View Full Version : What is wrong with string theory?
Spinnet
Aug14-05, 12:29 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Fundamental physical ideas should not only be sound in details but also\nsensible conceptually.\n\nGeneral relativity says that non-gravitational physical processes occur\non the geometrical framework created by gravitational field. We observe\nthe physical processes through and with respect to the gravitational\nfield. If you have a theory which includes the gravitational dynamics\nthen in it the physical processes must happen with respect to each\nother (relationally) with out any reference to a background structure.\n\nIn string theory the strings move, vibrate, merge, split etc. These\nstrings are not like spinors existing in an internal space. They are\nsimilar to classical high school textbook strings: Elastic and\ndynamical objects. If string theory includes gravitational field then\nit must not have any other background structure in which the strings\nexist. If it is a fundamental theory then it must not have any other\nforces that is responsible for the string dynamics. But string theory\nassumes background structures and string dynamics which is completely\nabsurd.\n\nString theory may be interesting mathematics but it is not physically\nreasonable because it ignores the conceptual lessons of Einstein\'s\ngeneral relativity which is the foundation of our current understanding\nof time, space and everything.\n\nString theorists often talk about Einstein\'s dream of unification when\nthey talk about string theory in their websites and programs. But if\nEinstein have been alive, he would be very disappointed with string\ntheory because of its complete disregard for general relativity.\n\nOnce does not require a thousand explanations to disqualify a theory.\nBy a simple reasoning one could clearly see that something is wrong\nwith it.\n\nString theorists are like a bunch of creative kids who are playing with\ncertain objects without understanding what they are meant for.\n\nspinnet\n(universalwatch.blogspot.com)\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Fundamental physical ideas should not only be sound in details but also
sensible conceptually.
General relativity says that non-gravitational physical processes occur
on the geometrical framework created by gravitational field. We observe
the physical processes through and with respect to the gravitational
field. If you have a theory which includes the gravitational dynamics
then in it the physical processes must happen with respect to each
other (relationally) with out any reference to a background structure.
In string theory the strings move, vibrate, merge, split etc. These
strings are not like spinors existing in an internal space. They are
similar to classical high school textbook strings: Elastic and
dynamical objects. If string theory includes gravitational field then
it must not have any other background structure in which the strings
exist. If it is a fundamental theory then it must not have any other
forces that is responsible for the string dynamics. But string theory
assumes background structures and string dynamics which is completely
absurd.
String theory may be interesting mathematics but it is not physically
reasonable because it ignores the conceptual lessons of Einstein's
general relativity which is the foundation of our current understanding
of time, space and everything.
String theorists often talk about Einstein's dream of unification when
they talk about string theory in their websites and programs. But if
Einstein have been alive, he would be very disappointed with string
theory because of its complete disregard for general relativity.
Once does not require a thousand explanations to disqualify a theory.
By a simple reasoning one could clearly see that something is wrong
with it.
String theorists are like a bunch of creative kids who are playing with
certain objects without understanding what they are meant for.
spinnet
(universalwatch.blogspot.com)
Nick Maclaren
Aug15-05, 08:14 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nIn article <1123976887.866998.187500@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,\n"Spinnet" <spinnet20002000@yahoo.com> writes:\n|>\n|> Fundamental physical ideas should not only be sound in details but also\n|> sensible conceptually.\n\nThat is hard to deny.\n\n|> String theory may be interesting mathematics but it is not physically\n|> reasonable because it ignores the conceptual lessons of Einstein\'s\n|> general relativity which is the foundation of our current understanding\n|> of time, space and everything.\n\nAn interesting theory, but not one that everyone happens to believe in.\n\n|> Once does not require a thousand explanations to disqualify a theory.\n|> By a simple reasoning one could clearly see that something is wrong\n|> with it.\n\nThat is often true, but one must be careful to base such disqualifications\non evidence rather than dogma.\n\n|> String theorists are like a bunch of creative kids who are playing with\n|> certain objects without understanding what they are meant for.\n\nProbably so, but their company is good.\n\nI don\'t know what I may seem to the world, but as to myself, I\nseem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore and\ndiverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or\na prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth\nlay undiscovered all before me.\n\nIsaac Newton\n\n\nRegards,\nNick Maclaren.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <1123976887.866998.187500@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
"Spinnet" <spinnet20002000@yahoo.com> writes:
|>
|> Fundamental physical ideas should not only be sound in details but also
|> sensible conceptually.
