1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Strings and vacuum

  1. Apr 2, 2004 #1
    I have rebuilt my webpage with the aim of showing where vacuum stands in relation to string theory. This is a rough draught, but I hope, contains sufficient arguement to get a debate going. Please note that I use real mass figures for fundamental particles demonstrating that the system can be linked to reality. My case is that the incorporation of a single fundamental force (vacuum) into string theory would give it a connection with reality and thereby turn string theory philosophy into string theory science.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 3, 2004 #2

    Surely you should not show a rough draft?..unless this is a plea for help?

    Are you telling us that your theory is incomplete and need some genius to complete it for you? (without giving any credit or reference of course?).

    You should most definately read some pre-print published papers by Laughlin, and give reference to other 'real' scientists workings. Of course the proximity to April 1st would be more relevent to your site if one continues to insist that this is your stand-alone theory?
  4. Apr 3, 2004 #3
    ?""Surely you should not show a rough draft?..unless this is a plea for help

    The peice on partilcle structure is complete. No publication of string theory is complete and according to Greene, completion might take 100 years, are you saying they should not publish incomplete work?

    "Are you telling us that your theory is incomplete and need some genius to complete it for you? (without giving any credit or reference of course?)."

    No I am saying that string theory could be completed much quicker if its proponents adopted a different approach to reality.

    "You should most definately read some pre-print published papers by Laughlin, and give reference to other 'real' scientists workings. Of course the proximity to April 1st would be more relevent to your site if one continues to insist that this is your stand-alone theory?"

    Who has written anything on the internal structure of particles? String theory is not science it is admitted by its constructors, to be a mathematical theory based on a philosophy. It will become a science subject only when connected to reality.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 3, 2004
  5. Apr 5, 2004 #4
    Is it the vacuum a fifth fundamental force?
  6. Apr 6, 2004 #5
    Greetings Michael, good to hear from you again.

    I am proposing that vacuum is the only force, the other so-called forces arise from changes in particle (force carriers in QT) density.

    In reality particles do not carry force but, as in relativity, they distort space according to their density, and the density of the particle field being distorted.
    So just as mass (fundamental particles) distorts gravity (gravitons), so also do they (fundamental particles) 'distort' each other giving rise to a different force effect for each particle; but in all cases the cause of the effect is the vacuum created by changes in density and volume.

    The table on my webpage shows that 'density divided by volume equals a constant' (disregard the error in the graviton figures). I have recently found a rough relationship between force and density and have placed the logarithmic graph on the bottom of my webpage. Hopefully I will be able to find more precise figures for force than those given by Greene.

    Then (after correcting graviton error) I should be able to show the construction that (according to Greene on page 172 of "The elegant universe") the Standard Model is unable to show and that String Theory cannot relate to either experiment or observation.

    May I stress for the benefit of those just joining the debate that I am not challenging the mathematics of either theory, but I am challenging the manner in which the meaning of the numbers is interpreted. It is the failure in interpretation that prevents either of the mathematical prediction theories from becomming a complete scientific theory.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 6, 2004
  7. Apr 6, 2004 #6

    It is possible to find a constant so that 'Force divided by mass equals constant' holds good to plus or minus 2% for 5 of the seven fundamental particles, exceptions are electron and top quark. Given that the mass figures for quarks are averages, this is not a bad margin of error.

    ............ force........ mass................force/mass
    e........... 5E+42......0.000510999........9.78476E+45
    u........... 2.62E+43 ..0.003.................8.73333E+45
    d........... 5.89E+43..0.00675 .............8.72593E+45
    s........... 1.01E+45..0.1175...............8.59574E+45
    c........... 1.07E+46 ..1.2...................8.91667E+45
    b........... 3.8E+46...4.2....................8.94118E+45
    t........... 1.05E+48...174.3...............6.0241E+45
    Force is in multiples of the gravitational force.
    Mass is in GeV.

    I shall now try and improve on this by looking for errors.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 6, 2004
  8. Apr 16, 2004 #7
    Greetings ELAS , good to hear from you again too.
    I apologize for a delay of the answer. It is connected to problems of my computer.
    My old computer has failed, so I have been compelled to buy a new one.
    Now to your thread.
    I do not accept a concept " the vacuum". There is no point in the space where there is no gravitation or light.
  9. Apr 16, 2004 #8

    I do not accept a concept " the vacuum". There is no point in the space where there is no gravitation or light.

