Thanks to Lehrer on the Newshour that I was prewarned of a 3 hour long
program on String theory. Below I will give a critique and salvage
anything
that is salvageable in String theory. There is some good news and
mostly
bad news, so it is best that I hit the good news first.

I was unaware of the beginning history of string theory and this
program
highlighted it. It is the beginning history of string theory that is
able to be salvaged and used to dig out a small kernel of truth for
the
rest of physics. Apparently some Italian physicist (excuse the
spelling)
Venecio??? Saw a relationship of Euler mathematics of the Gamma
Function
with some rules for the StrongNuclear force. Only later did another
physicist of Susskind see that the Gamma Function describes a
"string".

Here I am able to salvage some tiny pieces of truth for the String
theory
where the other 99.9% of the theory is just bunk baloney.

The true theory of the StrongNuclear Force is that every neutron is a
miniture
hydrogen atom inside of the neutron and where the electron becomes
extraordinary.
I call the electron inside a neutron as a "nuclearelectron". And so
the glue
that is the StrongNuclear force is this nuclearelectron that spills
out in amoungst protons in any nucleus of an atom of helium or higher.
So the StrongNuclear force is really just this nuclearelectron that
runs around amoung
protons in close confined quarters and glues the protons together. So
the StrongNuclear force is really just a super, hypercharged Coulomb
force due to
the stronger power of the nuclearelectron.

So, the good news about String theory is this. Those strings are not a
description of something more fundamental or basic than atoms or
subatomic
particles. But rather, those string descriptions are a visual or math
description
of NUCLEARELECTRONS. When a neutron enters into the nucleus of an atom
the
nuclearelectron can be a closed-loop string of energy or can be a
opened-loop.

String theory at best is describing the nuclearelectron that runs
around the
protons in a nucleus and holding together the nucleus.

This 3 hour TV show ended at 2 hours time talking about the fact that
there are
5 irreconcilable different string theories. Why 5? Easy. Because in
the act of
describing how nuclearelectrons behave as they spill out of a neutron
and go run
around in the nucleus holding together the protons requires not just 5
kinds of
string loops but very many different kinds of string loops.

So the Gamma Function of Euler when applied to modern physics does not
yield a
Theory of Everything but merely helps and aids a tiny corner of
physics of the
StrongNuclear Force with its NuclearElectron.

This post is already too long and will remark and critique the bad of
the TV
show of String Theory in a separate post. But as Mr. Glashow spoke in
the program
that the world of physics is composed of 2 groups-- real physicists
and the fringe group known as stringtheorists. And as Mr. Glashow
noted also that when
you have a theory that is never testable nor able to put an experiment
to it then the theory is not science but philosophy. And finally, the
staunch supporter of
Stringtheory of Mr. Weinberg who commented that in a hundred years
from now looking back that String theory would be seen as either a
tragic-waste of time
or as a triumph and where it is easy to see that Weinberg has faith in
the triumph portion. And my gut feeling is that in a 100 years from
now this 3 hour
program will be extant and good for many laughs by future generations
who will see the believers of Stringtheory as the top-class-crackpots
of science of the
20th and 21st century. In ancient times we could not save the crackpot
literature
of science, nor the crackpot literature of science during Newton or
Galileo.
But in modern times, those scientists who become embedded in crackpot
science such as string theory will be forever marked as crackpots in
the future. Today they may get 3 hours TV time for their crackpot
theories but in the future they
will be seen as full crackpots and all their other work dismissed.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I continue to work both dtg and google because of the erractness and
sporadicness of each.

And it is best I post while the TV program is still fresh in mind. I also
saw
a Ferris "The Creation of the Universe" program after the NOVA program
on "Elegant Universe; String theory" on Iowa Public TV.

And as Ferris commented that if a theory of Everything were to be
discovered
the common reaction would be: "so simple so elegant that why did I not
think
of that" String theory does not answer anything important in physics.
String
theory does not give that reaction of -- so elegant and so obvious that
it solves
most every other problem in physics.

Examples: a theory of everything would immediately solve the Missing Mass
of the Universe which is 99% missing. It would immediately answer why the
Fine Structure Constant is 1/137. It would immediately tell us why the
value of pi
is 3.14.... and the value of e is 2.71....

To believers of Stringtheory there is no resolution to any current major
problems in physics. In fact, if you accept and believe in the
Stringtheory, you compound
the problems of physics to an even large scope and scale.

The ring of truth of a true theory is that it solves older problems.
String theory does none of that but compounds the problems with its
tacked on 11 dimensions and its tachyons of faster speed than light etc
etc. Its worst feature is that its scale of physical reality is so small
that it is forever beyond experiment or observation.

The ring of truth is not to hide away in smallness but to be able to be
penetrated
and obvious and open to observation and experiment.

Seems as though alot of the family of the Green's got involved in String
theory where Brian Green is the narrator.

The first question I would ask of Brian Green is why he hates Quantum
Mechanics and loves GR? And do all stringtheorists have this
schizophrenic hatred of QM and this nutty love of GR and Einstein.

I suspect that what is driving string theory is not so much good science
and math but moreso the nutty personalities of physicists of the later
part of the 20th century. Physicists that never as a child realized that
Einstein was mostly wrong and that his GR was just a science fade and
that you could not build on GR to make any progress in the future of
physics.

This 3 hour program was delivered yesterday in a 2 hour segment and the
upcoming 3rd segment delivered 4 November. And I was disturbed that a
theory of claimed Everything should have 90% of its first 2 hours as a
review of physics history.

A true theory of everything need never have to review history. Neither to
explain it or to convince the audience of its truth. For example. Suppose
there was a 3 hour TV show on the ATomTotality theory with me as host.

Unlike Stringtheory that takes 2 hours of a 3 hour show just to explain
it. The opening sentence would explain the AtomTotality theory by thus:

The whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the
electron-dot
-cloud are galaxies. Show a dot cloud pattern of 231Pu. Point to a galaxy
which
is a dot and this galaxy is the Milky Way. Point to a smaller dot inside
the the
Milky Way which is the Solar System etc etc on down to the dot which is
the
planet Earth.

Then the AtomTotality would explain why the Inverse Fine Structure
Constant is
137 because 231Pu has 137 neutrons in the nucleus. Why 99% of the mass is
not observable because an atom has most of its mass in a nucleus. Why the

Microwave Background radiation is 2.71.... Kelvin which is the identical
value of
the math number e. And on and on and on...

You see, a theory of Everything does not have to waste 2 hours and 50
minutes
reviewing past physics history and spend 10 minutes on Stingtheory. A
true
theory can spend 2 hours and 50minutes on the new theory and 10 minutes
on
past history of physics.

I was angered when Brian Green describes GR as smooth and gentle and his
hatred of QM as ugly horrible complex. And this is where Brian and his
stringtheorists have leave of science and spew prejudice.

(1) Brian should have voiced that in every experiment test between GR and

QM that GR has always lost and that QM has always won.

(2) Brian should have discussed the Bell Inequality and the Aspect
Experiment
and should have voiced that QM is no longer confined to the small scale
but that
QM is on the large scale due to the Bell discoveries

(3) Brian and his cohorts discuss the Schwarzchild conjecture of black
holes.
This is where Brian really does a horrible disfavor to science and where
Brian
is acting almost as a con-artist. Because black holes are conjectural and
not
reality such as the Sun and planets are reality. From watching Brian,
some
audience viewers will go away believing that blackholes are as real as
say the
planet Jupiter is real. And so, much of stringtheory is plastered over
con tricks
by assuming other con theories. We know that Brian is trying to sell
stringtheory and he is prone to announcing that blackholes are as real as
the Sun is real but Brian knows better and knows that blackholes are
conjecture and not proven.

The AtomTotality theory says that blackholes are nonexistant. They can
never exist because if a star gets too massive it explodes into a nova or
supernova. Brian should be saying that Nova are proven true to exist but
Brian should never
be con-artisting the general public that blackholes exist just to pander
off
his stringtheory.

(4) When Brian got to the part where he tries to unite GR to QM with
stringtheory it is so messy. Look at how simple it is for the
AtomTotality theory
to unite GR with the other 3 forces. GR in the ATomTotality becomes the
surface of a gigantic atom. There is only the Coulomb force in atoms and
so
the GR or gravity force is a secondary feature of the atom itself in that
the surface of the atom is created by the Coulomb force. No-one who
studies physics need be told that the math formula for Coulomb and for
Newton gravity are identical in form. Why are they identical? Because in
an Atom Totality
all forces are Coulomb and thus all have identical math form.

(5) Prediction: I have not yet seen the last hour segment, the 3rd
segment of
this program. I am wondering if Brian is honest enough to have included
in that final hour segment the fact of recent observations that there is
an Antigravity
discovered. Because in the 1990s there was astronomical data implying of
an
accelerating Universe with a new force of Antigravity. Antigravity would
spoil
the entire theory of GR in that gravity comes in pairs just as Coulomb
comes in pairs of repel and attract. If Brian is honest enough he would
include these recent
findings of an alleged Antigravity but I am suspicious that he will not
because
such a finding of Antigravity would trashcann the Stringtheory.

In the AtomTotality theory, all the forces are paired up. The WeakNuclear
pairs with the StrongNuclear and the Gravity pairs with the Antigravity.
Thus, all the 4 forces become one force--- a Coulomb force.

I predict that in the last hour of this 3 hour program that Brian Green
will not muster the honesty of reporting the antigravity force finds of
the 1990s simply because it counters the Stringtheory.

Question: it is obvious and apparent from the host of Brian Green that he
hates and has hatred of Quantum Mechanics QM and lauds and falls over in
love with
GR. Question: are most every stringtheorists have this personality love
of GR and hatred of QM. Then this 3 hour show of String theory tells more
of how people who make physics their career are easily suckered by their
own personality favoritism and bias and prejudice than behaving like a
"good scientist" and weigh the data and evidence and observation. I
suspect stringtheorists get suckered into this theory because of their
personality leanings when they should instead apply cold hard logic.

LOGIC tells us for the past 50 years:

(1) logic tells us that since QM won every battle between GR and QM,
that the odds on favorite for a theory of everything should be QM based
and not GR based

(2) Bell Inequality with Aspect Experiment tells us, if we chose to
listen,
tells us that QM is not confined to small space or to small scale but
that
QM is large scale and the distances of the entire Universe itself. That
implies
the Universe is one big atom.

(3) logic tells us that the recent 1990s discovery of Antigravity should
put
the entire Standard-Model theory on hold and doubt.

(4) logic tells us as Timothy Ferris (excuse the spelling) in the other
TV show
that if anyone who promotes a "theory of everything" must pass the
initial test
of LOGIC-- that people will say "aha, so easy, clear, brilliant,
immediate that why
did I not think of it" And its corollary that a True theory of Everything
will explain more than make muddy and dirty and complex and complicated.
The stringtheory explains nothing, instead it complicates and raises
whole new set of questions.

My Own View: physics and every other science field has people who are
more
interested in "fame and glory" and less so in "truth". And I feel the
stringtheorists and Brian Green and Susskind, and Witten and Weinberg and
Schwarz and Michael Green and all the other stringtheorists are motivated
firstly not for truth but for popularity and fame and fortune. And it is
a shame that
TV allows for 3 hours of science gullibility to be aired.

Postscript: I am happy they at least had Mr. Glashow with opposing view.
But they should have also aired the opinions of Feynman who said of
stringtheory in summary form was "a pile of junk"

I do not believe Stringtheory is a 100% pile of junk. I believe 5% of
Stringtheory
is salvageable. I believe the NuclearElectron which is the glue of the
StrongNuclear Force is describable by Stringtheory.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Suppose there was a 3 hour TV show on the ATomTotality
theory with me as host.

And suppose, too, that porcine aviation has advanced to the point where
scheduled flights may be booked online...

Unlike Stringtheory that takes 2 hours of a 3 hour show just to
explain it. The opening sentence would explain the AtomTotality
theory by thus:

The whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the
electron-dot-cloud are galaxies. Show a dot cloud pattern of 231Pu.
Point to a
galaxy which is a dot and this galaxy is the Milky Way. Point to a
smaller dot
inside the the Milky Way which is the Solar System etc etc on down to
the dot which
is the planet Earth.

May I suggest that you attempt to engage the services of Crusty the
Clown and his ertstwhile assistant Sideshow Bob as presenter and
co-presenter?

Then the AtomTotality would explain why the Inverse Fine Structure
Constant is 137 because 231Pu has 137 neutrons in the nucleus.

The explanatory power of your theory is truly breathtaking. I am sure
that Crusty would be able to gloss over the minor inconvenience of the
missing 0.03599976 neutrons.

Why 99% of the mass is not observable because an atom has most of its
mass in a
nucleus.

Ye gads! That's inspired! You are truly the King, no, the *Emperor* of
Science. We are humbled by your presence.

[More inspired, visionary genius verbiage snipped. I am not worthy to
gaze upon it a second time]

--
Pyriform

Yo! Fire-Like Person,


Pyriform wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Suppose ...


And suppose, too, ...


...


May I suggest that you attempt to engage the services of Crusty the
Clown and his ertstwhile assistant Sideshow Bob as presenter and
co-presenter?

That's _Krusty_ the Clown. The name is derived from the performer's
surname, Krustovsky (namely, Herschel Krustovsky, son of Rabi Hyman
Krustovsky).

Given the fact that the whole theme here is ludicrous fiction, it's
important to get these things right, ya' know!


Then the AtomTotality would explain why the Inverse Fine
Structure Constant is 137 because 231Pu has 137 neutrons in the
nucleus.


The explanatory power of your theory is truly breathtaking. I am
sure that Crusty would be able to gloss over the minor
inconvenience of the missing 0.03599976 neutrons.

What's a few percent of a neutron mass between all us chummy,
buddy-buddy friends here, eh? Science is just too anal as it is.
We need to lighten up a little, right? Since so much science is
government-funded, we should go with the old addage "close enough
for government work."


...

[More inspired, visionary genius verbiage snipped. I am not worthy
to gaze upon it a second time]

Yeah, it hurts my eyes (and my brain), too...


RRS

Randall R Schulz wrote:
Yo! Fire-Like Person,

Not entirely the image I had in mind, I must confess. But I like it.

May I suggest that you attempt to engage the services of Crusty the
Clown and his ertstwhile assistant Sideshow Bob as presenter and
co-presenter?

That's _Krusty_ the Clown. The name is derived from the performer's
surname, Krustovsky (namely, Herschel Krustovsky, son of Rabi Hyman
Krustovsky).

Given the fact that the whole theme here is ludicrous fiction, it's
important to get these things right, ya' know!

Ouch! I'd claim it was merely a typographical error, but I got it wrong
twice. Still, it's late, and I've been drinking. How else is a man
supposed to endure reading some of the stuff in here?

--
Pyriform

why do the cranky crackpots always argue with US, but never with each other?

-d

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...

snip

Your solution is definitely elegant. ; ) I wonder if it's THE theory,
though. Can you prove it?

Personally, I did not observe hostility to QM; what I saw was a
straightforward and neutral presentation of the facts that the QM and GR
don't play nicely together.

--
Bonnie Granat
Granat Technical Editing and Writing
http://www.editors-writers.info

Hi,


Pyriform wrote:

Randall R Schulz wrote:

Yo! Fire-Like Person,


Not entirely the image I had in mind, I must confess. But I like
it.

Oops... Well, I looked it up (better late than never, I suppose). It's
not the root I thoughg ("pyro" -- fire) but rather "pyrum" meaning "pear:"

pyr·i·form

pyr·i·form (pir??-fôrm´) adjective
Shaped like a pear.

[Medieval Latin pyrum, pear (alteration of Latin pirum) + -form.]

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products
N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance
with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.


Randy

I suspect that there are thousands of stringtheories out and about since 1970.
All of them having more or less constraints.

But, if all of these stringtheories were to be guided by one constraint only.
The
constraint that when a normal electron of a hydrogen atom in ground state is
compressed or squeezed into a Nuclear Electron of the space of a Neutron.
That this difference of a NuclearElectron compared to a normal electron is the
difference of the neutrino restmass.

So, give us a particular Stringtheory with the constraints of a NuclearElectron

and it should predict the restmass of the neutrino. The conversion of space of
a
normal electron into the space of a neutrino so that the normal electron has
been transformed into a nuclear electron should give the value of the neutrino
restmass.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Also, I suspect that there is a branching of stringtheory where one branch is that
of closed looped strings and the other branching is that of openstrings. This
branching is significant in physical terms and/or physical reality. It maybe that
the closed looped strings have restmass particles and that the openstrings are
photons. Or the other way around.

Instead of pressing the Stringtheory to try to get a Unified theory that was the
stupid application of Euler's mathematics. The wise application of Euler's math
was to keep it confined to the StrongNuclear force. And so the history of physics
by trying to expand a theory into a Unified theory was a grotesque
overapplication. Considering that the stringtheory has never even predicted a
single restmass particle.

The 1970s did not have a NuclearElectron concept with a Coulomb Unification of
forces. The 1980s did not have a NuclearElectron concept. Ditto for the 1990s. But
now in the 2000s we have a Unification of forces in that all forces
are Coulombic where the StrongNuclear pairs with the WeakNuclear and the
Gravity pairs with Antigravity.

Under these new insights, if one were to review and re-apply the old string
theories with the concept of NuclearElectron, I am confident they should be
able to pluck out a number value for the restmass of the neutrino.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies