Nature of Time and particles-caustics

[alexsok]

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

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”)

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.

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 :)

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?

 

[notwithstanding]

What would the point be of delving into this field? Not one intelligent researcher would believe it if it hit them in the face and burped afterwards. Far too much is based in what based has always been.

 

[alexsok]

Originally posted by notwithstanding
What would the point be of delving into this field? Not one intelligent researcher would believe it if it hit them in the face and burped afterwards. Far too much is based in what based has always been.

You know what, despite what some people would say, this is PRECISELY the issue at hand here! Allow me to provide a living example. NASA's latest probe to Mars, Spirit, has lifted the curtain a bit, and cushioned itself of the imprecations from the not too fruitful future, but the clock is ticking, and chances abreast it! It wouldn't surprise me one bit, if the entire mission turns out to be a big chit-chat, and no traces of life whatsoever come floating over the air. The reason is extremely explicable: we might not "operate" according to the right mechanism we should if we're to delineate any life on Mars! We all are unimaginably accustomed to the life conditions on Earth, and thus, function according to common axioms and postulates, familiar to us! Perhaps life on Mars are manuevered by entirely different mechanics, unknown to us, and we all excogorate and persist in keeping our faith at something we do not comprehend at all!

We are "Earth-centric" mate, and the scenario at hand here, is no different in this regard! Yet again, you present me with common beliefs and opinions, but whose problem is that then? can you say that we're ignorant and exceedingly nascient? Sure you can! Delving into this matter is worthwhile, and unless the tentative answers we're provisioned with are copasetic to your soul and spirit, we ought to aspire for the ultimate question: where did the physical laws come from? In case a complementary solution to this problem is not procured over the next centuries, all we'd be left with is a mere "description" of the world we're living in, obviously, a few notches up from the prior, but nearly identical, elucidation. Just my 2 cents.

 

[notwithstanding]

Two cents well taken and well spoken.

It is not surprising that the greatest achievements have been met with
the lamest excuses for derision by the smallest of minds.

Be that as it may, and it is, and shall be: it should not pretend to
restrict intellect from exercise. It only serves to restrict the exercise
from becoming worthwhile to mankind.

At least we have the Internet now so those who should not speak, lest
their lunacy be identified, are permitted to not only speak but shout in
no less ridicule of thought than the beast portrayed at the first sign
of fire.

But it can be frustrating.

 

[alexsok]

Originally posted by notwithstanding
Two cents well taken and well spoken.

It is not surprising that the greatest achievements have been met with
the lamest excuses for derision by the smallest of minds.

Be that as it may, and it is, and shall be: it should not pretend to
restrict intellect from exercise. It only serves to restrict the exercise
from becoming worthwhile to mankind.

At least we have the Internet now so those who should not speak, lest
their lunacy be identified, are permitted to not only speak but shout in
no less ridicule of thought than the beast portrayed at the first sign
of fire.

But it can be frustrating.

I consent with your point of view m8, don't get me wrong: we have to contemplate what we are already acquainted with, and there is no doubt that science advances with seven-league, but lots of things remain to be resolved, and my sole intent with the previous reply was to shed some light on the issue, and perchance, inculcate you with the prospects of the idea! :)

Your sagaciousness is appreciated mate, thank you! :)

 

[cajones]

Notwithstanding,

What then would science have a use for in the future?