That is hard to deny.
|> String theory may be interesting mathematics but it is not physically
|> reasonable because it ignores the conceptual lessons of Einstein's
|> general relativity which is the foundation of our current understanding
|> of time, space and everything.
An interesting theory, but not one that everyone happens to believe in.
|> Once does not require a thousand explanations to disqualify a theory.
|> By a simple reasoning one could clearly see that something is wrong
|> with it.
That is often true, but one must be careful to base such disqualifications
on evidence rather than dogma.
|> String theorists are like a bunch of creative kids who are playing with
|> certain objects without understanding what they are meant for.
Probably so, but their company is good.
I don't know what I may seem to the world, but as to myself, I
seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore and
diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or
a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth
lay undiscovered all before me.
Isaac Newton
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Spinnet wrote:\n> String theory may be interesting mathematics but it is not physically\n> reasonable because it ignores the conceptual lessons of Einstein\'s\n> general relativity which is the foundation of our current understanding\n> of time, space and everything.\n\nString Theory postdicts General Relativity. That is why people take it\nseriously.\n\nAlso, General Relativity doesn\'t explain \'everything\' -- we require\nQuantum Mechanics and the Standard Model of particles to understand the\nrest. String Theory claims to replace both of them.\n\n-Souvik\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Spinnet wrote:
> String theory may be interesting mathematics but it is not physically
> reasonable because it ignores the conceptual lessons of Einstein's
> general relativity which is the foundation of our current understanding
> of time, space and everything.
String Theory postdicts General Relativity. That is why people take it
seriously.
Also, General Relativity doesn't explain 'everything' -- we require
Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model of particles to understand the
rest. String Theory claims to replace both of them.
-Souvik
Crazy Moron
Aug16-05, 02:26 PM
Einstein’s ideas are defined by pure math with no background. The standard requirement is a theory that exists with no background, while other people at the time did suggest Relativity, but suggested there was a background. Einstein explained Relativity with no background, just in terms of pure math.
But then, Einstein realized the one flaw in his approach.
The flaw is math without reference to any background etherframe assumes non-dimensional points on a number line are separated.
…but assumes that they have no distance between them.
How can two non-dimensional points have no distance between them and be separated?
If they are non dimensional and have no size, then if they sit side by side they are the same point.
String theory assumes points have a length on a number line. The length of a string on a number line is 1 / divided by a number. For example on a line from 0 to 1, a string might be ¼. We would call all the distance from 0 to ¼ the first string point on the number line.
If the first non dimensional point on that number line is 0 to 0. And the next point sits directly beside it with no distance separating it from the first, then the second point is 0 to 0. The third point is also 0 to 0 and the infinite point on that number line is 0 to 0.
You can’t put non dimensional points next to each other and create a number line.
You have to use string points. A string point could be from 0 to 1/10,000. The next string point is 1/10,000 to 1/10,001.
Einstein was able to assume a continuum, because the only time points are not separate is when the distance between them is 1/infinity. Infinities don’t exist in math, so while pure math incorrectly assumes non-dimensional points can sit directly next to each other, pure math doesn’t include a precise idea of infinity, so 1/infinity doesn’t exist in pure math. 1/10,000,000,000,000,000, however many zeroes you want to add does, so the closest that pure math can get to dividing down to zero is a very small distance. String theory says all points are small segments of distance.
So the math works until you get to very small distances. Then we get irresolvable contradictions in the physics of atoms and the regular world.
Einstein thought about it over many years from 1936 to 1956 (see this post) (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=84806) and came to think there cannot be a continuum, maybe because non-dimensional points can’t sit next to each other and create a number line.
If points are small distances, they can. If they are small distances, those distances can vary, which gives us a space that can stretch, warp, and curve. Now, using the concept of string theory we can mathematically describe what turns out to be a 10-dimensional etherframe describing a continuum that can change shape.
You are right, string theorists who are very intelligent are just playing with things they don’t understand. But someone as dumb as me, not a mathematician, not a physicist, may be able to give a simple definition of what string theory really is.
Charles Francis
Aug16-05, 03:36 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In message <1124162239.766570.63590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,\nSouvik <souvik1982@gmail.com> writes\n>Spinnet wrote:\n>> String theory may be interesting mathematics but it is not physically\n>> reasonable because it ignores the conceptual lessons of Einstein\'s\n>> general relativity which is the foundation of our current understanding\n>> of time, space and everything.\n>\n>String Theory postdicts General Relativity. That is why people take it\n>seriously.\n>\n>Also, General Relativity doesn\'t explain \'everything\' -- we require\n>Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model of particles to understand the\n>rest. String Theory claims to replace both of them.\n>\nPerhaps, but actually it doesn\'t replace either. It is no more than an\nidea for a way forward, an idea which has only had popularity because of\nthe absence of other ideas. Nonetheless, as an idea, after forty years\nit is looking tired and ineffectual.\n\n\n\nRegards\n\n--\nCharles Francis\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In message <1124162239.766570.63590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.c om>,
Souvik <souvik1982@gmail.com> writes
>Spinnet wrote:
>> String theory may be interesting mathematics but it is not physically
>> reasonable because it ignores the conceptual lessons of Einstein's
>> general relativity which is the foundation of our current understanding
>> of time, space and everything.
>
>String Theory postdicts General Relativity. That is why people take it
>seriously.
>
>Also, General Relativity doesn't explain 'everything' -- we require
>Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model of particles to understand the
>rest. String Theory claims to replace both of them.
>
Perhaps, but actually it doesn't replace either. It is no more than an
idea for a way forward, an idea which has only had popularity because of
the absence of other ideas. Nonetheless, as an idea, after forty years
it is looking tired and ineffectual.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Crazy Moron
Aug16-05, 11:32 PM
Math assumes non-dimensional points on a number line are separated.
…but assumes they have no distance between them.
How can non-dimensional points have no distance between them and be separated?
String theory assumes points have a length on a number line. The length of a segment of a number line is 1 / divided by a number. On a line from 0 to 1, we could call all the distance from 0 to ¼ the first segment, or first string point on that number line.
The first non-dimensional point on that number line would be from 0 to 0. The next point sits directly beside it with no distance separating it from the first, so then the second point is 0 to 0. The third point is also 0 to 0 and the infinite point is 0 to 0.
You can’t put non-dimensional points next to each other and create a number line.
If they are non dimensional, then if they sit side by side with no distance between them, they are the same point.
But the only time points are not separate is when the distance between them is 1/infinity, and infinities don’t exist in math, so while math incorrectly assumes non-dimensional points can sit directly next to each other, pure math doesn’t include a precise idea of infinity. 1/infinity doesn’t exist in pure math. 1/10,000,000,000,000,000, and how many more zeroes you want to add to it does exist, so the closest that pure math can get to dividing down to zero is a very small distance. String theory says all points are small segments of distance.
It shouldn't be surprising that the math of physics works until you get to very small distances. Then we get irresolvable contradictions in the descriptions of atoms and the regular world.
Einstein began to think about it in 1936, and by 1956 started to think a continuum couldn't exist, maybe because he realized non-dimensional points can’t sit next to each other and create a number line. He wrote about it: see this thread. (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=84806)
But if points are small distances, those distances can also vary, which gives us a space that can stretch, warp, and curve. Now, using the concept of string theory we can mathematically describe what turns out to be a 10-dimensional etherframe describing a continuum that can change shape.
To take the next step in string theory, we have to describe what string theory is. We know a lot of the math works. In simple terms, string theory is what I just described.
Crazy Moron
Aug16-05, 11:40 PM
Math assumes non-dimensional points on a number line are separated.
…but assumes they have no distance between them.
How can two non-dimensional points have no distance between them and be separated?
If they are non dimensional, then if they sit side by side with no distance between them, they are the same point.
String theory assumes points have a length on a number line. The length of a segment on a number line is 1 / divided by a number. On a line from 0 to 1, we could call all the distance from 0 to ¼ the first segment, or the first string point on that number line.
The first non-dimensional point on that number line is 0 to 0. The next point sits directly beside it with no distance separating it from the first, so then the second point is 0 to 0. The third point is also 0 to 0 and the infinite point is 0 to 0.
You can’t put non-dimensional points next to each other and create a number line.
If they are non dimensional, then if they sit side by side with no distance between them, they are the same point.
