This paper is dated to the 23rd of December, and seems to be a nice idea...

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0312278

One question though: the author apprises that string theory is another endeavor to elucidate nature, but not to comprehend the involutions entrenched deep within it's bowels, notwithstanding exotic attemps such as LQG (Loop Quantum Gravity) that managed quite literally to infer space-time as based on a rigorious mathematical structure (spin-networks - which if spread across, form a spin-foam, if i'm not mistaken) that sort of "weaves" the space-time, and surmises it resembles whorles and loops at the Planck scale ), can it claim to take the title of "understanding nature"?

Shouldn't the author mention, while he's at it, that finding a non-perturbative regime of string theory, would go a long way towards proving it's consistency, and perhaps, in the far future, provide compelling answers to these orthic questions?

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0312278

Theoretical physics has arrived to the crucial point at which it should fully reexamine the sense and the interrelations of the three fundamental entities: fields, particles and space-time geometry. String theory offers a way to derive the low-energy phenomenology from the unique physics at Plankian scale. However, it doesn’t claim to find the origin of physical laws, the Code of Universe and is in fact nothing but one more attempt to describe Nature (in a possibly the most effective way) but not at all to understand it.

In the interim, twistor structure arises quite naturally in the so called algebrodynamics of physical fields which has been developed in our works. From general viewpoint, the paradigm of algebrodynamics can be thought of as a revive of Pithagorean or Platonean ideas about “Numbers governing physical laws”. As the only (!) postulate of algebrodynamics one admits the existence of a certain unique and exeptional structure, of purely abstract (algebraic) nature, the internal properties of which completely determine both the geometry of physical space-time and the dynamics of physical fields (the latters being also algebraic in nature)

In result, physical picture of theWorld which arises as a consequence of one only algebraic structure appears as very beatiful and unexpected. As its basic elements it contains the primodial light flow – “pre-Light” – and the relativistic aether formed by the latter, multivalued physical fields and prelightborn matter (consisting of particles-caustics formed by the superposition of individual branches of the unique pre-light congruence in the points of their “focusization”)

Sort of deals with the ultimate question: where did the physical laws come from? No religious discussions here guys, let's rely on a firm fact basis :)As very natural and deep seems to be the arising in theory connection between the existence of universal velocity (velocity of “light”) and of the time flow; connection which permits to understand, in a sense, the origin of the Time itself. Time is nothing but the primodial Light; these two entities are undividible. On the other hand, there is nothing in the World except the preLight Flow which gives rise to all the “dense” Matter in the Universe.

One question though: the author apprises that string theory is another endeavor to elucidate nature, but not to comprehend the involutions entrenched deep within it's bowels, notwithstanding exotic attemps such as LQG (Loop Quantum Gravity) that managed quite literally to infer space-time as based on a rigorious mathematical structure (spin-networks - which if spread across, form a spin-foam, if i'm not mistaken) that sort of "weaves" the space-time, and surmises it resembles whorles and loops at the Planck scale ), can it claim to take the title of "understanding nature"?

Shouldn't the author mention, while he's at it, that finding a non-perturbative regime of string theory, would go a long way towards proving it's consistency, and perhaps, in the far future, provide compelling answers to these orthic questions?

Last edited: