Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Ray Munroe: on 8/25/10 at 21:25pm UTC, wrote Dear James - I understand, and I usually stop blogging or use a great deal...

James Putnam: on 8/25/10 at 21:22pm UTC, wrote Dear Georgina, You were right. I was wrong. James

Anonymous: on 8/25/10 at 21:17pm UTC, wrote Ray and Georgina work to rid FQXi.org of DiMeglio's ideas. That is not...

James Putnam: on 8/25/10 at 21:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Ray, The only conduct of yours that I would identify as a mistake is...

Anonymous: on 8/25/10 at 21:02pm UTC, wrote Ray, your outrageous conduct is encouraged by FQXi.org.

Anonymous: on 8/25/10 at 21:00pm UTC, wrote Ray, are you FQXi.org? String theory is unnecessary Ray. It ends with the...

Ray Munroe: on 8/25/10 at 20:52pm UTC, wrote Dear Frank, You want to unite the extremes. String Theory is one extreme,...

Ray Puffy: on 8/25/10 at 20:37pm UTC, wrote Nature seeks low energy, and both a smaller space and larger space may be...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Gary Gordon: "Georgina - you should perhaps be more selective in identifying phenomena..." in The Reality of the...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Gary D Simpson, The Category of this thread is listed as: Ultimate..." in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Georgina, Thank you for your reply, it has caused me to burst into..." in Alternative Models of...

Pole Smith: "I am so delighted to be here and to find this awesome post. Hauz Khas..." in Retrocausality,...

Pole Smith: "One of the perfect stuff to read and I am so delighted to have this awesome..." in Retrocausality,...

lionel john: "This looks to be a completely new idea. I had never thought of such a thing..." in We Are All Connected

Fine Like: "The best website for online dtdc tracking is now live and ready for use..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Lorraine Ford: "Hi Georgina, Yes, I read your posts. But, in the end, the only issue that..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.


FQXi BLOGS
July 24, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: What if string theory is wrong? asks Moataz Emam [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Jul. 29, 2008 @ 15:50 GMT
As physicists wrangle over whether string theory truly represents reality, FQXi invited Moataz Emam of Clark University to ponder over the fate of string theorists like himself, if string theory turns out to be wrong.

--

From Moataz Emam:

As a string theorist, I am often asked an uncomfortable question: “What will you do if someone proves that subatomic particles cannot...

view entire post


this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


bob eldritch wrote on Jul. 30, 2008 @ 18:47 GMT
What if it was shown that there could not be small scale extra dimensions of space?

report post as inappropriate


zeno wrote on Jul. 31, 2008 @ 11:08 GMT
The picture of the bit of string covers the text.

For once I would like to see thinkers start without the assumption that matter exists. There is no proof for it, why base your science around it?

report post as inappropriate


reasonmclucus wrote on Aug. 1, 2008 @ 05:55 GMT
String theory has gotten mathematicians and physicists to move away from the archaic idea that reality consists of the 3 Euclidean dimensions plus time. This belief has the same basic origin as the long discredited beliefs that the earth was flat and that the sun orbited the earth instead of the other way around.

If length. width and height are the only variables or dimensions of reality then all of reality could be explained with those variables. Scientists have to get past the notion that the eyes can perceive everything there is to perceive about reality.

We cannot see gravity nor can it be explained by length, width and height. Gravity can only be explained through the existence of dimensions that cannot be detected with the eyes.

The eyes can only detect a very narrow range of electromagnetic radiation and each eye sends a flat image to the brain. The idea that reality is 3-dimensional is an interpretation made by the brain.

The term "string" implies something composed of matter. "line of force" would make more sense.

report post as inappropriate


William Orem wrote on Aug. 4, 2008 @ 19:33 GMT
Dr. Emam,

I wonder if you find compelling the suggestion, touched on by Max among others, that all consistent mathematics describes some aspect of material reality, be it in this region of the multiverse or another?

If so, the fact that string theory is internally consistent would guarantee its relevance to nature at some level, whether we currently know where it "fits" or not.

report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Aug. 8, 2008 @ 15:06 GMT
Hi Zeno,

We're trying to work out why the images are covering the text for some people and not for others. Can you tell us which browser, version, and operating system you are using?

Also, do you see the problem on the main blog page (http://www.fqxi.org/community/blogs), or the page for the individual blog entry (http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/223)? Or both?

report post as inappropriate


Moataz Emam wrote on Aug. 18, 2008 @ 01:19 GMT
William Orem

I find the prospect you describe to be absolutely fascinating. It certainly is supported by experience. Almost (but not quite) every mathematical abstraction and advancement in the last few hundred years has found an application in physics (and/or string theory). Proving such an idea, however, is an entirely different matter. There does remain interesting questions such as: Is consistency enough for a mathematical theory to be a representative of some side of nature? I don't know. What about incompleteness (in the Godelian sense)? How does that affect the applicability of a mathematical theory to nature? No clue either. But it certainly is fun to just think about it :-)

report post as inappropriate


atomiton1@yahoo.com wrote on Feb. 20, 2009 @ 03:00 GMT
I wonder if a planets distance from the sun, how fast it moves around the sun, and the direction a planet spins compared to the sun would have alot, if anything, to do with the string theory.

report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on Feb. 21, 2009 @ 00:11 GMT
The below comics do a better job of explaining why string theory will never go away:

http://abstrusegoose.com/8

http://abstrusegoose.com/78

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 10, 2009 @ 14:37 GMT
I'm a great fan of superstring guru Petr Horava, particularly his latest advances, on a physics that can work with 3+1 dimensions.

Perhaps like a fire station rec. room string theory has been a useful mental distraction to keep a body of top talent honed and ready to go once we do that next big step forward in demonstrable physics we haven't made for 100 years now. If we can ever be brave enough to do it!

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Jun. 12, 2009 @ 18:14 GMT
Brian,

Thanks for the comics, they're hilarious.

String theorists,

Can a superstring be described as a solution to the Schrodinger Equation? Some kind of very complicated wave function?

report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on Jun. 13, 2009 @ 04:45 GMT
Jason,

String theory is not needed to understand the Schrodinger equation, in fact string theory may not be needed to explain anything in physics. The name string theory gives it all away; a theory in physics was once a hypothesis that has been experimentally tested and accepted by the community. String theory has not survived the trial by fire.

In mathematics we have theorems rigorously derived from a set of axioms (some string axioms would be more than 3 spatial dimensions). That is why string theory is called a theory, it is derived from a set of axioms which makes it only a mathematical theory. In physics people do and should always refer to it as the string hypothesis. We should call it, "strings, an educated guess".

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Jun. 13, 2009 @ 21:04 GMT
Brian,

The wave function is the solution to the Schrodinger equation (Kinetic + Potential energy). The solution, Psi, is made up of linear combinations of e^(kx). When you add angular momentum and spin, it gets very complicated. The potential energy term usually comes from a force equation (e.g. F =kQq/r2); F = -grad V, so forces and potential energies differ by a gradient/integral over dx. But psi contains all information related to momentum and location. Admittedly, physics woudn't be physics if it didn't say that particles are points with location (x1,x2 and x3) and momentum (p1,p2,p3). Since e^kx = cos kx + i sinkx, then wavefunctions require 3 complex (real,imaginary) dimensions. Using operators, we can calculate the probability of a particle being at some location X (assuming 1D). = (Psi#)xPsi... That's QM101.

That tells me that psi is describing a wavy object in a complex dimension or space. Psi itself, you will argue (and I hope you do) is just a math tool. I will counter by saying it represents a quasi-material existence; I will call it an oscillation in the aether. You will say Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the aether. I will say the aether includes an energy/time component (higher energy/slower clock) that reproduces GR, that the aether upholds the speed of light restriction. You, or someone, will say ...

report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on Jun. 14, 2009 @ 01:45 GMT
Jason,

Finally some physics! I do have a some questions to consider before I can reply to your post:

Are operators always represented by Hermitian matrices?

Are the eigenvalues of a Hermitian matrix always real numbers?

Do position and momentum operators commute?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Jun. 14, 2009 @ 03:33 GMT
1. Yes, for now. I can still argue that beneath the appearance of particles in our physical world, there is still the wave function. The wave function still describes oscillations/vibrations in the aether. If I’m not mistaken, the hermitian property is required if you want to get rid of the oscillating part (wave function, aether, vibrating strings) and get to the probability of measuring something or physically interacting with a particle.

2. Yes, for now. But it’s the aether. I may want to go back later and consider ghosts with imaginary momentum and imaginary mass. If they can get a hold of the right imaginary particle, they might be able to project a force into the real universe.

3. No. Position and momentum would not commute, px-xp= -ih. Even for aether with mysterious properties, the order of the measurements (momentum, then location) still matters.

I expect

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 14, 2009 @ 03:34 GMT
Pesky cut and paste. The last sentence:

I expect the aether to uphold the known physical universe, laws of physics, without anyone really noticing it’s there.

report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on Jun. 14, 2009 @ 04:31 GMT
I have just two more questions:

Why is a complete set of commuting observables important?

Why should we think about the aether or any background in quantum physics?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Jun. 14, 2009 @ 06:18 GMT
Brian,

Within a complete set of commuting observables like or , any sequence of measurement will leave the quantum system unchanged. You can measure these observables in any order. But if you measure and then measure , you've changed the quantum system. In doing so, you probably absorbed or emitted a photon as well. The mathematical wave function is the same, with a change in its...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 14, 2009 @ 11:55 GMT
A wave function does not necessarily remain reduced to one set of complete sets of commuting observables. Let O = {o_1, ...o_n} a set of commuting observables [o_i, o_j] = 0. and let O' = {o'_1, ...o'_n} be the complementary set of commuting observables [o'_i, o'_j] = 0. The two obey [O, O'] = i-hbar, for the specific observables in each set. If the wave function evolves according to some exp(io_jo'_j}, which can include the trivial phase term exp(ihbar p*x), then the wave function rotates around through the representation space of the two. Under a measurement of one observable in O, say the o_j, all of the other obervables in that set are also accessible to the observer at the same time. Yet if the wave function rotates then at some later time the wave function may no longer be measured in any of the O observables without some decoherence or so called wave function collapse.

There is an intersting idea of the quantum Zeno effect. Assume you measure the observable o_j and lose all knowledge of the conjugate o'_j. Further, assume the wave function rotates with a phase term exp(io_jo'_j/hbar). The phase angle will be @ = o_jo'_j/hbar, which is time dependent. If the observer makes rapid measurements so the phase angle remains small in each measurement interval the wave will be constantly reduced back to a form corresponding to the set O.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 14, 2009 @ 12:03 GMT
Quantum physics has an aether of sorts, which is the ZPE vacuum state. This can be removed by a simple procedure called normal ordering. Yet for cosmology this ZPE appears to be important in the evaluation of the cosmological constant. There are some questions which could be raised. The spacetime with a cosmological constant is an Einstein space with no source for the curvature. Yet in the vacuum model the energy and pressure (which must be negative interestingly enough) of the ZPE acts as a source. This subtle bit suggests that we might have something rather amiss with things. This is particularly the case sinse quantum field theory predicts a cosmological constant from its ZPE that is 120 orders of magnitude too large.

It is possible that the appearance of the aether is telling us that something is wrong with our understanding of things. We might have to expunge the aether once again to understand quantum cosmology.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 14, 2009 @ 17:03 GMT
Lawrence,

You said: "We might have to expunge the aether once again to understand quantum cosmology." Expunge means to erase or remove completely. But if you're using quantum mechanics to talk about a zero point energy, then you are talking about the minimum oscillation of space itself. A minimum oscillation is still an oscillation. I'm saying that there is something down there that oscillates. I'm calling that the aether. In order to expunge or remove completely the aether, you would have to argue that there really is nothing waving or oscillating, that wave functions are just convenient mathematical tools to fit points, not representations of some real phenomena. To miss the cosmological constant by a 120 orders of magnitute is "impressive" in its degree of missing the bulls-eye, but I'm not looking to the aether for a source of free energy.

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Jun. 15, 2009 @ 00:31 GMT
Dear Jason and Lawrence,

I think the “aether” information is contained in hidden dimensions (or branes – I use this term because people understand the basic concept regardless of their support of or opposition to String Theory).

I think that the gravity-brane contains Dirac’s Large Number ~10^40, and that the Cosmological Constant is related ~10^40^(-3) – with three dimensions of Space. Imaginary mass might also be contained within branes that we can’t see.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 15, 2009 @ 13:06 GMT
The minimal oscillation in standard QM can be eliminated. As an excersize take the classical harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian and put in the commutator [p, x], which is zero. Then quantize, an this term you have entered into the Hamiltonian will subtract the ZPE term. For this reason the ZPE term is removed by a simple normal ordering procedure. Similarly I think the same might obtain for cosmology.

The role of virtual off-shell processes with p-branes is in how they couple with solitons on the brane, such as with Chan-Paton induced d0 terms with open strings. This is a nonlinear version of loops and other things coupled to on shell processes in QFT.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 17, 2009 @ 14:04 GMT
Hi to all ,

What is string theory is wrong ???

It' s an important question,personnally it's wrong for me .

An relevant parameter is the economic point of vue and the business of this theory ,so many books ,so many researchs about that ,so many things to sell if I can say ,the String theory is a big business like many things ,soon we are going to buy our oxygen lol .

Let's name a cat ,a cat lol .

Yes this theory is wrong and yes its business will decrease ,it's a special planet ,No ,sometimes I extrapolate our evolution and our future technologies ,I don't beleive what one day we shall sell our planet our planets ,our solar system,our solar systems... or galaxies ,and after what we are going to seel our Universe and negociate with God ,

Let's be serious ,some things are dedicated to disapear ,others are dedicated to be fondamenatls and that in all centers of interest ,thus it's a lost of time if we use some human inventions ,we don't loose our time with the universal foundations ,it's like that I think everywhere.Always the harmony against the chaos .The complementarity against the individualism ,......we evolve fortunally

friendly

Steve

Kinds Regards

report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on Jun. 17, 2009 @ 22:22 GMT
Lawrence,

You have a habit of producing awesome comments :)

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 18, 2009 @ 01:08 GMT
There are too many things about string theory for it to be completely false. I will not say with some unwarranted certainty I know it is correct in some completeness. In fact string theory is more of a theoretical framework for theories than a theory itself. It does manage to tell us a number of things about the universe which are observable, and it could play a role in the TeV physics of the LHC. The “theory space” of string/M-theory is enormous and in some sense we don’t know exactly what to do with it all. The main competitor is loop quantum gravity, which has a very small “theory space,” and hard to make work in the narrowest of circumstances. It might end up as some system of local constraints in string theory however.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Jun. 18, 2009 @ 01:46 GMT
The Casmir-Polder force will certainly vanish between the two Casmir plates if you remove the zero point energy terms. The original reason for a luminiferous aether was to give electromagnetic waves a medium that could oscillate. When Michelson-Morley showed that we could not detect the earth's movement in the aether, then we chucked the aether. In my attempt to resurrect the aether by calling it the wave function (singular) or the collection of fields, forces and particles, all of which have wave functions, the idea was to provide a collection of quantum states that some energy E could act upon. If you get rid of all of the particles, fields and forces, you wouldn't expect to have any wave functions either.