    In a way you are right. As Newton pointed out 400 years ago the Zero Point has no dimensions, therefore it does not exist; but the force of nothing (vacuum) does not require space and can therefore be stored in a dimensionless point. So I would say that all points in space that have dimensions, also have a quantity of force carrier and are therefore part of a particle, usually but not always a graviton or photon. They are simply the most common by far; but some points will be within electrons and quarks.

    I have almost completed my explanation for the cause of wave structure in atoms and will be adding it to my webpage within a week.

    My computer originated in 1992 so I know a bit about ancient computer problems!.
  10. Apr 21, 2004 #9
    Vacuum is made of infinite number of so called "virtual photons." But because of vacuum fluctuation, electron-positron pairs are constantly created and disappear again in a very, very, very brief interval of time. The virtual photons are formed from loops of string as quanta of energy.

    If only these loops can be broken then the electron-positron pairs can become real. Breaking a loop of string is the same thing as saying breaking the symmetry from a scalar to a vector with its unique directional property. Or the same thing saying changing the scalar Higgs field into a vector field. That is to say the creation of a force from no-force.
  11. Apr 22, 2004 #10
    Antonio Lao

    Vacuum is made of infinite number of so called "virtual photons." But because of vacuum fluctuation,

    This begs the question - 'what is a virtual photon?' and likewise in the next paragraph - 'what is a string?'

    You also leave open the formation of all but one of the fundamental paticles.

    Greene defines strings as follows-
    “What are strings made of?”
    “There are two possible answers to this question. First, strings are truly fundamental…… As the absolute smallest constituents of anything and everything, they represent the end of the line…….. From this perspective, even though strings have spatial content, the question of their composition is without content.”
    “Sentences are made of words, words are made of letters. What makes up a letter? From a linguistic standpoint, that’s the end of the line.” Questioning their composition has no meaning. Similarly, a string is simply a string-as there is nothing more fundamental, it can’t be described as being composed of any other substance".

    I am at present revising my section on waves in which I point out the similarity between strings and natural particle waves (both open and closed). This will be added to my web page soon. I am not prepared to accept Greene's explanation simply because he, like all standard model supporters, is prepared to accept that some things are beyond explanation; I am not prepared to accept that is so.

    Photons and leptons are different classes of particles with their own particular behaviour, you do not explain how one converts to the other. I show how gravitons convert to others.

    You do not explain how vacuum forms into virtual photons, I do explain how vacuum forms into gravitons.

    This difference between explanations is the crux of my arguement in that my version fills in the detail. I look forward to your reply, please keep the debate going.
  12. Apr 22, 2004 #11
    I define string as the density of square energy per unit length. The oscillation, vibration, and rotation of this energy density string create density of energy per unit area and density of energy per unit volume.

    The area density of energy creates fields and waves and in turn the area density creates volume density and volume density creates matter as we know it.
  13. Apr 22, 2004 #12
    Your definition while more detailed than Greene's still does not explain how strings originated or what caused original movement. Like Greene you seem to imply that one can start at a point other than absolute nothing.
    It is this failure to start from a believable beginning that I find difficult to accept. The second paragraph is not so different from my model although you put things in a different order; at the end it seems we are agreed on what a particle is, but we dissagree on how it comes into existance and on what is mass.
    I note also that vacuum plays no part in your last reply has it dropped out of the equation?
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2004
  14. Apr 22, 2004 #13
    String originated from the existence of two fundamental forces. They are the electric force and the magnetic force within vacuum (this is where the divergence of electric field and magnetic field are both equal zero), and where the concept of electric charge is defined geometrically in term of the local spacetime structure as two distinct doubly twisted Moebius strips. The principle of directional invariance fixed the movement at this local infinitesimal region of space hence the conservation for a Local Infinitesimal Motion (LIM). The LIM is the square of energy. I called the square of energy as the true quantum. In vector notation the square of energy is given by:

    [tex] E^2 = r_E \times F_E \cdot r_B \times F_B [/tex]

    The product of these two spacetime strips (when written as a matrix) give mass.
  15. Apr 22, 2004 #14
    What makes up a letter: in unified terms this can go in a positive and negative way.


    Positive: Letters are made up by ink.
    In the world of letters the ink is the hidden structure, which stay unnoticed.
    Ink is the essence of everything, the unifying structure.
    Letters are all different because the ink is reshaped (restructured) in a specific way.

    Negative: Letters are a restructuring (geometry) of a background. Think here how a finger can shape letters in the sand. These letters are virtual, they don't exist on their own.

    IMO - in both cases - attraction/repulse (gravity) of a background membrane is the interconnecting structure. This is like a flat paper that can be bend in various shapes (origami). Various birds made in origami will be call the "family of birds", but there essence is: flat paper.
    Compare this flat paper with the spacetime layer. The cosmic Origami (our universe with dimensions) is bended spacetime having various sub-layers.

    You can also look to envelopes (also made of paper).
    Quote from http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/dualboard/messages12/602.html [Broken]
    "What is an envelope?".
    Dictionary.com gave:
    - A flat paper container, especially for a letter, usually having a gummed
    - Something that envelops; a wrapping.
    - Biology. An enclosing structure or cover, such as a membrane or the
    outer coat of a virus.
    - The bag containing the gas in a balloon or airship.
    - The set of limitations within which a technological system, especially
    an aircraft, can perform safely and effectively.
    - The coma of a comet.
    - Mathematics. A curve or surface that is tangent to every one of a
    family of curves or surfaces.

    I limit myself to the physical envelope: a 'flat' paper (brane?) being
    bended in such way that it becomes a container for a letter. The letter -
    another 'flat' paper - contains the written words/numbers. But aren't
    words/numbers/symbols also containers with unique historical
    signification? But the envelope is not the letter. (Like the map is not the
    The envelope is covered at the outside with the name and address of a
    addressee and the identification of the sender.
    My conclusion: the total 'letter' (envelope + letter + enclosed photo + ...
    ) is a totality of various types of containers and sub-containers, each
    with a unique and different magnitude, structure and organization ...
    and historical integrity.

    An other remarks on origami:
    "A corporation uses internal memo's: paper-sheets and envelops. Many
    paper-sheets are in packages: not yet used. Potential. Information will
    be printed on when the 'time' is there. That moment ink will be coupled
    with a paper sheet.
    Similarly : electronic information is packaged.
    But we can understand that even in the inter-spacial Corporation
    "Origami Unlimited" employees just communicate with bended paper."

    http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/dualboard/messages13/787.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  16. Apr 22, 2004 #15

    The two distinct Moebius strips of spacetime can be the positive (foreground) and negative (background) similar to your theory. But these can also give spacetime structures for positive and negative electricity and also theorize the existence of potential mass (mass of rest) and kinetic mass (mass of motion).

    The photon mass is zero because of its potential mass being almost equal its kinetic mass. For the W's and Z's bosons, their kinetic mass is larger than their potential mass. We can assert that bosons have more kinetic mass than potential mass and fermions have more potential mass than kinetic mass.

    Further we can assert that potential mass is related to the electric force of the vacuum and the kinetic mass is related to magnetic force of the vacuum. And the difference of the absolute value between potential mass and kinetic mass is the gravitational mass.
  17. Apr 23, 2004 #16
    Antonio Lao

    String originated from the existence of two fundamental forces. They are the electric force and the magnetic force within vacuum


    What makes up a letter: in unified terms this can go in a positive and negative way.

    Antonio is starting with three forces and pelestration is sticking with metaphors. Out of these only one is defined as science, namely vacuum; all the others are philosophical. My proposal avoids the need for metaphors and deals solely in the science of vacuum. The terms 'electric' and 'magnetic' originated from the need to give names to undefined (but mathematically predictable) forces
    I show that these are caused by the effect that vacuum has on density and do so by showing the relationship between force and force carrying particles; therefore the use of new names was unnecessary.

    I have added a section on the origin of waves to my website that shows how vacuum fields with different densities of force carrier, interact to create a radial vacuum wave and a concentric force carrier wave. I shall continue to expand this section in future, along the lines used in my previous webpage in which I showed the relationship between vacuum and atomic binding force.
    This means that I have started with nothing and explained the structure of particles and atoms, as particles are force carriers, it also means an explanation of force.

    Can you explain where your forces (other than vacuum) originated or why you consider metaphors to be better than reality?
  18. Apr 23, 2004 #17
    The metaphores are used here just for showing that 'letters' have a hidden system behind.
    On the image on my site you will see the vacuum between membranes . By the coupling action (a pelastration) a vacuum is placed between the spacetime membranes and almost 'locked" there. The inside (middle) area creates electric forces and the outside area stands for magnetic forces. These forces are created by the friction between the two 'by vacuum isolated' zones.
    It's geometry of spacetime.
  19. Apr 23, 2004 #18
    Thanks Antonio.

    The Moebius strip (and the Klein Bottle too)is a beautiful construct but too complicated as a unifying concept. It creates new questions (ie. how the turning happens, is there gluing, ...). A more simple concept is a balloon type closed spacetime layer as a start. Occam's razor: choose the simplest solution.
    Such geometric concept - which is pure kinetic - is able to create all other forces, such as TD, EM, radiation.
    On your other points I will respond soon.

  20. Apr 23, 2004 #19

    The vacuum is the existence of pure sourceless electromagnetism. This is the reason why the speed of light is a constant. The divergence of the electric field and the magnetic field is exactly zero.

    [tex] \nabla \cdot E = 0 [/tex]

    [tex] \nabla \cdot B = 0 [/tex]

    That is to say, they are sourceless (pure vacuum). The permittivity and permeability of the vacuum are all constant. Their values cannot change in space and in time, in spacetime. That is the forces that created these values are also constant in spacetime.

    The two ways differences of these two forces are the forces of gravity and antigravity. One way for the definition of potential mass (mass of rest and gravity) and one way for the definition of kinetic mass (mass of motion and antigravity).

    With lack of definition, Potential mass is normally or usually known as fermions and kinetic mass is usually know as bosons.

    And the reason why the photon has mass of zero is that its potential mass and kinetic mass are almost exactly equal while the W's and Z's bosons have more kinetic mass in them.
  21. Apr 23, 2004 #20

    I still did not forget that I owe you much gratitudes for introducing me to Physics Forums in December 2003. Since then I have made great progress in my research thru the helps of people's expertise in this site. But I still to finalize and publish it.

    As for the Moebius strips, the complications can be removed if we are restricted to one dimensional geometry of the Hopf rings.
  22. Apr 24, 2004 #21
    Antonio Lao

    The vacuum is the existence of pure sourceless electromagnetism.

    I take this to mean that in your model there is no difference between vacuum and electromagnetism. But in order to explain electromagnetism it is necessary to introduce anti-gravity.

    This is why Relativity and Quantum Physics cannot be defined as science but has to be (professionally) classed as mathematical prediction or philosophy. It is that they require the continuos creation of undefined entities.

    I have taken all known force carriers (fundamental particles) and shown a mathematical link between their observed masses. That is to say for the first and to the best of my knowledge the only time, a link has been shown between theory and observed masses. I have also shown a link between force stength and particles; (thereby linking theory with observation and converting philosophy into science).
    This means that there is a link between relativity, quantum physics and reality that can be found by using vacuum as a fundamental force. There is no need to change the mathematics of either theory but, there is a need to include vacuum as a seperate force and as the only fundamental force and to include the graviton as the only truly fundamental particle.

    I do not think we are to far apart but we are unlikely to agree on who has the best explanation.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2004
  23. Apr 24, 2004 #22
    If the vacuum is a force then it is a zero force just like the scalar field of Higgs boson. The effect of this force cannot be detected by experiment. But gravity is a vector field (detectable by experiments) with quanta as gravitons, the mediators of the forces of gravity. Once you have established all the relations between the Higgs field (Higgs boson) and the gravity field (graviton) then and only then can you imply solving the theory of quantum gravity.

    What I am suggesting is at the fundamental level of our understanding, the Higgs boson and the graviton are intimately related to each other. They might be just different ways of looking at the same particle similar to the wave-particle duality in modern physics.
  24. Apr 24, 2004 #23
    Wave concept implies an approach (tendency) to absolute motion and away from absolute rest. Particle concept implies an approach (tendency) to absolute rest and away from absolute motion.

    The life's goal of a Higgs boson is to stop moving. The life's goal of a graviton is to continue moving at the speed of light.

    The Higgs boson has the capacity for potential mass and the graviton has the capacity for kinetic mass.
  25. Apr 26, 2004 #24
    Wave concept implies an approach (tendency) to absolute motion and away from absolute rest. Particle concept implies an approach (tendency) to absolute rest and away from absolute motion.

    I do not dispute the truth of this statement but, I regard a particle as a vacuum field that has both particle (force carrier) and wave nature and therefore the "approaches" would be neutral.
    The standard model has two seperate concepts particle physics and quantum physics (for waves). Recently I gather that PP has been declared a sub-branch of QT but I am not sure if this has been accepted worldwide. I can see no reason why a particle is either a particle or a wave, vacuum theory allows each vacuum field to be both. The whole question of "are particles made up of mass or waves" is neceesary only if you regard particles as having mass; once mass is replace with vacuum force it can be seen that each particle is both at the same time.
  26. Apr 26, 2004 #25
    The vacuum force by itself does not produce mass. Mass can only be the product of this vacuum force and a quantum of length (e.g. the Planck length).

    Energy = force X length ---> mass = energy divided by the square of light speed.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook