Thanks Mentat. I will try to explain more about the basic logic behind my approach.
Originally posted by Mentat
So, you've already done what SMT and LQG (and many others) have been attempting for so long? Why haven't you won the Nobel Prize yet?
As I said: You will find out that there is not simpler description of reality then my approach. There is in fact only one postulate and no uncertainty, no magic gluing, no separation ... all is smooth and start from unity. Have you ever questioned what a 'field' is. What's a field? There is interaction that we can measure but what it's mechanism?
Maybe you know I am an inventor. So I want to build in reality. Inventing is having a fundamental 'conceptual idea', that's prime. Your goal (for example: a coke bottle with a flashing logo inside). Once you have your goal you try to find the elements, means and processes which might help to create the goal in reality. Inventing happens not by starting to measure a number of parameters. Measuring and mathematics are secondary ... but of course these are essential in the making. The question is then: Can my new concept be build, how and with what materials?
Building correctly is managing and controlling the interactions of the parameters.
Lets give an example: a Mercedes.
String theory and QM are describing the outside of a Mercedes, like stating:
the color is red,
it's weight is 1,500 kg,
4 wheels which rotate but also can change direction,
it's height is ... and the length is ...,
the maximum speed is ...,
the number of doors,
the tint of windows ...
but they are not understanding the 'real powering': the engine.
It's a secret and the answer might be on the level of: the wind, an animal inside, pedals, singing a song, a fly, a ghost Higgs boson ... or even God.
Now we can say ... hé that Mercedes was yesterday here on 5th Avenue and it's speed was 50 miles/hours and he was going downtown. We can write 5,000 books and publish papers on ArXiv about the trajectory the Mercedes follows. We can describe where he stopped, when he went left, even when he stopped at a gasoline stations, etc. But that doesn't it gives us information on the engineering system inside.
I like to build a Mercedes. The frame I can rebuild without problems but how is that Mercedes engined? What's the power source? And of course the power source must be causal connected with the rotating wheels. Interactions inside the power source must be logically connected with what we have observed of the outside frame, and confirm what we have measured about it's behavior.
So when we build we can not 'believe' in uncertainty in the concept! Uncertainty may be in the measuring but not in the concept.
Now some may say that the frame is separate from the engine but we know that is not correct. Also we can be trapped inside our approach of 'reality'. The Mercedes as a whole is the 3D-dimensions we "see" and "measure". But we know that the inside engine - as a whole - is also a separate 3D sub-dimension that we can not observe from the outside. But it's there. And it is 'connected' with the outside Mercedes frame. The engine itself has although also a number of 3D-sub dimensions, like the injection pump, the cooling system, the combustion chambers, etc. These engine sub dimensions are interconnected to make the engine. And the engine is powered by gasoline or another source that is stored in another place.
Going back to the cosmic engineering system. Where do we stand?
The Standard Model has given us a very sophisticated idea what building blocs might be used. A lot of what SM gave us is based on experiments. (ig. measuring the speed of Mercedes) and a number of parameters are just added by hand.
Quantum Mechanics says that there must be discrete packages (which is correct) but their behavior is uncertain (ig. some times the Mercedes doesn't move). Uncertainty is promoted to a conceptual property. This like saying: the injection pump works some moments and other moments it doesn't. We know however that if there is no more gasoline the engine will not work. So there is a causal reason. Uncertainty is just the proof that you don't understand what's happening.
String Theory uses vibrational strings which are not connected to each other. There is not concept behind. It claims unification but uses separating concepts. We know that in 'reality' gravity is something that connects everything with everything and string theory come up now with gravitons as closed strings which are going of the brane, thus separating from the rest! Very magic. It's contra-unification. I assure you that a Mercedes with an engine not coupled to the gasoline tank will not move, or a engine not geared/connected with the wheels, or an injection pump not connected with the rest of the engine.
So what's the alternative? Try to make a cosmological concept in which all parameters are logically connected. So the essence is the mechanism of the connection. By pure logic I deducted that such a connection mechanism is a mechanical manifold._ At the start you have an unbreakable membrane that can infold and the sub-divisions are hold by a type of 'Pressure valves'. When the membrane penetrate itself = it creates an extra layering. (adding a dimension).
That's 100% logic (within the only postulate: unbreakable very stretchable membrane).
More layers give: accumulation of density (leading to Matter). AS LONG as the manifold holds (pressure valve) as long the coupling of two layers exists, and the discrete zone exists. Layers are locally coupled. Consequence: these local layers will interact with each other and so the discrete package will have a unique vibration-motion in the system (resonance).
Now about consciousness. When you are inside your Mercedes (like we are in our body) you will react on the traffic situation (slow down your speed, turn right, etc.). That is the out-side information. But there is more! Without even understanding how the engine works you can get information about his functioning because you have on your dashboard a speedometer, you can read the oil-pressure and temperature, read how much gasoline is left, etc. So you have inside your Mercedes a number of information systems providing data by wired or wireless connections with the hidden sides of the car. That is the in-side information. Since they all are made by spacetime there is a constant interference of those layers upon each other.
First off, to add that the layer is unbreakable is against Occam's Razor, since it's a postulate that the String theorists have not taken for granted.
Why should I look to what Witten, Greene, etc. say? They confirm that they have no real idea about what String Theory 'IS'!
Secondly, can you really speak of the "fabric" of spacetime so literally? I thought it was an analogy to give a "mental picture" of how the dynamics of spacetime really work.
Why not? If it gives a logic framework that explains everything. How much postulates the 'normal' theories have ... and do they provide a consistent answer?
But to deny the basic postulate of Relativity (that spacetime doesn't really exist, apart from frames of reference) would be a big mistake, wouldn't it? After all, there's lots of experimental and theoretical evidence that GR is correct.
Why would it be a big mistake? Maybe the real power of GR was not understood by Einstein himself. Why was he searching for years and years for unification? Indeed lots of experimental and theoretical evidence shows that GR is correct. Yes, but my approach confirms that too. You can interpret GR in the way I do.
I meant in the theory of Relativity. In Relativity, mass is not a collection of layers of spacetime. It may be that it really is, but you spoke as though you were taking the next step beyond GR, when in fact you are denying it and replacing it with a somewhat similar theory.
I believe I just add the new way to use GR. What I add is a general mechanism by which restructured spacetime creates both (1) large galactic (hyper)spaces, and (2) particles.
As an example: let's say that a 'green' galaxy is created by two hyperspaces (a yellow and a blue). On the two brane sides of yellow hyperspace and on the two brane sides of blue hyperspace we get NEW local spacetime restructurings which we can call - as a distant observer - the family of 'green' particles.
Because, how can you explain what causes the spacetime to "ripple" or "restructure" if there is nothing but spacetime there to interact with? IOW, how can you explain the very first ripple in spacetime, if there was no mass to cause that ripple?
There is a universal movement in the basic spacetime brane. I have no idea how to explain that for the moment. But what we see as reality shows that there is movement. Vacuum can play a role here, but everything happens on the brane.
Not really "glue", but more of a revelation that all the different string theories were really just different ways at looking at the same, grander, theory.
Revelation is a strange word. ;-). So what's that grander theory in your opinion?
I have put two extra pages on https://www.physicsforums.com/showth...90438#post90438 . There you will find more critics on lack of a concept in String theory. My aim however is not to give critics but to provide an alternative.
)
