String particle

[Sadovnik Socratus]

Is string particle subjective or objective model?
-----

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 16 May 2020 13:36:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sadovnik Socratus
<44so...@gmail.com>:

>Is string particle subjective or objective model?

Neither. Or maybe both. Ambiguous questions using unknown
and contradictory entities tend to yield that sort of
answer.

Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory ; it
specifically explains, using the definition, why "string
particle" is as meaningful as "bright dark".
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Sadovnik Socratus]

"Reality is subjective" means that each person has his or her own
unique perception of reality, and no two people have quite
the same understanding of what is real . ...
This is what is meant by the word "subjective''
#
An objective reality means that some real thing
exists independently of the unique mind,
it exists independently of the sense or wish of person
#

Is string particle subjective or objective model?

------

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 16 May 2020 21:50:53 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sadovnik Socratus
<44so...@gmail.com>:

>"Reality is subjective" means that each person has his or her own
>unique perception of reality, and no two people have quite
>the same understanding of what is real . ...
>This is what is meant by the word "subjective''
>#

>An objective reality means that something is actual
>and it exists independent of the unique mind,
>exist independent of the sense or wish of person
>#

>Is string particle subjective or objective model?

So, not interested in learning what string theory says...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

....and why it makes "string particle" a meaningless noise,
like "bright dark"?

OK.

Have A Nice Day.

[Phantom_View]

On Sun, 17 May 2020 14:12:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sat, 16 May 2020 21:50:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sadovnik Socratus
><44so...@gmail.com>:
>
>>"Reality is subjective" means that each person has his or her own
>>unique perception of reality, and no two people have quite
>>the same understanding of what is real . ...
>>This is what is meant by the word "subjective''
>>#
>>An objective reality means that something is actual
>>and it exists independent of the unique mind,
>>exist independent of the sense or wish of person
>>#
>>Is string particle subjective or objective model?
>
>So, not interested in learning what string theory says...
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
>
>....and why it makes "string particle" a meaningless noise,
>like "bright dark"?
>
>OK.
>
>Have A Nice Day.

String theory is (currently) not provable. A few
proxy methods to add evidence have been
suggested, but I do not think any, to date, have
been practical and/or reliable. That sort of
math is WAY above my pay grade, so I have
to rely on dumbed-down hearsay and decide
whether to subscribe to that religion or not.

"Strings" are only a handy math model anyway,
I doubt there are actually things that LOOK like
little threads and loops.

However an underlying generic uniform hyperparallel
"machine" from which our more observable particles
and forces emerge DOES have a certain appeal.

[Sadovnik Socratus]

@Phantom_View . . . "String theory'' only solved the ''DUALITY'' problem in QT
-------

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 May 2020 22:43:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Phantom_View
<p...@PhantomView114.net>:

Sure. But my point was solely that the term "string
particle" is a contradiction in terms, at least according to
the article I cited. Specifically:

"In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in
which the point-like particles of particle physics are
replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings."

I suppose it could be argued that a "one-dimensional object"
*is* a "point-like particle", but that isn't the impression
I get of the gist of the theory.

[William Hyde]

I attended a seminar at NASA in the mid-80s in which Schwarz talked about his early work in string theory (note, not superstring theory).

The original motivation was as you note above to deal with the infinities that accumulate when working with point particles. Point particles have zero volume, area, or dimension, whereas strings at least have dimension.

Infinities are bad things to have in your equations, but not entirely a disaster, and in certain operations it is easier to deal with 1/(0)^2 than with 1/(0)^3. Silly as that sounds.

Schwarz, Green and collaborators decided that certain problems could be avoided by simulating a particle by a loop rather than a point. As if the earth were to be represented by its equator instead of a point in the centre.

This made the mathematics much more complex - I recall references to sheaf theory - but results were promising. But they were certainly not arguing at this point that particles actually were strings. That was just a better approximation than a point.

How and when it became integrated with supersymmetry I don't know. Most references I find to Schwarz and Green refer to their later work.

None of the above is guaranteed. It was late on a Friday afternoon 33 years ago, after all.

But I do wish I had a recording of that talk. Those I attended it with are, alas, no more.

William Hyde

[Sadovnik Socratus]

@William Hyde . . . in any case - string theory is only
mathematical project not a physical theory. String particle
doesn't have theory what says: according to the law X,
or Y, or Z the quantum particle must have geometric
form ''string''. Therefore so called ''string theory''
is a ''subjective'' guess to solve Quantum's problem.
=====

[Phantom_View]

On Tue, 19 May 2020 09:49:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I think strings are supposed to be 10-dimensional.
They originally thought there were even more, but
then realized they were looking at the same model
from "different directions" and were then able to
simplify.

"String particle" ... not really such a thing. A string is
not a "particle". May not even be localizable. However
a conventional "particle" - quark, proton etc - that
is an emergent property of the string song MIGHT be
referred to as a "string-derived particle".

[Phantom_View]

If you can understand the math at that level I congratulate you.
I can only intake this stuff if is dumbed-down a step, or two or
three. That turns it into 'religious doctrine' I have to believe,
instead of something I can KNOW. Very annoying.

In any case, it is clear that "strings" are just a convenient
math model they are trying to fit the physics-we-know
into. In 25 years there will be another over-and-above
model that becomes popular.

I do not think anyone ever claimed that particles were strings
however - more of an emergent property of one or more
strings at particular "frequencies" or "harmonics".

You may want to peruse a tome by Stephen Wolfram
(Mathematica, WolframAlpha) entitled "A New Kind of
Science". He essentially re-created string/superstring
math and results - but modeled them as "celllular automata"
and the emergent patterns that result from them interacting
with their relatively simple rules. That viewpoint is a bit easier
for me to intake - I may be able to give up the Stringish religion
:-)

The whole tome is now availible for free/download.

[Öö Tiib]

All physical theories explain what we observe in the physical
reality with certain mathematical formulas. Consider
Albert Einstein's famous formula: E = mc^2
Can you tell precisely why it is physical theory but string
theory is not?

[Sadovnik Socratus]

@Öö Tiib
On the micro quantum level we cannot see a single Planck's (h)
or single Boltzmann's (k) or a single Einstein's ( E = mc^2 )
But thanks to math and human's logic we can understand
how they can work.
===

[Öö Tiib]

Are you saying that we can observe those things at macro scale?
But then also quarks are purely mathematical theory since these
are never observable in isolation. Properties of quarks is only
concluded from observations of hadrons. All such math is made to
simplify understanding of reality for human logic.

[David Greig]

On 2020-05-20, Sadovnik Socratus <44so...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @?? Tiib

Nobody understands how anything works on the quantum level.

[Sadovnik Socratus]

Nobody understands how anything works on the quantum level.

/ David Greig /
yeah . . . but the human consciousness can evolve as well
as the technical progress

[Ernest Major]

The idea of (elementary) particles as points is historically recent. On
reflection, I don't think that "string particle" is a contradiction in
terms, but on the other hand either string or string-theory particle
(depending on what is intended) would be less ambiguous.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Öö Tiib]

That is perhaps exaggeration of our ignorance.

Our technologies: nanotechnology, computer processor
technology and molecular biophysics are close or already within
quantum realm. So we already operate there and apply our knowledge
in practical technologies there.

It is likely true that no one understands how everything works on
the quantum level but same is perhaps true on any level.

[Robert Carnegie]

An atom is a particle, and isn't a point.

If the fundamental objects are little strings,
then those are particles.

But if the "particles" we usually consider are
Not strings, but vibrations of strings - it's trickier.

[David Greig]

On 2020-05-20, Sadovnik Socratus <44so...@gmail.com> wrote:

Exactly how much quantum physics have you studied? Note that reading
"The Dancing Wu Li Masters" or the like does not count.

--D.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 May 2020 21:56:35 -0400, the following appeared

I believe (I could be mistaken) that the multi-dimensional
idea is part of superstring theory. But I'm not a physicist.

> They originally thought there were even more, but
> then realized they were looking at the same model
> from "different directions" and were then able to
> simplify.

I thought it was 11, but I could be conflating different
things.

> "String particle" ... not really such a thing. A string is
> not a "particle".

....which was, if you'll recall, my sole initial point.

> May not even be localizable. However
> a conventional "particle" - quark, proton etc - that
> is an emergent property of the string song MIGHT be
> referred to as a "string-derived particle".
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 May 2020 10:21:45 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

OK, I can buy that. As a non-physicist, I was going on what
I recalled from quite a while ago, reinforced by the article
I cited.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 May 2020 22:15:24 -0400, the following appeared

I have to say I'm in effectively the same position; my
*pure* math education extended only as far as differential
equations, and even *that* was almost 40 years ago.

> In any case, it is clear that "strings" are just a convenient
> math model they are trying to fit the physics-we-know
> into. In 25 years there will be another over-and-above
> model that becomes popular.
>
> I do not think anyone ever claimed that particles were strings
> however - more of an emergent property of one or more
> strings at particular "frequencies" or "harmonics".
>
> You may want to peruse a tome by Stephen Wolfram
> (Mathematica, WolframAlpha) entitled "A New Kind of
> Science". He essentially re-created string/superstring
> math and results - but modeled them as "celllular automata"
> and the emergent patterns that result from them interacting
> with their relatively simple rules. That viewpoint is a bit easier
> for me to intake - I may be able to give up the Stringish religion
> :-)
>
> The whole tome is now availible for free/download.

Cool; thanks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 May 2020 04:25:02 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

Small nit: Only in a philosophical sense (or in the sense
Democritus used the term as the "smallest division of
matter").

>, and isn't a point.
>
>If the fundamental objects are little strings,
>then those are particles.
>
>But if the "particles" we usually consider are
>Not strings, but vibrations of strings - it's trickier.

Just a bit... ;-)

[William Hyde]

That was then and this is now.

At the time I was only a few years past learning some sheaf theory, which I have now utterly forgotten barring the name.

Also, I was sitting beside a very fine mathematician indeed, and learned a bit in post-seminar discussion.

William Hyde

[Phantom_View]

On Wed, 20 May 2020 10:37:16 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

10 physical + "time" (whatever the hell that really is)

>> "String particle" ... not really such a thing. A string is
>> not a "particle".
>
>....which was, if you'll recall, my sole initial point.
>
>> May not even be localizable. However
>> a conventional "particle" - quark, proton etc - that
>> is an emergent property of the string song MIGHT be
>> referred to as a "string-derived particle".

I find the idea of our "particles"/forces being the result
of interacting strings - basically a computational
"reality" that follows rules similar to cellular automata -
to be very interesting. However there IS a hazard if
such knowlege in the rules of those underlying computing
engines interacts with humans. We WOULD try to alter
the rules, the 'program', so we can do FTL travel and such.
If existence really is set up according to this model then
local changes would propagate and alter *everything* ...
likely result, a big *POOF !* and that is that.

[Robert Carnegie]

No, I meant the present day, very divisible "atom".
A grain of sand also is a particle.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 May 2020 01:52:36 -0700 (PDT), the following

OK. In my view the issue was elementary ("point-like")
particles, so I thought that was the subject of your post.

[Robert Carnegie]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphonaptera_%28poem%29>

"all particles may be made up of clusters of
smaller particles, 'and so down, for ever';
and similarly that planets and stars may be
particles of some larger universe, 'and so
up, for ever'."

May, but it seems an awful lot of trouble.
But apparently that was look at the subject
in the year 1872 (a "paradoxical" look),
and much progress has been made since.
They were still thrashing out the "periodic
table" of elements about then, before and
after Mendeleev. And it was much later that
'our" galaxy was found to be one of
fantastically many.

[William Hyde]

The idea that there are extra, compact dimensions goes back to Kaluza-Klein(1) theory in the 1920s which posited a fifth dimension in order to unify GR and electromagnetism.

Regrettably, my fourth year GR course was diverted to a new theory of gravitation, so we never got to KK theory. And since that is where my education in these matters stopped I can only say that it reminds me of string theory in that it solves a lot of theoretical problems but is hard to test experimentally.

(1) Even earlier, it seems. Apparently Gunnar Nordstrom published a theory of gravitation the year before Einstein which posited a fifth dimension. He seems to have been quite a remarkable scientist but died in his prime. Thus Wikipedia, generally not far off in this sort of matter.


William Hyde

[Sadovnik Socratus]

@William Hyde . . . all ''theories'' of extra-dimensions
(5-D, 11-D, 27-D, M-D . . . ) have one principle:
all extra-D curved / bends to a very small point-(s) . . .
and only 4-D remains untouched, static . . .
===