fact, tension is a force. But string theory is supposed to be explaining the four fundamental forces, not creating more. What causes the tension? How is it possible to have a tension across an undifferentiated ultimate string? How is it possible to have tension in a closed loop, unless that loop is being expanded by some outside force? None of this is explained. Tension is just an assumption, another axiom.
After a first reading, I had already discovered that string theory has more basic postulates than any theory I had ever seen or imagined. To any logical person from past centuries, string theory would look like a comedy of errors. Newton has been all but laughed at by string theorists for not giving a mechanical explanation of force at a distance. But these theorists are in no position to throw stones. Newton would look at string theory and say something like, "Well, of course, if you are allowed to make enough unprovable assumptions at the beginning, you can formulate a theory to contain anything. Especially if you are allowed to beg the question so egregiously. String theory is the attempt to unify the four basic force fields. To do this it creates, as a postulate, a huge force of uncaused tension. Then it adds to that a basic 'particle' that can morph into anything, just by changing its 'tune.' All these morphs are uncaused and act as further postulates—as postulates they do not require proof or any justification. Then, whenever the math stops spitting out numbers they want, they postulate new branes, donuts, tubes, three-holed buttons, frisbees, and anything else that tickles their fancy. None of these new objects has to be justified beyond the fact that they needed them to fill a hole in the math. 'It fit the hole, therefore it must be real!' Then, when the going gets really tough, they add a new dimension. M-theory gives them the 11th dimension, and why stop there? I predict that, like Feynman, they will finally understand that the sky is the limit. Why not predict an infinite number of curled up dimensions, sum over them in some fudgy way, and achieve any answer you like, to fit any occasion. Only then will the madness come to its illogical end."
This is the basic technique of string theory: if you run into some dead-end at any point in the math, transport that dead-end back to the string. For example, perhaps you find the need for a new particle but your math at that level of size or theory does not allow it. Well, simply make it another axiom of string theory. Postulate that your basic string takes that shape under the circumstances you have discovered, and your work is done. In this way, every conceivable problem can be collected at the foundational level and made into an axiom. Since you don't have to prove axioms, you will never be pestered to supply a proof or explain anything. All problems can be collected, reinserted at the axiomatic level, and treated ever after as assumptions. In this way string theory really is the perfect theory. Using this technique, nothing is beyond mathematical expression.
String theory is actually even more inelegant than QED (Quantum ElectroDynamics), and QED is not exactly a poster child for elegance or simplicity. Greene tells us that string theory was invented to simplify the huge number of "elementary" particles in QED, as well as to combine QED and Relativity. But he seems oblivious to the fact that string theory has a record-setting number of axioms and an ever-increasing number of vibrations, dimensions, blobs, branes, and jellies. The only object not yet incorporated into string theory is the moss-covered three-handled family gradunza. It also has a truly impressive number of manufactured manipulations, such as the set of instructions for orbi-folding a Calabi-Yau shape or the tearing of space in a flop transition. These manipulations come provided with no theory, and are basically added to the list of postulates: postulate #89,041—we can flop-tear an orbi-folded 3-brane goofus as long as we can say afterwards that the math made us do it (and provide a sexy little computer-generated diagram).
Another of the inelegances of string theory is the required energy of a string. The unbelievable amount of tension [1039 tons] on a single string gives it a mass of some 1019 protons. This is about the mass of a grain of dust. The theorists need all this force on the string since they have gathered all the other forces here at the axiomatic level. This has the added benefit, they think, of making the mass too great to be discovered in an accelerator. Unfortunately, the mass is so huge that it should make the string discoverable by macroscopic means. I might suggest a sieve. Seriously though, the theorists admit that "all but a few of the vibrational patterns will correspond to extremely heavy particles," meaning particles many times heavier than a grain of dust.4 It is hard to believe that masses of this sort floating around are undetectable. Greene says that they are unlikely because "such super-heavy particles are usually unstable."5 It is interesting to note that string theory never says why all such super-heavy particles should be unstable. In fact, there is no theoretical reason they all should be. It is another postulate: postulate #76,904—super-heavy particles are all unstable because if they weren't we might be able to find one. The instability is another axiomatic convenience of the theory.
Here's another inelegance. In a subchapter ironically entitled, "The More Precise Answer,"6 Greene develops this idea: the "violent quantum jitters" can be quieted by imagining a collision of point particles as a collision of strings instead. One string represents an electron, say, and the other a positron. The two strings join for a moment as a string that represents a photon and then re-separate as two new strings. The reason this is an improvement, we are told, has to do with Relativity. Greene uses his two observers George and Gracie (the Burns and Allen ghosts are due massive apologies for being brought into this mess, I think) to "slice" his strings into different events. George sees the strings meeting at one time and Gracie see the meeting at another time. Among all possible observers the meeting point will be smeared out over some time. This smearing calms the quantum jitters.
This is among the most dishonest uses of Relativity and diagramming I have ever seen. In order for his argument to work, Greene has to diagram the strings as three-dimensional objects. For it is not the length of the strings that causes the Relativistic difference in his argument, it is the thickness. But he began the subchapter by admitting that the strings were one-dimensional. He brags that one-dimensional strings can do what zero-dimensional points cannot. Remember that strings have only a length dimension. They have no thickness. As a matter of width or thickness or radius, they act just like points. They have zero radial dimension. This means that Greene's Relativistic slicing is flat wrong. His diagrams are a big fat lie, since they cause you to visualize something that cannot be happening. His words are saying one thing and his diagrams are saying the opposite. If the strings are one-dimensional lines, then the fork where they meet will also be one-dimensional. If you slice it at a dt, then the fork will be in the same exact place for all viewers. String theory adds absolutely nothing to QED or the point problem. It simply adds another layer of lies to cover it up.
- Excerpt, Part 1, The Inelegant Universe, by Miles Mathis http://milesmathis.com/string.html .
This is a critique of Prof. Brian Greene's best selling book, The Elegant Universe.
(Editor's note: Having repeatedly read this paper, as a mere science writer and lay physics buff, I was at first in a quandary as to which of the two main characters in this theater is bonkers - Greene, or Mathis. I'm no longer beguiled. Having metaphorically invaded Russia, he shall exit with shuddering fall. Not because I say so, or because the formidably glib and resourceful- if acerbic - Miles Mathis says so, but, because - in my humble (if resolute) opinion - Greene has irrevocably made his fateful entrance. Setting the stage for the future of Orwell's 1984 - just about the time when Brian Greene began this historically celebrated and benchmarked, colossal adventure... Greene's cavalier treatments - especially of 'dimensions' - are particularly slapstick: humor may be his strongest suit, and fortification. - K. B. Robertson, aka, Kaiduorkhon, aka, Kai.)
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the late 20th century it took a lot to interest the top graduate students like Brian Greene. They could see no quick road to fame by studying the boring past. What was wanted was an avant garde math or theory to latch onto. This is what had made Einstein famous, and after him Feynman and Hawking and all the rest. Mathematics had been the key, and it looked to continue to be the key in the near future. For Brian Greene and the other ambitious young physicists of our time, the job is not to try to discover why the old avant garde maths aren't working; no, the job is to create ever newer avant garde maths that are harder to test. This will automatically provide fewer empirical contradictions, and thereby a stronger theory.
In this paper I will use The Elegant Universe (by Dr. Brian Greene), as my scratching post. I do this for a number of reasons, but the main reasons are: 1) It is a recent bestseller and has done as much as any book to popularize the theory, 2) It describes an almost unbelievably inelegant universe, 3) It is as transparent as thinnest glass, setting me up for easy scores on almost every page. As far as the last reason goes, I will show that it is probably a mistake for avant garde maths and theories to allow themselves to be presented to popular audiences, especially if the presentation is in a clear language. Brian Greene is a good science writer: good in the sense that a reader can penetrate what he is saying. But science used to understand that obscure theories should always remain in obscure language. That was the only hope for them, no matter the audience. An honest presentation of a dishonest theory is too dangerous. For one thing, it allows other scientists like me to find the flaws too easily. Fully cloaked in its armor of equations, it is not so easy to sort out, even for a mathematician. But stated baldly it becomes a sitting duck.
I find it astonishing that string theory has made it this far. Greene says that the early years were a bit of a struggle, but I don't tend to believe it. The fact that a theory that is such a magnificent mess is on its feet at all is a very bad sign. It shows the uncritical nature of our milieu, not only in the public and publishing sector, but at the highest levels. The reason for this is clear: graduate students like Greene were well-trained in being uncritical, and they have been for more than half a century. The old uncritical graduate students are now deans and department chairs, and they are all very far gone down the road of non-discrimination. The list of things they have accepted at face value is long and shocking. Greene's first five chapters are a public airing of all the absurd things he has accepted without much analysis. It is clear that he has accepted them because he never really cared if they were true or made sense or not. He, like the others, has from the beginning judged each incoming piece of information based on its likelihood to add to his prestige, and anything that was already a settled question could not help in that area. What he and the other ambitious theoreticians were looking for all along was the end point. "Get me to the end-point as fast as possible." Because then they could begin making their personal contribution. "Put me as close to the front of the line as you can, where I can begin pushing."
For these brightest students, physics was no longer seen as a field they could add to, it was a field they could trump. Their greatest goal was to make all of the past immediately obsolete. Basic physics was digested like a breakfast at the drive-thru, Relativity was duly cut and pasted, and QED was memorized by rote. All this was done by the age of 24 or 25. Another year of all-nighters provided them with the latest hyper-maths and theories, so that they could immediately begin discussing ten-vector fields with full abandon at the coffeeshop and braintrust.
In this way science has become just like Modern Art. The contemporary artist and the contemporary physicist look at the world in much the same way. The past means nothing. They gravitate to novelty as the ultimate distinction, in and of itself. They do this because novelty is the surest guarantee of recognition. The contemporary artist always has his nose to the wind, sniffing the air for the next trend. As soon as he gets a whiff of it he is off running. He is always in a race with time, for it is no longer a matter of being best, it is a matter of being first. He therefore congregates with others of his type. They mass at the same hotspots, antennae erect.
The contemporary scientist is the same. He is a social creature, always trying to impress. Rigor impresses no one in the modern world, so he does not even have to fake it. What impresses are lots of difficult equations, with lots of new variables and terms. The ultimate distinction is coining new words for the new math and the new objects. Calabi-Yau shapes and 3-branes and orbi-folding: that is rich beyond anything.
The art departments have long since dismantled the old schedules: painting and sculpture are passe, studio art a dinosaur, drawing from the nude a sexist embarrassment. The physics and math departments will soon follow suit, no doubt. Mechanics and kinematics will be jettisoned as a theoretical nuisance, a blockage of creativity. Classical algebra and geometry will become an elective, taken only by historians and archivists. Instead, seventh graders will be offered "The Rudiments of Chaos Theory" and "Fun with Tensors" and "Computer Modelling with i."
Let me now show you a few examples of the absurdities that the standard model teaches. I do this to prove that by accepting these absurdities, it encourages a proliferation of more such absurdities. It teaches the graduate students, by example, that mathematical fuzziness pays and that conceptual rigor does not. Let us start with the "messenger particle,"1 a relatively new beast in the physical zoo. The messenger particle is a photon that tells another particle whether it should move away or move near. The messenger particle was invented to solve the problem of attraction. At some point it became clear to physicists that attraction couldn't logically be explained by a trading of particles. Their old blankets over this problem had begin to wear thin, so they needed a new concept. Enter the messenger particle. With the messenger particle, we no longer have to be concerned with explaining physical interactions mechanically. We don't even have to imagine that movement away in a field is caused by bombardment, which was such a simple concept. No, we can now explain both movement away in a field and movement toward in field as due to information in a messenger particle. This simultaneously explains both positive charge and negative charge. How easy: the photon just tells the particle what to do. Why did we not think of that before?
Once you accept that quantum particles are on speaking terms, physics is so much tidier. There is no end to what we can explain this way. We can have the particles trading recipes, emailing eachother, SMSing, watching TV. It is a theoretical goldmine.
Gluons, weak-gauge bosons, and gravitons are also messenger particles of their various forces. The problem of attraction is solved once and for all, for all possible fields. Gravity is not curved space or a physical force. It is a commandment.
The next absurdity is one of Feynman's famous absurdities.2 This one concerns letting an electron going through the two-slit experiment take all possible (infinite in number) paths simultaneously and then summing over these paths to find the wave function. Any idiot can see that this is just a mathematical consideration and has no physical implications, but Feynman was a special kind of idiot. He insisted for some reason that the math was the physics, and all the special idiots since then have taken his word for it. They love to quote or paraphrase him, as Greene does, "You must allow nature to dictate what is and what is not sensible." Which means, "You must allow me (Feynman) to dictate what is and what is not sensible. I am smarter than you are and if you don't allow me to dictate to you, I will browbeat you mercilessly." Even now that Feynman is long in the grave and incapable of personally browbeating anyone, the special idiots still quote and paraphrase and bow to his authority. Feynman himself was bowing to the authority of Heisenberg and Bohr, who first decided, by fiat, that the math of quantum mechanics was the physics. Or perhaps he was only learning from their example. Counterintuitive fiats had made them famous with all the toadies, why not make a few of his own counterintuitive fiats and toadies?
Greene tells us outright: "Quantum mechanics requires that you hold such pedestrian complaints [about things making sense] in abeyance." What could be more convenient for a scientist? He is now in the position of a priest. The priests have always said the same thing to non-believers. "You must not expect it to make sense. You must have faith. Trust the Lord." Trust Feynman. He is smarter than you and understands what you should believe. He has filled the blackboards with Hamiltonians and has cracked safes. He has earned the right to say ridiculous things, like the Dalai Lama or the Buddha or the President.
This is the most important thing that string theorists have learned from quantum mechanics: you do not have to make sense anymore. Any contradiction can be relabeled a paradox, any infinity can be relabeled an axiom, any absurdity can be given to Nature herself, who is an absurd creature, in love with illogic and caprice.
I could go on indefinitely, listing other absurdities like the Twin Paradox and the singularity and so on, but I have analyzed these problems elsewhere in great detail; and besides, you already either accept them or don't accept them, so that my comments are nearly beside the point. You won't judge the concepts based on anything I could say of them, you will only judge me for what I say of them. Therefore, let me proceed to critique string theory, a theory that is not yet set in stone, even for the toadiest.
String theory begins by defining a string. In most instances a string is a one-dimensional loop, we are told. String theory is famous for its ever-increasing number of required dimensions, so that you would think that the theorists would have a pretty tight idea of what a dimension is. But if you think this you would be wrong. String theory is about math, not about concepts, and these brilliant mathematicians don't have a very clear idea what a dimension is or what a one-dimensional "thing" would be. In math, a one-dimensional thing is a line. It always has been, since the time of Euclid, and that has not changed recently. A zero-dimensional thing is a point, a two dimensional thing is a plane, and a three-dimensional thing is a cube or sphere or whatnot. But all of these things are mathematical abstractions. They don't exist and can't exist. Of all these mathematical things, only the three-dimensional things have a potential existence, and then only if you add time. There is a very simple reason for this that has nothing to do with gods or turning on the universe or anything else esoteric or metaphysical. Points, lines and planes cannot exist because they do not have any physical extension. A plane disappears in the z direction, a line disappears in the x and y direction, and a point disappears in all three directions. In mathematical terms, it means that the variable or field has hit a limit—a zero or infinity—at this point in the equations, making existence impossible.
Physicists used to understand simple concepts like this, but no more. Even mathematicians don't appear to understand them. These concepts just get in the way until some self-described genius somewhere finds a clever way around them, and we aren't bothered with them anymore. After that we are allowed to propose the existence of mathematical objects and no one blinks an eye. But it remains a (perhaps unpleasant) fact that a line cannot exist. Even in pure math, a "one-dimensional loop" cannot exist. A one-dimensional loop is false even as a mathematical abstraction. Why? Because a loop curves. Any curve is no longer one-dimensional. A curve is two-dimensional, by definition.
Greene and his heroes imagine that because you can, in a pinch, express a position on a curve with one variable, that it is a one-dimensional object. But it isn't. Greene proves this when he begins talking about his garden-hose world, where the position of a bug on the hose can be expressed with two variables. He then admits in an endnote that if the garden hose has an interior, we must have more dimensions. But when, in a physical situation, is it possible to imagine a garden hose, no matter how tiny, with no interior? It is not possible and his "two-dimensional" garden hose, if physical, must have three dimensions.
Greene makes the current confusion even more apparent when he begins increasing the Type IIA coupling constant.3 This allows strings to expand into two and three-dimensional objects. He says that the two-dimensional string is like a bicycle tire and the three-dimensional object is like a donut. So Greene thinks there is a dimensional difference between a bicycle tire and a donut! If a bicycle tire is not solid rubber through and through, then the third dimension has disappeared? We should at least have to suck the space out of it with some kind of space vacuum, right?
String theory is such a godawful mess right from the first concept that it is painful to go on. But I will. Once we have our impossible one-dimensional loops, we are to imagine that they are vibrating. To vibrate in the right way for the theory, they must be strung very, very, very tight. Now, a sensible person would already have several foundational questions. First of all, why are they vibrating? Second, why are some vibrating one way and some vibrating another way? Third, what causes the tension?
The first concept, basic vibration, we can give them. Vibration is far from being a basic motion, but there has to be some first cause, and so we will allow one unexplainable motion as first cause. But the difference in different vibrations cannot be uncaused. We cannot allow it to be a postulate. Different vibrations should have different mechanical causes. If one string is vibrating in a different way from another, there must be a reason. String theorists have already told us that strings are not made up of subparticles; they are absolutely indivisible. They should therefore be undifferentiated. Ultimate strings that are indivisible should act the same in the same circumstances. If they act differently, then the circumstances must differ. But we are not told what these different circumstances are. The vast variation in behavior is just another postulate.
Besides, even if we admitted the impossible—that a one-dimensional loop could exist—once you give it a vibration it automatically gains a dimension. All you have to do is look at the direction it is postulated to vibrate in. Does it vibrate lengthwise? Of course not. How could it? It is undifferentiated lengthwise, meaning that it is not made up of subparticles. There is no way a pulse could travel lengthwise in a string that was not divisible. So the theorists propose sideways vibrations, of different sizes and wavelengths. In technical terms, we are talking about transverse waves, not longitudinal waves. A transverse wave will automatically push the string into a second dimension. So all talk of one-dimensional strings is a wash from the beginning, for two fundamental reasons, not one.
This brings us to another question: is it even possible for a one-dimensional string to vibrate sideways? I have reminded the reader that a longitudinal wave is impossible to imagine without some subdivision of the string. There has to be some sort of longitudinal variation to propose compression; but this variation is not possible without subdivision. In the end this is because without subdivision you cannot insert any space into the string. You need space in between the particles making up the string in order to propose variation in compression. But a closer analysis shows the same problem with transverse waves on a one-dimensional string. How is a one-dimensional string bendable without some "give" between particles making up the string? If the string is absolutely indivisible and undifferentiated, then it is not clear that we can bend it. A bend would occur at the bond between particles, in a macroscopic string. In a string-theory string, there is no bond between particles, since there are no particles making up the string. Bending or vibrating a string-theory string is like proposing to bend or vibrate a cube or a cone or a sphere. If our fundamental particle were any of these instead of the string, you would laugh if someone proposed that it bent. Imagine a cube bending. How would a fundamental, undifferentiated cube bend? Or a fundamental, undifferentiated sphere? But bending a fundamental, undifferentiated string is just as silly. It is just another postulate that is impossible to explain or justify.
Likewise, tension is a pretty complex concept. It is not a fundamental motion or event. In fact, tension is a force. But string theory is supposed to be explaining the four fundamental forces, not creating more. What causes the tension? How is it possible to have a tension across an undifferentiated ultimate string? How is it possible to have tension in a closed loop, unless that loop is being expanded by some outside force? None of this is explained. Tension is just an assumption, another axiom.
After a first reading, I had already discovered that string theory has more basic postulates than any theory I had ever seen or imagined. To any logical person from past centuries, string theory would look like a comedy of errors. Newton has been all but laughed at by string theorists for not giving a mechanical explanation of force at a distance. But these theorists are in no position to throw stones. Newton would look at string theory and say something like, "Well, of course, if you are allowed to make enough unprovable assumptions at the beginning, you can formulate a theory to contain anything. Especially if you are allowed to beg the question so egregiously. String theory is the attempt to unify the four basic force fields. To do this it creates, as a postulate, a huge force of uncaused tension. Then it adds to that a basic 'particle' that can morph into anything, just by changing its 'tune.' All these morphs are uncaused and act as further postulates—as postulates they do not require proof or any justification. Then, whenever the math stops spitting out numbers they want, they postulate new branes, donuts, tubes, three-holed buttons, frisbees, and anything else that tickles their fancy. None of these new objects has to be justified beyond the fact that they needed them to fill a hole in the math. 'It fit the hole, therefore it must be real!' Then, when the going gets really tough, they add a new dimension. M-theory gives them the 11th dimension, and why stop there? I predict that, like Feynman, they will finally understand that the sky is the limit. Why not predict an infinite number of curled up dimensions, sum over them in some fudgy way, and achieve any answer you like, to fit any occasion. Only then will the madness come to its illogical end."
This is the basic technique of string theory: if you run into some dead-end at any point in the math, transport that dead-end back to the string. For example, perhaps you find the need for a new particle but your math at that level of size or theory does not allow it. Well, simply make it another axiom of string theory. Postulate that your basic string takes that shape under the circumstances you have discovered, and your work is done. In this way, every conceivable problem can be collected at the foundational level and made into an axiom. Since you don't have to prove axioms, you will never be pestered to supply a proof or explain anything. All problems can be collected, reinserted at the axiomatic level, and treated ever after as assumptions. In this way string theory really is the perfect theory. Using this technique, nothing is beyond mathematical expression.
String theory is actually even more inelegant than QED (Quantum ElectroDynamics), and QED is not exactly a poster child for elegance or simplicity. Greene tells us that string theory was invented to simplify the huge number of "elementary" particles in QED, as well as to combine QED and Relativity. But he seems oblivious to the fact that string theory has a record-setting number of axioms and an ever-increasing number of vibrations, dimensions, blobs, branes, and jellies. The only object not yet incorporated into string theory is the moss-covered three-handled family gradunza. It also has a truly impressive number of manufactured manipulations, such as the set of instructions for orbi-folding a Calabi-Yau shape or the tearing of space in a flop transition. These manipulations come provided with no theory, and are basically added to the list of postulates: postulate #89,041—we can flop-tear an orbi-folded 3-brane goofus as long as we can say afterwards that the math made us do it (and provide a sexy little computer-generated diagram).
Another of the inelegances of string theory is the required energy of a string. The unbelievable amount of tension [1039 tons] on a single string gives it a mass of some 1019 protons. This is about the mass of a grain of dust. The theorists need all this force on the string since they have gathered all the other forces here at the axiomatic level. This has the added benefit, they think, of making the mass too great to be discovered in an accelerator. Unfortunately, the mass is so huge that it should make the string discoverable by macroscopic means. I might suggest a sieve. Seriously though, the theorists admit that "all but a few of the vibrational patterns will correspond to extremely heavy particles," meaning particles many times heavier than a grain of dust.4 It is hard to believe that masses of this sort floating around are undetectable. Greene says that they are unlikely because "such super-heavy particles are usually unstable."5 It is interesting to note that string theory never says why all such super-heavy particles should be unstable. In fact, there is no theoretical reason they all should be. It is another postulate: postulate #76,904—super-heavy particles are all unstable because if they weren't we might be able to find one. The instability is another axiomatic convenience of the theory.
Here's another inelegance. In a subchapter ironically entitled, "The More Precise Answer,"6 Greene develops this idea: the "violent quantum jitters" can be quieted by imagining a collision of point particles as a collision of strings instead. One string represents an electron, say, and the other a positron. The two strings join for a moment as a string that represents a photon and then re-separate as two new strings. The reason this is an improvement, we are told, has to do with Relativity. Greene uses his two observers George and Gracie (the Burns and Allen ghosts are due massive apologies for being brought into this mess, I think) to "slice" his strings into different events. George sees the strings meeting at one time and Gracie see the meeting at another time. Among all possible observers the meeting point will be smeared out over some time. This smearing calms the quantum jitters.
This is among the most dishonest uses of Relativity and diagramming I have ever seen. In order for his argument to work, Greene has to diagram the strings as three-dimensional objects. For it is not the length of the strings that causes the Relativistic difference in his argument, it is the thickness. But he began the subchapter by admitting that the strings were one-dimensional. He brags that one-dimensional strings can do what zero-dimensional points cannot. Remember that strings have only a length dimension. They have no thickness. As a matter of width or thickness or radius, they act just like points. They have zero radial dimension. This means that Greene's Relativistic slicing is flat wrong. His diagrams are a big fat lie, since they cause you to visualize something that cannot be happening. His words are saying one thing and his diagrams are saying the opposite. If the strings are one-dimensional lines, then the fork where they meet will also be one-dimensional. If you slice it at a dt, then the fork will be in the same exact place for all viewers. String theory adds absolutely nothing to QED or the point problem. It simply adds another layer of lies to cover it up.
- Excerpt, Part 1, The Inelegant Universe, by Miles Mathis http://milesmathis.com/string.html .
Last edited:
Good post and good link. Good healthy entertainment seeing what Miles Mathis has to say about String Theory as presented by Brian Greene. Post the next part any time you are ready.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
The Inelegant Universe, by Miles Mathis
Part II
The Math
(Editor's note: Since Truly Yours doesn't do higher math I am exempt from any perspective of import regarding Mr. Mathis' maths, as it were. Miles Mathis has the floor. - K. B. Robertson.)
As promised, I will now critique the math of string theory. String theory has, in the last six or seven years, graduated into M-theory, an 11-dimensional math that attempts to join together the six major 10-dimensional string theories. M-theory has 10 space dimensions and one time dimension, we are told. It is in this matter of dimensions that I have a bombshell to drop. All the extra-dimensional theories that have been proposed since the time of Kaluza in 1919 have contained a basic misunderstanding of the dimensions they described. No one has seen this before now, but the added dimensions, whether they are Kaluza's one extra dimension or M-theory's seven extra dimensions, are all time dimensions.
To understand why this must be the case, we must go back to the basic calculus. All the higher maths that are used by string theory are based on the calculus. Calculus itself is a math that is based on comparing rates of change. My long paper on the calculus makes this crystal clear, but it has always been understood in some form or another. Velocity is a rate of change of distance and acceleration is a rate of change of velocity. That is why velocity is the first derivative of distance and acceleration is the second. I showed that you can also find third and fourth derivatives of distance, and so on. The third derivative is a change in acceleration and the fourth derivative is a change in that change. These multiple accelerations can really happen: they are physical. I also showed that you could write a velocity in one of two ways, either of which was mathematically acceptable: Δx/Δt or ΔΔx. Likewise, acceleration can be written as Δx/Δt2 or ΔΔΔx. A second-degree acceleration can be written Δx/Δt3 or ΔΔΔΔx, and so on.
You can see that even here there is some sort of mathematical equivalence between x and t. Einstein showed us that this equivalence goes far beyond anything Newton could have imagined, but even in Newton's calculus equations, there was a hidden equivalence. The variables Δx and Δt are the inverse of eachother, in some sense. In the equations above, the x goes in the numerator when the t goes in the denominator. This is because, as variables, they always change in inverse proportion, even when no transformational changes are involved. Remember that Einstein showed that as time dilated, length contracted. One gets bigger as the other gets smaller. This is clear in the transform equations of Special Relativity, and it is clear in the equations above as well. A Δx in the numerator is, in some very important sense, the same as a Δt in the denominator.
Why is this important? It is important because what all the big maths of Maxwell's equations, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Kaluza's five-dimensional theory, string theory, and M-theory all do is express fields. All these fields are force fields and force fields are based on some acceleration. By the old equation F = ma, if you have a force you have an acceleration. The reason that Kaluza's fifth dimension helped so much at first is that it allowed the expression of both the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field, the only two of the major four that were known at the time. Using the vector fields as they have been defined since the end of the 19th century, the four-vector field could contain only one acceleration. If you tried to express two acceleration fields simultaneously, you got too many (often implicit) time variables showing up in denominators and the equations started imploding. The calculus, as it has been used historically, couldn't flatten out all the accelerations fast enough for the math to make sense of them. What Kaluza did is push the time variable out of the denominator and switch it into another x variable in the numerator, just as I did above. Minowski's new math allowed him to do this without anyone seeing what was really going on.
String theory and M-theory continue to pursue this method. They have two new fields to express, so they have (at least) two new time variables to transport into the numerators of their math. Every time you insert a new variable, you insert a new field. Since they insert the field in the numerator as another x-variable, they assume that it is another space field. But it isn't. It is a transported time variable.
Readers will no doubt be reeling at this information. It was difficult enough to imagine extra space dimensions, most of them curled up like little pillbugs. But how do we make sense out of eight simultaneous time dimensions? It is actually a lot easier than you think, since, once understood, it is easy to visualize. It doesn't take any leaps of faith or warnings that "you can't possibly diagram this, but you must accept it anyway." To show this, I will use the visualization I used in my calculus paper. Let us say you are at the airport, walking along normally. In addition, let us say that you are walking in a perfectly straight line and that your stride is perfect. Each step is the same as every other step. You therefore have a constant velocity, and your stride is, in a sense, measuring off the ground. If you are very retentive, you might even be counting as you walk: 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on. Well then, let us give you a watch, too. Some Swiss-quartz stunner than never misses a beat. So time, the retentive so-and-so that he is, is also counting off his numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on. Next you come to a moving sidewalk. You step on and for one interval you are accelerated. It is not an instantaneous interval, since some amount of time passes between your initial speed and your final speed. But there is an acceleration over only one interval. It stops at the end of that interval and you have a new constant velocity, a velocity found by adding your own velocity and the velocity of the sidewalk.
Since there was an acceleration over that interval, then by the standard way of expressing acceleration, we how have a t2 in the denominator: a = Δx/Δt2. As we know, that can also be written a = Δx/Δt/Δt. Either way we have a second time variable. Therefore we might say that we have a second time field and a second time dimension. Now, we must study that interval. What happened over that interval? Did you step into another dimension? Did another dimension open up under you? In a very limited sense, yes. That interval is a sort of sub-interval to the ones you were measuring off with your feet and your watch. But it is not mysterious in any way. It is not curled up anywhere. In fact, you can measure both time dimensions with your watch. That is why we usually just square the time dimension. It is a second measurement over the same interval. If the two time dimensions weren't directly related, we obviously couldn't square them. We would have to call them Δt1 and Δt2 or something, and keep them separate.
What I mean when I say that we are measuring two things simultaneously is that we are measuring how far the sidewalk goes in Δt and how far the walker goes in Δt. An acceleration is these two velocities measured over the same interval. So you can see that what we really have is two Δx's and one Δt. But since, in the real world of airports and things like that, we measure strides and lengths on sidewalks with the same measuring rods, it is easier to write the equation with one Δx and two Δt's. Therefore, we get the equation a = Δx/Δt2.
All this is very elementary, of course. But everyone seems to have lost sight of it at this late date in history. Because what it means, especially when you have a math that is expressed by a lot of superscripted dx's, is that those dx's are not mysterious extra space dimensions, they are equivalent to velocities being measured simultaneously to achieve complex accelerations. These complex accelerations express the meeting of multiple fields over the same (perhaps infinitesimal) interval.
To see this even more clearly, let us say that our man on the moving sidewalk hits yet another field. When he first stepped onto the sidewalk, we might say that he passed through a one-interval field. Well, if we are mischievous, we can plaster that interval with so many fields it will make the man's head spin. We can move him sideways, up, down, or we can spin him any number of revolutions we like. And we can do them all at once. Again, not all at an instant, but all over the same finite interval. Every time we add a motion, whether is a linear motion or a spin, we have hit him with another force. We have also hit him with another variable. We have also hit him with another field. We have also hit him with another dimension. We have done a finite number of things to him during a finite time. Therefore we have created a one-interval field of multiple forces and dimensions.
Stated in this way, there is nothing mysterious about it at all. When we add a dimension, all we have to do is add another Δx to the numerator or another Δt to the denominator (but not both). But none of these extra dimensions is strange or difficult to imagine. We have just imagined it, physically. We could also draw it and diagram it. All we need is tracing paper and overlays. Nothing is curled up. Nothing is unexpressed, nothing only comes out at night.
An 11-dimensional math can be expressed using all the ridiculous equations of M-theory, where super-computers are wasted just storing the postulates. Or you can express it like this: A = Δx, Δy, Δz/ Δt8.
A perceptive reader may say, "Wait, didn't you just say that we could express a new field or force by either a new space variable in the numerator or a new time variable in the denominator? If this is true, then why can't M-theory call all the new dimensions space dimensions if it wants to?" Well, it can, but it has to be very careful what this implies. I have shown how multiple time dimensions are really a rather simple idea, with no mystery involved. Likewise, seven new space dimensions, correctly interpreted, are also not mysterious or esoteric or difficult to understand at all. A new dimension is a new force applied over a finite interval. If this force is continuous, then it causes a continuous field. By continuous field I mean a field that spreads across an extended set of intervals, not just one interval. Over one interval, a force causes a velocity. Over an extended set of intervals, a continuous force causes a continuous acceleration. We have known this for a long time. But what all this means is that the new dimension is not a new direction in space. Every time we add a new dimension to our math, it does not mean that a new, autonomous x-variable has been invented, going off in some strange new path, like the path of i or the path of a curled up pillbug. It just means that we have a new velocity happening simultaneously to all our other velocities over the interval in question. This velocity does not have to have a direction in space all to itself. It does not have to be at a right angle to all previous dimensions. There is nothing to say that forces cannot overlap, or that directions cannot overlap or that times and subtimes cannot superimpose. In fact, they must superimpose. When we create these large-dimensional maths, we are doing so precisely to ask how the various accelerations and forces superimpose. That is what we are seeking. We are seeking the total field at dt, and that total field is a superposition of all the velocities caused by all the force fields present at that interval.
There are two basic and separate ways to "unify" the four known forces and all the spins. One is to find a math that contains them all. The other is to show how one force field is equivalent to another field, thereby simplifying our equations. If we can show that the same basic motion causes two separate fields, we will have unified those two fields. String theory attempts to unify in both ways, but does neither. It tries to unify all fields by expressing them as various vibrations of an ultimate particle, but this part of the theory is just gibberish, as I have shown. It also tries to contain all the fields using a multi-dimensional math, and in this it has made one tiny step in the right direction. If the dimensions are interpreted in the way I have interpreted them above, then they start to make some sense. The first step toward the mathematical expression of a unified total field is to add up all the accelerations and to express them as separate dimensions. But I think it is clear from my airport sidewalk example that a completely successful math must, in the end, recognize the ultimate equivalence of all the time variables. The man in the airport could measure all the various velocities with the same watch, and so can the scientist computing the unified field. When physics understands how all these fields superimpose, it will be able to simplify its equations back down to x. y, z, t. It can do this because all the t's are equivalent. Once again, the total physical field, in the presence of eight degrees of linear and angular acceleration, would be A = Δx, Δy, Δz/Δt8. That is (a maximum of) 8 fields, but only 4 dimensions7.
Some will complain that all the time variables can't be equivalent due to Relativity. But I refer them to my airport example once more. In that example we are studying the field over one interval. In all the maths that are based on the calculus, including tensor calculus and the math of M-theory, we would make that interval an infinitesimal interval or dt. Relativity can't find any variance at dt or dx, for the very simple reason that the observer cannot be any distance away from the phenomena at dx, dt. Notice that in the airport example we have the walker measuring himself using his own watch. He is therefore at no distance from the event and the speed of light has nothing to do with it. The time variables must be equivalent, both physically and definitionally.
A reader will have one final question: why Δt8? Might that be telling us something fundamental about the number of real accelerations that exist in the universe? Meaning, if five-dimensional math was used for gravity and electromagnetism, then shouldn't the (limited) success of 11-dimensional math be telling us we have 8 fundamental accelerations going on simultaneously, and therefore 8 fundamental force fields?
Maybe. It is possible that we can get to 11 dimensions by adding spin as a dimension wherever we find it. The spin of the electron may be caused by one separate force and the spin of the quark may be caused by another, and so on. Or, some of the accelerations we already know about may be second or third-degree accelerations. No one has ever considered the possibility that the strong force or E/M may be Δx/Δt3 instead of Δx/Δt2.
But before we run off pell-mell in search of some giant equations to express this, I think we should back up a bit and reassess the entire road to how we got here. In this paper I have shown that string theory is criminally confused about almost everything. Years have been wasted chasing curled up dimensions that don't even exist. There are no Calabi-Yau shapes clinging to the corners of x, y, z. The orbi-folding and all the rest was just mental masturbation. The string theorists have invented shapes and folds and histories and ancestries for these pillbugs nesting in the crannies, and now they find they are completely uninfested. Like some nefarious chemical company, they have soaked the foundations of the communal house in order to roust out the bugs, and now we find that we are all poisoned.
I think it is time to declare that string theory is worthy of a Superfund site and move into a new house. In this house our first order of business is in truly understanding the physical heritage that has come down to us. I have shown in my various papers that there is plenty of work to do in this regard. All the misguided theorists of the past century have quite simply been wrong when they stated, with maximum hubris, that classical and quantum physics was over. Neither classical nor quantum physics is anywhere near finished. We have only touched the surface, even regarding linear maths and "poolball" mechanics. Post quantum theories, whatever they are, will never be possible until QED is corrected and filled out. And QED will never be corrected and filled out until some of the elementary concepts I have spent such a vast amount of time exploring are better understood. Until we understand how our maths are working we can never hope to understand how the universe is working. And this is only the beginning. Velocity, acceleration, circular motion, rate of change, and many other basic physical concepts are not understood to this day. All our physical "knowledge" is dominated by heuristics. Whether we are studying quantum interaction, orbits, or cosmological origins, our equations are overwhelmed by nescience. The best thing to do in this situation is admit the fact and get to work.
A primary piece of this work will be in re-establishing QED without the point particle. One of the only places I agree with string theory is in its critique of the point particle. Quantum math was never able to express its field using an extended particle. String theory realized the problem here and the need to correct it, but it only corrected it by burying it below the Planck limit where no one can see it. In this way the point is given extension, but the extension is only another postulate. Postulate #5 or so: the loop has extension but it is so small that 1) it can't be detected physically, 2) it can't be detected mathematically. Therefore we can fudge over it by misusing the calculus for the millionth time. To my mind this is not a great advance over QED. The only solution is to return to the beginning of QED and start over. We have a lot of very useful heuristics that we can use to guide us, and lots of experimental data. But the math needs a thorough cleaning. The place to begin is in a better understanding of the calculus. Establishing the calculus on the constant differential instead of the diminishing differential will change every physical and mathematical concept of the last 300 years, and will impact all our theories of motion, force, and action. Only once we have rebuilt the old theories from the ground up can we begin counting the force fields and dimensions we will need for a unified math. We may find that we need 11 dimensions. But we may not. We may find that the house looks very different after we have cleared away all the garbage.
Part III
Conclusion
I will end by analyzing a short quote by David Gross, which I also steal from Greene's book. "It used to be that as we were climbing the mountain of nature the experimentalists would lead the way. We lazy theorists would lag behind. . . . We all long for the return of those days. But we theorists might have to take the lead. This is a much more lonely enterprise."8
You can almost hear the violins. Those poor put-upon theorists, saving us from the past, leading us bravely into the future. I am not an experimentalist, but when I read this quote my eyes rolled so far back in my head I nearly broke into St. Vitus' dance. The dishonesty literally pours off the page. The string theorist pretending to be an unwilling leader, a humble servant. When in fact he is little more than a shallow revolutionary, a completely monomaniacal, delusional person who has convinced himself that by hoodwinking us he has done us some great favor. Salesmanship posing as magnanimity.
I think you can tell by the tone of this paper that I am angry at string theory, and I don't deny it. The last century would try any honest person's patience, in any number of fields. In my opinion we are past the point of a mild rebuke. The physics department needs a good kick in the pants, and the math department too. Both have degenerated nearly past the point of recognition, and they might as well join up with the art department and begin putting on Dali-esque plays and masked balls. I had hoped that QED would someday develop some humility and that we, as physicists, would get back to work. That we would recognize the huge gaps in our theories, going all the way back to Euclid, and make some effort to fill them. Instead young physicists have continued to learn all the wrong lessons from the recent past and to fail to learn the most-needed lessons. What they have taken from QED is only its Berkeleyan idealism and its intellectual dishonesty. They have remained buried so far under their esoteric maths that they cannot see daylight. And they have continued to dig. They are now at a depth that apparently precludes all cries of logic, all ropes of humility, all ladders of embarrassment. It seems likely that they will continue to dig until the air runs out. Or until they hit the baby black hole at the center of the earth, and the self-created chasm at the center of their own theory sucks them into a well-earned hell.
1 The Elegant Universe, p. 123.
2 Ibid, p. 111.
3 Ibid, p. 311.
4 Ibid, p. 151.
5 Ibid, p. 152.
6 Ibid, p. 158.
7 In fact, it is only three dimensions, since time is operationally just a second measurement of one of the others. See my paper on time for a clarification of this assertion.
8 The Elegant Universe, p. 214.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.
http://milesmathis.com/string.html
http://milesmathis.com/
http://milesmathis.com/planck.html
Part II
The Math
(Editor's note: Since Truly Yours doesn't do higher math I am exempt from any perspective of import regarding Mr. Mathis' maths, as it were. Miles Mathis has the floor. - K. B. Robertson.)
As promised, I will now critique the math of string theory. String theory has, in the last six or seven years, graduated into M-theory, an 11-dimensional math that attempts to join together the six major 10-dimensional string theories. M-theory has 10 space dimensions and one time dimension, we are told. It is in this matter of dimensions that I have a bombshell to drop. All the extra-dimensional theories that have been proposed since the time of Kaluza in 1919 have contained a basic misunderstanding of the dimensions they described. No one has seen this before now, but the added dimensions, whether they are Kaluza's one extra dimension or M-theory's seven extra dimensions, are all time dimensions.
To understand why this must be the case, we must go back to the basic calculus. All the higher maths that are used by string theory are based on the calculus. Calculus itself is a math that is based on comparing rates of change. My long paper on the calculus makes this crystal clear, but it has always been understood in some form or another. Velocity is a rate of change of distance and acceleration is a rate of change of velocity. That is why velocity is the first derivative of distance and acceleration is the second. I showed that you can also find third and fourth derivatives of distance, and so on. The third derivative is a change in acceleration and the fourth derivative is a change in that change. These multiple accelerations can really happen: they are physical. I also showed that you could write a velocity in one of two ways, either of which was mathematically acceptable: Δx/Δt or ΔΔx. Likewise, acceleration can be written as Δx/Δt2 or ΔΔΔx. A second-degree acceleration can be written Δx/Δt3 or ΔΔΔΔx, and so on.
You can see that even here there is some sort of mathematical equivalence between x and t. Einstein showed us that this equivalence goes far beyond anything Newton could have imagined, but even in Newton's calculus equations, there was a hidden equivalence. The variables Δx and Δt are the inverse of eachother, in some sense. In the equations above, the x goes in the numerator when the t goes in the denominator. This is because, as variables, they always change in inverse proportion, even when no transformational changes are involved. Remember that Einstein showed that as time dilated, length contracted. One gets bigger as the other gets smaller. This is clear in the transform equations of Special Relativity, and it is clear in the equations above as well. A Δx in the numerator is, in some very important sense, the same as a Δt in the denominator.
Why is this important? It is important because what all the big maths of Maxwell's equations, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Kaluza's five-dimensional theory, string theory, and M-theory all do is express fields. All these fields are force fields and force fields are based on some acceleration. By the old equation F = ma, if you have a force you have an acceleration. The reason that Kaluza's fifth dimension helped so much at first is that it allowed the expression of both the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field, the only two of the major four that were known at the time. Using the vector fields as they have been defined since the end of the 19th century, the four-vector field could contain only one acceleration. If you tried to express two acceleration fields simultaneously, you got too many (often implicit) time variables showing up in denominators and the equations started imploding. The calculus, as it has been used historically, couldn't flatten out all the accelerations fast enough for the math to make sense of them. What Kaluza did is push the time variable out of the denominator and switch it into another x variable in the numerator, just as I did above. Minowski's new math allowed him to do this without anyone seeing what was really going on.
String theory and M-theory continue to pursue this method. They have two new fields to express, so they have (at least) two new time variables to transport into the numerators of their math. Every time you insert a new variable, you insert a new field. Since they insert the field in the numerator as another x-variable, they assume that it is another space field. But it isn't. It is a transported time variable.
Readers will no doubt be reeling at this information. It was difficult enough to imagine extra space dimensions, most of them curled up like little pillbugs. But how do we make sense out of eight simultaneous time dimensions? It is actually a lot easier than you think, since, once understood, it is easy to visualize. It doesn't take any leaps of faith or warnings that "you can't possibly diagram this, but you must accept it anyway." To show this, I will use the visualization I used in my calculus paper. Let us say you are at the airport, walking along normally. In addition, let us say that you are walking in a perfectly straight line and that your stride is perfect. Each step is the same as every other step. You therefore have a constant velocity, and your stride is, in a sense, measuring off the ground. If you are very retentive, you might even be counting as you walk: 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on. Well then, let us give you a watch, too. Some Swiss-quartz stunner than never misses a beat. So time, the retentive so-and-so that he is, is also counting off his numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on. Next you come to a moving sidewalk. You step on and for one interval you are accelerated. It is not an instantaneous interval, since some amount of time passes between your initial speed and your final speed. But there is an acceleration over only one interval. It stops at the end of that interval and you have a new constant velocity, a velocity found by adding your own velocity and the velocity of the sidewalk.
Since there was an acceleration over that interval, then by the standard way of expressing acceleration, we how have a t2 in the denominator: a = Δx/Δt2. As we know, that can also be written a = Δx/Δt/Δt. Either way we have a second time variable. Therefore we might say that we have a second time field and a second time dimension. Now, we must study that interval. What happened over that interval? Did you step into another dimension? Did another dimension open up under you? In a very limited sense, yes. That interval is a sort of sub-interval to the ones you were measuring off with your feet and your watch. But it is not mysterious in any way. It is not curled up anywhere. In fact, you can measure both time dimensions with your watch. That is why we usually just square the time dimension. It is a second measurement over the same interval. If the two time dimensions weren't directly related, we obviously couldn't square them. We would have to call them Δt1 and Δt2 or something, and keep them separate.
What I mean when I say that we are measuring two things simultaneously is that we are measuring how far the sidewalk goes in Δt and how far the walker goes in Δt. An acceleration is these two velocities measured over the same interval. So you can see that what we really have is two Δx's and one Δt. But since, in the real world of airports and things like that, we measure strides and lengths on sidewalks with the same measuring rods, it is easier to write the equation with one Δx and two Δt's. Therefore, we get the equation a = Δx/Δt2.
All this is very elementary, of course. But everyone seems to have lost sight of it at this late date in history. Because what it means, especially when you have a math that is expressed by a lot of superscripted dx's, is that those dx's are not mysterious extra space dimensions, they are equivalent to velocities being measured simultaneously to achieve complex accelerations. These complex accelerations express the meeting of multiple fields over the same (perhaps infinitesimal) interval.
To see this even more clearly, let us say that our man on the moving sidewalk hits yet another field. When he first stepped onto the sidewalk, we might say that he passed through a one-interval field. Well, if we are mischievous, we can plaster that interval with so many fields it will make the man's head spin. We can move him sideways, up, down, or we can spin him any number of revolutions we like. And we can do them all at once. Again, not all at an instant, but all over the same finite interval. Every time we add a motion, whether is a linear motion or a spin, we have hit him with another force. We have also hit him with another variable. We have also hit him with another field. We have also hit him with another dimension. We have done a finite number of things to him during a finite time. Therefore we have created a one-interval field of multiple forces and dimensions.
Stated in this way, there is nothing mysterious about it at all. When we add a dimension, all we have to do is add another Δx to the numerator or another Δt to the denominator (but not both). But none of these extra dimensions is strange or difficult to imagine. We have just imagined it, physically. We could also draw it and diagram it. All we need is tracing paper and overlays. Nothing is curled up. Nothing is unexpressed, nothing only comes out at night.
An 11-dimensional math can be expressed using all the ridiculous equations of M-theory, where super-computers are wasted just storing the postulates. Or you can express it like this: A = Δx, Δy, Δz/ Δt8.
A perceptive reader may say, "Wait, didn't you just say that we could express a new field or force by either a new space variable in the numerator or a new time variable in the denominator? If this is true, then why can't M-theory call all the new dimensions space dimensions if it wants to?" Well, it can, but it has to be very careful what this implies. I have shown how multiple time dimensions are really a rather simple idea, with no mystery involved. Likewise, seven new space dimensions, correctly interpreted, are also not mysterious or esoteric or difficult to understand at all. A new dimension is a new force applied over a finite interval. If this force is continuous, then it causes a continuous field. By continuous field I mean a field that spreads across an extended set of intervals, not just one interval. Over one interval, a force causes a velocity. Over an extended set of intervals, a continuous force causes a continuous acceleration. We have known this for a long time. But what all this means is that the new dimension is not a new direction in space. Every time we add a new dimension to our math, it does not mean that a new, autonomous x-variable has been invented, going off in some strange new path, like the path of i or the path of a curled up pillbug. It just means that we have a new velocity happening simultaneously to all our other velocities over the interval in question. This velocity does not have to have a direction in space all to itself. It does not have to be at a right angle to all previous dimensions. There is nothing to say that forces cannot overlap, or that directions cannot overlap or that times and subtimes cannot superimpose. In fact, they must superimpose. When we create these large-dimensional maths, we are doing so precisely to ask how the various accelerations and forces superimpose. That is what we are seeking. We are seeking the total field at dt, and that total field is a superposition of all the velocities caused by all the force fields present at that interval.
There are two basic and separate ways to "unify" the four known forces and all the spins. One is to find a math that contains them all. The other is to show how one force field is equivalent to another field, thereby simplifying our equations. If we can show that the same basic motion causes two separate fields, we will have unified those two fields. String theory attempts to unify in both ways, but does neither. It tries to unify all fields by expressing them as various vibrations of an ultimate particle, but this part of the theory is just gibberish, as I have shown. It also tries to contain all the fields using a multi-dimensional math, and in this it has made one tiny step in the right direction. If the dimensions are interpreted in the way I have interpreted them above, then they start to make some sense. The first step toward the mathematical expression of a unified total field is to add up all the accelerations and to express them as separate dimensions. But I think it is clear from my airport sidewalk example that a completely successful math must, in the end, recognize the ultimate equivalence of all the time variables. The man in the airport could measure all the various velocities with the same watch, and so can the scientist computing the unified field. When physics understands how all these fields superimpose, it will be able to simplify its equations back down to x. y, z, t. It can do this because all the t's are equivalent. Once again, the total physical field, in the presence of eight degrees of linear and angular acceleration, would be A = Δx, Δy, Δz/Δt8. That is (a maximum of) 8 fields, but only 4 dimensions7.
Some will complain that all the time variables can't be equivalent due to Relativity. But I refer them to my airport example once more. In that example we are studying the field over one interval. In all the maths that are based on the calculus, including tensor calculus and the math of M-theory, we would make that interval an infinitesimal interval or dt. Relativity can't find any variance at dt or dx, for the very simple reason that the observer cannot be any distance away from the phenomena at dx, dt. Notice that in the airport example we have the walker measuring himself using his own watch. He is therefore at no distance from the event and the speed of light has nothing to do with it. The time variables must be equivalent, both physically and definitionally.
A reader will have one final question: why Δt8? Might that be telling us something fundamental about the number of real accelerations that exist in the universe? Meaning, if five-dimensional math was used for gravity and electromagnetism, then shouldn't the (limited) success of 11-dimensional math be telling us we have 8 fundamental accelerations going on simultaneously, and therefore 8 fundamental force fields?
Maybe. It is possible that we can get to 11 dimensions by adding spin as a dimension wherever we find it. The spin of the electron may be caused by one separate force and the spin of the quark may be caused by another, and so on. Or, some of the accelerations we already know about may be second or third-degree accelerations. No one has ever considered the possibility that the strong force or E/M may be Δx/Δt3 instead of Δx/Δt2.
But before we run off pell-mell in search of some giant equations to express this, I think we should back up a bit and reassess the entire road to how we got here. In this paper I have shown that string theory is criminally confused about almost everything. Years have been wasted chasing curled up dimensions that don't even exist. There are no Calabi-Yau shapes clinging to the corners of x, y, z. The orbi-folding and all the rest was just mental masturbation. The string theorists have invented shapes and folds and histories and ancestries for these pillbugs nesting in the crannies, and now they find they are completely uninfested. Like some nefarious chemical company, they have soaked the foundations of the communal house in order to roust out the bugs, and now we find that we are all poisoned.
I think it is time to declare that string theory is worthy of a Superfund site and move into a new house. In this house our first order of business is in truly understanding the physical heritage that has come down to us. I have shown in my various papers that there is plenty of work to do in this regard. All the misguided theorists of the past century have quite simply been wrong when they stated, with maximum hubris, that classical and quantum physics was over. Neither classical nor quantum physics is anywhere near finished. We have only touched the surface, even regarding linear maths and "poolball" mechanics. Post quantum theories, whatever they are, will never be possible until QED is corrected and filled out. And QED will never be corrected and filled out until some of the elementary concepts I have spent such a vast amount of time exploring are better understood. Until we understand how our maths are working we can never hope to understand how the universe is working. And this is only the beginning. Velocity, acceleration, circular motion, rate of change, and many other basic physical concepts are not understood to this day. All our physical "knowledge" is dominated by heuristics. Whether we are studying quantum interaction, orbits, or cosmological origins, our equations are overwhelmed by nescience. The best thing to do in this situation is admit the fact and get to work.
A primary piece of this work will be in re-establishing QED without the point particle. One of the only places I agree with string theory is in its critique of the point particle. Quantum math was never able to express its field using an extended particle. String theory realized the problem here and the need to correct it, but it only corrected it by burying it below the Planck limit where no one can see it. In this way the point is given extension, but the extension is only another postulate. Postulate #5 or so: the loop has extension but it is so small that 1) it can't be detected physically, 2) it can't be detected mathematically. Therefore we can fudge over it by misusing the calculus for the millionth time. To my mind this is not a great advance over QED. The only solution is to return to the beginning of QED and start over. We have a lot of very useful heuristics that we can use to guide us, and lots of experimental data. But the math needs a thorough cleaning. The place to begin is in a better understanding of the calculus. Establishing the calculus on the constant differential instead of the diminishing differential will change every physical and mathematical concept of the last 300 years, and will impact all our theories of motion, force, and action. Only once we have rebuilt the old theories from the ground up can we begin counting the force fields and dimensions we will need for a unified math. We may find that we need 11 dimensions. But we may not. We may find that the house looks very different after we have cleared away all the garbage.
Part III
Conclusion
I will end by analyzing a short quote by David Gross, which I also steal from Greene's book. "It used to be that as we were climbing the mountain of nature the experimentalists would lead the way. We lazy theorists would lag behind. . . . We all long for the return of those days. But we theorists might have to take the lead. This is a much more lonely enterprise."8
You can almost hear the violins. Those poor put-upon theorists, saving us from the past, leading us bravely into the future. I am not an experimentalist, but when I read this quote my eyes rolled so far back in my head I nearly broke into St. Vitus' dance. The dishonesty literally pours off the page. The string theorist pretending to be an unwilling leader, a humble servant. When in fact he is little more than a shallow revolutionary, a completely monomaniacal, delusional person who has convinced himself that by hoodwinking us he has done us some great favor. Salesmanship posing as magnanimity.
I think you can tell by the tone of this paper that I am angry at string theory, and I don't deny it. The last century would try any honest person's patience, in any number of fields. In my opinion we are past the point of a mild rebuke. The physics department needs a good kick in the pants, and the math department too. Both have degenerated nearly past the point of recognition, and they might as well join up with the art department and begin putting on Dali-esque plays and masked balls. I had hoped that QED would someday develop some humility and that we, as physicists, would get back to work. That we would recognize the huge gaps in our theories, going all the way back to Euclid, and make some effort to fill them. Instead young physicists have continued to learn all the wrong lessons from the recent past and to fail to learn the most-needed lessons. What they have taken from QED is only its Berkeleyan idealism and its intellectual dishonesty. They have remained buried so far under their esoteric maths that they cannot see daylight. And they have continued to dig. They are now at a depth that apparently precludes all cries of logic, all ropes of humility, all ladders of embarrassment. It seems likely that they will continue to dig until the air runs out. Or until they hit the baby black hole at the center of the earth, and the self-created chasm at the center of their own theory sucks them into a well-earned hell.
1 The Elegant Universe, p. 123.
2 Ibid, p. 111.
3 Ibid, p. 311.
4 Ibid, p. 151.
5 Ibid, p. 152.
6 Ibid, p. 158.
7 In fact, it is only three dimensions, since time is operationally just a second measurement of one of the others. See my paper on time for a clarification of this assertion.
8 The Elegant Universe, p. 214.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.
http://milesmathis.com/string.html
http://milesmathis.com/
http://milesmathis.com/planck.html
Last edited: