SimonA said:
Yes some good points, and I have read "the trouble with physics". I don't think we can ignore the maths behind string theory, but the trouble is that we are so far away from understanding the most basic elements of space, time and quantum particles at an epistemological level, and so all the maths is hollow.
I agree.
One of the last people to make progress using deep fundamental analysis was Faraday. I started researching the origin of modern Field Theory and Relativity starting with Faraday's work. I was quite surprised that Faraday's models do not agree with Maxwell's mathematical representation. Maxwell has aware of the discrepancy and noted that he lacked the mathematical modeling tools to model Faraday's model of matter and space.
Faraday analyzed the physical observations using deep logical parsing, looking at the observations as logical clues as to what was the true/fundamental nature of matter and space. He retained competing models and would come up with new experiments to help reduce the number of fundamental models and to refine the fundamental models he would carrying through the process.
For example. The fact that electrons move at right angles to the "magnetic field" was Faraday's discovery. Ampere and others worked on the problem from a mathematical standpoint and assumed that as electrostatic force and gravity were center based forces that the magnetic force should also be center based.
Why electrons move at right angles to the magnetic field or why electrons move at all is not known. Faraday looked at the complete set of observations as hints as to what is the true nature of matter and space.
Faraday thought of matter as a field of force, rather than an entity that projected force or carried force.
He thought of conservation of force, rather than conservation of matter and energy, as he believe observational evidence indicated that energy and matter where not separate entities. Likewise he believed matter to be part of space rather than separate from space. Curiously the experiments at the beginning of the last century show that to be true but somehow the experiments are incorrectly interpreted that space is empty. Faraday would avoid the fatal mistake (if the objective is to solve a problem that has a unique solution) of picking an incorrect interpretation as he carried all reasonable interpretations (models) through the process, including flawed models.
It seems odd that we will logically accept the "String Theory" methodology that has as many possible models as there are atoms in the universe but decide that it is irrational to consider models where space is full rather than empty and to investigate constrained models.
Faraday experimented with the conversion of one "force" to another which he believed was possible if matter was a collection of force rather than a force center and electricity was movement of the dynamic force (matter). The conversion of matter to energy and energy to matter is consistent with Faraday's model.
Faraday thought matter was dynamic not static which is the essence of the quantum theory and modern atomic theory. The atom cycles through a complex time varying pattern. Depending on where it is in that pattern determines how it reacts which explains why the probabilistic addition is required to correct for an assumed static model of matter. Chemical and atomic bonding are determined by how the time varying entities interact.
Faraday's method is by experiments to come up with a set of possible fundamental models or basis for the new model. The mathematical model would then follow rather than lead. The ultimate mathematical model is likely quite complicate, however, it is fundamentally connected or correct when compared to physical space and matter.
It is interesting to compare Faraday's method to the "String Methodology". The String theorists are approaching the problem from a mathematical standpoint. The addition of extra entities or dimensions would make the problem very, very difficult to solve, if the extra entities and dimensions do not exist physically.
As it is a fact that the "String Theory" methodology has not led to a single theory in 20 years, it seems it would be logical to consider approaching the problem using an alternative methodology.
, why not 13 or 7? I have searched a lot but I have not found it anywhere.
