I don't undersrtand quantum mechanics and string theory

[Drake711]

hello,
I find both quantum mechanics and string theory to be a bit iffy. Mabey it's just because I don't understand it but I think the best way to understand the iffy stuff is to post it on here. Mentors might see this as a debate or going against mainstream physics but how are you able to make new discoveries without thinking of new ideas? Mabey I'll make that my signature.

1) D-0 branes don't exist yet they have infinite mass and energy.

2) strings also are 1 dimensional which means they don't exist relative to a 3 dimensional observer yet they hold energy and mass as well.

3) These 1 dimensional strings yet a mathematical impossibility can stretch without breaking.

4) In quantum mechanics it states that something may or may not exist until you look at it but aren't we indirectly observing everything in our "light cone" for example standing on a tight rope the tight rope "may or may not exist behind us until we look at it" but it does exist because if it didn't then it wouldn't be quantum mechanics anymore it would just be classical mechanics, haha get it!

P.S. I won't be able to respond for a while because I'm going somewhere but hopefully in the mean time someone will be able to shed som light on these contradictions.

 

[mfb]

New discoveries need new ideas, but they need even more knowledge in the field.
Random collections of physical concepts (dimensions, mass, strings, ...) in a new order are not new ideas, and do not help.

 

[Drake711]

maybey I wasn't clear I'm not making new ideas in this thread, I'm simply asking why do scientists create these seemingly impossible ideas into theories. And I do have knowledge on the subject @mfb for example argument number 4, the double slit experiment supports this idea but there are other explanations than the act of observing makes things happen differently. One explanation is the way we measure a particle influences it to act differently and my tightrope example is plausible it follows the same princible as Schrödinger's cat.

 

[Drake711]

All I'm asking people to do is to take my arguments and disprove them escpecially argument number 3.

 

[mfb]

I'm simply asking why do scientists create these seemingly impossible ideas into theories

There are no impossible ideas. Just ideas which can appear counterintuitive.

And I do have knowledge on the subject @mfb for example argument number 4

Ok, let's look at 4:

In quantum mechanics it states that something may or may not exist until you look at it[/quotee]
No. Some interpretations of QM state that a system does not have to be in a specific state until you look at it, but the system does not magically vanish.

but aren't we indirectly observing everything in our "light cone"

Not in a significant way.

for example standing on a tight rope the tight rope "may or may not exist behind us until we look at it"

What do you mean here? Classical examples for QM are usually very problematic.

All I'm asking people to do is to take my arguments and disprove them escpecially argument number 3.

I don't see any arguments to disprove. In particular, no arguments based on QM or string theory.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...

EDIT -- thread will remain closed. We do not allow this type of non-mainstream speculation here on the PF.

Mentors might see this as a debate or going against mainstream physics but how are you able to make new discoveries without thinking of new ideas?