Lawrence,

If you want to call the ZPE an aether, we can certainly agree that it's part of what makes up the aether. But if you could somehow remove all of the aether from a region of space, R, then a problem arises. What do you do about the gravitational fields that span all of space? In other words, if action at a distance forces are causes by space curvature, then what is space? What exactly is curving? I'm willing to bet that gravity waves can be described as wave amplitudes that can be as long as a light year or longer.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 18, 2009 @ 03:11 GMT
Your question is related in a way to the following problem. The Einstein field equation states that for G_{ab} = R_{ab} – 1/2Rg_{ab} that this curvature content with the Ricci curvature R_{ab} and the Ricci scalar R is equal to a stress-energy

G_{ab} = (8piG/c^4)T_{ab}.

Now this stress energy for fluid is T_{ab} = eU_aU_b – pg_{ab}, e = energy density and p = pressure. For various models these assume different values and for the eternal inflationary case we observe it turn out that the pressure is negative and p = -e. Anyway, there is a point in setting this up. The cosmological constant introduces a constant curvature term /g_{ab} that is added to the field equation. Now the constant is sometimes argued to be due to the vacuum ZPE effect, so the energy density is the evaluation of the Hamiltonian on the vacuum and so forth. Then this defines / according to a stress-energy.

Yet there is a subtle issue here. /g_{ab} is a pure curvature term, and without an additional stress-energy the Einstein field equation is

R_{ab} = (/ + R/2)g_{ab},

Which means the Ricci curvature is proportional to the metric. These are particularly nice spaces for a variety of reasons. This case the curvature is contant, and where space is flat there is curved spacetime with a time-time component R_{tt} which tells how space is expanded. So the curvature and metric are identified by eigenvalues and it is sourceless. Yet if we identify / with a quantum vacuum energy source we appear to be contradicting this.

Now curvature is an obstruction of flatness. We can see this with the Mercator projection of the Earth. The N and S poles are stretched out in a singular expansion and Greenland is about the size of Africa and so forth. This shows the 2-sphere has curvature. A torus or cylinder in contrast only has curvature according to how it is embedded in 3-space, but one can flatten them out --- a curled up paper which is laid flat for instance. So curvature is this obstruction to flatness, and it appears to have a topological content. Even locally curvature is an obstruction to flatness. A finite Weyl curvature can’t be coordinatized away. Yet the topological aspects are strange, for in the case of the gravity for a star or planet there does not appear to be much in the way of topology involved. With black holes that of course changes. As a sideline there is Birkhoff’s theorem which in part says any spherically symmetric gravity source (star, planet etc) gives rise to a field that at a distance from the body is indistinguishable from that of a black hole. Yet my point is that there is some subtle matters going on with assigning the cosmological constant with a vacuum energy source of quantum fields.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 18, 2009 @ 03:16 GMT
erratum: the equation terms 8piG/c^4) should have a forward and backslash to appear as a capital Lambda. So everywhere a lone / appears it should be read as Lambda.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 18, 2009 @ 10:13 GMT
Hello ,

The string theory is wrong but tyhe metyhodology before the ultim quantum architecture is relevant because those mathematical extrapolations ,imaginaries and reals ,are corrects but it's different than a foundamental ,we can use ,utilize all the theories and plays with them but the reality is the reality ,

a string is divisible and not foundamental in our physical Universe in evolution.

With these technics of calculs ,it's evident that we are going to have many systems and illimited in their extrapolations .

Dear Lawrence you says,

The cosmological constant introduces a constant curvature term /g_{ab} that is added to the field equation. Now the constant is sometimes argued to be due to the vacuum ZPE effect, so the energy density is the evaluation of the Hamiltonian on the vacuum and so forth. Then this defines / according to a stress-energy.

Could you develop please ?

Kinds Regards

Steve

I think it's important to use foundamentals like some constants and equations ,when a equation is correct and foundamental we can see it everywhere and it can be adapted always .

The problem is the lack of reals and the lack of whole point of vue .

report post as inappropriate


road toad wrote on Jun. 18, 2009 @ 13:27 GMT
I have to say that reading Mr. Emam's article just made me angry. Just using the now hackneyed phrase, "It’s our best bet for finding a theory of quantum gravity", despite the subjectivity of such a statement and in the face of the many failures of the theory is not a good beginning. I have actually read both Lee Smolin's and Peter Woit's books, perhaps the only poster here who has. Perhaps if more people familiarized themselves with some of the legitimate concerns surrounding string theory and some of the alternative approaches there would be more "hope" for a solution.

And for Mr. Emam to suggest that if string theory were wrong it would still be "right" in the sense that he could go on working in it and "might, every once in a while, point out interesting and important properties", etc. to justify doing so is just plain wrong in itself. What science always needs to do is find the "right" theories and from there find the "righter" theories, just as we have Newtonion physics which gave way to relativity. Both those theories are "right", but the aether theory was wrong, and no one works in it any more except crackpots.

I'm sure Mr. Emam and his collaborators are doing much fine work, but respecting their perspective of the work they are doing in the big picture of physics, they need to get a life.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Jun. 18, 2009 @ 19:30 GMT
Steve,

I will grant you that string theory is an untestable mathematical monstrosity, but I disagree with the idea of tossing out a vibrating string approach.

Lawrence,

Collections of vibrating strings/wave functions provides something with quantum eigenstates that will accept/interact with energy. They provide something that can span a distance L (quantum or cosmological), they can transmit kinetic energy and momentum, they can transmit "physics information" about what other particles are around and where they are, they can exert a force between two objects, and they can provide something that will curve (since space curves). I fully expect there to be different kinds of vibrating strings, one for each of the four forces, and additional ones for the Higgs field, and expectedly space-time itself.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I expect a vibrating (super)string to be a kind of wave function derivable from the Schrodinger equation for a particular 1-D geometry. That means that not everything in the universe is a 1D vibrating string.

In terms of Ricci curvature and the curvature of space (gravity) caused by energy/mass, it stands out like an elephant in the room. If the curvature of space-time itself is a response to a large mass/energy, then the underlying phenomena that manifests space-time is not rock solid.

It bends and curves.

The question I ask: can you think of examples where space-time itself vibrates like a piano string?

report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on Jun. 19, 2009 @ 00:07 GMT
Lawrence, Jason, Steve and r.t. do you think physics departments should continue to tenure string theorists? What about mathematics departments instead?

If future experiments do not support string theory will theorists continue to pursue it?

A lot of the success in string theory seems to be related to its public popularity. Whenever I tell someone that I am interested in physics they immediately mention string theory, yet most have never heard of F = mA. Is it ethical to promote a mathematical theory/scientific hypothesis to the public as science and, "the only game in town" without experimental evidence?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 19, 2009 @ 01:13 GMT
Brian,

I think string theory has something to offer physics. It's like it came out of a box that says "Some interpretation required". I've already nagged everyone about how space-time curvature, virtual particles and force mediation make more sense as examples of the interconnectivity of vibrating strings.

Bottom line: can string theorists explain or interpret string theory? I truly believe that there really are 10^500 super strings. But I promise you that they are not all standing around, twiddling. A lot of those strings are performing jobs that keep the universe running.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 19, 2009 @ 01:45 GMT
Brian, Lawrence, anybody,

Since we're not sure whether or not superstrings or wave functions are things that really exist, can we prove their existence by demonstrating that they can transmit causality? I believe that causality is fundamental to reality. Is there any way to mathematically represent causality? Can causality be represented in Quantum Mechanics? The idea is that an event should transmit across wave functions and superstrings at some velocity, probably c.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 19, 2009 @ 03:32 GMT
Oh rats!!! The problem is that if I write / followed by the backslash I am trying to make a capital Lambda. This editor does not like backslashes and removes them. In my erratum I used the wrong case, for 8piG/c^4 does mean 8piG divided by c^4. Stuff like / + R/2 means Lambda + R/2.

A few comments here, but I have to keep this a bit brief. The cosmological constant is represented as a stress energy tensor for a fluid with an energy density e and a pressure p as 8piG(e + p), so that p = -e + a small part. This gives a negative pressure which is what is resulted in inflation and the current acceleration of the universe. The energy density term is proportional to the vecuum expectation of qauantum fields and is then proportional to terms of the sort (0|q-bar H q|0) ~ 140Gev. This is much larger than the cosmological constant and this leaves open some questions.

As for RT, sorry that string theory makes you anger, but honstly the theory-scape is vast. With Loop variables it is hard to even quantize a harmonic oscillator --- the theory space is very small and tough to work with. The richness of structure available to string/M theory makes it more suitable. Loop quantum gravity may however be a different perspective on the general problem. It is a theory of constraints after all, being based on the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, and these might enter into quantum gravity.

Different modes on a string correspond to different eigenvalues for elementary particles. These modes have correspondences to the roots of various Lie groups which physically define elementary particles.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 19, 2009 @ 03:53 GMT
There are some testable aspects to string theory. This is tough stuff and as we push further we are trying to understand the universe on extreme scales. This is hard work.

As for strings and spacetime, the graviton (a pp-wave expansion) is a part of the heterotic closed string. This string can interact with a D3-brane, which gives rise to gravity. Think of an open string tied to the brain, so its end points terminate on the brane with Dirichlet boundary conditions. This is similar to a string on a musical instrument. The vibrating open string corresponding to other gauge fields gives rise to solitonic oscillations on the brane. Again this is similar to a string on a musical instrument. This in turn has quantum amplitudes for a closed string. So the brane is a transducer between the string types. This transduction corresponds on the target spacetime to gravitation.

I would disagree putting string theory only in mathematics departments. For instance the analogue with musical instruments is a physical element to the problem. A physicist is more likely to ask about measurable aspects to the theory, while a mathematician is likely to work on theorems of hyper-Kahler spacees in algebraic geometry.

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Jun. 19, 2009 @ 13:10 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I agree with you that whether History proves String Theory 100% correct or only 10% correct, it will not be a complete waste of time. Either way, waves are still relevant to PHYSICS.

My own theoretical work is compatible with, but not dependent upon, a multi-dimensional String Theory. To Spheric Steve – I would not be surprised if the “Universal Foundation” has a dual nature, comparable to the wave-particle duality of matter. Think of Strings as waves, Spheres as particles, and Fractals as a way to represent higher dimensions.

The “problems” with String Theory are 1) it is 20 years old and still hasn’t been confirmed via experimental results, and 2) it requires ~10^500 parameters which implies a great deal of Complexity.

The Tevatron never discovered Supersymmetry. The LHC may or may not. Certainly, we should expect the LHC to discover any remaining Weak-scale phenomena. But we don’t have any guarantees that String Theory effects will couple to the Weak scale. Even if we build an ILC, it would have cleaner signals than the LHC, but it would not explore higher energy realms. We seem to be near the last generation of Supercolliders. Perhaps the EUSO will help push Cosmic Ray research to higher energies. Our experiments/ machines can’t keep pace with our theories/ ideas.

String Theory’s opponents don’t like ~10^500 parameters, but we live in an extreme Universe with ~10^120 particles, and we need to reproduce extreme numbers such as Dirac’s Large Number ~10^40 and the Cosmological Constant ~10^(-120). We already live in a Universe with a large amount of apparent Complexity. Why should a little more complexity in invisible dimensions bother us much? I agree with Jason that this invisible complexity may be the root cause of Entanglement and action-at-a-distance phenomena.

To “RT” – Whether you love, hate or just tolerate String Theory, it is still a leading contender for quantum gravity and a TOE along with others, such as LQC and CDT, until one of the other theories can “leap frog” it with experimental evidence (which should be the deciding factor, more so than popular opinion).

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 20, 2009 @ 00:23 GMT
Supersymmetry is probably materialize at some energy. In unifies internal and external symmetries of the Mandula-Coleman scheme. As for the 10^{500} number of landscape outcomes, this indicates how string theory is not properly constrained. The problem with loop quantum gravity is that it is over constrained --- in fact it really is nothing more than constraints.

report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on Jun. 20, 2009 @ 04:48 GMT


sweet!

This forum just became much more fun.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 20, 2009 @ 09:30 GMT
Hi all ,

Yes indeed ,it's funny and relevant and interesting .

Dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,I like your idea about wave and stringsd ,it's more logic tha an ultim string ,in this case I am more in agreement with strings .

I agree too with some conclusions about strings ,even it's not correct ,some extrapolations are tools in truth .

When you say that it exists a duality between ,it's interesting to extrapolate with spherical fields for waves and rotaions of spheres of different volumes for ultim quantum architecture .

It could be interesting too to extrapolate with the time evolution and the universal spherization in optimization ,harmonization ,and improvement ....

Indeed it's prioritary to have a concrete scale I think between quantum spheres and fields and the cosmological dynamic with its increase of mass .

In my model the mass increase and the space decrease after the expansion .

It's very relevant I think about the activation of spheres and the decrease of space ......the space begins mass by activation .....The very weak particles are the secrets of our evolution and our complexification .

About light it's a kind of scale too ,a scale of perception and visibility ,the rotations of spheres always can be insert in all models .

Kinds Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 20, 2009 @ 13:19 GMT
It is nice to have LaTeX here.

String theory involves the Planck scale, or nearly, but so does loop quantum gravity. The problems with experimental observation has to do with the scales involved --- 16 orders of magnitude larger than LHC energies. So when it comes to empirical input both approaches really suffer from the same problem. So patience is required. It also should be pointed out that Ashtekar's paper on spinorial ADM relativity came out in 1986, so LQG is fairly old as well.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 20, 2009 @ 17:31 GMT
I propose that the physics community abandon the idea of traveling back in time until we bump into time travelers. This is why:

1. Causality always moves forward in time; B is always caused by something that preceded it in time, namely, A.

2. Tachyon fields become faster than light fields, not time traveling fields.

When you look into the telescope, you are seeing the light that stars emitted a long time ago. Hypothetically, it should be possible to signal a spaceship a light year away, telling them to turn of their earth aimed lasers. A year later, we would watch as the laser that had turned on, now abruptly turns off.

imaginary masses, particles and momentums are showing up in quantum mechanics, and superstring theory. We usually throw them away without a second thought. While they are not real to us, those imaginary momentums might be real to somebody. Also, I suspect that the wave function, as a real phenomena, might have something in common with a tachyon wave that can move faster than light. In doing so, it doesn't travel into the past because that would violate causality. Instead, it travels across space faster than light to interact with other things. I'm not saying that gravity waves are tachyon fields, but it is something that we should look at.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 20, 2009 @ 21:14 GMT
Hi all ,

I suspect our planets ,stars ,and Universe become a string ,and after we shall play all together the seven sonates of mega super strings ,the requiem of the big truth .

I suspect too after a super mega top string of the supersonates .

the symphony of tachyons and the super mega velocity where all is possible ,

after the tachyon ,the stringtion ,and the ultim music in the past after the futur ,.....hihihihi

A little humor is good for health .hihi

The LHC ,ILC.....shall discover spheres and not strings ,I am persuaded ,it's logic in fact when we see the globality of our world in relativity of course with our young age.

On the other side like say Ray ,it could be intresting to have a concrete architecture of spherical fields like waves ,

in correlation with the velocity of rotations of those spheres it's interesting ,it's there some works about strings(closed membrans and spherical)are relevant .Of course a gauge is essential and limits of rationality too of course,

The space (in my model spheres without rotations )is a world of spherical fields ,like if the information pass of spheres in spheres ,if we consider the centers and the entanglement of spheres it's too interesting .

Personnally ,

The gravity is proportional with mass and the velocity of rotations of specific spheres ,it's logic too in fact when we see all centers of interest .

I don't imagine a tachyon because the light is the limits simply .If we consider a tachyon thus a velocity more important ,That's hasn't any sense because it's behind the physical dynamic and its codes ,thus they don't exist .

The information is already in particles ,it's not necessary to have these kinds of particles simply .

The light ,d,the light simply like an ultim velocity ,the code is inside ultim quantum spheres and their rotations and volumes and entanglements correlated with cosmological numbers more the time evolution and the expansion and contraction .It's there the hypothesis "about space becomes mass in time "is interesting and the link with dark matter.

To have strings like quantum foundamental is impossible ,perhaps if I have the proof I will change but at this time it's my point of vue ,be sure I respect these works .

sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Jun. 21, 2009 @ 00:36 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

We are saying very similar things. I agree with you. I am not an opponent of String Theory, but rather, someone who is keeping reasonable options open. Previously, I said it doesn’t matter if String Theory is 100% correct or 10% correct. My wording was sloppy. Of course, the mathematics is 100% correct. The appropriate question is “How much of String Theory is physically relevant?” (and waves are relevant). I don’t have a problem with 10^{500} “parameters” (or incompletely defined parameter space), but some opponents joke that String Theories are the “Theories of Anything” that include one “Theory of Everything” and many “Theories of Nothing”. I still prefer calling it a TOE candidate, rather than a TOA or TON.

Dear Steve and Jason,

The Higgs Mechanism has a negative vacuum expectation value (vev), or a negative energy-squared which corresponds with an imaginary energy. We redefine the zero point of the vev, which results in the Mexican hat potential, spontaneous symmetry breaking, and a REAL Higgs particle. This is an interesting (theoretical) case of imaginary numbers yielding a real effect.

My TOE theory implies tachyons. Is that good, bad or indifferent? Are they observable particles, observable degrees of freedom, or do they get lost when we take the real component of our wavefunctions? Do they yield the Higgs Mechanism, Entanglement or action-at-a-distance phenomena? Do tachyons allow us to violate causality, or do they follow specific rules (such as being created and annihilated in pairs) that disallow such behavior?

You both asked similar questions, but I’m not trying to lead this blog site in a different direction. These questions may be closer to Garrett Lisi’s old blog site on BRST ghosts (topic # 48). Please e-mail me directly to discuss tachyons (which are not the primary focus of a discussion about String Theory/ TOE’s).

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 21, 2009 @ 09:33 GMT
Dear Ray ,

Me too you know I am ,ot an opponent of the String theory ,I just say my point of vue about this theory .

Some Years ago ,I shave seen a tele learning about strings Theory ,perhaps a business plan well organized to sell some books .

Really ,the strings are too in the imaginaries and the irrational extrapolations ,I try to use these mathematical works but really it's not interesting in a whole point of studies for me because there are so much impossibilities and not necessary tools .

The String Theory won't be the TOE ......hihihihi SPHERIZATION Theory and its spheres ....EUREKA IN HUMILITY OF COURSE .

I am arrogant I know but really it's evident .

Some works are foundamentals ,otheres works are in the research ,it's there a balance of gauge is primordial to extrapolate in the good direction I think .

The Lie Algebra is interesting but there too like the Garret Lisi Work ,it's a not in a whole point of vue .Our quantum architecture is more more complex like that .

If the business and the notoriety is a play ,it's not my choice .

Don't forget some things my friends ,some silly human inventiona are dediated to disappear in Time Space evolution .,thus monney ,borders ,vanity ,differences ,business ,weapons ,.....are not reals .Still some imaginaries dedicated to disappear .

Let's be complementary .....behind our human instinct .

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 21, 2009 @ 09:43 GMT
Dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,

I d like ask you one thing about tachyon ,

you know in my model the linear velocity and the link with the rotating quantum spheres ,thus I imagine the light like a gauge of perceptibility ,

the question is this one ,what is the velocity of rotation of spheres of light ,if they have a velocity thus it's the minimum for our limit ,thus if a tachyon exists with a velocity of spheres less ,thus ok the velocity is more than the light but there that hasn't sense because it's behind the perceptibility and the physical reality .

The tachyon in this vision is impossible ,but perhaps you have a expaination .

friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 21, 2009 @ 13:01 GMT
The tachyon is the ground state of the 26 dimensional bosonic string. With a little bit of algebra, the operators for the string are Virasoro operators which obey



I hope everyone knows hwhat a commutator is. One has to add in a term (26 - d)/12m^3 to eliminate redundancies. This restricts the theory to 26 dimensions. The ladder operators a_n acts on the vacuum state so that there is an ordered sequence of states which obey



which is the Regge trajectory. For n = -1 the tachyon state obtains and this field escapes to "infinity," and removes itself from the theory or the physics.

Of the 10^{500} possible outcomes or parameters, we observe the universe as one particular case. This large number is a manifestation of how many orbifold and orientifold configurations there are, or how many ways the Calabi-yau compactifications obtain. This has lead to some work to suggest that the universe is a sort of "multi-verse," where there are many cosmologies. It may also turn out that there are other principles which constrain things.

My conjecture is there is some extremal or maximal principle for local complexity. The universe or spacetime which has a macroscopic outcome is the one which has some maximal level of complexity in possible local regions.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 21, 2009 @ 13:03 GMT
My Virasoro commutator did not work out. This is

[a_m, a_n = (m - n)a_{m - n}

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 21, 2009 @ 18:18 GMT
Lawrence,

How many experiments does it take to resolve 10500 parameters?

I'm just testing the editor.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 21, 2009 @ 19:05 GMT
Ray,

When you said, "The Higgs Mechanism has a negative vacuum expectation value (vev), or a negative energy-squared which corresponds with an imaginary energy.", you know stuff like this just excites the crazies. Wouldn't quantum mechanics be "safer" for the rational thinkers if we got rid of all of the imaginary/complex numbers, and described everything with sines and cosines? It does seem like tachyon fields, imaginary energy, and imaginary momentum are things that we shouldn't have to throw out as "unreal" mathematical artifacts.

R.T.,

The problem with mathematics is that is a system of computation that describes mathematical relationships. It's not designed to figure out what's causing it. It's not the job of physicists to explain why, that's the job of aether promoting crackpots. In fact, I challenge Mr. Road Toad to explain why we observe quantum mechanics. Why are so many things in physics treated as violin strings? If there is nothing between these particle-waves except empty space (no interconnectedness), then what is space? If space-time curves due to energy/mass, then what is space-time? Let me give you a hint. Mathematical Logic will not help you here. You have a whole right brain that is standing around, twiddling.

It is far easier to collapse 10500 parameters into something more easily managed if you try some creative approaches. We all have our favorite sci-fi/fantasy ideas (many worlds, time travel, occult, etc). It would be helpful to mix up some sci-fi with some mathematical physics. I promise it won't kill you to do this, but you need to ask for help from "you know who'. If you can overcome your own stubborn attachment to your world view, and ask the physics expert, G-O-D, you will be the one who breaks the Quantum Mechanics/General Relativity/Superstring stalemate. You have to trust.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 22, 2009 @ 10:31 GMT
Dear Ray ,

With all that ,I imagine now a Hypothesis about this duality ,if I consider my quantum spheres and If I extrapolate with a kind of coded liquid inside the sphere and of course thoses velocities of rotations ....indeed the sphere can become an other form .....strings I don't think but many forms ....

What do you think Ray ?

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Jun. 22, 2009 @ 13:32 GMT
Dear Sphere-keeper Steve,

My TOE implies a crystalized hyperspace. If we represent a crystal as a lattice, then we have interconnected strings/ waves. If we represent a crystal as a repeating structure of packed spheres (like a stack of cannon balls), then we have spheres/ particles.

I think the theory of propagating forces is better-suited to the string/ wave picture than the sphere/ particle picture, but I think every legitimate idea needs to be developed until experimentalists can narrow the pool of ideas to one TOE, or at least a smaller collection of possible TOE's.

One difficulty with spheres is that you are working with angular momentum, not linear momentum. It is unclear to me how the speed of light, tachyons, or tardons are explicitly incorporated into your theory.

Nonetheless, there may be some fundamental similarities between our ideas (particularly fractal spheres), and I am here to encourage you to develop your ideas to the fullest. Godspeed in your efforts towards building a Universal Center, helping to feed Africa, and your search for a TOE.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 22, 2009 @ 16:44 GMT
Dr Cosmic Ray ,

I am understanding ,

but for me the Universe is spheres with or without Rotations thus space and mass .

The problem is this one .

The lattices are specific and so complex ,the quantum architecture I think is correlated with cosmological spheres and their volumes and the space between .Thus these lattices are difficult to encircle because we are far of the truth ,the limits .

The lattices I think evolve and change in Time ,furthemore you have lattices with spheres in rotations (mass)and without (space),the lattices are well thought in fact ,they permit a rotating dynamics and comportments .The question is what is thoses lattices ,indeed there I have a unknew ,I think personnally it's the real space ,the rest is mass and futture mass .

It's there that the contraction and complexification towards centers are interestings ,the space becomes mass in Time and lattices are the real space .

If the nature of spheres is a kind of liquid ,what is the nature of thoses spaces .

The entanglement too is relevant ,the time probably decreases space(lattices)and decrease too the space(spheres without rotations).

The entanglement of spheres can have Ray I think many possibles architectures ,like I said before the quantum architecture is like a code of our future Universal sphere and its galactic spheres in rotations .

Thus the entanglement and lattices are incredibly complex .Many unknews are there about the lattices ,the entanglement ,the spheres and volumes ,the unknew space of interactions and the space and its spheres without rotation .

If the weak interactions are linked with cosmological spheres ,where is the link ,We have stars ,planets ,moons,....in our galactic system ....a question is this one .....to do simple ,the quantum architecture of particles in our galaxy is perhaps different in an other galaxy ,indeed the volumes and natures of spheres in an other galaxy could imply and other quantum architecture but it's an hypothesis of course .

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Jun. 22, 2009 @ 19:50 GMT
Dear Sphere-keeper Steve,

Consider a simple 3-dimensional cubic lattice. Each point has 6 nearest-neighbor points (3 defined axis times 2 positive/ negative directions). Imagine that these 7 points are all touching spheres. The 6 odd-shaped spaces between the spheres are in the identical directions as the 6 next-nearest-neighbor points (from the origin). If we fill these spaces with smaller touching spheres, then we have somewhat represented next-nearest-neighbors with compact “fractal-like” spheres. After filling these odd-shaped spaces with smaller touching spheres, then we will be left with more, even-smaller, odd-shaped spaces. These even-smaller odd-shaped spaces represent next-next-nearest-neighbors (also from the origin). We can continue this program to infinity, thus representing an infinite crystal of infinite order (most with “fractal-like” contributions) within the parameter space defined by the extreme reaches of our original 7 spheres. The “dimensionality” increases from 3 (4 including time) to 9 (10 including time), and so on to infinity.

Now consider a close-packing lattice such as Face Centered Cubic (not simple cubic), and a 4-dimensional Spacetime lattice with 8 nearest-neighbor points. Each “point” represents a hyperspace dimension, so that we now have 4+8=12 dimensions. If we consider time to be part of the lattice, we get 8 relevant hyperspace dimensions, and 12 total dimensions. If we consider time to be independent of the lattice, we get 6 relevant hyperspace dimensions, and 10 total dimensions.

In this way, our ideas may intersect at the TOE.

Perhaps your spheres can explain intrinsic spin. The distinction between Bosons and Fermions is critical to Particle Physics and TOE’s.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Jun. 23, 2009 @ 07:22 GMT
Steve and Ray,

I'm sure spheres are part of the puzzle; maybe arbitrary shaped closed surfaces. To get a warp drive, you're going to need a barrier that separates regular space from hyperspace.

I've been reading about Higgs fields/particles/mechanisms. Apparently, Higgs (the mass giving phenomena) holds the key to lots of interesting stuff. If you wanted to talk about the hyperdrive, then your spaceship has to reside within a common/ordinary space. I'm kicking around the idea of a tachyon field that separates the spaceship/ordinary space from the rest of the physical universe. The tachyon field, that separates the spaceship from the rest of the physical universe, might give us a way of getting around the speed of light light restriction. Can a tachyon field displace a Higgs field?

I'm trying to persuade everyone that time travel is not allowed. In doing so, it gives us these tachyon fields that might be usuable as FTL propulsion with very minimal energy requirements.

Also, does it do anything useful for physics interpretation/TOE candidate, if space-time/particle-waves/superstrings represent a ten(26) dimensional fluid?

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 23, 2009 @ 08:46 GMT
Hi Jason ,Dr Cosmic Ray ,all ,

Ray ,

I know now the problem about this real space ,I ask me how is this space .

I think It's a space for movments and rotations but what is the nature of this space .

I try to understand that ,if the spheres are a kind of incompressible liquid ,probably for the specific dynamic ,this space is in evolution and changes its density .A variable correlated with time evolution I think and the specific dynamic of spherization .

The problem here is the entanglement correlated with cosmological numbers and volumes more time .Thus the numbers of these spaces is different No and in dynamics ?

About the intrinsic spin .....I think those rotations are foundamentals in theirs directions ,senses ,velocities ....why those spheres activate themselves ?

If I take the Big Bang the quantum spheres without rotation take place in Our Universe ,in all main central spheres,probably a correlation with universal center and its central sphere and volume,there is a code of becoming thus a specific rotations .....I think that all is linked with these rotating spheres,the mass and gravity ,the energy .

Thus the intrinsic spin is activated by an intrinsic code ,thus each quantum main sphere is coded in Time Spece evolution .

What is interesting is the activation of spheres of Space ,indeed when they activates themselves ,they accelerate towards the constant velocity of rotations thus a specific mass and comportment .

Thus a new kind of energy of acceleration .

I think it's relevant about a variable mass in a very short time .

Jason,

You say

The tachyon field, that separates the spaceship from the rest of the physical universe, might give us a way of getting around the speed of light light restriction. Can a tachyon field displace a Higgs field?

We need concrete datas ,it's interesting indeed .

Dear Jason could you explain me your propulsion idea ?

sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Jun. 23, 2009 @ 12:59 GMT
Dear Jason and Steve,

We are getting somewhat off-topic of String Theory again, but these ideas are similar to my May 20 posting on topic #445. At the time, I think you both thought I was "crazy" for mentioning tachyons.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Jun. 23, 2009 @ 13:38 GMT
Hi Steve,

I want to work with tachyon fields and imaginary mass/momentum. I want to restrict time travel (assume it universally impossible). In doing so, tachyon fields are just faster than light fields that obey causaliity.

Let's talk about spheres. I want to put my FTL space ship inside of an inner sphere called A. Inside of sphere A, the laws of physics work normally (mass, charge, 4 forces, everything is normal). Next, I want to place sphere A inside of a larger sphere called B. B is a tachyon field with special properites. I need it to (1) dampen out gravity (isolate sphere A gravitationally); (2) prevent quatum entanglement from slowing us down.

Next, I want the A/B interface to be attractive; in other words, when sphere B moves, sphere A has to sit within sphere B, and not get left behind.

Finally, I want to generate imaginary particles in one direction in such a way as to give sphere B an imaginary momentum (velocity times imaginary mass). Imaginary momentum should be superluminal. As long as sphere A remains inside of aphere B's energy well, it will remain inside of sphere B.

No black holes or singularities are needed. It's not the Alcubierre drive.

Using imaginary mass/momentum, we might be able to avoid the severe energy cost of superluminal travel.

The question is, can I generate imaginary particles?

Any thoughts?

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 24, 2009 @ 18:03 GMT
Hi Jason and Ray ,

Dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,

No No ,I don't think that hihihihi even if I am not sure about tachyons .I like read your ideas and extrapolations .You have a real capacity to see the whole ,of course I don't agree with imaginaries tools but it's so creative .Thanks for that .

Ray ,what is the best propulsion system at this time by the Nasa or others centers of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 25, 2009 @ 05:31 GMT
Steve,

I dunno. I kind of like the idea of a tachyon field displacing a Higgs field.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 26, 2009 @ 10:55 GMT
Hi ,

I don't now about that .

For the particles ,if we want check a particle ,a quantum spherical architecture for me ,we must check the rotations ,

in my model ,the only particle without rotation thus mass are the particle in wait if i can say ,thus they have any rotations ,

if we isolate this particle with their intrinsic code ,we don't know when it will activate ,thus is it ^possible ,in all case if we isolate it ,how can we check the rotation ,thus how insert the code by informations inside these quantum spheres .

We have our walls ,our limits of perceptibility thus we begin to improve the rotation technology of bodies ,

the best results shall be with a sphere body ,because it's a perfect balance ,If we check those rotations we can check many things in correlation with foundamentals laws.

The phylosophical question is this one ,can we do all what we want with our quantum spheres ,indeed if the universl codes interacts with the human invention of the intrinsic code and the activation ,thus it's possible to have some unknew of interactions .Thus the spiritual responsability is essential I think and that to harmonize the interactions more the time evolution and the human creativity in our relativistic Universe and its specific dynamic of complexification .

I say that because when you say about"Can we generate an imaginary particle"

,I said what we can generate a particle yes but before we must check the rotations of bodies and the universal correlation with mass and gravity .

Check the rotation of spheres ,it's check the energy .Rotations spheres ,mass gravity energy.....complexification by polarizations .....

sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 26, 2009 @ 18:25 GMT
Hi Jason ,

You know in this extrapolation ,thus the velocity of spheres imply the mass ,the gravity thus the attraction .

We can extrapolate with our Black Hole ,these super velocity of spheres implies an attraction and an effect on Space like in the relativity .

What is interesting is the universal correlation and constant I think with the mass ,the mass and the rotation...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Jun. 26, 2009 @ 18:27 GMT
Steve,

I'm just wondering if a Higgs field can be displaced? Of course, everything we know about quantum mechanics comes from mass, charge and photons. If you take away/displace the Higgs field, can physics still function in that space? If I isolate a volume of space by displacing the Higgs field around it, can gravity and electromagnetism cross the divide? If the Higgs field (which enforces mass) is removed, where does that leave kinetic energy (1/2mv2). I'm guessing that energy acts on a Higgs field the way shoppers act on a department store; remove the store, and the money goes somewhere where there is a store. I'm guessing that energy works on a Higgs field in the same way. But if you could isolate a region of space, what would happen?

As for quantum spheres, spin and angular momentum are quantized. If by coding, you mean physics information (the kind that Hawking's talks about), then an isolating region that displaces a Higgs field might also prevent physics information from transmitting, as well. Unless light can be transmitted without a Higgs field.

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Jun. 26, 2009 @ 21:06 GMT
Dear Jason,

Relativistic energy is given by
- and the classical kinetic energy term
is no longer applicable. By definition, the Higgs must be the tachyon with the lowest vev, so I don't think you could actually displace the Higgs mass couplings with another tachyonic coupling. Even if you could "cloak" a spaceship in tachyonic fields, how would you steer it?

My TOE implies electrically charged tachyons. We could use electromagnetic fields (like a particle accelerator, but no need to accelerate - if we make them travel in circles, these tachyons will naturally speed up as they radiate photons and lose energy - Yes, tachyons are backwards) to confine these particles, or to release them in the desired direction to steer our spacecraft.

Aren't these postings closer to Topic #445?

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Jun. 27, 2009 @ 07:45 GMT
I was watching a video about gravity waves on Hulu.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/19766/spacerip-einsteins-mess
engers#s-p1-st-i0

Gravity waves are described as ripples in space-time itself. If aether sounds too gaseous to really describe space-time, what about something more the Jello? Space-time is made of hyperdimensional Jello. It wiggles when stars and black holes slam into each other. But it has to be a Relativistic 4D Jello.

Any takers?

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 27, 2009 @ 09:56 GMT
Hi Jason and Dr Cosmic Ray ,

It's well extrapolated that .

I like thoses equations ,the energy ,1/mv² indeed and the relaztion on Earth with mgh ......before I plaid with thoses important equations ,like F=ma

Q=Cm T ....PV=nRT .....F=G m1m2/r².....E= Q q1q2/r² E=mc²....and so much still ,it's interesting in a whole point of vue .

In the past I tried to link all and I invented an equation ,I had understood what all has the same maximum quantity towards walls or limits .

Before I imagined particles like points(I named my Theory before The Spherization Theory,the Theory of Points) and I inserted thus a total numbers of particles in imagination ,there is a paradox with this maximum energy ,entropy ,impossible to add in fact this maximum .

This i in my equations was the ultim quantum sphere .Thus more the fiels are check more the energy increases and less the mass was for i .What is interesting is this correlation between mass energy and rotations stil .

Thus the enrgy of one particle is the same for all and with a maximum just before the wall ,The equation of Einstein is very very spiritual in fact and unfortunally no more people know the real sense .

The maximum energy is everywhere in same quantity towards walls after different fields and steps .

The last field or energy is not additionable,it's comprehensible by the fact what it's im^possible to have more energy or entropy than behind our limits .

Thus ,in my past I wrote an simple equation , E(mi)=Som E(mi)thus it's there the rotaions implying fields is too a key because the rotations of spheres imply these fields .Thus we can correlate with the mass and the rotations and the fields and the energy ,

Jason I didn't know the Jello dimensions ,I suppose that it's a system with fourth dimension ,I understand the play with space and time .

It's a kind of collapsing of space Time by super gravity .....where some constants disappear or some chaotic moments very shorts appear No ?

Could you explain me the Jello 4 D properties and the Higgs fields .It's new for me .

Ray ,could you explain me the sense of this equation with E with ² ,E²=p²c²+m²c(4)

please

sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Jun. 27, 2009 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear Steve,

For background information on Einstein's Special Relativity in French, see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativit%C3%A9_restreinte . E is energy, p is linear momentum, m is mass, and c is the speed of light.

Dear Jason,

I think of the Hyperspace dimensions as a lattice. If you want to think of a "lattice" with weak bonds like Jello instead of strong bonds like a Diamond, that is fine - and probably appropriate when we consider how weak the Gravitational force is. Remember that "String Theory" started out as a potential description of the Strong Force, but was later modified into a potential description of Quantum Gravity (with much weaker String tensions).

To my FQXi friends,

I'm going on vacation and won't be posting the next two weeks. Have Fun!

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 27, 2009 @ 19:41 GMT
Thanks my friend and very good vacation ,don't think about physics during two weeks hihihihi lol

until soon

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Jul. 3, 2009 @ 05:47 GMT
I don't know if this is evidence of superstrings. But it sure is evidence that wavefunctions have a blatant disregard for locality.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000817
080822.htm

In this article, physicists were able to absorb the wave function of an electron into a bubble. Next, they were able to split the bubble into two, each part containing part of the wave function. The bubbles became separated and went off in different directions.The experiment was performed at Bell laboratories.

It sounds a little bit like quantum entanglement. But if you run the experiment a bunch of times, you will detect the electron in either one bubble or the other. How can they be so sure that the electron wave function spans both? Of course, photons from lightyears away seem to have wave functions with a spherical wave front of a ratdius in light years. But the probablity of finding that one photon is very small.

Doesn't it seem like wave functions keep there options open, in terms of where they will ultimately appear and be measured. It's a nice little trick to get around the universe faster than light. The electron just acts like a wave function, and then, it has a chance of being anywhere in a space much larger than the actual electron. If we could just get our hands on the Planck constant, and increase its magnitude, we could do the same thing. Of course, that's a good way to get lost.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 3, 2009 @ 18:23 GMT
Evidence of quantum entanglements with strings would be very hard to obtain. Though it is not impossible. The RHIC has obtained evidence of black hole amplitudes, and black holes in the stretched horizon or holographic theory are basically condensates of strings. I consider this by first talking about a paper written by Tegmark.

I have been looking at Tegmark's paper "The Multiverse...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 3, 2009 @ 19:34 GMT
I believe that the physics community has more than enough intellectual ability to understand the wider spheres of physical law. What we don't have is any way to test these ideas.

But look at it from the point of view of the advanced civilizations that keep an eye on us. To them, we are like a tiny little pre-spacefaring planet that is ready to take its next leap forward in its evolution. The advanced civilizations would like to help us, but they don't want to give us a technology that would be used unwisely. They don't want to be responsible for earth becoming socially unstable with advanced technology, something that could lead to nuclear war.

We need to come up with a good argument for how we will use a new technology to improve human civilization and to be of service to the greater intergalactic community. Perhaps we can offer to be a manufacturing facility for warp engine parts.

report post as inappropriate


Ray Puffy wrote on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 20:37 GMT
Nature seeks low energy, and both a smaller space and larger space may be low energy given gravitational contraction/electromagnetic repulsion that balances inertia. In bodily feeling, which is key, gravity increases with distance; but gravity decreases with distance too. This allows for a low energy theory of gravity that involves gravity and electromagnetism -- think no gravity and gravity, and find the middle.

String theory is garbage.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 20:52 GMT
Dear Frank,

You want to unite the extremes. String Theory is one extreme, and kissing spheres (Causal Dynamical Triangulation, my essay from last year, Steve Dufourny's ideas...) are the other extreme. Please don't use any parts of my name in your sock puppet posts. Perhaps FQXi should log ip addresses...

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 21:00 GMT
Ray, are you FQXi.org? String theory is unnecessary Ray. It ends with the known mathematical union of gravity and electro. in/as dreams. Touch is electromagnetic.

Gravity and touch are felt/experienced with the SAME force/feeling in dreams Ray. That means gravity is manifesting as electromagnetism/light in dreams.

Ray, you and FQXi.org are desperate to be rid of DiMeglio's ideas. They threaten so many of your jobs, ideas, grants, and fundings.

Ray and FQXi.org, your credibility is seriously at stake here.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 21:02 GMT
Ray, your outrageous conduct is encouraged by FQXi.org.

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 21:08 GMT
Dear Ray,

The only conduct of yours that I would identify as a mistake is to communicate with graffitti. I gave it a good will try once. Georgina advised me to use better sense. I had to learn for myself. Anyway, use your own judgement. I won't have anything more to say about this.

James

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 21:17 GMT
Ray and Georgina work to rid FQXi.org of DiMeglio's ideas. That is not credible, not at all.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 21:22 GMT
Dear Georgina,

You were right. I was wrong.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 21:25 GMT
Dear James - I understand, and I usually stop blogging or use a great deal of restraint when dealing with this puppet master.

Dear Frank - Your 'ideas' are non-sense. Georgina, Jason and I are not your 'enemies'. Your own behavior and poor communication skills are your worst 'enemies'.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.