But the only time points are not separate is when the distance between them is 1/infinity, and infinities don’t exist in math, so while math incorrectly assumes non-dimensional points can sit directly next to each other, pure math doesn’t include a precise idea of infinity. 1/infinity doesn’t exist in pure math. 1/10,000,000,000,000,000, and how many more zeroes you want to add to it does exist, so the closest that pure math can get to dividing down to zero is a very small distance. String theory says all points are small segments of distance.
It is not surprising that the math of physics works until you get to very small distances. Then we get irresolvable contradictions in the descriptions of atoms and the regular world.
Einstein began to think about it in 1936, and by 1956 he came to think there cannot be a continuum, maybe because he realized non-dimensional points can’t sit next to each other and create a number line. He wrote about it: see this thread. (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=84806)
But if points are small distances, those distances can also vary, which gives us a space that can stretch, warp, and curve. Now, using the concept of string theory we can mathematically describe what turns out to be a 10-dimensional etherframe describing a continuum that can change shape.
Mike Helland
Aug20-05, 12:04 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hello,\n\nYou say that:\n\n"String theory may be interesting mathematics but it is not physically\nreasonable because it ignores the conceptual lessons of Einstein\'s\ngeneral relativity which is the foundation of our current understanding\nof time, space and everything."\n\nand\n\n"String theorists often talk about Einstein\'s dream of unification when\nthey talk about string theory in their websites and programs. But if\nEinstein have been alive, he would be very disappointed with string\ntheory because of its complete disregard for general relativity."\n\nI think it is reasonably well known that Einstein himself at the end of\nhis days was feeling that the continuum-field thingy stuff in physics,\nincluding general relativity, could be a total dead-end for physics.\n\nYour argument that string theory cannot be sound because it throws\ngeneral relativity out the window assumes that general relativity has\nto be correct.\n\nThat is not known to be absolutely true. Like all scientific knowledge\nyou can\'t forget what\'s in the fine print: all claims of veracity are\nsubject to change.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello,
You say that:
"String theory may be interesting mathematics but it is not physically
reasonable because it ignores the conceptual lessons of Einstein's
general relativity which is the foundation of our current understanding
of time, space and everything."
and
"String theorists often talk about Einstein's dream of unification when
they talk about string theory in their websites and programs. But if
Einstein have been alive, he would be very disappointed with string
theory because of its complete disregard for general relativity."
I think it is reasonably well known that Einstein himself at the end of
his days was feeling that the continuum-field thingy stuff in physics,
including general relativity, could be a total dead-end for physics.
Your argument that string theory cannot be sound because it throws
general relativity out the window assumes that general relativity has
to be correct.
That is not known to be absolutely true. Like all scientific knowledge
you can't forget what's in the fine print: all claims of veracity are
subject to change.
Spinnet
Aug20-05, 05:48 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Nick Maclaren wrote:\n> In article <1123976887.866998.187500@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,\n> "Spinnet" <spinnet20002000@yahoo.com> writes:\n> |> String theory may be interesting mathematics but it is not physically\n> |> reasonable because it ignores the conceptual lessons of Einstein\'s\n> |> general relativity which is the foundation of our current understanding\n> |> of time, space and everything.\n>\n> An interesting theory, but not one that everyone happens to believe in.\n\nPlease justify your statement.\n\n> |> Once does not require a thousand explanations to disqualify a theory.\n> |> By a simple reasoning one could clearly see that something is wrong\n> |> with it.\n>\n> That is often true, but one must be careful to base such disqualifications\n> on evidence rather than dogma.\n\nMy statement is not a dogma. The validity of it depends on what the\nsimple reasoning is.\n\n>\n> |> String theorists are like a bunch of creative kids who are playing with\n> |> certain objects without understanding what they are meant for.\n>\n> Probably so, but their company is good.\n>\n> I don\'t know what I may seem to the world, but as to myself....\n>\n> Isaac Newton\nNewton played based on understanding and insights. He did not spend\nmost of his time on theories based on questionable premises and ideas\nignoring well established insights (like those from general relativity).\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <1123976887.866998.187500@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> "Spinnet" <spinnet20002000@yahoo.com> writes:
> |> String theory may be interesting mathematics but it is not physically
> |> reasonable because it ignores the conceptual lessons of Einstein's
> |> general relativity which is the foundation of our current understanding
> |> of time, space and everything.
>
> An interesting theory, but not one that everyone happens to believe in.
Please justify your statement.
> |> Once does not require a thousand explanations to disqualify a theory.
> |> By a simple reasoning one could clearly see that something is wrong
> |> with it.
>
> That is often true, but one must be careful to base such disqualifications
> on evidence rather than dogma.
My statement is not a dogma. The validity of it depends on what the
simple reasoning is.
>
> |> String theorists are like a bunch of creative kids who are playing with
> |> certain objects without understanding what they are meant for.
>
> Probably so, but their company is good.
>
> I don't know what I may seem to the world, but as to myself....
>
> Isaac Newton
Newton played based on understanding and insights. He did not spend
most of his time on theories based on questionable premises and ideas
ignoring well established insights (like those from general relativity).
Spinnet
Aug20-05, 05:49 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Souvik wrote:\n> String Theory postdicts General Relativity. That is why people take it\n> seriously.\n\nThe first sentence of my posting that started this topic says \' ideas\nmust be sound both conceptually and details\'. String may be able to\nreproduce the mathematical details of general relativity for example\nthe Einsteins equations.\nBut the problem is, like I wrote in my startup in email, it is in odds\nwith the conceptual meaning of general relativity.\n\n\n> Also, General Relativity doesn\'t explain \'everything\' -- we require\n> Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model of particles to understand the\n> rest.\nI completely agree.\n\n>String Theory claims to replace both of them.\nBut string theory ignores the conceptual meaning of general\nrelativity.\n\nSuresh\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Souvik wrote:
> String Theory postdicts General Relativity. That is why people take it
> seriously.
The first sentence of my posting that started this topic says ' ideas
must be sound both conceptually and details'. String may be able to
reproduce the mathematical details of general relativity for example
the Einsteins equations.
But the problem is, like I wrote in my startup in email, it is in odds
with the conceptual meaning of general relativity.
> Also, General Relativity doesn't explain 'everything' -- we require
> Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model of particles to understand the
> rest.
I completely agree.
>String Theory claims to replace both of them.
But string theory ignores the conceptual meaning of general
relativity.
Suresh
Crazy Moron
Aug20-05, 04:57 PM
>But string theory ignores the conceptual meaning of general
relativity.
No, it doesn’t. But most string theorists can’t answer the question, “What is string theory?” They apply string theory, and it seems to work, but they don’t know what it is.
So what is it?
Math assumes non-dimensional points on a number line are separated.
But math also assumes the points have no distance between them.
If non-dimensional points sit side by side with no distance between them, they are the same point. Two ways to create two separate points is to have two non-dimensional points with a slight distance between them; or to have points that are a slight distance in length.
String theory assumes points have a length on a number line. The length of a segment on a number line is 1 / divided by a number. On a line from 0 to 1, we could call all the distance from 0 to ¼ the first segment; the first string point.
The only time points are not separate is when the distance between them is 1/infinity. Infinities don’t exist in math, so while math incorrectly assumes non-dimensional points can sit directly next to each other with no distance between them, pure math doesn’t include a precise idea of infinity. 1/infinity, which is the only case where two non-dimensional points next to each other are the same point doesn’t exist in pure math.
1/10,000,000,000,000,000, or however many more zeroes you want to add to it does exist, so the closest that pure math can get to dividing down to zero distance between two points is a very small distance. In other words, a string.
That is what string theory is.
Given that concept for what string theory is, now it’s possible to answer a few other interesting questions.
Einstein began to think in 1936 there cannot be a continuum. By 1956 he had concluded privately that a continuum is impossible. It might be because he realized non-dimensional points can’t have no distance between them and create a number line.
But if points are small distances they can, and the distances can vary, which gives us a space that can stretch, warp, and curve. Now, using the concept of string theory, we can mathematically describe what turns out to be a 10-dimensional space that is a continuum, which can change shape exactly like it is supposed to in Special Relativity.
If that is what string theory is; regular math but with string points; there is no conflict with Relativity.
