Thanks for all of that. I'm still sorting your book out against my resident gray matter 
.
.
TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics
- Thread starter Kaiduorkhon
- Start date
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Kai:
While I acknowledge the 'new age' allowance of 'other universes', my interpretation of 'universe' is of the 'old school' that takes the meaning of the word 'universe', literally: 'one verse'. To my way of thinking (IMHO), 'other universe' is an oxymoronic - increasingly popular - phrase (and conceptualization).
-------------------------------------------
Kai:
Wishing you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a Happy new year. : )
Last edited:
Thank you, Merry Christmas. Your comments have been very helpful.
I will say that mass is matter in a gravitational field so as I equate that to TFT, anything the generates the repelling force of 4-D expansion has mass.
The CMBR is the cosmic microwave background radiation. You make reference to it on page 196/197 saying that the earlier relatively more dense steady state theory is as much an explanation of the controversial CMBR formerly thought to be evidence of the Big Bang. The ~2.7 degree Kelvin temperature of the background is said to be causally connected to the Big Bang, i.e. the residual thermalized background temperature left from the billions of degree heat of the Big Bang.
And I remember now about how you answered my early question about the cause of gravity: Gravity is a mechanical-inertial repelling force at near distances and an electromagnetic repelling force at far distances. After reading the book I see what you mean by that definition.
I will say that mass is matter in a gravitational field so as I equate that to TFT, anything the generates the repelling force of 4-D expansion has mass.
The CMBR is the cosmic microwave background radiation. You make reference to it on page 196/197 saying that the earlier relatively more dense steady state theory is as much an explanation of the controversial CMBR formerly thought to be evidence of the Big Bang. The ~2.7 degree Kelvin temperature of the background is said to be causally connected to the Big Bang, i.e. the residual thermalized background temperature left from the billions of degree heat of the Big Bang.
And I remember now about how you answered my early question about the cause of gravity: Gravity is a mechanical-inertial repelling force at near distances and an electromagnetic repelling force at far distances. After reading the book I see what you mean by that definition.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
---------------------------------------------------
Merry Christmas to you and yours, Ed:
I have a forum and a chat room ('Open Forum: PostTraumaticStressDisorder') at http://forums.delphiforums.com/kaidupuppy/chat.
Have also written one 'novel-journal' (faction: fiction based on fact) which you may access when you Google: "Butterfly, Owl & Eagle: Athena Marie Prima" It's free. If you don't mind reading from the moniter screen, I've been repeatedly reassured that it's a self rewarding readin adventure.
Recently, one of the moderators at my forum installed Yahoo Instant Messenger service for me. Request that you allow us to be on one another's 'friends' list on the Instant Messenger service.
I am almost computer illiterate, Ed, so if you agree to Instant Messenger communications, will you please place me on your 'friends' list, and/or let me know how to list you there?
Regarding the TFT - please keep in mind that - without contradiction - action-at-a-distance can, at times, be an impelling force. Consider tidal effects, and, the fact that a plumb bob suspended near a mountain range, will very slighly 'gravitate' toward the mountain range. This corroborates 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. The Cosmological Constant (/\ Lambda), for example, is a representative factor of 'Newtonian gravity' (conceptualized as a 'pulling force of attraction'; actually unidentified: 'F'= 'Force'; i.e., it parallels 'gravity' but vectors in the opposite direction.
Be at ease with any critical commentary you may have of my work. Since it's based on the foundations of physical science it isn't likely to be disqualified, but if and when it is disqualified, all anyone may do from that is learn all that much more.
As things are, I am obliged to consider that TFT is Einstein's (reinstated) Unified Field Theory, and more... If you or anyone else can disqualify it, be confident that you'll be doing me - and the world (or at least portions of it?) -a favor. We'll still be educated by the proposed foundation and dynamics of the theory itself, with a resolve of the 'riddle' it otherwise (elaborately and educationally) presents. That is, even if it's wrong, it's one heck of a teaching tool, with a closure.
Post Script:
My full name is Kent Benjamin Robertson. If you Google that name (and/or 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension') you will learn that I have many self appointed, 'annoying' (consistently anonymous) enemies (Please note Post #40 on p. 4).
I am Scot-Mongolian (Sami Finn). 'Kaidu' is Mongolian for 'horse'. 'Orkhon' is Mongolian for 'eagle', hence, my Mongolian name Kaiduorkhon - horse-eagle.
My divorced mother married 'the only Indian (Native American/Ojibway Chippewa) in town' and from age 13 (1954) on, 'Bill Oshie' was my stepfather. He was a very good man, as my mother was likewise his match - though Bill was functionally illiterate and Mom had a Master's Degree in Optometrics. My Reservation name, since I am legally Ojibway Chippewa, by the Marriage of my Mother to Bill Oshie, is 'CrazyHorse', which is an Sioux Nation honorific (The Sioux and Chippewa Nations made peace and united when the European settlers invaded their territory). Although there are many 'CrazyHorse' named people on the net, there is only one 'kraziequus', which is my e-mail name. Incidentally, 'CrazyHorse' translates to 'MysticHorse' in Oglala and Lakota Sioux, and Ojibway Chippewa.
Mom was also a certified gemologist with a strong background in geology. I was born and raised in northern Minnesota, until the military transferred me all over the coastal Mediterranean - and Cuba - via 3 1/2 years duty on an ammo ship. My beloved wife and I are presently living in Williamsburg, VA.
Btw, my email address is 'kraziequus@yahoo.com'.
This is all part of my story, and I'm sticking with it. : )
Last edited:
I’ll check out the chat room and the fiction based on fact book, and will have to look into Instant Messenger communications and how to link as friends.
I am pretty well versed on different cosmologies of the universe since it has been my focus for many years. That is why I was glad to see your views and am absorbing the full scope as best I can. I don’t see how it can be disqualified unless future discoveries or observations do so for us. That makes it a complete cosmology that address the important issues. When I mention parts that I don’t quite have down pat it is only that I am still contemplating it.
Your view is so different that the science of QM and the consensus Big Bang Theory must be partially set aside in order to comprehend the ramifications of TFT. I can and will do that because my sense is like you say, TFT won’t be disqualified. We both know that not being falsifiable doesn’t mean anything except that it is consistent with observations and data available today. But there are so many foolish ideas out there that aren’t very well thought out that it is a pleasure to find fresh material like yours. There are also many people who resent us who have the nerve to post and discuss ideas. They are the fools who think they are smarter than the rest of us. Huge egos and self worth always accompany them. No flame toward anyone in particular intended; just general observations. Let's see who takes exception.
You are very kind to give us that bio. Very interesting.Post Script:
My full name is Kent Benjamin Robertson. If you Google that name (and/or 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension') you will learn that I have many self appointed, 'annoying' (consistently anonymous) enemies.
I am Scot-Mongolian (Sami Finn). 'Kaidu' is Mongolian for 'horse'. 'Orkhon' is Mongolian for 'eagle', hence, my Mongolian name Kaiduorkhon - horse-eagle.
My divorced mother married 'the only Indian (Native American/Ojibway Chippewa) in town' and from age 13 (1954) on, 'Bill Oshie' was my stepfather. He was a very good man, as my mother was likewise his match - though Bill was functionally illiterate and Mom had a Master's Degree in Optometrics. My Reservation name, since I am legally Ojibway Chippewa, by the Marriage of my Mother to Bill Oshie, is 'CrazyHorse', which is an Sioux Nation honorific (The Sioux and Chippewa Nations made peace and united when the European settelers invaded their territory). Although there are many 'CrazyHorse' named people on the net, there is only one 'kraziequus', which is my e-mail name. Incidentally, 'CrazyHorse' translates to 'MysticHorse' in Oglala and Lakota Sioux, and Ojibway Chippewa.
Mom was also a certified gemologist with a strong background in geology. I was born and raised in northern Minnesota, until the military transferred me all over the coastal Mediterranean - and Cuba - via 3 1/2 years duty on an ammo ship. My beloved wife and I are presently living in Williamsburg, VA.
As for having enemies, sometimes people don’t appreciate us and the net allows anonymous people to act out. Net life requires that we take everything with a grain of salt.
Here is a brief exchange from 11/13/09 in regard to the way I conduct myself on my threads. You are familiar with it or at least that type of exchange. We live and learn.
Response from QW:
QW said:
Are you laughing at this now a couple of months after? I never heard back. It is true about how infantile I am in response to infantile posts. I forgive myself every time I act that way, which is often. I don’t hold back in the Pseudoscience forum where that kind of behavior is tolerated. I can take it and I can dish it out in return. I never start a flame war and never lose one either unless a moderator steps in. I say that in hopes that those who flame me will continue to do so; it is part of what I like about SciForums.
More later after I look at Instant Messenger. Thanks for your comments.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Hi Ed:
Transmitting the URL of a thread which turns into quite a roller coaster ride (skunk fight) of mixed feelings and misunderstandings, regarding TFT, but before it closes to a resolute end everything gets ironed out and there's a happy ending for all party animals concerned...
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-t...o-called-biggest-blunder-right-after-all.html
Please lemme know what you think of it.
Post Script:
I edited some parcels of new information in my preceding post, please take note. E-mail me anytime.
Transmitting the URL of a thread which turns into quite a roller coaster ride (skunk fight) of mixed feelings and misunderstandings, regarding TFT, but before it closes to a resolute end everything gets ironed out and there's a happy ending for all party animals concerned...
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-t...o-called-biggest-blunder-right-after-all.html
Please lemme know what you think of it.
Post Script:
I edited some parcels of new information in my preceding post, please take note. E-mail me anytime.
Last edited:
Wow, talk about hypocrisy. You forgive yourself for lying and refusing to back up claims but when other people act 'unprofessionally' and 'unethically' you continually remind them of it? As for losing a flame war I think your posting style speaks for itself, you have to start new threads on QWC every time the previous one gets so saturated with people pointing out your lies and ignorance you think you need to start over.
You claim I'm on a dead end career path and have worked on something which is a waste yet you're here praising Kaiduorkhon a lot, despite his work being older than string theory and having produced a lot lot less and having failed to attract any attention. Kaiduorkhon, by his own admission, can't provide references to published papers where people reference his work and say it's influenced their published work. He only hopes or believes there is, without evidence.
Kaiduorkhon, you complain I don't read it because 'it doesn't have maths'. Well that's partly true. I expect anyone claiming to have constructed a new model of electromagnetism to have justification for that and such justification is having a derivation of Maxwell's equations. Without having the governing equations of electromagnetism how can you claim you have such a description? You can't support such a claim with evidence. So unless you can provide me with a page in your book where you derive Maxwell's equations I can't believe you've got a model of electromagnetism.
And having extra dimensions in your model and using them to generate gauge fields isn't new. Kaluza-Klein methods do precisely that and its simple to prove that the Einstein Field Equations imply Maxwell's equations, thus showing KK methods do generate electromagnetism. You don't have that.
A man could read pet physics theories from dawn till dusk his whole life and not read 1% of the theories out there. If you want to convince people your work is worth reading you need to justify your claims with more than quotes and illustrations you don't understand mainstream work. You've had multiple pot shots at string theory and M theory but each time you show you don't understand them. You couldn't even explain what your comment about M theory being a 'dichotomy' was about. When people complain "Oh string theory predicts all kinds of different space-time dimensions" they illustrate they haven't actually learnt any string theory because we've known for more than a decade there is one and only one theory induced by quantising strings, the different 'string theories' you hear about are different sides of the same coin. Only those who get their information about string theory from YouTube and The New York Times make such mistakes. I don't expect doctors to get their medical knowledge from House or Greys Anatomy and I don't expect physicists to get their knowledge from the media either.
Thanks, I will do that. I'm interested in keeping the dialog going; email and Instant Messaging are good ways to do that.Hi Ed:
Transmitting the URL of a thread which turns into quite a roller coaster ride (skunk fight) of mixed feelings and misunderstandings, regarding TFT, but before it closes to a resolute end everything gets ironed out and there's a happy ending for all party animals concerned...
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-t...o-called-biggest-blunder-right-after-all.html
Please lemme know what you think of it.
Post Script:
I edited some parcels of new information in my preceding post, please take note. E-mail me anytime.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Kaiduorkhon:
First of all, AlphaNumeric, I sincerely wish you and yours a Happy Holiday Season. Also, sincere thanks for your input on this thread, albeit a bit raucous at times.
AlphaNumeric:
Kaiduorkhon, by his own admission, can't provide references to published papers where people reference his work and say it's influenced their published work. He only hopes or believes there is, without evidence.
Kaiduorkhon:
It isn't likely that established members of the 'scientific community' are going to accredit Truly Your's work, for having influenced their's. Meanwhile, the Cosmological Constant ( /\ Lambda ) has in fact been functionally reinstated, in the name of 'quintessence', 'dark matter', etceteras. The expanding universe has in fact been found to be accelerating as I (non-mathematically) predicted over 50 years ago. True, my predictions often do not include the mathematical specifics, but certainly foresee the conceptual generalities. I request that you reconsider the list of achievements that I have posted twice, in this thread.
AlphaNumeric:
Kaiduorkhon, you complain I don't read it because 'it doesn't have maths'. Well that's partly true. I expect anyone claiming to have constructed a new model of electromagnetism to have justification for that and such justification is having a derivation of Maxwell's equations. Without having the governing equations of electromagnetism how can you claim you have such a description?
Kaiduorkhon:
The claim of my work - to have identified the 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism, respectively - is based on the geometric structure of electromagnetism, as it is emitted from (Einstein's) 4-dimensional matter.
AlphaNumeric:
You can't support such a claim with evidence. So unless you can provide me with a page in your book where you derive Maxwell's equations I can't believe you've got a model of electromagnetism.
Kaiduorkhon:
A variously illustrated model of the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions is a key component of my book. I will provide the page numbers when I return to this Post in an 'edit' mode. All right I'm returned, in 'edit' mode... Please refer p.p. 96 - 112.
AlphaNumeric:
And having extra dimensions in your model and using them to generate gauge fields isn't new. Kaluza-Klein methods do precisely that and its simple to prove that the Einstein Field Equations imply Maxwell's equations, thus showing KK methods do generate electromagnetism. You don't have that.
Kaiduorkhon:
I submit that I do in fact 'have that'...
Before Maxwell, the structure of the mysterious 'force' (of electromagnetism) was unknown, Maxwell established it's structural morphology, and I derived the definition for physical dimensions from (plane & solid) geometry and applied that derivation to the structure of Maxwell's electromagnetic fields - which do indeed precede Einstein's Field equations, that do in fact imply Maxwell's equations, which are said to 'break down at the surface of the particle (from which the field emanates)' - meanwhile, the 'particle' has no 'surface', separating or otherwise making it discontinuous from surrounding space, and is not, therefore, a 'particle' at all, but rather a charge of electricity having no distinct boundaries.
AlphaNumeric:
A man could read pet physics theories from dawn till dusk his whole life and not read 1% of the theories out there. If you want to convince people your work is worth reading you need to justify your claims with more than quotes and illustrations you don't understand mainstream work.
Kaiduorkhon:
The translation of my work applied to the generalized status quo in science is wide and diverse. Until it is read, it is not anticipated, and is not therefore, given a read - bereft of an opportunity to be properly evaluated.
AlphaNumeric:
You've had multiple pot shots at string theory and M theory but each time you show you don't understand them. You couldn't even explain what your comment about M theory being a 'dichotomy' was about.
Kaiduorkhon:
As I understand it, 'M Theory' is a belated, emergent ('adjustment') of 'String Theory'. A more recent version of the fractious (additional) '6-D space-time'; where 'M' is variously translated (by 'dichotomy' I intend 'brachiation') - to 'Membrane', 'Matrix', 'Mother', 'Meta', 'Magic', and 'Mystery' - Peter Woit, paraphrased, 2002. Woit suggests that 'M Theory' may be more appropriately referred to as 'Mythical', 'given that years of work on M theory have yet to lead to even a good conjecture'. 'It has not provided quantitative experimental predictions'. - Woit, Ibid.
Until I learn of another non mathematically expressive source of information about 'String - or M - Theory', I continue to consider Prof. Woit the nemesis of 'String Theory'.
AlphaNumeric:
When people complain "Oh string theory predicts all kinds of different space-time dimensions" they illustrate they haven't actually learnt any string theory because we've known for more than a decade there is one and only one theory induced by quantising strings, the different 'string theories' you hear about are different sides of the same coin. Only those who get their information about string theory from YouTube and The New York Times make such mistakes.
Kaiduorkhon:
Are you suggesting that string theory is incomprehensible to everyone but string theorists? The very term 'theory', as applied to proposed sub electronic and sub quark microcosms is disingenous from the stringent meaning of 'theory'. That rush to calling the work at point, a 'theory', invokes suspicion from the outset of considering it.
('If you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it'. - Einstein )
AlphaNumeric:
I don't expect doctors to get their medical knowledge from House or Greys Anatomy and I don't expect physicists to get their knowledge from the media either.
Kaiduorkhon:
Apparently you mean 'House' - the TV seriatim.
Whereas, 'Gray's Anatomy' is another consideration altogether, as a solidly scientific source of information. Wherever you learned that Gray's Anatomy is not an integral part of Modern Medicine's Rock of Gibralter, you are seriously mistaken...
Quotes from the Inside cover of the March 1977 issue of Gray's Anatomy, follow:
"With a new introduction by John A. Crocco, M.D., Chief of Pulmonary Services, St. Vincent's Hospital & Medical Center of New York, and, Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine, New York University School of Medicine."
"This is a landmark edition of one of the greatest texts of our time. Gray's Anatomy has been an international best seller for 100 years (as of '77).
"Every living physician today has been exposed to Gray's Anatomy, and nearly every one has used it. It was Gray's Anatomy that occupied most of the embryonic physician's waking hours. There have been many imitations, but few real competitors." - Dr. John A. Crocco, M.D.
"This stellar book represents the acme of anatomical description over the last century, and will probably still be the premier text in anatomy over the next one hundred years." - Ibid
First of all, AlphaNumeric, I sincerely wish you and yours a Happy Holiday Season. Also, sincere thanks for your input on this thread, albeit a bit raucous at times.
AlphaNumeric:
Kaiduorkhon, by his own admission, can't provide references to published papers where people reference his work and say it's influenced their published work. He only hopes or believes there is, without evidence.
Kaiduorkhon:
It isn't likely that established members of the 'scientific community' are going to accredit Truly Your's work, for having influenced their's. Meanwhile, the Cosmological Constant ( /\ Lambda ) has in fact been functionally reinstated, in the name of 'quintessence', 'dark matter', etceteras. The expanding universe has in fact been found to be accelerating as I (non-mathematically) predicted over 50 years ago. True, my predictions often do not include the mathematical specifics, but certainly foresee the conceptual generalities. I request that you reconsider the list of achievements that I have posted twice, in this thread.
AlphaNumeric:
Kaiduorkhon, you complain I don't read it because 'it doesn't have maths'. Well that's partly true. I expect anyone claiming to have constructed a new model of electromagnetism to have justification for that and such justification is having a derivation of Maxwell's equations. Without having the governing equations of electromagnetism how can you claim you have such a description?
Kaiduorkhon:
The claim of my work - to have identified the 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism, respectively - is based on the geometric structure of electromagnetism, as it is emitted from (Einstein's) 4-dimensional matter.
AlphaNumeric:
You can't support such a claim with evidence. So unless you can provide me with a page in your book where you derive Maxwell's equations I can't believe you've got a model of electromagnetism.
Kaiduorkhon:
A variously illustrated model of the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions is a key component of my book. I will provide the page numbers when I return to this Post in an 'edit' mode. All right I'm returned, in 'edit' mode... Please refer p.p. 96 - 112.
AlphaNumeric:
And having extra dimensions in your model and using them to generate gauge fields isn't new. Kaluza-Klein methods do precisely that and its simple to prove that the Einstein Field Equations imply Maxwell's equations, thus showing KK methods do generate electromagnetism. You don't have that.
Kaiduorkhon:
I submit that I do in fact 'have that'...
Before Maxwell, the structure of the mysterious 'force' (of electromagnetism) was unknown, Maxwell established it's structural morphology, and I derived the definition for physical dimensions from (plane & solid) geometry and applied that derivation to the structure of Maxwell's electromagnetic fields - which do indeed precede Einstein's Field equations, that do in fact imply Maxwell's equations, which are said to 'break down at the surface of the particle (from which the field emanates)' - meanwhile, the 'particle' has no 'surface', separating or otherwise making it discontinuous from surrounding space, and is not, therefore, a 'particle' at all, but rather a charge of electricity having no distinct boundaries.
AlphaNumeric:
A man could read pet physics theories from dawn till dusk his whole life and not read 1% of the theories out there. If you want to convince people your work is worth reading you need to justify your claims with more than quotes and illustrations you don't understand mainstream work.
Kaiduorkhon:
The translation of my work applied to the generalized status quo in science is wide and diverse. Until it is read, it is not anticipated, and is not therefore, given a read - bereft of an opportunity to be properly evaluated.
AlphaNumeric:
You've had multiple pot shots at string theory and M theory but each time you show you don't understand them. You couldn't even explain what your comment about M theory being a 'dichotomy' was about.
Kaiduorkhon:
As I understand it, 'M Theory' is a belated, emergent ('adjustment') of 'String Theory'. A more recent version of the fractious (additional) '6-D space-time'; where 'M' is variously translated (by 'dichotomy' I intend 'brachiation') - to 'Membrane', 'Matrix', 'Mother', 'Meta', 'Magic', and 'Mystery' - Peter Woit, paraphrased, 2002. Woit suggests that 'M Theory' may be more appropriately referred to as 'Mythical', 'given that years of work on M theory have yet to lead to even a good conjecture'. 'It has not provided quantitative experimental predictions'. - Woit, Ibid.
Until I learn of another non mathematically expressive source of information about 'String - or M - Theory', I continue to consider Prof. Woit the nemesis of 'String Theory'.
AlphaNumeric:
When people complain "Oh string theory predicts all kinds of different space-time dimensions" they illustrate they haven't actually learnt any string theory because we've known for more than a decade there is one and only one theory induced by quantising strings, the different 'string theories' you hear about are different sides of the same coin. Only those who get their information about string theory from YouTube and The New York Times make such mistakes.
Kaiduorkhon:
Are you suggesting that string theory is incomprehensible to everyone but string theorists? The very term 'theory', as applied to proposed sub electronic and sub quark microcosms is disingenous from the stringent meaning of 'theory'. That rush to calling the work at point, a 'theory', invokes suspicion from the outset of considering it.
('If you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it'. - Einstein )
AlphaNumeric:
I don't expect doctors to get their medical knowledge from House or Greys Anatomy and I don't expect physicists to get their knowledge from the media either.
Kaiduorkhon:
Apparently you mean 'House' - the TV seriatim.
Whereas, 'Gray's Anatomy' is another consideration altogether, as a solidly scientific source of information. Wherever you learned that Gray's Anatomy is not an integral part of Modern Medicine's Rock of Gibralter, you are seriously mistaken...
Quotes from the Inside cover of the March 1977 issue of Gray's Anatomy, follow:
"With a new introduction by John A. Crocco, M.D., Chief of Pulmonary Services, St. Vincent's Hospital & Medical Center of New York, and, Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine, New York University School of Medicine."
"This is a landmark edition of one of the greatest texts of our time. Gray's Anatomy has been an international best seller for 100 years (as of '77).
"Every living physician today has been exposed to Gray's Anatomy, and nearly every one has used it. It was Gray's Anatomy that occupied most of the embryonic physician's waking hours. There have been many imitations, but few real competitors." - Dr. John A. Crocco, M.D.
"This stellar book represents the acme of anatomical description over the last century, and will probably still be the premier text in anatomy over the next one hundred years." - Ibid
Last edited:
Why wouldn't they accredit it? I accredit any paper which has relevance to my work, even if its just something like "The work in this paper is motivated by the concepts put forth in [1,2,3,4]" and then never mention them again.
In other words you don't have a rigorous justification you have a model for electromagnetism, you simply claim you do.
That has nothing to do with what M theory actually involves, all you've done is tell me what M might stand for. Knowing the name of a model doesn't mean you know about the model. It could be called Witten Theory, since Witten derived its existence, that wouldn't change what the details are.
The general concepts and results are understandable to plenty of people. Just don't think that because you've read a pop science book or an article in the NYT that you know anything even close to the truth about it.
I mean House and Grey's Anatomy.
I'm well aware Gray's Anatomy is a textbook for doctors, my mother has a copy of it from her student days. My point is that you don't expect a doctor to learn his or her knowledge from TV shows, just as you wouldn't expect a physicist to learn his mathematics/physics from a TV show, irrespective of how 'technically accurate' they are.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
It isn't likely that established members of the 'scientific community' are going to accredit Truly Your's work, for having influenced their's. Meanwhile, the Cosmological Constant ( /\ Lambda ) has in fact been functionally reinstated, in the name of 'quintessence', 'dark matter', etceteras. The expanding universe has in fact been found to be accelerating as I (non-mathematically) predicted over 50 years ago. True, my predictions often do not include the mathematical specifics, but certainly foresee the conceptual generalities. I request that you reconsider the list of achievements that I have posted twice, in this thread. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Why wouldn't they accredit it?
Kaiduorkhon:
You, for example, have repeatedly and diversely denigrated me personally - as a 'crank', and described me as 'stupid'. Why would they accredit it? That is, by far, the most appropriate question. Your 'question' is self-resolving and quasi frivolous.
AlphaNumeric:
I accredit any paper which has relevance to my work, even if its just something like "The work in this paper is motivated by the concepts put forth in [1,2,3,4]" and then never mention them again.
Kaiduorkhon:
What you may or not accredit is not at all a reliable standard of ethics in the 'physical science community' (sic) at large.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
A variously illustrated model of the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions is a key component of my book. I will provide the page numbers when I return to this Post in an 'edit' mode. All right I'm returned, in 'edit' mode... Please refer p.p. 96 - 112. ”
AlphaNumeric:
In other words you don't have a rigorous justification you have a model for electromagnetism, you simply claim you do.
Kaiduorkhon:
You simply claim I don't.
You have variously suggested and implied several times in this thread that my interpretatation of dimensions is incorrect, while a 2009 copyrighted statement by Dr. Michio Kaku encompasses eleven to twelve dimensions, in a 'mathematical' context (including the work of Prof. Witten). Apparently your interpretation of what constitutes dimensions is radically different than mine, this is clear in the fact that all of string theory allows that a one dimensional consideration is an 'entity' that physically influences 3 and more dimensional conditions.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
As I understand it, 'M Theory' is a belated, emergent ('adjustment') of 'String Theory'. A more recent version of the fractious (additional) '6-D space-time'; where 'M' is variously translated (by 'dichotomy' I intend 'brachiation') - to 'Membrane', 'Matrix', 'Mother', 'Meta', 'Magic', and 'Mystery' - Peter Woit, paraphrased, 2002. Woit suggests that 'M Theory' may be more appropriately referred to as 'Mythical', 'given that years of work on M theory have yet to lead to even a good conjecture'. 'It has not provided quantitative experimental predictions'. - Woit, Ibid. ”
AlphaNumeric:
That has nothing to do with what M theory actually involves, all you've done is tell me what M might stand for. Knowing the name of a model doesn't mean you know about the model. It could be called Witten Theory, since Witten derived its existence, that wouldn't change what the details are.
Kaiduorkhon:
'Since Witten derived it's existence'...
Isn't Prof. Witten highly acclaimed for his mathematical agility? Isn't it a fact that all you - or anyone else - know about M 'theory' is what it might stand for?
This subject has been considered before, in this thread - the issue of where mathematics begins and leaves off, relative to conditional/measurable reality(ies).
Where are quantitative experimental predictions? Where are 'gravitons'? Where are 'gravity waves'? When does a one dimensional consideration emerge as any kind of condition in real space?
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Are you suggesting that string theory is incomprehensible to everyone but string theorists? The very term 'theory', as applied to proposed sub electronic and sub quark microcosms is disingenous from the stringent meaning of 'theory'. The rush to calling the work at point, a 'theory', invokes suspicion from the outset of considering it. ”
AlphaNumeric:
The general concepts and results are understandable to plenty of people. Just don't think that because you've read a pop science book or an article in the NYT that you know anything even close to the truth about it.
Kaiduorkhon:
'...the truth about it'... In a matrix of 'particles' and mathematics, the previously asked and unanswered question introduced by the observation that: The rush to calling the work at point, a 'theory', invokes suspicion from the outset of considering it. The ambience and posturing of 'new age' physics and especially the new generation of physicists activates incredulity in the unbias student - and that's a lot of people...
Kaiduorkhon:
'... understandable to plenty of people'.
Repeat: Is string theory confined to being understood by string theorist only? There is a substantial institution of academics in fundamental disagreement with the very approach and direction of string 'theory' (Vis a vis, Wolfgang Pauli and his extant advocates).
Most facets of science in general are in a state of constant progressive change; on the other hand, string theory in particular seems to find its main respite in higher mathematics: while accompanied by a formidable host of so far dissolute problems - as described by Prof Michio Kaku, at http://mkaku.org/home/?page_id=262
From that report (ut supra) it is evident that string 'theory' is far from being understood by anyone. You, for example, do not pass near admitting that string 'theory' may be an inert utopian doorway to a successful GUT.
