To begin, 'string theory' is not a theory - it's based on a 'an infinitely thin, one dimensional loop'. One dimension is no manifestation in space, which, as I presently gather, string theory 'suggests' doesn't exist for it to be obliged to exist in (space).
Mathematical elegance does not a theory make. Moreover, by definition, mathematics for which there is no spatial counterpart is used extensively in string theory, as I presently understand it. You spend quite a bit of time espousing mathematics while you've been informed that it's - generally - beyond my ken. Your aggressive savoir faire on the subject of mathematics belies a defensive fortification with which I now learn you represent: the very precarious (if controversial) issue of 'string theory'.
I will get back to the so called string 'theory' and the metric and non metric mathematics issue furthermore, after I do some research on several 'no points' that are not presently familiar enough for me to talk with you about.
In the interim you may consider that 'my work' offers an explanation for the descrete quantum h factor in Max Planck's photoelectric findings, and, links it with Einstein's relativity.
May it suffice for the moment to also point out that you have skipped several formerly subjected points of discussion in this thread, you are developing a pattern of averting and otherwise suspending pending discussions. String theory also has a way of dismissing reality: for lack of evidence. I will have more to say about this, later.
Meanwhile, your advise on the popular representation of the 4th dimension reveals your inattention to previous communications (which you allude to as a waste of time) in this thread, specifically:
Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Does not 'orthogonal' refer to right angle projections, and/or perpendicular axes? If Einstein wasn't alluding to this definition when he declared a 4-D space-time continuum, what 'non-Euclidien geometric' license was he practicing, and why is the 4th dimension traditionally expressed in a 'supercube', that is, a cube, depicted as moving at right angles from itself?" The ensuing 'correction' is superfluous and bears your familiar stamp of vacant reprimand - extending qualifications that have already been - very specifically - established (By Buckminster Fuller, in the quote following yours, below)...
AlphaNumeric:
The whole hyper-cube thing is just to allow people to get a basic understanding of what an extra spacial dimension would mean for objects they are familiar with. It is by no means a definition or a yardstick by which other extra dimensional constructions are measured by. If you only grasp a fourth spacial dimension because of such things then you've made no attempt to learn anything about multidimensional geometry.
------------------------------------
Kaiduorkhon:
Whereas, the following qualifier (authored by Buckminster Fuller; with my editorial commentary) is reiterated, due to your having apparently ignored it, and instead, put forth the above ('opportunity' for) scolding and rebuke.
"In reality, mathematics can say very little about the 4th dimension. There is nothing in the hypothesis of the 4th dimension that would make it inadmissable from a mathematical point of view, this hypothesis does not contradict any of the accepted axioms and, because of this, does not meet with particular opposition on the part of mathematics. Mathematicians even admit the possibility of establishing the relationship that should exist between 3-D and 4-D space, i.e., certain properties of the 4th Dimension. But they do all this in a very general and indefinite form. No exact definition of the 4th Dimension exists in mathematics...
"The basis of the denial of the fourth dimension, which has been supported by the theoretical and fallacious plane and cubical geometry, has been the inability to produce an additional or fourth perpendicular to a cube, as the basis of an additional power multiplication, whereas, poor little plane arithmetic and algebra, without geometrical reference, being abstract, indicate the perfect ability to do so...
"Very rightly do they do so, for if the geometrist will go back to his first perpendicular, he will find it perpendicular to a sphere, for did he not assume a dot as his first basis of a geometrical theorem, which if conceded at all, must be spheroidal. Matter, if existent at all (and we cannot fallaciously assume a truth that is not), must be spheroidal. Surely the 'PlaneAndSolid' geometrist does not claim his 'dot' or 'point' to be cubical, for then he would have no further cause for his progressive antics.
We see that there is no cubism, and that we can have as many perpendiculars to the inside or outside of the sphere as we may wish. Each power raising, or root taking, is on the basis of spheroidal increase or decrease by that many units of its radial or time dimension. The only 'straight line' then is the radial or time line, demonstrated by spheroidal dissection on its radial axis. There is also much laughter at the 'Plane&Solids'" - R. Buckminster Fuller, 4-D TIMELOCK, p. 17
Apparently, what Fuller is qualifying, is that, although a geometric point does not exist, it is not square, it is round. Otherwise the motion of the square point A, to generate a Straight Line A --->B, begins a sequence of unnatural cubism, proceeding all the way up to the 4-D 'supercube'.
Fuller seems to be reminding us that the perpendicular - right angle - Euclidien law of (the extrapolation of) dimensions, can and does proceed from any shape at all; the three recognized dimensions of space being 4 dimensional and of a quasi infinite number of shapes and sizes.
The reader is encouraged to look up Buckminster Fuller in 'Who's Who'? The majority of entries have a few paragraphs of fine print - whereas Fuller's achievements fill the page. He is not a man to be underestimated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You are also remiss in responding to the first paragraph of post #69 in this thread, which I will therefore re-post, for your considered convenience:
You subject 'electron + positron -----> muon + anti-muon differential cross sections - the model addressed in QED...'; you go on to say that you ask if I understand these considerations because they are 'outside most crank's experience', summarizing with the question of whether or not I can provide you with an expansion, from the above...
Kaiduorkhon's response:
After my having initiated the subject of Dirac's work and your having proclaimed to work with and understand it, let it follow that you understand that there is consideration of a torus structure constituting the morphology of an electron system, certainly including the magnetic field that flows through it's core and around the electron system proper, very comparable to the geomagnetic field of the earth, for example.
For the sake of discussion may it follow that the magnetic field is generated by the electron (or the exemplary earth), and that it flows out of the north pole of the electron (or earth) system, curves around it and flows back in to the south pole of that system. Exactly at the equatorial point of the subjected system, the flow of the magnetic field reverses directions, from an originally northward flow - out of the upper core - to a forthcoming southward flow - into the lower core.
The northern portion of this system is flowing 'up' and 'down' (out of the core) relative to the system that generates it, while the southern portion of the system flows 'down' and 'up' (into the core). Therein resides the causal dynamics of the expansion, namely, the causal identity of 'anti-matter', with the resulting, continous (Dirac determined) explosion (expansion), resulting from the northern hemisphere's reversal of direction as it flows into and becomes the southern hemisphere - refer 'differential cross section'; consider a transversely bisected bagel (Aka, Dr. Feynman's QED lunch).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of lunch, someone sent this to me and said they found it in a ham sandwich:
astro
Administrator Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 264
John Baez's Crackpot Index/String Theory/LQG/Tenure/Fame/Book Deals
---------------------------------------------------------
John Baez's Crackpot Index/String Theory/LQG/Tenure/Fame/Book Deals
It has been very well documented that both String Theory and LQG rank high on the famous John Baez crackpot index:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/10/31/161746/39
Michio Kaku, Ed Witten, Lisa Randall, Lee Smolin, Brian Greene, and Lenny Susskind all rank way up on John Baez's crackpot index.
And yet, they receive millions upon millions of dollars for research, books, TV shows, blogs, and myspace pages. Thousands of groupthink physics fanboys are commanded from on high to snark all competing physical theories based in logic, truth, reason, and physics, and thus progress in theoretical physics has halted over the past thirty years, as elaborated on in Lee Smolin's THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS: THE RISE OF STRING THEORY, THE FALL OF SCIENCE, AND WHAT COMES NEXT--MDT.
What Baez's crackpot index leaves out is the true formula for postmodern success in the realm of pseudo-physics.
The higher the score on the Baez crackpot index, the better the opportunities, just as long as one is an aging, dishonest, amoral, snarky boomer, who rose to power as science fell.
As soon as they got tenure, the snark-a-lark boomers kicked down the ladders of truth, logic, and reason, which once provided the natural path for one to further one's career. And they replaced those ladders with fancy elevators for any useful-groupthink-fanboy-idiot who had nothing to lose by letting the baby be cut in half, as it was never theirs to begin with. So it is that they recruited legions of those who felt smarter when they were told they were smart--and the #'s looked good on the NSF balance sheets, for bodies are needed to justify millions upon millions of dollars. Adn if you asked, they would say, "we're almost there, just one more day!"
While physics has most usually been advanced by young mavericks asking and answering their own questions, felt deep in their individual souls, in many ways Susskind/Penrose/Smolin et al have legislated and bureaucratizzed curiosity, while they institutionalized zero progress in physics. Physics, like social security, has been redefined as that which empowers boomer's illusions of grandeur, while deepening their pockets. If you kneel before them, they give you a few dollars and send you forth to ignore/snark/castigate/impugn MDT and competing theories. A favorite pastime of young physics fanboys is to please their elders by demonstrating their procilivity with Baez's crackpot index--wielding it like a sledge hammer not against String Theory & LQG, which are backed by millions of dollars and institutionalized fanboy groupthink, but against small, indie physics. So it is that one's tax dollars are used against those who work real jobs.
Thus Sting Theory, Branes, Hawking's radition and blackhole entropy (for which there were never any tests nor proof), Twistors, LQG, and M Theory get millions upon millions upon millions of dollars, while physics comes to a standstill. Run the numbers on Baez's crackpot inex, and you will see that the sad boomer theories are nothing more than expensive crackpot theories, as attested to by Woit, Baez, and Smolin.
Here is the formula by which success, tenure, fame, and money are distributed in physics--as one can see, the higher the score on the Baez crackpot index, the better off one is:
((score on Baez's crackpot index) + (age of physicist)^(number of former grad students no longer employed in physics)) * (# of spurious, speculative, untestable papers published) * (# of claims that the conjectures can be tested) * (# of tv appearances) * (# of backcover blurbs from esteemed crackpots)^(# of positive comments the receiver of backcover blurbs issued to the backcover blurber's crackpot theories (woit & penrose)) * (# of behind-the-back emails snarking logic, reason, and physics) * (# of revolutions one's field has gone through while still failing) * (# of time physicist resisted speaking the simple truth, for fear of rejection) = BAEZ CRACKPOT SUCCESS FACTOR
So it is that Susskind/Witten/Green/Kaku/Randall et al have brought physics to a halt, snarking all the way to the bank, while also killing religion, breaking up the family, contributing to skyrocketing tuitions and rising divorce rates, fostering the decline of the university, and killing the great books and classics, all to make way for their Anthropic principle, LQG, ST, snarky crackpot indexes, multiverses, string-a-ling strings, Branes, wormholes--all of which are far, far removed from Einstein's, Feynman's, Dirac's, and Bohr's greatness, and their accompanying humility.
So it is that rising physicists ought to read the Classics penned by the Greats--read Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, Wheeler, Dirac.
Stay away from Hawking/Penrose/Baez/Greene/Randall/Kaku--for none of them have ever contributed to the advancement of science.