Gerry Quinn
Aug20-05, 08:27 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <1124211272.185048.47720@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,\nspinnet20002000@yahoo.com says...\n> Souvik wrote:\n\n> > String Theory postdicts General Relativity. That is why people take it\n> > seriously.\n\n> The first sentence of my posting that started this topic says \' ideas\n> must be sound both conceptually and details\'. String may be able to\n> reproduce the mathematical details of general relativity for example\n> the Einsteins equations.\n> But the problem is, like I wrote in my startup in email, it is in odds\n> with the conceptual meaning of general relativity.\n\n"The conceptual meaning of general relativity" means different things\nto different people. The minimum version compatible with observation\nwould be something like Feynman\'s "bugs on hot-plates" metaphor.\n\nA theory is invalid if it disagrees with the observations that confirm\ngeneral relativity to a good approximation in various scenarios. But\nit has no obligation to conform to some kind of \'spirit of general\nrelativity\'.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <1124211272.185048.47720@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.c om>,
spinnet20002000@yahoo.com says...
> Souvik wrote:
> > String Theory postdicts General Relativity. That is why people take it
> > seriously.
> The first sentence of my posting that started this topic says ' ideas
> must be sound both conceptually and details'. String may be able to
> reproduce the mathematical details of general relativity for example
> the Einsteins equations.
> But the problem is, like I wrote in my startup in email, it is in odds
> with the conceptual meaning of general relativity.
"The conceptual meaning of general relativity" means different things
to different people. The minimum version compatible with observation
would be something like Feynman's "bugs on hot-plates" metaphor.
A theory is invalid if it disagrees with the observations that confirm
general relativity to a good approximation in various scenarios. But
it has no obligation to conform to some kind of 'spirit of general
relativity'.
- Gerry Quinn
Crazy Moron
Aug21-05, 07:33 AM
So, what is it?
Math assumes non-dimensional points on a number line are separated.
But assumes the points have no distance between them.
If a point has 0 length on a number line and it is 0 distance from the point beside it, they are the same point. You cannot create a number line with points that have no length and no distance between them.
String theory assumes points have a length on a number line, or that the points are separated by a distance. A distance on a number line is 1 / divided by a number.
Points are only not separate from each other when their size and the distance between them is 1/infinity. Infinities don’t exist in math, so while math incorrectly assumes points with no size can sit directly next to each other with no distance between them, pure math doesn’t include infinity.
1/90,000,000,000,000,000, or however many zeroes you want to add is math, so the closest that math can get to dividing down to a zero distance and a zero-sized point on a number line is a very small distance and a very short point. In other words, a string.
That is what string theory is.
Given that concept for string theory, now it’s possible to answer a few other questions.
If points are small distances, then the distances can vary, which gives us a space that can stretch, warp, and curve. Now, using the concept of string theory, we can easily describe a continuum that can change shape, exactly like it is supposed to in Special Relativity.
Einstein began to think in 1936 that there cannot be a continuum, and by 1956 he had privately concluded a continuum is impossible and that all his ideas about gravity are invalid. That incorrect conclusion may be because he realized points cannot have no size and no distance between them, and create the continuum he needed.
-John Cauthen
Spinnet
Aug22-05, 04:14 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n> "The conceptual meaning of general relativity" means different things\n> to different people. The minimum version compatible with observation\n> would be something like Feynman\'s "bugs on hot-plates" metaphor.\n>\n> A theory is invalid if it disagrees with the observations that confirm\n> general relativity to a good approximation in various scenarios. But\n> it has no obligation to conform to some kind of \'spirit of general\n> relativity.\n\nThere is something called \'insight\' into how things works. If you are\ndoing stuff without it, you may be simply doing something really\nmeaningless.\n\n\nSuresh K Maran\n(universalwatch.blogspot.com)\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Gerry Quinn wrote:
> "The conceptual meaning of general relativity" means different things
> to different people. The minimum version compatible with observation
> would be something like Feynman's "bugs on hot-plates" metaphor.
>
> A theory is invalid if it disagrees with the observations that confirm
> general relativity to a good approximation in various scenarios. But
> it has no obligation to conform to some kind of 'spirit of general
> relativity.
There is something called 'insight' into how things works. If you are
doing stuff without it, you may be simply doing something really
meaningless.
Suresh K Maran
(universalwatch.blogspot.com)
Gerry Quinn
Aug23-05, 02:21 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <1124644758.196414.299900@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,\nspinnet20002000@yahoo.com says...\n> Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n> > "The conceptual meaning of general relativity" means different things\n> > to different people. The minimum version compatible with observation\n> > would be something like Feynman\'s "bugs on hot-plates" metaphor.\n\n> > A theory is invalid if it disagrees with the observations that confirm\n> > general relativity to a good approximation in various scenarios. But\n> > it has no obligation to conform to some kind of \'spirit of general\n> > relativity.\n\n> There is something called \'insight\' into how things works. If you are\n> doing stuff without it, you may be simply doing something really\n> meaningless.\n\nVery true. If you find some way to determine by philosophical means\nwhich theories are the most \'insightful\', you will have done much to\nspeed the future evolution of physics.\n\nUntil then, we will be forced to resort to traditional criteria, such\nas simplicity, logical consistency, and compatibility with observation.\nAnd it is by no means clear to everyone that a devout adherence to the\nspace-time conception of general relativity is optimal in this regard.\n\nSpecifically, one notes the inevitable appearance in general relativity\nof singularities such as the central singularity of a black hole.\nThere is also the question of the nature of time, a phenomenon which it\nseems to me must be linked to the thermodynamic arrow of time. If so,\nit\'s not at all clear to me how this is compatible with the space-times\nof exotic topology that arise in, for instance, the general\nrelativistic theory of black hole interiors.\n\nIs this \'insight\' on my part, or a symptom of its absence? I don\'t\nthink there is any a priori means of deciding which!\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <1124644758.196414.299900@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
spinnet20002000@yahoo.com says...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > "The conceptual meaning of general relativity" means different things
> > to different people. The minimum version compatible with observation
> > would be something like Feynman's "bugs on hot-plates" metaphor.
> > A theory is invalid if it disagrees with the observations that confirm
> > general relativity to a good approximation in various scenarios. But
> > it has no obligation to conform to some kind of 'spirit of general
> > relativity.
> There is something called 'insight' into how things works. If you are
> doing stuff without it, you may be simply doing something really
> meaningless.
Very true. If you find some way to determine by philosophical means
which theories are the most 'insightful', you will have done much to
speed the future evolution of physics.
Until then, we will be forced to resort to traditional criteria, such
as simplicity, logical consistency, and compatibility with observation.
And it is by no means clear to everyone that a devout adherence to the
space-time conception of general relativity is optimal in this regard.
Specifically, one notes the inevitable appearance in general relativity
of singularities such as the central singularity of a black hole.
There is also the question of the nature of time, a phenomenon which it
seems to me must be linked to the thermodynamic arrow of time. If so,
it's not at all clear to me how this is compatible with the space-times
of exotic topology that arise in, for instance, the general
relativistic theory of black hole interiors.
Is this 'insight' on my part, or a symptom of its absence? I don't
think there is any a priori means of deciding which!
- Gerry Quinn
markwh04@yahoo.com
Aug25-05, 03:46 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Souvik wrote:\n> String Theory [sic] postdicts General Relativity.\n\nThe standard party line is that something\'s got a spin 2 particle in\nit, therefore it "postdicts" gravity -- which is a fallacy. String\ntheory has nothing more do to with gravity, per se, that strong gravity\ndoes.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Souvik wrote:
> String Theory [sic] postdicts General Relativity.
The standard party line is that something's got a spin 2 particle in
it, therefore it "postdicts" gravity -- which is a fallacy. String
theory has nothing more do to with gravity, per se, that strong gravity
does.
markwh04@yahoo.com
Oct12-06, 04:02 AM
Souvik wrote:
> String Theory [sic] postdicts General Relativity.
The standard party line is that something's got a spin 2 particle in
it, therefore it "postdicts" gravity -- which is a fallacy. String
theory has nothing more do to with gravity, per se, that strong gravity
does.
markwh04@yahoo.com
Oct12-06, 04:02 AM
Souvik wrote:
> String Theory [sic] postdicts General Relativity.
The standard party line is that something's got a spin 2 particle in
it, therefore it "postdicts" gravity -- which is a fallacy. String
theory has nothing more do to with gravity, per se, that strong gravity
does.
markwh04@yahoo.com
Oct12-06, 04:02 AM
Souvik wrote:
> String Theory [sic] postdicts General Relativity.
The standard party line is that something's got a spin 2 particle in
it, therefore it "postdicts" gravity -- which is a fallacy. String
theory has nothing more do to with gravity, per se, that strong gravity
does.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.