Excerpt from the above URL, featuring Prof. Kaku's description of Einstein's lion, follows:
Parable of the Lion
Einstein once said, “Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size.” Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life searching for the “tail” that would lead him to the “lion,” the fabled unified field theory or the “theory of everything,” which would unite all the forces of the universe into a single equation. The four forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) would be unified by an equation perhaps one inch long. Capturing the “lion” would be the greatest scientific achievement in all of physics, the crowning achievement of 2,000 years of scientific investigation, ever since the Greeks first asked themselves what the world was made of. But although Einstein was the first one to set off on this noble hunt and track the footprints left by the lion, he ultimately lost the trail and wandered off into the wilderness.
(Incidentally, Michio Kaku uses the term 'Orwellian' in his report at the above URL, where all I hear is Prof. Kaku's metaphorical lion, roaring out of a string 'theory' endorsed magician's top hat. Although Prof. Pauli is no longer here to comment furthermore, it is my opinion that, were he here, he might very well question that string 'theory' is even near any imprinted lion-tracks - let alone the tail, or 'outline' - of the metaphorical UF lion.)
Prof. Kaku neglects to update the reader on the fact that Einstein put himself back on track - re-addressing his formerly abandoned Cosmological Constant ( /\ Lambda ) at Princeton, just before his departure in May of '55. Moreover, the 'wilderness' appears to be the staggering list of 'particles', at and below the microcosmic threshold of electrons and quarks.
There are no Particles:
http://free.naplesplus.us/articles/...-waves-there-are-no-particles-in-the-universe.
http://mwolff.tripod.com/
You frequently allude to 'Pop' (popular) science books and newspaper articles and 'media', apparently as a refuge of obfuscation and misunderstanding you may introduce at any offered stage of lay inquiry or perspective. It is understandable that you know more about string 'theory' than the uninitiated, but to feign a comprehensive 'understanding' of it is to place yourself ahead of the status quo of generally unanswered questions associated with string 'theory'.
-------------------------------------------
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Apparently you mean 'House' - the TV seriatim.
Whereas, 'Gray's Anatomy' is another consideration altogether, as a solidly scientific source of information. Wherever you learned that Gray's Anatomy is not an integral part of Modern Medicine's Rock of Gibralter, you are seriously mistaken... ”
AlphaNumeric:
I mean House and Grey's Anatomy.
Kaiduorkhon:
After making some recent inquiries I did learn that 'Grey's Anatomy' is the deliberately misspelled name of a TV show. Your exemplary presumption that I may derive misguided scientific perspectives from unqualified sources as a matter of policy, is mistaken here.
It isn't likely that established members of the 'scientific community' are going to accredit Truly Your's work, for having influenced their's. Meanwhile, the Cosmological Constant ( /\ Lambda ) has in fact been functionally reinstated, in the name of 'quintessence', 'dark matter', etceteras. The expanding universe has in fact been found to be accelerating as I (non-mathematically) predicted over 50 years ago. True, my predictions often do not include the mathematical specifics, but certainly foresee the conceptual generalities. I request that you reconsider the list of achievements that I have posted twice, in this thread. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Why wouldn't they accredit it?
Kaiduorkhon:
You, for example, have repeatedly and diversely denigrated me personally - as a 'crank', and described me as 'stupid'. Why would they accredit it? That is, by far, the most appropriate question. Your 'question' is self-resolving and quasi frivolous.
AlphaNumeric:
I accredit any paper which has relevance to my work, even if its just something like "The work in this paper is motivated by the concepts put forth in [1,2,3,4]" and then never mention them again.
Kaiduorkhon:
What you may or not accredit is not at all a reliable standard of ethics in the 'physical science community' (sic) at large.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
A variously illustrated model of the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions is a key component of my book. I will provide the page numbers when I return to this Post in an 'edit' mode. All right I'm returned, in 'edit' mode... Please refer p.p. 96 - 112. ”
AlphaNumeric:
In other words you don't have a rigorous justification you have a model for electromagnetism, you simply claim you do.
Kaiduorkhon:
You simply claim I don't.
You have variously suggested and implied several times in this thread that my interpretatation of dimensions is incorrect, while a 2009 copyrighted statement by Dr. Michio Kaku encompasses eleven to twelve dimensions, in a 'mathematical' context (including the work of Prof. Witten). Apparently your interpretation of what constitutes dimensions is radically different than mine, this is clear in the fact that all of string theory allows that a one dimensional consideration is an 'entity' that physically influences 3 and more dimensional conditions.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
As I understand it, 'M Theory' is a belated, emergent ('adjustment') of 'String Theory'. A more recent version of the fractious (additional) '6-D space-time'; where 'M' is variously translated (by 'dichotomy' I intend 'brachiation') - to 'Membrane', 'Matrix', 'Mother', 'Meta', 'Magic', and 'Mystery' - Peter Woit, paraphrased, 2002. Woit suggests that 'M Theory' may be more appropriately referred to as 'Mythical', 'given that years of work on M theory have yet to lead to even a good conjecture'. 'It has not provided quantitative experimental predictions'. - Woit, Ibid. ”
AlphaNumeric:
That has nothing to do with what M theory actually involves, all you've done is tell me what M might stand for. Knowing the name of a model doesn't mean you know about the model. It could be called Witten Theory, since Witten derived its existence, that wouldn't change what the details are.
Kaiduorkhon:
'Since Witten derived it's existence'...
Isn't Prof. Witten highly acclaimed for his mathematical agility? Isn't it a fact that all you - or anyone else - know about M 'theory' is what it might stand for?
This subject has been considered before, in this thread - the issue of where mathematics begins and leaves off, relative to conditional/measurable reality(ies).
Where are quantitative experimental predictions? Where are 'gravitons'? Where are 'gravity waves'? When does a one dimensional consideration emerge as any kind of condition in real space?
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Are you suggesting that string theory is incomprehensible to everyone but string theorists? The very term 'theory', as applied to proposed sub electronic and sub quark microcosms is disingenous from the stringent meaning of 'theory'. The rush to calling the work at point, a 'theory', invokes suspicion from the outset of considering it. ”
AlphaNumeric:
The general concepts and results are understandable to plenty of people. Just don't think that because you've read a pop science book or an article in the NYT that you know anything even close to the truth about it.
Kaiduorkhon:
'...the truth about it'... In a matrix of 'particles' and mathematics, the previously asked and unanswered question introduced by the observation that: The rush to calling the work at point, a 'theory', invokes suspicion from the outset of considering it. The ambience and posturing of 'new age' physics and especially the new generation of physicists activates incredulity in the unbias student - and that's a lot of people...
Kaiduorkhon:
'... understandable to plenty of people'.
Repeat: Is string theory confined to being understood by string theorist only? There is a substantial institution of academics in fundamental disagreement with the very approach and direction of string 'theory' (Vis a vis, Wolfgang Pauli and his extant advocates).
Most facets of science in general are in a state of constant progressive change; on the other hand, string theory in particular seems to find its main respite in higher mathematics: while accompanied by a formidable host of so far dissolute problems - as described by Prof Michio Kaku, at http://mkaku.org/home/?page_id=262
From that report (ut supra) it is evident that string 'theory' is far from being understood by anyone. You, for example, do not pass near admitting that string 'theory' may be an inert utopian doorway to a successful GUT.
Excerpt from the above URL, featuring Prof. Kaku's description of Einstein's lion, follows:
Parable of the Lion
Einstein once said, “Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size.” Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life searching for the “tail” that would lead him to the “lion,” the fabled unified field theory or the “theory of everything,” which would unite all the forces of the universe into a single equation. The four forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) would be unified by an equation perhaps one inch long. Capturing the “lion” would be the greatest scientific achievement in all of physics, the crowning achievement of 2,000 years of scientific investigation, ever since the Greeks first asked themselves what the world was made of. But although Einstein was the first one to set off on this noble hunt and track the footprints left by the lion, he ultimately lost the trail and wandered off into the wilderness.
(Incidentally, Michio Kaku uses the term 'Orwellian' in his report at the above URL, where all I hear is Prof. Kaku's metaphorical lion, roaring out of a string 'theory' endorsed magician's top hat. Although Prof. Pauli is no longer here to comment furthermore, it is my opinion that, were he here, he might very well question that string 'theory' is even near any imprinted lion-tracks - let alone the tail, or 'outline' - of the metaphorical UF lion.)
Prof. Kaku neglects to update the reader on the fact that Einstein put himself back on track - re-addressing his formerly abandoned Cosmological Constant ( /\ Lambda ) at Princeton, just before his departure in May of '55. Moreover, the 'wilderness' appears to be the staggering list of 'particles', at and below the microcosmic threshold of electrons and quarks.
There are no Particles:
http://free.naplesplus.us/articles/...-waves-there-are-no-particles-in-the-universe.
http://mwolff.tripod.com/
You frequently allude to 'Pop' (popular) science books and newspaper articles and 'media', apparently as a refuge of obfuscation and misunderstanding you may introduce at any offered stage of lay inquiry or perspective. It is understandable that you know more about string 'theory' than the uninitiated, but to feign a comprehensive 'understanding' of it is to place yourself ahead of the status quo of generally unanswered questions associated with string 'theory'.
-------------------------------------------
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Apparently you mean 'House' - the TV seriatim.
Whereas, 'Gray's Anatomy' is another consideration altogether, as a solidly scientific source of information. Wherever you learned that Gray's Anatomy is not an integral part of Modern Medicine's Rock of Gibralter, you are seriously mistaken... ”
AlphaNumeric:
I mean House and Grey's Anatomy.
Kaiduorkhon:
After making some recent inquiries I did learn that 'Grey's Anatomy' is the deliberately misspelled name of a TV show. Your exemplary presumption that I may derive misguided scientific perspectives from unqualified sources as a matter of policy, is mistaken here.
Last edited:
If you make a claim the onus is on you to justify it. The problem is its easy to construct systems which match electromagnetism for a single phenomena or which might look vaguely similar to someone who doesn't know much physics but those are justifications for having a model of electromagnetism. If you have a model of electromagnetism then you should have Maxwell's equations. Look up Kaluza-Klein models and you'll see how its done in terms of space-time for an extra dimension. Maxwell's equations are rederived and thus its unequivocal that their method leads to electromagnetism. You haven't got that.
I know about 11 and 12 dimensional work in string or M or F theory. You need to learn the difference between space-time dimensions and degrees of freedom. If you have N particles bouncing around a space which has M directions then you have 2NM degrees of freedom in your phase space. Each particle has M variables for its position and M variables for its momentum. Space-time is M+1 dimensional, the phase space is 2NM. Quite different and the understanding of the particulars of 'dimension' is important to understanding the system. Anyone whose done Hamiltonian mechanics will know the difference.
Witten is a very good mathematician. So? Maxwell, Newton, Dirac, Stokes, they all were mathematicians and their contributions to physics are immeasurable. Being good at maths doesn't mean you can't do physics. That's the complete opposite of the truth.
Just because you get all your information from magazines and pop science books where they skim the details doesn't mean we all do. We know M theory has a low energy effective theory which is the unique 11d supergravity. We know it only have 2 and 5 dimensional branes, which couple to the 3-form A electrically and magnetically. We know of numerous string theory results which 'lift' to M theory by BPS bounds. The fact the things we know about M theory are all highly technical and thus not in the books and magazines you read doesn't mean we know nothing about it. Get ahold of 'String Theory and M Theory' by Schwarz, Becker and Becker. There's a wealth of information on M theory in there.
There's plenty of experimental predictions from string theory but due to the energy scales involves they are out of our abvility to measure at present. And gravitons aren't just a string theory prediction, any model of quantum gravity will have them, string theory just happens to predict them without any 'by hand' fiddling. Gravitational waves are a prediction of GR and any gravitational model with finite speed propagation. And why do you complain about one dimensional objects when the entirety of quantum field theory before string theory involved zero dimensional objects?
Can you demonstrate to me that the only way to contribute to the stress-energy tensor is with objects of 3 spacial dimensions? Anyone whose done GR will have done the calculations to find the stress energy tensor and delta functions are all over the place.
Anyone in the physics community knows that it's not a 'theory' in the sense that quantum electrodynamics is a theory. Once again you are having your views tinted by the fact you get all your information about it from the media.
What has the direction and approach of string theory got to do with the issue of it being understandable? I don't agree with the approach of astrology but its pretty understandable in its basic tenants.
The person you quote isn't talking about the basic concepts of string theory but the fundamentals and specifics of it. I can tell you the basic concept and principles in my work to do with compact spaces and extra dimensions but the actual understanding we have of Calabi Yau manifolds is pretty poor compared to other areas of mathematical physics. Its easy to explain why particular kinds of spaces are of interest to string theorists but to details of those spaces are difficult to grasp, even to specialists.
The fact the specifics are difficult doesn't mean the basics are. Get your information by learning about the work rather than misunderstanding other people's explanations. All your comments have followed from misunderstanding what people are saying.
You are making strawmen. I know more than a layman. I know a great deal about string theory, enough that I can write an entire thesis on it which is more than most people can do even on something well known like electromagnetism. However, what I know about string theory is just a tiny corner of the entire field of research, which is itself a tiny corner of what there is to be known about string theory. Its all relative. I work with people who do their PhDs on quantum field theory, such as Lattice QCD or supersymmetry. I'd say I know more about string theory than some of them know about their area of work. But that doesn't mean I understand the entirety of string theory. You constantly jump to the wrong conclusion because you've read some soundbite of someone saying "We don't understand [something]". Feynman or Bohr saying "We don't really understand quantum mechanics" doesn't preclude the fact many thousands of people can write thousands of pages of material on it. That is 'a lot' any way you look at it, even if there's still a great deal more to be figured out in quantum mechanics.
You have written a book. I'd imagine you claim that's 'a lot of work'. Yet 200 pages of work is a drop on the ocean compared to all the material written on physics but that doesn't detract from the fact 200 pages is 'a lot' of time and effort. I know a lot of physics. That is not synonymous with 'I know most of physics'.
Seriously, stop mindlessly following the pop science quotes you read in the media. Think for yourself.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
You simply claim I don't. ”
AlphaNumeric:
If you make a claim the onus is on you to justify it.
The problem is its easy to construct systems which match electromagnetism for a single phenomena or which might look vaguely similar to someone who doesn't know much physics but those are justifications for having a model of electromagnetism. If you have a model of electromagnetism then you should have Maxwell's equations. Look up Kaluza-Klein models and you'll see how its done in terms of space-time for an extra dimension. Maxwell's equations are rederived and thus its unequivocal that their method leads to electromagnetism. You haven't got that.
Kaiduorkhon:
The extrapolation of perpendicular dimensions from a geometric point to a one dimensional straight line to a two dimensional plane to a three dimensional volume or solid - occupied or unoccupied: exponentially justifys the perpendicular projection of three dimensions at right angles from themselves. The latter requirement is what Rick Groleau, author of 'Imagining Other Dimensions' refers to as 'running into a brick wall'.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html
My work documents the fact that 'particles' are electric charges that are constantly expanding. 'There are no particles':
http://free.naplesplus.us/articles/...-waves-there-are-no-particles-in-the-universe.
Ergo, everything constituted of these expanding constituents is likewise expanding - at right angles (perpendicular) to the three recognised dimensions from which they are (perpendicularly) projected. The right angle of emission from 3-D matter constitutes the 4th dimension of electricity, and, the accompaniment of magnetism at right angles to electricity emitted from 3-D matter, constitute Maxwell's electromagnetic equations and are by definition the 5th and 6th dimensions of real space, respectively.
My work cites a series of occasions where scientific expeditions go bankrupt upon encountering the obligation to see three dimension (solid) reality, moving at right angles to itself, i.e., constantly expanding, ever larger: 'Obviously matter is not expanding' is the concensus on this falsely perceived cul de sac. Whereas, when that line of thinking (4-D expansion of matter) is pursued instead of abandoned, it answers far more questions than it evokes.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
You have variously suggested and implied several times in this thread that my interpretatation of dimensions is incorrect, while a 2009 copyrighted statement by Dr. Michio Kaku encompasses eleven to twelve dimensions, in a 'mathematical' context (including the work of Prof. Witten). Apparently your interpretation of what constitutes dimensions is radically different than mine, this is clear in the fact that all of string theory allows that a one dimensional consideration is an 'entity' that physically influences 3 and more dimensional conditions. ”
Kaiduorkhon, cont:
You consistently bypass the standard school regarding the non physicality of dimensions under three. Dr. Michio Kaku refers to these kinds of considerations as 'embarassing', since string 'theory' improvises 'one and two dimensional strings and membranes', extensively.
In your own words, 'If you make a claim, the onus is on you to justify it'.
Make your case.
AlphaNumeric:
I know about 11 and 12 dimensional work in string or M or F theory. You need to learn the difference between space-time dimensions and degrees of freedom. If you have N particles bouncing around a space which has M directions then you have 2NM degrees of freedom in your phase space. Each particle has M variables for its position and M variables for its momentum. Space-time is M+1 dimensional, the phase space is 2NM. Quite different and the understanding of the particulars of 'dimension' is important to understanding the system. Anyone whose done Hamiltonian mechanics will know the difference.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
'Since Witten derived it's existence'...
Isn't Prof. Witten highly acclaimed for his mathematical agility? ”
AlphaNumeric:
Witten is a very good mathematician. So? Maxwell, Newton, Dirac, Stokes, they all were mathematicians and their contributions to physics are immeasurable.
Kaiduorkhon:
Maxwell was working with measurably manifest effects of electromagnetism, Newton was working with measurably manifest effects of gravity, Dirac was working with measurablly manifest effects of 'particles' (charges of electricity), Stokes was working with measurably manifest effects of gravity (rates of descent in viscous fluids). String 'theorists' allege to be working with measurably manifest effects of GR and QM; whereas, their objective - including a quantitative prediction - has yet to be realized.
AlphaNumeric:
Being good at maths doesn't mean you can't do physics. That's the complete opposite of the truth.
Kaiduorkhon:
Couldn't agree more with that. You've missed the point, in more ways than one. That is, the maths of string theory far too often enter into and exit from the realm of 'pure mathematics'; without measurably manifest effects.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Isn't it a fact that all you - or anyone else - know about M 'theory' is what it might stand for? ”
AlphaNumeric:
Just because you get all your information from magazines and pop science books where they skim the details doesn't mean we all do. We know M theory has a low energy effective theory which is the unique 11d supergravity. We know it only have 2 and 5 dimensional branes, which couple to the 3-form A electrically and magnetically. We know of numerous string theory results which 'lift' to M theory by BPS bounds. The fact the things we know about M theory are all highly technical and thus not in the books and magazines you read doesn't mean we know nothing about it. Get ahold of 'String Theory and M Theory' by Schwarz, Becker and Becker. There's a wealth of information on M theory in there.
Kaiduorkhon:
You would have me immersed in educating myself not on the cutting edge of physics, but rather, out on a limb, with physics. Your string 'theory' resonates with a castle in the sky, where all it's architects agree that all it needs to be successful, is more bricks, building blocks and wiring. 'F (Father) theory' is the most recently added, ponderous building material.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Where are quantitative experimental predictions? Where are 'gravitons'? Where are 'gravity waves'? When does a one dimensional consideration emerge as any kind of condition in real space? ”
AlphaNumeric:
There's plenty of experimental predictions from string theory but due to the energy scales involves they are out of our abvility to measure at present.
Kaiduorkhon:
Until the required measurments are made, it's not theory.
AlphaNumeric:
And gravitons aren't just a string theory prediction, any model of quantum gravity will have them, string theory just happens to predict them without any 'by hand' fiddling.
Kaiduorkhon:
Will you please elaborate on what you mean by that?
AlphaNumeric:
Gravitational waves are a prediction of GR and any gravitational model with finite speed propagation.
Kaiduorkhon:
'Gravitational waves' are the expanding charges of matter, the expanding dynamic of which is the causal identity of GR.
AlphaNumeric:
And why do you complain about one dimensional objects when the entirety of quantum field theory before string theory involved zero dimensional objects?
Kaiduorkhon:
'Zero Point Energy' (for example) is a non existent standard by which emergent energy is measured. The value of establishing a 'Zero' point, is to facilitate comparison.
AlphaNumeric:
Can you demonstrate to me that the only way to contribute to the stress-energy tensor is with objects of 3 spacial dimensions? Anyone whose done GR will have done the calculations to find the stress energy tensor and delta functions are all over the place.
Kaiduorkhon:
Your question willfully capitalizes on my early qualification that I don't do higher math.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
'...the truth about it'... In a matrix of 'particles' and mathematics, the previously asked and unanswered question introduced by the observation that: The rush to calling the work at point, a 'theory', invokes suspicion from the outset of considering it. The ambience and posturing of 'new age' physics and especially the new generation of physicists activates incredulity in the unbias student - and that's a lot of people... ”
AlphaNumeric:
Anyone in the physics community knows that it's not a 'theory' in the sense that quantum electrodynamics is a theory. Once again you are having your views tinted by the fact you get all your information about it from the media.
Kaiduorkhon:
With the exception of myself, I have not heard 'string theory' called anything but that - the vocabulary of 'string hypothesis' is not in your practiced language, or that of your peers, or that of the public.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Repeat: Is string theory confined to being understood by string theorist only? There is a substantial institution of academics in fundamental disagreement with the very approach and direction of string 'theory' (Vis a vis, Wolfgang Pauli and his extant advocates). ”
AlphaNumeric:
What has the direction and approach of string theory got to do with the issue of it being understandable? I don't agree with the approach of astrology but its pretty understandable in its basic tenants.
Kaiduorkhon:
By 'approach', I mean that the building of a sky castle probably isn't a tenable idea without a lot of sky hook engineering. Again, comparable to the turtle upon which the rest of the universe balances out.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
From that report (ut supra) it is evident that string 'theory' is far from being understood by anyone. You, for example, do not pass near admitting that string 'theory' may be an inert utopian doorway to a successful GUT. ”
AlphaNumeric:
The person you quote isn't talking about the basic concepts of string theory but the fundamentals and specifics of it. I can tell you the basic concept and principles in my work to do with compact spaces and extra dimensions but the actual understanding we have of Calabi Yau manifolds is pretty poor compared to other areas of mathematical physics. Its easy to explain why particular kinds of spaces are of interest to string theorists but to details of those spaces are difficult to grasp, even to specialists.
Kaiduorkhon:
Thank you for that easily grasped allowance that elements of string 'theory' are 'difficult to grasp'.
AlphaNumeric:
The fact the specifics are difficult doesn't mean the basics are. Get your information by learning about the work rather than misunderstanding other people's explanations. All your comments have followed from misunderstanding what people are saying.
Kaiduorkhon:
Speaking of what people are saying, Dr. Michio Kaku is not mentioned here by you - is that due to his mixed candor about the serious problems of string theory? Evident to anyone who reads his brief article at:
http://mkaku.org/home/?page_id=262
Or a similarly candid discourse about such problems, authored by Rick Groleau: "Imagining Other Dimensions".
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
You frequently allude to 'Pop' (popular) science books and newspaper articles and 'media', apparently as a refuge of obfuscation and misunderstanding you may introduce at any offered stage of lay inquiry or perspective. It is understandable that you know more about string 'theory' than the uninitiated, but to feign a comprehensive 'understanding' of it is to place yourself ahead of the status quo of generally unanswered questions associated with string 'theory'. ”
AlphaNumeric:
You are making strawmen. I know more than a layman. I know a great deal about string theory, enough that I can write an entire thesis on it which is more than most people can do even on something well known like electromagnetism. However, what I know about string theory is just a tiny corner of the entire field of research, which is itself a tiny corner of what there is to be known about string theory. Its all relative. I work with people who do their PhDs on quantum field theory, such as Lattice QCD or supersymmetry. I'd say I know more about string theory than some of them know about their area of work. But that doesn't mean I understand the entirety of string theory. You constantly jump to the wrong conclusion because you've read some soundbite of someone saying "We don't understand [something]". Feynman or Bohr saying "We don't really understand quantum mechanics" doesn't preclude the fact many thousands of people can write thousands of pages of material on it. That is 'a lot' any way you look at it, even if there's still a great deal more to be figured out in quantum mechanics.
Kaiduorkhon:
My response to your above paragraph is reserved to be expressed in retort to your next proclamation.
AlphaNumeric:
You have written a book. I'd imagine you claim that's 'a lot of work'. Yet 200 pages of work is a drop on the ocean compared to all the material written on physics but that doesn't detract from the fact 200 pages is 'a lot' of time and effort. I know a lot of physics. That is not synonymous with 'I know most of physics'.
Kaiduorkhon:
(The edition of my book at point here is 298 pages duration. The URL of which is at the beginning of this thread.)
Whereas, it has been said that the solution (mathematical forumula) for a Unified Field may be 'less than an inch' long (as compared to the tail of a lion in Einstein's 'Parable of the Lion'). I understand most of what I know of physics from a mathematical formula that is much less than an inch of length. That formula means that E=MC squared. The acknowledged expansion of electromagntic light energy. squared from presumably static, non expanding energy, algebraically reveals that mass energy is expanding also; since all the components of an algebraic formula are interchangeable.
AlphaNumberic:
Seriously, stop mindlessly following the pop science quotes you read in the media. Think for yourself.
Post Script:
Dear AlphaNumeric:
Will you please offer your non mathematical translation of the meaning of E=MC2?
You simply claim I don't. ”
AlphaNumeric:
If you make a claim the onus is on you to justify it.
The problem is its easy to construct systems which match electromagnetism for a single phenomena or which might look vaguely similar to someone who doesn't know much physics but those are justifications for having a model of electromagnetism. If you have a model of electromagnetism then you should have Maxwell's equations. Look up Kaluza-Klein models and you'll see how its done in terms of space-time for an extra dimension. Maxwell's equations are rederived and thus its unequivocal that their method leads to electromagnetism. You haven't got that.
Kaiduorkhon:
The extrapolation of perpendicular dimensions from a geometric point to a one dimensional straight line to a two dimensional plane to a three dimensional volume or solid - occupied or unoccupied: exponentially justifys the perpendicular projection of three dimensions at right angles from themselves. The latter requirement is what Rick Groleau, author of 'Imagining Other Dimensions' refers to as 'running into a brick wall'.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html
My work documents the fact that 'particles' are electric charges that are constantly expanding. 'There are no particles':
http://free.naplesplus.us/articles/...-waves-there-are-no-particles-in-the-universe.
Ergo, everything constituted of these expanding constituents is likewise expanding - at right angles (perpendicular) to the three recognised dimensions from which they are (perpendicularly) projected. The right angle of emission from 3-D matter constitutes the 4th dimension of electricity, and, the accompaniment of magnetism at right angles to electricity emitted from 3-D matter, constitute Maxwell's electromagnetic equations and are by definition the 5th and 6th dimensions of real space, respectively.
My work cites a series of occasions where scientific expeditions go bankrupt upon encountering the obligation to see three dimension (solid) reality, moving at right angles to itself, i.e., constantly expanding, ever larger: 'Obviously matter is not expanding' is the concensus on this falsely perceived cul de sac. Whereas, when that line of thinking (4-D expansion of matter) is pursued instead of abandoned, it answers far more questions than it evokes.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
You have variously suggested and implied several times in this thread that my interpretatation of dimensions is incorrect, while a 2009 copyrighted statement by Dr. Michio Kaku encompasses eleven to twelve dimensions, in a 'mathematical' context (including the work of Prof. Witten). Apparently your interpretation of what constitutes dimensions is radically different than mine, this is clear in the fact that all of string theory allows that a one dimensional consideration is an 'entity' that physically influences 3 and more dimensional conditions. ”
Kaiduorkhon, cont:
You consistently bypass the standard school regarding the non physicality of dimensions under three. Dr. Michio Kaku refers to these kinds of considerations as 'embarassing', since string 'theory' improvises 'one and two dimensional strings and membranes', extensively.
In your own words, 'If you make a claim, the onus is on you to justify it'.
Make your case.
AlphaNumeric:
I know about 11 and 12 dimensional work in string or M or F theory. You need to learn the difference between space-time dimensions and degrees of freedom. If you have N particles bouncing around a space which has M directions then you have 2NM degrees of freedom in your phase space. Each particle has M variables for its position and M variables for its momentum. Space-time is M+1 dimensional, the phase space is 2NM. Quite different and the understanding of the particulars of 'dimension' is important to understanding the system. Anyone whose done Hamiltonian mechanics will know the difference.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
'Since Witten derived it's existence'...
Isn't Prof. Witten highly acclaimed for his mathematical agility? ”
AlphaNumeric:
Witten is a very good mathematician. So? Maxwell, Newton, Dirac, Stokes, they all were mathematicians and their contributions to physics are immeasurable.
Kaiduorkhon:
Maxwell was working with measurably manifest effects of electromagnetism, Newton was working with measurably manifest effects of gravity, Dirac was working with measurablly manifest effects of 'particles' (charges of electricity), Stokes was working with measurably manifest effects of gravity (rates of descent in viscous fluids). String 'theorists' allege to be working with measurably manifest effects of GR and QM; whereas, their objective - including a quantitative prediction - has yet to be realized.
AlphaNumeric:
Being good at maths doesn't mean you can't do physics. That's the complete opposite of the truth.
Kaiduorkhon:
Couldn't agree more with that. You've missed the point, in more ways than one. That is, the maths of string theory far too often enter into and exit from the realm of 'pure mathematics'; without measurably manifest effects.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Isn't it a fact that all you - or anyone else - know about M 'theory' is what it might stand for? ”
AlphaNumeric:
Just because you get all your information from magazines and pop science books where they skim the details doesn't mean we all do. We know M theory has a low energy effective theory which is the unique 11d supergravity. We know it only have 2 and 5 dimensional branes, which couple to the 3-form A electrically and magnetically. We know of numerous string theory results which 'lift' to M theory by BPS bounds. The fact the things we know about M theory are all highly technical and thus not in the books and magazines you read doesn't mean we know nothing about it. Get ahold of 'String Theory and M Theory' by Schwarz, Becker and Becker. There's a wealth of information on M theory in there.
Kaiduorkhon:
You would have me immersed in educating myself not on the cutting edge of physics, but rather, out on a limb, with physics. Your string 'theory' resonates with a castle in the sky, where all it's architects agree that all it needs to be successful, is more bricks, building blocks and wiring. 'F (Father) theory' is the most recently added, ponderous building material.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Where are quantitative experimental predictions? Where are 'gravitons'? Where are 'gravity waves'? When does a one dimensional consideration emerge as any kind of condition in real space? ”
AlphaNumeric:
There's plenty of experimental predictions from string theory but due to the energy scales involves they are out of our abvility to measure at present.
Kaiduorkhon:
Until the required measurments are made, it's not theory.
AlphaNumeric:
And gravitons aren't just a string theory prediction, any model of quantum gravity will have them, string theory just happens to predict them without any 'by hand' fiddling.
Kaiduorkhon:
Will you please elaborate on what you mean by that?
AlphaNumeric:
Gravitational waves are a prediction of GR and any gravitational model with finite speed propagation.
Kaiduorkhon:
'Gravitational waves' are the expanding charges of matter, the expanding dynamic of which is the causal identity of GR.
AlphaNumeric:
And why do you complain about one dimensional objects when the entirety of quantum field theory before string theory involved zero dimensional objects?
Kaiduorkhon:
'Zero Point Energy' (for example) is a non existent standard by which emergent energy is measured. The value of establishing a 'Zero' point, is to facilitate comparison.
AlphaNumeric:
Can you demonstrate to me that the only way to contribute to the stress-energy tensor is with objects of 3 spacial dimensions? Anyone whose done GR will have done the calculations to find the stress energy tensor and delta functions are all over the place.
Kaiduorkhon:
Your question willfully capitalizes on my early qualification that I don't do higher math.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
'...the truth about it'... In a matrix of 'particles' and mathematics, the previously asked and unanswered question introduced by the observation that: The rush to calling the work at point, a 'theory', invokes suspicion from the outset of considering it. The ambience and posturing of 'new age' physics and especially the new generation of physicists activates incredulity in the unbias student - and that's a lot of people... ”
AlphaNumeric:
Anyone in the physics community knows that it's not a 'theory' in the sense that quantum electrodynamics is a theory. Once again you are having your views tinted by the fact you get all your information about it from the media.
Kaiduorkhon:
With the exception of myself, I have not heard 'string theory' called anything but that - the vocabulary of 'string hypothesis' is not in your practiced language, or that of your peers, or that of the public.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Repeat: Is string theory confined to being understood by string theorist only? There is a substantial institution of academics in fundamental disagreement with the very approach and direction of string 'theory' (Vis a vis, Wolfgang Pauli and his extant advocates). ”
AlphaNumeric:
What has the direction and approach of string theory got to do with the issue of it being understandable? I don't agree with the approach of astrology but its pretty understandable in its basic tenants.
Kaiduorkhon:
By 'approach', I mean that the building of a sky castle probably isn't a tenable idea without a lot of sky hook engineering. Again, comparable to the turtle upon which the rest of the universe balances out.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
From that report (ut supra) it is evident that string 'theory' is far from being understood by anyone. You, for example, do not pass near admitting that string 'theory' may be an inert utopian doorway to a successful GUT. ”
AlphaNumeric:
The person you quote isn't talking about the basic concepts of string theory but the fundamentals and specifics of it. I can tell you the basic concept and principles in my work to do with compact spaces and extra dimensions but the actual understanding we have of Calabi Yau manifolds is pretty poor compared to other areas of mathematical physics. Its easy to explain why particular kinds of spaces are of interest to string theorists but to details of those spaces are difficult to grasp, even to specialists.
Kaiduorkhon:
Thank you for that easily grasped allowance that elements of string 'theory' are 'difficult to grasp'.
AlphaNumeric:
The fact the specifics are difficult doesn't mean the basics are. Get your information by learning about the work rather than misunderstanding other people's explanations. All your comments have followed from misunderstanding what people are saying.
Kaiduorkhon:
Speaking of what people are saying, Dr. Michio Kaku is not mentioned here by you - is that due to his mixed candor about the serious problems of string theory? Evident to anyone who reads his brief article at:
http://mkaku.org/home/?page_id=262
Or a similarly candid discourse about such problems, authored by Rick Groleau: "Imagining Other Dimensions".
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
You frequently allude to 'Pop' (popular) science books and newspaper articles and 'media', apparently as a refuge of obfuscation and misunderstanding you may introduce at any offered stage of lay inquiry or perspective. It is understandable that you know more about string 'theory' than the uninitiated, but to feign a comprehensive 'understanding' of it is to place yourself ahead of the status quo of generally unanswered questions associated with string 'theory'. ”
AlphaNumeric:
You are making strawmen. I know more than a layman. I know a great deal about string theory, enough that I can write an entire thesis on it which is more than most people can do even on something well known like electromagnetism. However, what I know about string theory is just a tiny corner of the entire field of research, which is itself a tiny corner of what there is to be known about string theory. Its all relative. I work with people who do their PhDs on quantum field theory, such as Lattice QCD or supersymmetry. I'd say I know more about string theory than some of them know about their area of work. But that doesn't mean I understand the entirety of string theory. You constantly jump to the wrong conclusion because you've read some soundbite of someone saying "We don't understand [something]". Feynman or Bohr saying "We don't really understand quantum mechanics" doesn't preclude the fact many thousands of people can write thousands of pages of material on it. That is 'a lot' any way you look at it, even if there's still a great deal more to be figured out in quantum mechanics.
Kaiduorkhon:
My response to your above paragraph is reserved to be expressed in retort to your next proclamation.
AlphaNumeric:
You have written a book. I'd imagine you claim that's 'a lot of work'. Yet 200 pages of work is a drop on the ocean compared to all the material written on physics but that doesn't detract from the fact 200 pages is 'a lot' of time and effort. I know a lot of physics. That is not synonymous with 'I know most of physics'.
Kaiduorkhon:
(The edition of my book at point here is 298 pages duration. The URL of which is at the beginning of this thread.)
Whereas, it has been said that the solution (mathematical forumula) for a Unified Field may be 'less than an inch' long (as compared to the tail of a lion in Einstein's 'Parable of the Lion'). I understand most of what I know of physics from a mathematical formula that is much less than an inch of length. That formula means that E=MC squared. The acknowledged expansion of electromagntic light energy. squared from presumably static, non expanding energy, algebraically reveals that mass energy is expanding also; since all the components of an algebraic formula are interchangeable.
AlphaNumberic:
Seriously, stop mindlessly following the pop science quotes you read in the media. Think for yourself.
Post Script:
Dear AlphaNumeric:
Will you please offer your non mathematical translation of the meaning of E=MC2?
Last edited:
I love how cranks complain that the standard approaches to science are wrong and then fall back on precisely those same 'standard school' ideas to justify why people should listen to them. No one said "Anything under 3 dimensions is unphysical" to me and certainly objects of less than 3 dimensions are everywhere in any physics degree.
And once again you ignore how the entirity of quantum mechanics before string theory involved zero dimensional objects. Particles are modelled as points.
Besides, if there are more dimensions to space-time then your logic fails. If space is 5 dimensional then why do you think objects of 3 dimensions are the valid ones?
Right after you explicitly demonstrate you model electromagnetism.
All of those people were members of the Cambridge mathematics department in their day.
Firstly, none of that retorts my criticism that your "What does M stand for?" comments have nothing to do with actually knowing anything about M theory. Secondly, why complain about the idea of you going out on a limb when you're pushing your own decades old unpublished work. Thirdly, if you knew about F theory you'd know its just Type IIB string theory in 10 dimensions where the complexified dilaton, which has SL(2,Z) modular invariance, can be viewed as a toric fibre over the space-time base manifold and thus forms a twelve dimensional bundle. Upon compactification of the base space to $$M_{4} \times T^{6}$$ you can express the bundle as $$M_{4} \times T^{8}$$ but the space-time dimension of the space remains 10.
Or didn't you follow that because all you know about F theory is gleaned from pop science books and infact you have no actual knowledge of it at all?
A rose by any other name...
The massless sector of all string theories includes a bosonic spin 2 particle whose equations of motion are the Einstein Field Equations. That is, by definition, the graviton.
So quit bitching about it in string theory.
Zero point energy is not synonymous with point particles. Zero point energy is the fact the quantum vacuum is not a classical vacuum. Look up your friend Feynman's work on vacuum bubble diagrams.
Or alternatively construct the quantised Hamiltonian for a scalar field.
So why did you claim the only way to contribute to space-time curvature is by objects which are 3 dimensional? It's a standard homework problem to derive the black hole metric for a point mass.
And we all know the Democratic Republic of Congo is a military dictatorship but we still call it the DRC. Whatever 'string theory' is called it is what it is.
You admit you odn't know any 'higher maths' so what you view as 'sky hook engineering' could well be perfectly logical methodologies. You admit you're ignorant of basic physics methods, ie mathematical tools, and yet whine its not understandable. I don't go to Japanese and claim their culture is a massive conspiracy of BS because I don't speak their language!
Was there anyone ever claiming otherwise? Any technical subject, from neurosurgery to financial analysis to computer coding to particle physics, will have difficult to understand bits. It wouldn't be 'technical' otherwise. Subjects or things considered 'difficult' are not easy, is this a shock to you?
I don't read his work, I don't watch TV documentaries, I don't read pop science books on string theory and I really couldn't give a whoot about what he says.
I notice you don't mention anything by Johnson, Green, Schwarz, Witten, Myers, Hull, Vafa, Becker, Becker, Polchinski, Balin, Wess, Zumino, Maldacena, Coleman, etc. Could it be you don't read actual work by people working in string theory and you get all your information from people who you know already agree with you and who brush over any and all details in order to sell their books?
You aren't evaluating string theory for its own merits, you already know you don't like it and so you find people who support your views and ignore all those who don't.
The quantity of energy which can be released from an object is proportional to its mass. The proportionality constant is the square of the speed of light.
Is there a point to your question? Can you derive such an expression in your work? Can you do it without mathematics? Can you do it even in special relativity? Do you know the expression is not true in general? Do you know the proper, fully general, expression?
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
May we postpone the discourse preceding the last topic of the last post? In lieu of discussing the subject of the last questions and answers of the preceding post - that being, E=MC2...
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Will you please offer your non mathematical translation of the meaning of E=MC2? ”
AlphaNumeric:
The quantity of energy which can be released from an object is proportional to its mass. The proportionality constant is the square of the speed of light.
Is there a point to your question?
Kaiduorkhon:
Yes.
AlphaNumeric:
Can you derive such an expression in your work?
Kaiduorkhon:
Yes.
AlphaNumeric:
Can you do it without mathematics?
Kaiduorkhon:
Yes.
AlphaNumeric:
Can you do it even in special relativity?
Kaiduorkhon:
Yes.
AlphaNumeric:
Do you know the expression is not true in general?
Kaiduorkhon:
No. That is why I have - at least temporarily - delayed details of my previous answers, which I will be happy to provide, whereas my curiosity was piqued at your last question:
"Do you know the expression is not true in general?"
Will you please express what isn't true about E=MC2?
AlphaNumeric:
Do you know the proper, fully general, expression?
Kaiduorkhon:
Yes.
However, due to the italicized - repeated - question above, again, I reverently request that you proffer your specific translatory responses to your last two questions (in this post)? Your last question (at issue), being:
"Do you know the proper, fully general expression?"
I acknowledge that many questions and answers of varying disagreement precede the present issue at point; that being E=MC2... While, forthrightly, your administration of the issue - your non mathematical translation of the meaning of E=MC2, and, especially your last two questions, as reviewed above, inspire a request for more specificity - for me to respond to. Hence my petition regarding further elaboration of your series of tentatively unfamiliar interrogatives, which I will certainly reciprocate.
Post Script:
You have my gratitude for what patience you've shown throughout this thread.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Will you please offer your non mathematical translation of the meaning of E=MC2? ”
AlphaNumeric:
The quantity of energy which can be released from an object is proportional to its mass. The proportionality constant is the square of the speed of light.
Is there a point to your question?
Kaiduorkhon:
Yes.
AlphaNumeric:
Can you derive such an expression in your work?
Kaiduorkhon:
Yes.
AlphaNumeric:
Can you do it without mathematics?
Kaiduorkhon:
Yes.
AlphaNumeric:
Can you do it even in special relativity?
Kaiduorkhon:
Yes.
AlphaNumeric:
Do you know the expression is not true in general?
Kaiduorkhon:
No. That is why I have - at least temporarily - delayed details of my previous answers, which I will be happy to provide, whereas my curiosity was piqued at your last question:
"Do you know the expression is not true in general?"
Will you please express what isn't true about E=MC2?
AlphaNumeric:
Do you know the proper, fully general, expression?
Kaiduorkhon:
Yes.
However, due to the italicized - repeated - question above, again, I reverently request that you proffer your specific translatory responses to your last two questions (in this post)? Your last question (at issue), being:
"Do you know the proper, fully general expression?"
I acknowledge that many questions and answers of varying disagreement precede the present issue at point; that being E=MC2... While, forthrightly, your administration of the issue - your non mathematical translation of the meaning of E=MC2, and, especially your last two questions, as reviewed above, inspire a request for more specificity - for me to respond to. Hence my petition regarding further elaboration of your series of tentatively unfamiliar interrogatives, which I will certainly reciprocate.
Post Script:
You have my gratitude for what patience you've shown throughout this thread.
The full expression is $$E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}$$ where p is the 3-momentum of an object. Thus $$E=mc^{2}$$ is only true for an object at rest. If its moving it has additional energy and that energy is related to the mass and momentum by the above expression.
If you have derived $$E=mc^{2}$$ but have no knowledge of it only being true in a particular case then you have missed out the majority of physics. And if you know how to derive it in SR but not that its only a particular case then I question whether you know the derivation at all. In any textbook and in Einstein's original paper you see the full expression.
If you have derived $$E=mc^{2}$$ but have no knowledge of it only being true in a particular case then you have missed out the majority of physics. And if you know how to derive it in SR but not that its only a particular case then I question whether you know the derivation at all. In any textbook and in Einstein's original paper you see the full expression.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Kaiduorkhon:
In accordance with the (generally unrecognised, denied, rejected) 4-dimensional/omnidirectionally accelerating expansion of matter itself, there is no 'object at rest'. All matter is moving and has additional energy, which is related to the mass and momentum.
Energy = Mass x C (the speed of light) squared.
Although a given mass has atomic and molecular motion, it is not generally perceived as constantly expanding - en toto - at right angles from its three recognized dimensions, that is, its 4-D motion - and all the contingent effects of inertial mass value - is disregarded and unaccounted for.
When a mass on the earth's surface is declared to be 'at rest', it is still moving away from the center of the 4-dimensionally expanding earth at 32' per " squared. That motion is unrecognized and unaccounted for, in consideration of the GR.
SR applies when C is squared from M, as algebraically allotted.
Upon occasions of free falling objects being overtaken and struck by, then to be inertially pinned down upon the earth's surface, present day science also does not recognise the consequent gravitational fulfillment of the scientific definition for 'work'. May it suffice to clarify for the moment, that contemporary theoretical physics does not acknowledge and consequently does not employ the advantage of comprehending and accounting for a proper understanding of 'objects at rest', while constantly acted upon by gravity: the unidentified 'force' - F; on the earth's surface. That is, such objects are perceived and conceptualized as 'not moving'. Whereas, the scientific definition for 'work' requires motion, which, in the case of the ever-accelerating 4-D space-time continuum and the - en perpetuatem - prevailing dynamics of the General (and Special) Theory of Relativity, is not recognised or acknowledged. Meanwhile 'force' is defined in several categories of motion, none of which are attributed to 'objects at rest' on the earth's surface (for example) in a gravitational field; all of which definitions are fulfilled. Not only in the inertial resistance to the acceleration of earth's suface upon the 'object at rest', but also and importantly, the - en perpetuatem - omnidirectional, accelerating enlargement of the - whatever - test object, itself...
E=MC squared: the acknowledged expansion of electromagnetic light energy, squared from presumably static, non expanding mass energy, algebraically reveals that mass energy is expanding also; whereas, all the components of an algebraic formula are interchangeable.
Last edited:
Experimentally falsified. And you don't even need to know much relativity to see why. Suppose you have an object moving slowly, ie much less than the speed of light. It has rest mass m and velocity v. Its rest mass gives it energy $$E=mc^{2}$$ and its motion gives it kinetic energy, according to Newton, of $$KE = \frac{1}{2}mv^{2}$$. Then its total energy is $$mc^{2} + \frac{1}{2}mv^{2}$$. This is the trucation of the special relativity relativistic mass expression $$E_{total} = \gamma mc^{2} = \left( 1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}} \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} mc^{2} = mc^{2} \left( 1 + \frac{1}{2}\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}} + \ldots \right)$$.
The total energy of an object is the sum of all its energies (obviously) so if an object is moving then its energy must depend on its velocity. Relativity predicts this and it gives the experimentally justified Newtonian limit. You talk about objects moving but you don't include any contribution to their energy due to that motion. Further more you don't offer any derivation of your result, you just state it. You said you had a derivation, you don't. You haven't got the correct expression either. And hence I conclude you don't know the SR derivation either. This all supports precisely what I've been saying, you are quite unfamiliar with basic results and methods in current physics, yet you claim you have familiar with them. All your information seems superficial and gleaned from sources which, by their very nature (ie media or layman), are devoid of details.
The fact you've been pushing this work for longer than I've been alive doesn't mean its got merit but rather than you've expended a huge quantity of time on something which is falsifiable by anyone who didn't sleep through high school physics class.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
there is no 'object at rest'. All matter is moving and has additional energy, which is related to the mass and momentum.
Energy = Mass x C (the speed of light) squared.
there is no 'object at rest'. All matter is moving and has additional energy, which is related to the mass and momentum.
Energy = Mass x C (the speed of light) squared.
You don't actually know what a derivation is, do you? For instance here is the step by step derivation of a general Lorentz transformation from initial postulates. They didn't just pluck it from the air, they show how to get to equations. Here is Einstein's original paper (post-translation). Much more than simply "The SR derivation is founded in C, as it is squared from mass.". What you said is nonsense. You haven't derived anything, you simply looked at what special relativity said and claim you get the same result without having to do any special relativity. The problem is you're so damn naive about physics you didn't realise its not a general result, $$E=mc^{2}$$ is not true for particles in motion! So you display both your inability to derive your own results and your ignorance of current physics.
Are you really so naive you think you could get away with such a laughable method? That people who do know SR wouldn't immediately see through the fact you obviously don't? Sure, quantum_wave didn't spot such mistakes but then he couldn't pass a high school GED physics test so he's hardly a good judge. No doubt you'll convince yourself of some reason to ignore me, like I'm impolite or I'm unhelpful or I'm just 'one of them' but the fact remains that billions of experimental results exist from colliders which show $$E=mc^{2}$$ is not universally true. Billions.
Are you really so naive you think you could get away with such a laughable method? That people who do know SR wouldn't immediately see through the fact you obviously don't? Sure, quantum_wave didn't spot such mistakes but then he couldn't pass a high school GED physics test so he's hardly a good judge. No doubt you'll convince yourself of some reason to ignore me, like I'm impolite or I'm unhelpful or I'm just 'one of them' but the fact remains that billions of experimental results exist from colliders which show $$E=mc^{2}$$ is not universally true. Billions.