String Theory vs Physics: Which is the Ptolemaic System?
Immortalist
are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the
zero-dimensional points (particles) that are the basis of the Standard
Model of particle physics. For this reason, string theories are able to
avoid problems associated with the presence of point-like particles in
theories of physics, in particular the problem of defining a sensible
quantum theory of gravity. Studies of string theories have revealed
that they predict not just strings, but also higher-dimensional
objects.
The basic idea behind all string theories is that the fundamental
constituents of reality are strings of extremely small scale (possibly
Planck length, about 10-35 m) which vibrate at specific resonant
frequencies.[1] Thus, any particle should be thought of as a tiny
vibrating object, rather than as a point. This object can vibrate in
different modes (just like a guitar string can produce different
notes), with every mode appearing as a different particle (electron,
photon etc.). Strings can split and combine, which would appear as
particles emitting and absorbing other particles, presumably giving
rise to the known interactions between particles.
In addition to strings, string theories also include objects of higher
dimensions, such as D-branes and NS-branes. Furthermore, all string
theories predict the existence of degrees of freedom which are usually
described as extra dimensions. String theory is thought to include some
10, 11 or 26 dimensions, depending on the specific theory and on the
point of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
Extra dimensions...
One of the most remarkable predictions of String Theory is that
space-time has ten dimensions! At first sight, this may be seen as a
reason to dismiss the theory altogether, as we obviously have only
three dimensions of space and one of time. However, if we assume that
six of these dimensions are curled up very tightly, then we may never
be aware of their existence. Furthermore, having these so-called
compact dimensions is very beneficial if String Theory is to describe a
Theory of Everything. The idea is that degrees of freedom like the
electric charge of an electron will then arise simply as motion in the
extra compact directions! The principle that compact dimensions may
lead to unifying theories is not new, but dates from the 1920's, since
the theory of Kaluza and Klein. In a sense, String Theory is the
ultimate Kaluza-Klein theory.
For simplicity, it is usually assumed that the extra dimensions are
wrapped up on six circles. For realistic results they are treated as
being wrapped up on mathematical elaborations known as Calabi-Yau
Manifolds and Orbifolds.
M-theory
Apart from the fact that instead of one there are five different,
healthy theories of strings (three superstrings and two heterotic
strings) there was another difficulty in studying these theories: we
did not have tools to explore the theory over all possible values of
the parameters in the theory. Each theory was like a large planet of
which we only knew a small island somewhere on the planet. But over the
last four years, techniques were developed to explore the theories more
thoroughly, in other words, to travel around the seas in each of those
planets and find new islands. And only then it was realized that those
five string theories are actually islands on the same planet, not
different ones! Thus there is an underlying theory of which all string
theories are only different aspects. This was called M-theory. The M
might stand for Mother of all theories or Mystery, because the planet
we call M-theory is still largely unexplored.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html
Think of a guitar string that has been tuned by stretching the string
under tension across the guitar. Depending on how the string is plucked
and how much tension is in the string, different musical notes will be
created by the string. These musical notes could be said to be
excitation modes of that guitar string under tension.
In a similar manner, in string theory, the elementary particles we
observe in particle accelerators could be thought of as the "musical
notes" or excitation modes of elementary strings.
In string theory, as in guitar playing, the string must be stretched
under tension in order to become excited. However, the strings in
string theory are floating in spacetime, they aren't tied down to a
guitar. Nonetheless, they have tension. The string tension in string
theory is denoted by the quantity 1/(2 p a'), where a' is pronounced
"alpha prime"and is equal to the square of the string length scale.
If string theory is to be a theory of quantum gravity, then the average
size of a string should be somewhere near the length scale of quantum
gravity, called the Planck length, which is about 10-33 centimeters, or
about a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a
centimeter. Unfortunately, this means that strings are way too small to
see by current or expected particle physics technology (or financing!!)
and so string theorists must devise more clever methods to test the
theory than just looking for little strings in particle experiments.
String theories are classified according to whether or not the strings
are required to be closed loops, and whether or not the particle
spectrum includes fermions. In order to include fermions in string
theory, there must be a special kind of symmetry called supersymmetry,
which means for every boson (particle that transmits a force) there is
a corresponding fermion (particle that makes up matter). So
supersymmetry relates the particles that transmit forces to the
particles that make up matter.
Supersymmetric partners to to currently known particles have not been
observed in particle experiments, but theorists believe this is because
supersymmetric particles are too massive to be detected at current
accelerators. Particle accelerators could be on the verge of finding
evidence for high energy supersymmetry in the next decade. Evidence for
supersymmetry at high energy would be compelling evidence that string
theory was a good mathematical model for Nature at the smallest
distance scales.
http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4.html
http://superstringtheory.com/basics/index.html
Three Hour Show About String THeory
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
The Ptolemaic system
The prevailing theory in Europe as Copernicus was writing was that
created by Ptolemy in his Almagest, dating from about 150 A.D.. The
Ptolemaic system drew on many previous theories that viewed Earth as a
stationary center of the universe. Stars were embedded in a large outer
sphere which rotated relatively rapidly, while the planets dwelt in
smaller spheres between - a separate one for each planet. To account
for apparent anomalies to this view, such as the retrograde motion
observed in many planets, a system of epicycles was used, by which a
planet rotated on a small axis while also rotating on a larger axis
around the Earth.
A complementary theory to Ptolemy's employed homocentric spheres: the
spheres within which the planets rotated, could themselves rotate
somewhat. This theory predated Ptolemy (it was first devised by Eudoxus
of Cnidus; by the time of Copernicus it was associated with Averroes).
Also popular with astronomers were variations such as eccentrics - by
which the rotational axis was offset and not completely at the center.
Ptolemy's unique contribution to this theory was the idea of an equant
- a complicated addition which specified that, when measuring the
rotation of the Sun, one sometimes used the central axis of the
universe, but sometimes a different axis. This had an overall effect of
making certain orbits "wobble," a fact that would greatly bother
Copernicus (such wobbling rendered implausible the idea of material
"spheres" in which the planets rotated). In the end, after all these
complications, the astronomers could still not get observation and
theory to match up exactly. In Copernicus' day, the most up-to-date
version of the Ptolemaic system was that of Peurbach (1423-1461) and
Regiomontanus (1436-1476).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus
What if mainstream physics is a bunch of vague explainations for human
inferential limitations?
ver...@gawab.com
VERGON
I don't know where you got lost but I stuck it out to the bitter end.
WHAT A WOO-WOO LAND OF THEORY --- more like a fairy tale or
superRube Goldberg construction.
By contrast I have a theory that is simple, logical and fits Occam's
Razor to a T.
Think about this: If the universe started with a big bang, then it is
spherical like all explosions in a free environment.
Also, stars, planets, and satellites are spherical -- as are rain
drops. Spheres are the most natural form in nature. Guess what? My
sub-particle particle is spherical. But I don't call it "Sphere
Theory".
I call it On the Quantum as a Physical Entity and I invite you to look
at it. It contains a formula for the strong force, presents a quantum
theory of gravity that not only explains how it works but shows that
action at a distance is an illusion. Much more is contained therein. If
I wanted to be expansive, I could call it the theory of everything, but
I won't because that has been overdone -- plus I'm sure not EVERYTHING
is in it. But almost.
If you want to see it go to http://www.wbabin.net find LIST OF AUTHORS
and click on Vertner Vergon
.
Immortalist
ver...@gawab.com wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
> > String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus
> >
> > What if mainstream physics is a bunch of vague explainations for human
> > inferential limitations?
>
> VERGON
>
> I don't know where you got lost but I stuck it out to the bitter end.
>
> WHAT A WOO-WOO LAND OF THEORY --- more like a fairy tale or
> superRube Goldberg construction.
>
Something new often seems confusing at first until one comes to
understand the network of ideas.
> By contrast I have a theory that is simple, logical and fits Occam's
> Razor to a T.
>
THerefore I can dupe you one more and claim that the universe is a germ
on a fleas asshole, which is much simpler and therefore "more true?"
that is accourding to your stipulated usage of the idea of
"conservative simplity."
Simplicity
Most philosophers believe that, other things being equal, simpler
theories are better. But what exactly does theoretical simplicity
amount to? Syntactic simplicity, or elegance, measures the number and
conciseness of the theories basic principles. Ontological simplicity,
or parsimony, measures the number of kinds of entities postulated by
the theory. One issue concerns how these two forms of simplicity relate
to one another. There is also an issue concerning the justification of
principles, such as Occam's Razor, which favor simple theories. The
history of philosophy has seen many approaches to defending Occam's
Razor, from the theological justifications of the Early Modern period,
to contemporary justifications employing results from probability
theory and statistics.
1. Introduction
2. Ontological Parsimony
3. A Priori Justifications of Simplicity
4. Naturalistic Justifications of Simplicity
5. Probabilistic/Statistical Justifications of Simplicity
6. Other Issues Concerning Simplicity
6.1 Quantitative Parsimony
6.2 Principles of Plenitude
6.3 Simplicity and Induction
7. Conclusions
Bibliography
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/
1. Introduction
There is a widespread philosophical presumption that simplicity is a
theoretical virtue. This presumption that simpler theories are
preferable appears in many guises. Often it remains implicit; sometimes
it is invoked as a primitive, self-evident proposition; other times it
is elevated to the status of a 'Principle' and labeled as such (for
example, the 'Principle of Parsimony'). However, it is perhaps best
known by the name 'Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor.' Simplicity
principles have been proposed in various forms by theologians,
philosophers, and scientists, from ancient through medieval to modern
times. Thus Aristotle writes in his Posterior Analytics,
We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration
which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.[1]
Moving to the medieval period, Aquinas writes
If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to
do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ
two instruments where one suffices (Aquinas 1945, p. 129).
Kant - in the Critique of Pure Reason - supports the maxim that
"rudiments or principles must not be unnecessarily multiplied (entia
praeter necessitatem non esse multiplicanda)" and argues that this is
a regulative idea of pure reason which underlies scientists' theorizing
about nature (Kant 1950, pp. 538-9). Both Galileo and Newton accepted
versions of Occam's Razor. Indeed Newton includes a principle of
parsimony as one of his three 'Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy' at
the beginning of Book III of Principia Mathematica.
Much More Here
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/
Jeff…Relf
which means no zero dimensional objects exists, at least not in reality.
Mass_Energy is the fifth spatial dimension, I posit, becuase
the observable Cosmic_Microwave_Backround loses heat, measure in joules,
with cosmic time... to wit:
Dark energy ( a.k.a. negative pressure, at cosmic scales )
is observed to be a function of Density_Cosmos.
Because e = m * c^2, Omega_Total always equals 1,
Omega_Lambda always equals .74, and w always equals -1, we get:
Pressure_Cosmos always equals: - ( .74 / .26 ) * Density_Cosmos * c^2
( the positive pressure of radiation is insignificant ).
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/W.PNG
There are proposals to define the SI kilogram in terms of
1,097,769,238,499,215,084,016,780,676,223 electron mass units, see:
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Kilogram#Fundamental-constant_approaches
In theory, the SI kilogram could be defined as
X number of oscillations of a laser, just like the other 4 spatial dimensions.
( There would have to be some detailed conversions and intensity controls )
I don't agree with Kaluza's finite, curled spatial dimensions.
The number of spatial dimensions increases with scale and a priori information:
1. For an ideal vacuum ( i.e. some ground state ),
time is the only spatial dimension ( i.e. time dilation ).
Time is spatial because nothing is truly random.
2. A photon travels along a null geodesic
heading in only two spatial dimensions ( including spatial-time ).
3. Three dimensional ( including spatial-time ) antennas and polarizers
work because light's magnetic field occupies
a three dimensional ( including spatial-time )
area as large as its wavelength.
4. The earth occupies a four dimensional block ( including spatial-time ).
5. The CMB has a fifth spatial dimension, heat, measured in joules;
or, by conversion, the kilogram.
Autymn D. C.
> Hi Immortalist, I say that time is the first _Spatial_ dimension,
> which means no zero dimensional objects exists, at least not in reality.
>
> Mass_Energy is the fifth spatial dimension, I posit, becuase
> the observable Cosmic_Microwave_Backround loses heat, measure in joules,
> with cosmic time... to wit:
You're too retarded to even know what "is" means. They are all
separate properties. I already establishd the lotter of dimensions a
year ago:
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=lysdexia+OR+Autymn+%2214+dimensions%22+time+OR+space>;
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=%2214+dimensions%22+time+OR+space>.
As to what I think of string theory, these waverly strings are still
continuose, when there is no continuum. The transitions between crest
and trouh must then be averages over the dimensions. There are no
perfect rings or trunds as there are no perfect bubs or balls.
However, for a body to dwell in any lotter of dimensions, it must be of
that lotter--it must be a spatial-, etc.-element. So there are no
singularities, and a string cannot be a series of subelements whose
size is incompatibil with the ground energy of any particul (motock).
The "string" or "brane" must be as big as the quantum should be, and
its rim should be its orbital with another quantum. Thus, for the
ground state, fuzz out the rim to yonth.
-Aut
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_200...@Cotse.NET...
> Hi Immortalist, I say that time is the first _Spatial_ dimension,
As usual, you are wrong.
The remainder of your post is standard nonsense.
Bob Kolker
> Hi Immortalist, I say that time is the first _Spatial_ dimension,
> which means no zero dimensional objects exists, at least not in reality.
It is? Then why can't we move backward in time as easliy as we move forward?
You are a loon.
Bob Kolker
Jeff…Relf
and time is the first spatial dimension, static an parochial,
( because nothing could ever be truly random ).
How the hell, then, could anything move in that dimension ? You loon.
The universe would just _Be_.
Hawking believes that ( I've quoted him saying it many times ),
so did Einstein and many others ( lots of quotes and reviewed articles ).
Are Hawking and Einstein more looney than you ? I say not.
Mass_Energy are the fifth spatial dimension,
as can easily be seen by how the observable heat ( in Joules )
of the universe goes down with cosmological time.
Further, the kilogram could, in theory,
be defined just as the first 4 spatial dimensions are,
...as X oscillations of a carefully controlled laser.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
No amount of artificial reinforcement can offset the natural inequalities of
human individuals.
-- Henry P. Fairchild
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_200...@Cotse.NET...
Jeff…Relf
Didn't you read this part of my post that you replied to:
I don't agree with Kaluza's finite, curled spatial dimensions.
The number of spatial dimensions _Increases_ ( not decreases ) with
larger scales and more a priori information:
1. For an ideal vacuum ( i.e. some ground state ),
time is the only spatial dimension ( i.e. time dilation ).
Time is spatial because nothing could ever be truly random.
As I just told Bob_Kolker:
Imagine for a moment that I'm right
and time is the first spatial dimension, static an parochial,
( because nothing could ever be truly random ).
How the hell, then, could anything move in that dimension ?
The universe would just _Be_.
Hawking believes that ( I've quoted him saying it many times ),
so did Einstein and many others ( lots of quotes and reviewed articles ).
Are Hawking and Einstein more looney than you ? I say not.
Mass_Energy is the fifth spatial dimension,
as can easily be seen by how the observable heat ( in Joules )
of the universe goes down with cosmological time.
Further, the kilogram could, in theory,
be defined just as the first 4 spatial dimensions are;
i.e., as X oscillations of a carefully controlled laser.
Bob Kolker
You are as daft as a loon.
Bob Kolker
>
>
G. L. Bradford
"Bob Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4mqoahF...@individual.net...
We can move backward in time as easily as we move forward. All we have to
do is travel away from the Sun or the Milky Way to travel into their
history. The farther away we get from them in time, the farther back in
their history we would observe ourselves to be. At about five billion light
years removed from the Milky Way we would be level with the formation of the
solar system. At about 13 to 13.5 billion light years removed from a
pipsqueak dwarf galaxy, after many cell-like divisions along the way, the
reverse in time of many mergers in time going to make up our present galaxy
as we know it, we would be level in time with it before mergers through 13
to 13.5 billion years make it what it is today. Beyond that time, whatever
it was disappears into the distant collapsed horizon of infinity. There is
no such thing as us, or finites, being relative to infinite or
infinitesimal. Only relative to one (...indistinguishable from one) or zero
(...indistinguishable from zero).
So we can just as easily move backward in time as move forward. The
Universe will have the two mutually cancel. Fore cancelling out aft. Aft
cancelling out fore. Foreground cancelling out background. Background
cancelling out foreground.
All the background of the Universe is time reversed, which is why
travelers appear to slow down in time toward reversal in time in traveling
toward the background away from any local foreground, and appear to speed up
in time from being behind in time to the foreground in coming out of that
background toward any local foreground. Our own is but one of an infinity --
permanently, a totally indeterminate number -- of local foregrounds. Cars
travel toward that background in traveling away from us here on Earth.
Aircraft travel toward that background in flying away from us here on Earth.
Though by a very insignificant amount of time, virtually infinitesimal
indistinguishable from zero, we put every feature behind us on Earth just a
little more toward that background -- relative to us as a local foreground
of the Universe -- every time we travel away from anywhere, from anything,
here on Earth. And relative to anywhere, to anything, here on Earth, we come
out of that background toward a foreground, from the direction of that
background toward a foreground, fast forwarding in time from being behind in
it relative to what is in front of us, whenever we move toward anywhere,
toward anything.
The other way to look at that last is that we in moving toward somewhere,
something, are bringing it forward in time from a past toward us. Speeding
it up in time -- forward in time -- toward us, rather than speeding
ourselves up in time -- forward in time -- toward it. But of course to be
able to speed up in time, catch up in time, toward anywhere else in time,
you have to have a starting point in some time relative to its past. If you
don't have a starting point in some time relative to its past, you aren't
any distance whatsoever from it. You are a distance indistinguishable from
zero from it.
GLB
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_200...@Cotse.NET...
> Imagine for a moment that I'm right
You aren't and it is too great a stretch of the imagination.
1Z
Jeff...Relf wrote:
> Hi Immortalist, I say that time is the first _Spatial_ dimension,
The numbering of dimensions as first, second, etc
has no physical siginificance. "Not even wrong"
> which means no zero dimensional objects exists, at least not in reality.
Non-sequitur.