Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Experimental Evidence for M-Theory

  1. Jun 8, 2010 #1
    I am A Ph.D em Chemistry and not so good in High Mathematics than most of you. Therefore forgive me if, if my idea is a little bit naive.

    Superparticles as an evidence are dificult to create, because of hughe energy ammounts necessary for it.

    But I was told that our STRINGS are much, much smaller than an ordinary subatomic particle, for example an electron or a positron. Being so, caused by the combination either of strings with the "wrong" vibration pattern or "right" strings in a "wrong" ratio, you should find within a particle-accelerater/collider deficient particles with deficient electricle charge, the charge values of which should be smaller than the elementary charge +Eo or -Eo.

    Probably, if they really exist, already have been found, but rejected as experimental garbage, as the do not make any sense in ordinary Quantum Theory.

    Yours truely:

    Toivo
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 8, 2010 #2
    To continue:

    Gamma-Vacuum Interaction as Evidence for M-Theory

    Gentlemen;

    I see a secound alternative to prove the validity of M-Theory without Superparticles and without vanishing Gravitons.

    According to M-Theory the empty space (Vacuum) must be full of STRINGS.
    If STRINGS vibrate, they have energy.
    If they have, they can either emit or absorve energy.

    A.)
    * Produce Gamma Radiation of very high energy, the wave-lengtht of which is in the order of magnitude of the hypothetic STRING size.
    * Radiation must be mono-chromatic.
    * Pass the radiation through some distance through Vacuum. Here the masters of mathematics are called to calculate a minimum distance for the Gamma-Quantums to have a detectable probability to hit into the “bull’s-eye” of a single STRING and to interact with it.
    * Make a spectroscopic analisis afterwards. More tha 90 % of the radiation will maintain its original wave-lengtht. But if M-THEORY IS TRUE, a small amount will have a shorter wave-lengtht, because it absorved some energy from the hit STRING. Another small amount will have a larger wave-lengtht, because it lost to it some energy.

    DIFICULTIES:
    It is hard to produce Gamma-Raditation of such a short wave-lengtht, must be even harder to obtain it mono-chromatic and to make a spectroscopic analisis of it.

    RISK:
    We do not know, if such an energy exchange between a STRING and a Gamma-Quantum is an allowed or forbidden Quantum Transfer.

    B.) Maybe we already have got evidence for or against M-Theory without knowing about it.
    As you all know Gamma—Radiation-Quantums of less energy than in A.) but with more energy than twice the resting-mass of an electron in the vacuum spontaneously transform into a pair of electron and positron (electron’s anti-particle).
    According to Dirac’s Hole-Theory the Vacuum is an ocean of electrons in a negative energy state. If hit by Gamma-Quantums they are liberated as electrons with positive energy. There remains in the ocean a “hole” with positive energy and electric charge:
    That’s the positron.

    Dirac’s theory is one of the crazyist of Quantum Mechanics. But according to M-Theory, things might be different: the Gamma-Quantum hit a single STRING or a group of them (as they are big enough because of their wave-lengtht). This collision might be responsable for the transformation.

    * Produce mono-chromatic Gamma Radiation.
    * Determine with high precision its wave-lengtht.
    * Irradiate Vaccum.
    * Collect the pairs of electrons and positrons produced and determine their total energy with high precision.

    If M-THEOTY IS VALID, you’ll NEVER find pairs os electrons and positrons the total energy of which maintain exactly the energy of the original Gamma-Quantum. Total energy either will be slightly lower or slightly higher.
    Why ? In Physics there cannot be interaction without energy exchange.: either energy is absorved from or lost to the STRING.

    But if you find additionally to pairs with slightly different total energy (also Dirac’s Theory permits them) signifficant amounts of electron-positron pairs which exactly maintain the original Gamma-Quantum energy, due to originally “negative” electrons hit in their Ground (basic) quantum state: FORGET M-THEORY, because STRINGS do not exist !

    The only way, how hit strings might produce pairs that maintain the original energy is that one of two emits, the other absorves exacly the same energy amount. Not impossible but rather improbable !

    What do you think, folks ?

    Yours truely:

    Toivo
     
  4. Jun 9, 2010 #3

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think that they have been acounted as QCD strings. It is very suspicius that the number of mesons with spin cero and charge -1 is equal to the number of charged -1 leptonic states, six, and same with the neutral mesons.
     
  5. Jun 9, 2010 #4
    What I think : I started to read, and I do not wish to comment every single sentence. I'll pick one
    Where did you get that from ? Could not two particles scatter off each other without producing any new particle or resonate, merely changing the directions in which they fly by while keeping the same energy ? Would not it be neat to call it "elastic scattering" ?
     
  6. Jun 10, 2010 #5
    Thank you, friend:

    This is a special case of elastic scattering: due to the law of conservation of impulse, it may occure, when to bodies of EQUAL mass and CONTRARY impulse, but of same numeric value collide. You may interprete this case as simultaneous exchange of equal ammounts of cinetic energy, so everything remains to the same afterwards. In every other cases one body lose some cinetic energy and the other wins, because this is the only way not to violate the principle of conservation of impulse.

    Indeed, the PERFECT elastic scattering, especially in subatomic particles, does not exist.
    A collision always is somehow PLASTIC instead of ELASTIC, so that practically always some cinetic energy after a collision is transformed into inner energy of at least one of the two bodies.

    Greetings: Toivo
     
  7. Jun 10, 2010 #6
    Smaller in mass? I was under the impression that a subatomic particle had no physical dimensions..

    If you refer to 'interaction' as the exchange of information from one particle to another, this statement is correct.

    I don't understand what you mean by this.. I am familiar with the Dirac Hole Theory but I don't see how you are relating it to M Theory. Could you maybe explain further?
     
  8. Jun 10, 2010 #7
    Elastic scattering occurs in laboratory experiments, it is so well known that we use it to calibrate our detectors usually, and it needs not equal masses.

    When you say "it occurs only when particles have contrary impulse" do you realize that you are claiming it may or may not occur depending on the referential ? Elastic scattering does occur and can be measured in any referential.

    How do you expect to discuss M-theory with virtually no knowledge of basic physics ?
     
  9. Jun 10, 2010 #8
    I don't understand what you mean by this.. I am familiar with the Dirac Hole Theory but I don't see how you are relating it to M Theory. Could you maybe explain further?[/QUOTE]

    Thank you, friend:

    Dirac's Theory: I do do not like it for the following reason:
    Either you see vacuum as an "ocean" of electrons in a negative egergy state. If "shot down" by a Gamma Quantum, an electron is set free from the "ocean", now being in a positive energy state. Their remains within the "ocean" a "hole" of positive energy and positve electric charge, wich is interpretated as our positron.
    Or, alternatively, you may see vacuum as an "ocean" of positrons in a state of negative energy. If "shot down" by a Gamma Quantum, it gets also positive, is set free, whereas in the "ocean remains a "hole" of positive energy but negative electrical charge, which is interpretated as electron. Dirac clearly said that both points of view are valid.

    But how vacuum can be an "ocean" of matter and anti-matter at the same time ?
    Or if it were a mixture of both, even in a negative energy state, why don't they anniquilate ?

    I suggested to substitute Dirac's theory by the idea that a STRING or a group of them is hit by the Gamma Quantum. PLASTIC SCATTERING takes place and causes the transformation of Gamma energy into particles of matter and anti-matter.

    Did I explain my idea better now ?

    Greetings:

    Toivo
     
  10. Jun 10, 2010 #9
    Dear friend:

    1st.) Only in the case of reflection energies of the bodies before and after are maintained, talking about elastic scattering. In other cases there is interchange of cinetic energy.

    2nd) I never talked, in my original post, about elastic scattering. When you throw a glass bottle against a wall and break it, that's PLASTIC scattering. in order not to violate the impulse conservation law, in plastic scattering THERE MUST BE energy transfer.

    If a single Gamma Quantum becomes two particles, one of matter the other of anti-matter,
    in the hypothesis that this is caused by a shock against one STRING or a group of them, we clearly are talking about PLASTIC scattering.

    Everything now clearer ?

    Greetings:

    Toivo
     
  11. Jun 10, 2010 #10
    Yes you did, however your theory faces the same problem as Dirac's: A sea of Strings would correspond to an infinite energy density, which might not go over so well for most physicists :P
     
  12. Jun 10, 2010 #11
    I believe in M Theory, energy itself is a string of course, and these strings can undergo processes of such concepts as splitting in 2. I believe it's called the Quantum Frenzy, and so there is no need for a sea of strings/particles to begin with, the Quantum undergoes such processes.
     
  13. Jun 10, 2010 #12
    If a single gamma decays into a pair, this gamma must be virtual, therefore you have not defined you initial state yet. So it is hard to call it either way, elastic or inelastic.

    Let us take your favorite example, because it seems you do not have many (you did not call it elastic scattering because you did not know the name I suspect). Electron-positron goes to electron-positron, the lab is the center-of-mass, so indeed we have equal masses and opposite momenta. Well, you should immediately realize that this is elastic scattering : there is no net transfer of energy to either the electron or the positron, only the angles of the trajectories have been changed. If you do not understand why this is so, it only means that you do not understand what conservation of energy-momentum is, and I am back to the conclusion I needed not clarify : you are unfamiliar with the basics of physics yet you want to discuss M-theory...
     
  14. Jun 10, 2010 #13
    I guess I am not being very fair in my comments, so I will spend a few more minutes to elaborate. The sentence
    is rather essential in your presentation.

    If you recall elastic scattering from elementary mechanics to particle physics is merely billiard game : there is no modification of the internal structure of the colliding balls, all energy is used for motion. That means only kinematics, no dynamics (interactions term in a lagrangian, or forces given by an acceleration).

    But that is one of the most essential basic points of string theory : once the free propagating string has been specified, there is no further room to play around and in particular no need to add interactions. They are already in the kinematics. String splitting and merging, which we calculate from free propagation (remember Ward ?), generate all dynamics.

    There are ways to change particles into one another in string theory, indeed by transferring energy to the string as internal vibration modes, but again that is also dictated by kinematics, no new interaction term except what Feynman generates.

    So essential to your rebuttal is a claim (your quote I used first) that string theory cannot reproduce elastic scattering, but one of the most fundamental appeal of string theory is precisely that all dynamics (inelastic scattering) is derived from kinematics (elastic scattering).
     
  15. Jun 11, 2010 #14
    Friend:

    My idea is quite simple:

    Like a glass bottle breaks into fragments, when you smash it against a wall, in PLASTIC SCATTERING, the Gamma energy, in the vacuum breaks into two fragments by PLASTIC SCATTERING, when smashed against a STRING or a group of it (I beg your pardon for my doubt/ignorance in this detail; its up to you masters of maths and M-Theory to help me in this point), and transformed into either an electron or a positron, according to my hyopthesis.

    My hypothesis was not created to be a point of eternal discussion, but a suggestion to make an experiment to get easily an evidence. If my experiment fails, you still may argue in order to "save" M-Theory.

    To perform my experiment may be complicated, but the basic idea is very simple:
    If we observe either a loss or a win of energy after and not its maintainance, we have evidence for PLASTIC SCATTERING of our Gamma Quantum against something invisible, which causes its transformation into a matter and anti-matter particle.

    If my experiments works: hurray !!! M-Theory is proven. That's all !

    Greetings: Toivo
     
  16. Jun 11, 2010 #15
    Dear Friend:

    Dont't waist time in an eternal discussion about elestic scattering !
    I distinguish between true and non-true interaction. Elastic scattering, with or without impulse/energy transfer, for me, is a non-true interaction.

    Why ? Toivo, are you silly ? No !
    Elastic scattering is like a girl and a boy, who meet and go away each in a differnt direction,
    WITHOUT HAVING HAPPENED ANYTHING ! Therfore a non-true interaction.

    But if they meet, kiss and ****, in Physics we call it plastic scattering, THAT'S TRUE INTERACTION. Clearly there is an energy interchange.

    My joke with a boy and a girl let things easier to understand ?

    Greetings: Toivo
     
  17. Jun 11, 2010 #16

    Fra

    User Avatar

    Definitely.

    /Fredrik
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook