In defense of a Poetry/physics link
mcgucken said:
Thanks for the answers!
There is only one science of the heart, and that is art. :)
I'm not sure that any physical theory will ever unify poetry and physics, without oversimplifying poetry and leading physics astray.
Has string theory had any successes in anything its attempted?
Has it unified quantum mechanics and relativity?
You are probably correct that a physical theory, as such are now defined, could ever unify physics and poetry. However, such would be a requirement if there were to be a TOE. TOE, plausible or not, has attracted some serious attention.
TOE must define, in addition to the phenomena of physics, both life and consciousness in physical terms. The definition of life is not now clearly defined across all disciplines; and less is known of its origin; however, many scientists are attempting an understanding of both.
Consciousness is equally difficult, if not more so, to define. A definition might possibly be accomplished by reducing consciousness to a form of exceptionally rapid, complex, analog feedback.
Poetry is a result of consciousness (possibly, a feedback response from a person’s fundamental physical origins; much like a physical massage). If consciousness/life were physical manifestations, it would seem to follow that physics and poetry might have a similar origin. Such is the quest of TOE.
I agree ENTIRELY with your various assessments of string theory throughout many posts.
However:
String theory, simply put: tries to explain, mathematically, fundamental physical phenomena in such a manner that the phenomena is unified and reconciles with observation.
String theory incorporates some accurate ideas; that are observable on a macro scale (compared to the scale of many/most strings); such as: seminal energy (“dark” energy) that is manifested as vibrating (actually, complex oscillating) strings.
String theory errs when it incorporates, or attempts to explain, the irreconcilable theories of conventional physics’ standard models, which have proven to be incorrect except under specific conditions or parameters. The standard models in their present form are contrived; and no fundamental theory, as string theory claims to be, can be expected to integrate them.
Strings theory attempts to incorporate physics’ conventional, contrived forces that are ill-defined in a manner such that most knowledgeable persons trained in philosophical logic would think that physics relies upon metaphysics.
String theory is also incomplete in that it does not precisely, and reconcilably, define, mathematically, the internal structure of its strings or their motion, which motion can be construed as seminal motion.
String theory also is silent concerning the etiology of inertial forces as observed in nature as demonstrated by accelerating galactic recession.
String theory is correct in assuming that an infinite source of energy manifests as complex oscillations and emanates from an undetermined source (and, also . . . so returns to this source).
These oscillations, which are complex amalgams of slide, swing, and vibration, must be defined mathematically so that they incorporate all the observed properties of nature, which are properties that must also be mathematically expressed. Simply: sinusoidal and elliptical equations must be related in a relativistic manner at the macro and micro levels.
A starting point, leading to new physical paradigms should not be too difficult; these new paradigms must consider the geometry and source that would, together, describe the genesis of these complex, seminal oscillations and their etiology as they morph to mass.
Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) theory and Brane theory, as variants of string theory, are subject to the same above limitations; they are imperfect mathematical tools working at irreconciled limits that are imposed by conventional physics.
A purpose of these theories is to unite SR GR and QM in such a way that natural phenomena can be explained with a single and/or a few fundamental concepts. Their prospects of success without a “new physics” as proposed by Weinberg the philosopher/physicist is most unlikely.
A unification of physics and poetry is as dependent upon the natural origins of number theory as it is on defining the natural origins of “action-at-a distance.”
The most simple formulas associated with fundamental number theory are: 1.) “epsilon equals one,” which has to do with the proof of one and a most unusual quality of all ellipses; and, 2.) “the natural function, x^2 – x,” which mathematically, heuristically, represents a soliton that is a wave function found in all natural phenomena.
If TOE should ever be found, physicists must lead the way, as philosophers and theologians are not equipped to recognize the proofs.
The need for complete unification across disciplines (TOE) is that it would unify science, theology, and philosophy . . . a prerequisite for ameliorating religious and secular fundamentalism . . . without which tolerance and sustainability are but words.
This diatribe is all because I feel a need to defend a physics/poetry link. :)
