http://physicsmathforums.com -- where new ideas are allowed.
ch-ch-ch-ch-check it!!!

From: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive...p/t-82096.html

mcgucken07-13-2005, 03:25 PM
Could Someone Please Explain Exactly What String Theory and LQG Are
Trying To Do?

I have recently had the opportunity to ask this question to a couple
prominent physicists, and they could not answer it.

What is the purpsoe of these theories? What do they explain that is not
explained by SR, GR and QM?

What are the postulates of String Theory? Are there any? Is there any
premise as simple or beautiful as Einstein saying "The speed of light
is constant in all frames," or "energy is quantized," or Bohr stating,
"The electron orbits the nucleus at only discrete energy levels."

Does String Theory or LQG have any simple forumlas associated with
them, such as E=mc^2, E=hv, or something like Shroedinger's Equation?

Do they account for non-locality as demonstarted in EPR, Bell's
Theorem, and Aspect's experiments?

Does either theory unify Rel. and QM?

Finally, why should we have to unify relativity and QM?

Must we also unify Hiphop and Classical Music in some new musical
genere? Or can we realize that each works in a given venue, and that
music and the human heart underly both?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

selfAdjoint07-13-2005, 04:18 PM
Could Someone Please Explain Exactly What String Theory and LQG Are
Trying To Do?

I have recently had the opportunity to ask this question to a couple
prominent physicists, and they could not answer it.

What is the purpsoe of these theories? What do they explain that is not
explained by SR, GR and QM?

GR and QM are apparently not able to combine into a unified theory. One
basic purpose of both strings and quantum gravity programs is to remedy
this by achieving a theory that spans both and reduces to each as
special cases. In addition string theory is motivated the belief that
it does describe basic nature better that the previous theory, the
Standard Model of Particle Physics. The Standard Model has about 19
undefined parameters in it, and another goal of physicists is to find
explanations for these. It is one of the boasts of string theory that
it does not have ANY undefined parameters. These claims of string
theory are not belied by its present multivacuum difficulties.

What are the postulates of String Theory? Are there any? Is there any
premise as simple or beautiful as Einstein saying "The speed of light
is constant in all frames," or "energy is quantized," or Bohr stating,
"The electron orbits the nucleus at only discrete energy levels."

The premise of string theory is contained in the Nambu-Goto Lagrangian;
The local action of a string worldsheet is proportional to its change
in area.

Does String Theory or LQG have any simple forumlas associated with
them, such as E=mc^2, E=hv, or something like Shroedinger's Equation?

See above.

Do they account for non-locality as demonstarted in EPR, Bell's
Theorem, and Aspect's experiments?

QM and all the research you site does not assert nonlocality as local
realist theories would have it. It shows that local realist theories
are false.

Does either theory unify Rel. and QM?

String theory claims its graviton reproduces Einstein's GR physics in
flat spacetime. The quantum gravity workers are all trying to couple
quantum matter to their various quantum gravities.

Finally, why should we have to unify relativity and QM?

From the time of Galileo science has been monist, looking for unified
explanations. It bothers physicists that the two best theories around
are so contradictory to each other.

Must we also unify Hiphop and Classical Music in some new musical
genere? Or can we realize that each works in a given venue, and that
music and the human heart underly both?

This confuses an artistic field where there's no one right answer with
a rational one where you do seek for THE answer. BTW all through my
lifetime classical composers have been trying, with variable success,
to unify their music with the everchanging manifestations of popular
music, starting with rag time and jazz.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-13-2005, 08:19 PM
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.

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?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pengwuino07-13-2005, 08:29 PM
There is only one science of the heart, and that is art.


Incorrect. It is called cardiology

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hurkyl07-13-2005, 08:33 PM
The basic programme of String Theory, as I understand it, is to take
the wildly successful Standard Model, and tweak in a way that is likely
to preserve the successful features of the Standard Model, yet also
includes a graviton from which General Relativity can emerge. Also, it
would like to provide a way to derive the fundamental constants of the
Standard Model.


The basic programme of Quantum Gravity, as I understand it, is the
modest goal of simply trying to figure out how to quantize General
Relativity. The hope is that once this task is accomplished, it will be
more clear how to merge Quantum Gravity with the Standard Model.

Loop Quantum Gravity is the branch of Quantum Gravity that postulates
that basic geometric excitations take the form of loops.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-13-2005, 08:41 PM
When you say "LQG wants to quantize gravity," what exactly do you mean?

Why must gravity be quantized?

How will it be quantized?

Did quantum mechanics arise because somoene wanted to quantize
photons/particles, or did quantum mechanics arise because
photons/particles are quantized?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pengwuino07-13-2005, 08:45 PM
Its not because they WANT to quantize photons and particles, its
because it is quantized. We do things to find out how things truely
are. Gravity doesnt have to be quantized but people do these things and
study things and do various experiments to find out IF it is. Also, if
we knew if it were quantized, we will know how its quantized and we
cant just tell it how to be quantized.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-13-2005, 09:21 PM
Instead of qunatizing gravity, couldn't we just quantize time, space,
or space-time?

This would explain the quantum behavior of small particles in and short
distances, while allowing for the classical behavior of large objects
and long distances.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pengwuino07-13-2005, 09:22 PM
Well im far as hell from an expert but that woudlnt explain quantized
energy levels of say, electrons. Someone else probably has a better
explanation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hurkyl07-13-2005, 09:23 PM
There have been experiments supporting the idea of quantum gravity:


The experiments essentially bounce ultra-cold neutrons off of a
reflective surface, and then check what heights the neutrons could
attain.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/1/9
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...m-world/dn1801

The end result was that the height of detected neutrons was quantized,
thus strongly suggesting that gravitational potential energy must be
quantized.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hurkyl07-13-2005, 09:27 PM
Instead of qunatizing gravity, couldn't we just quantize time, space,
or space-time?

Don't forget that, according to GR, gravity is space-time.


LQG has achieved a quantized space-time: the basis states are "spin
networks" -- graphs whose nodes represent a "chunk" of space-time, and
whose edges represent the boundary between neighboring chunks. The area
and volume operators of LQG have quantized spectra.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hurkyl07-13-2005, 09:31 PM
By the way, the quantum behavior of bound particles in the Standard
Model is not suggestive of quantized space-time. Furthermore, this
neglects free particles for which things like energy do not have
discrete spectra.

(Incidentally, I do not know of a bound system for which the position
operator has a discrete spectrum, but then again I don't know a vast
array of examples)

AFAIK, people have tried to directly put QFT onto a discrete lattice,
with little success.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chronos07-13-2005, 11:46 PM
.... Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) theory and Brane theory, as
variants of string theory...LQG is [at least here] usually taken to
mean Loop Quantum Gravity. I'm not aware of any association between
Linear Quadratic Gaussian theory and string theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vanesch07-14-2005, 12:23 AM
Gravity doesnt have to be quantized but people do these things and
study things and do various experiments to find out IF it is.

It is not so much that we have a choice, and the "unification of
gravity and quantum theory" is not a matter of "what if" ? If gravity
and quantum theory could exist peacefully together, that would disturb
nobody, but they don't: both theories (general relativity and the
standard model) give wildly incompatible predictions (even
inconsistencies) when you push them into domains where both are
relevant.

It is a bit analogous to the following story. On a faraway planet
there's a civilisation of beings, the size of an ant and two geniuses
have established 2 theories: Euclidianus has a theory of the surface on
which they live (2-dim flat surface), and this works well for road and
field work and coastal navigation. Newtonibus has a theory of planets
being points and this works well to predict the motions in the sky. But
both theories (flat earth vs. points in space) are INCOMPATIBLE,
however, if you speculate in domains which are far beyond the
experimental reach of these creatures, like "what happens when I make a
very very long road, how come that I cannot reach another planet" and
so on.
So comes a new theory: planets are spheres !
This unifies both previous theories: in small enough areas, the surface
of the sphere approaches the flat surface of Euclidianus, and at far
away distances, the spheres look like points as in the theory of
Newtonibus.
That doesn't change the fact that for all practical purposes, the
theories of Euclidianus and Newtonibus are sufficient to explain about
all phenomena in the sky and on the land, and that it will be damn
difficult for these creatures to TEST the new theory.

cheers,
Patrick.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hans de Vries07-14-2005, 05:22 AM
Could Someone Please Explain Exactly What String Theory and LQG Are
Trying To Do?


Every major String Theory revolution seems to be aimed at making it
more
difficult to falsify it... Job security?


In the seventies so many nice theories ended up in the waste bin
because
of non-renormizability. The first String Theory revolution in the
eighties then
made it easy to renormalize about anything. One could develop theories
without fear again.

But it gave an explosive number of theories. Surely from N different
theories
there must be N-1 wrong? So who's right and who is wrong? Infighting
and conflict was the result. Then, the second String Theory revolution
in the nineties unified them all in 11 dimensions and peace returned.

Nevertheless impatience grew because it predicted no SM parameters.
Then, luckily, the latest String Theory revolution adequately solved
this
nuisance with the Landscape model which tells the world there's no need

to predict anything since it's just all "random". And so, it relieved
the
community from the outside pressures.

Two days ago there was a panel discussion about what the next String
Theory revolution could be:

http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/progra...005/panel.html


Why should you want yet another one when you've already achieved that
String Theory can't be falsified in a thousand years? Making it THE
theory for
the next Millennium... :smile:


Regards, Hans

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-14-2005, 08:34 AM
Every major String Theory revolution seems to be aimed at making it
more
difficult to falsify it... Job security?


In the seventies so many nice theories ended up in the waste bin
because
of non-renormizability. The first String Theory revolution in the
eighties then
made it easy to renormalize about anything. One could develop theories
without fear again.

But it gave an explosive number of theories. Surely from N different
theories
there must be N-1 wrong? So who's right and who is wrong? Infighting
and conflict was the result. Then, the second String Theory revolution
in the nineties unified them all in 11 dimensions and peace returned.

Nevertheless impatience grew because it predicted no SM parameters.
Then, luckily, the latest String Theory revolution adequately solved
this
nuisance with the Landscape model which tells the world there's no need

to predict anything since it's just all "random". And so, it relieved
the
community from the outside pressures.

Two days ago there was a panel discussion about what the next String
Theory revolution could be:

http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/progra...005/panel.html


Why should you want yet another one when you've already achieved that
String Theory can't be falsified in a thousand years? Making it THE
theory for
the next Millennium... :smile:


Regards, Hans

Hello Hans,

I pretty much figured this as String Theory has not achieved anything
in the realm of physics.

It's sad that it's given so much prominence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-14-2005, 09:15 AM
Einstein wrote a few definitive papers. Debroglie wrote a definitive
paper. Maxwell and Planck wrote definitive papers.

Have any string theorists written any definitive papers? I'd love to
read the definitive papers, although I think I already have.

Who are the big names in string theory these days? Who are the young
guns?

What's the latest of the latest? What's the buzz, hype, and new new
thing?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hurkyl07-14-2005, 09:36 AM
You could try searching for them. Marcus, for example, manages to bring
up an amazing wealth of papers from people working on Quantum Gravity,
and shares his findings in this very forum. I can't imagine it would be
that hard to find papers on String Theory, if that's what you would
prefer to see.

www.arxiv.org would probably be a good place to look.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-14-2005, 10:18 AM
But with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, we know the definitive
papers without having to google them.

And even if I found the greatest papers on String Theory, how would I
know?

What are the leading journals for String Theory?

I think I know, but I might not. Thanks!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hurkyl07-14-2005, 10:32 AM
A very brief amount of searching brings up this historical timeline:

http://superstringtheory.com/history/history4.html

I would surmise that if you find the papers behind those events, you
would have found for what you're looking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Mattson07-14-2005, 10:47 AM
But with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, we know the definitive
papers without having to google them.


That's because over the years they have trickled down to the textbook
level, so they are common knowledge to anyone who has studied physics
in the last several decades. To find string theory papers you have to
search for them. But as has been noted, it's not that hard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-14-2005, 10:49 AM
But how come you can't name any top papers?

How come nobody can name any, and yet we can supposedly go find them
without too much effort?

String theory is 30+ years old.

It didn't take Einstein's, Bohrs, and Feynman's definitive papers 30
years to "trickle" down.

So again I ask, what are String Theory's definitive papers?

If they don't exist, that's fine--it wouldn't surprise me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Mattson07-14-2005, 10:58 AM
But how come you can't name any top papers?


Because I'm not into string theory. Look, what is your objective here?
To actually find these papers, or to thumb your nose at string
theorists? If it's the former, then follow the lead Hurkyl gave you.
But if it's the latter, then you will have to find another website on
which to conduct your crusade.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-14-2005, 11:02 AM
I'm just wondering why nobody can name any leading papers on String
Theory in a forum devoted to String Theory.

If someone could point out some major papers on String Theory, then
perhaps we would have something to discuss in this forum.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Mattson07-14-2005, 11:21 AM
I'm just wondering why nobody can name any leading papers on String
Theory in a forum devoted to String Theory.


I thought you were wondering what the top papers are? If that is the
case, then why don't you look for them? That was, after all, your
supposed purpose for starting this thread. Or was that just a pretense?


If someone could point out some major papers on String Theory, then
perhaps we would have something to discuss in this forum.

If you have nothing to discuss here, then by all means don't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-14-2005, 11:21 AM
Because I'm not into string theory. Look, what is your objective here?
To actually find these papers, or to thumb your nose at string
theorists? If it's the former, then follow the lead Hurkyl gave you.
But if it's the latter, then you will have to find another website on
which to conduct your crusade.

The site Hurkyl gave me has absolutely no links to papers.

http://superstringtheory.com/

The site's a joke--no equations, no papers, no postulates, no
fundamental principles--just the typical hand-waving and cool pictures.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Mattson07-14-2005, 11:23 AM
The site Hurkyl gave me has absolutely no links to papers.


He gave you 2 sites. The other one is the arXiv. I know for a fact that
string papers have been uploaded to that site.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Severian59607-14-2005, 11:28 AM
If someone could point out some major papers on String Theory, then
perhaps we would have something to discuss in this forum.

If they don't exist, that's fine--it wouldn't surprise me.
Troll alert!! LoL, forum personas make me laugh. This guy is looking
for trouble.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-14-2005, 11:33 AM
Troll alert!! LoL, forum personas make me laugh. This guy is looking
for trouble.

I'm not looking for trouble.

I'm just looking for someone to direct me to a couple of the leading
papers on String Theory.

Then we can pick one and perhaps discuss it.

Thanks in advance!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Mattson07-14-2005, 11:43 AM
I've merged this thread with the thread, "Could Someone Please Explain
Exactly What String Theory and LQG Are Trying To Do?" The content of
the two was not sufficiently different to warrant 2 seperate threads.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

marcus07-14-2005, 11:56 AM
this was post #6 in the original thread
relating to the question "what string theory and LQG are trying to do"
and shed some light. want to keep tabs on this one and few others
The basic programme of String Theory, as I understand it, is to take
the wildly successful Standard Model, and tweak in a way that is likely
to preserve the successful features of the Standard Model, yet also
includes a graviton from which General Relativity can emerge. Also, it
would like to provide a way to derive the fundamental constants of the
Standard Model.


The basic programme of Quantum Gravity, as I understand it, is the
modest goal of simply trying to figure out how to quantize General
Relativity. The hope is that once this task is accomplished, it will be
more clear how to merge Quantum Gravity with the Standard Model.

Loop Quantum Gravity is the branch of Quantum Gravity that postulates
that basic geometric excitations take the form of loops.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

marcus07-14-2005, 12:01 PM
this is post #15 of orig.
another possibly illuminating one. Patrick quoted Pengwuino question
and then replied.


Gravity doesnt have to be quantized but people do these things and
study things and do various experiments to find out IF it is.

It is not so much that we have a choice, and the "unification of
gravity and quantum theory" is not a matter of "what if" ? If gravity
and quantum theory could exist peacefully together, that would disturb
nobody, but they don't: both theories (general relativity and the
standard model) give wildly incompatible predictions (even
inconsistencies) when you push them into domains where both are
relevant.

It is a bit analogous to the following story. On a faraway planet
there's a civilisation of beings, the size of an ant and two geniuses
have established 2 theories: Euclidianus has a theory of the surface on
which they live (2-dim flat surface), and this works well for road and
field work and coastal navigation. Newtonibus has a theory of planets
being points and this works well to predict the motions in the sky. But
both theories (flat earth vs. points in space) are INCOMPATIBLE,
however, if you speculate in domains which are far beyond the
experimental reach of these creatures, like "what happens when I make a
very very long road, how come that I cannot reach another planet" and
so on.
So comes a new theory: planets are spheres !
This unifies both previous theories: in small enough areas, the surface
of the sphere approaches the flat surface of Euclidianus, and at far
away distances, the spheres look like points as in the theory of
Newtonibus.
That doesn't change the fact that for all practical purposes, the
theories of Euclidianus and Newtonibus are sufficient to explain about
all phenomena in the sky and on the land, and that it will be damn
difficult for these creatures to TEST the new theory.

cheers,
Patrick.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

marcus07-14-2005, 12:04 PM
this was post #16, Hans responding directly to the part of the orig.
question about what string research tries to accomplish.

Every major String Theory revolution seems to be aimed at making it
more
difficult to falsify it... Job security?


In the seventies so many nice theories ended up in the waste bin
because
of non-renormizability. The first String Theory revolution in the
eighties then
made it easy to renormalize about anything. One could develop theories
without fear again.

But it gave an explosive number of theories. Surely from N different
theories
there must be N-1 wrong? So who's right and who is wrong? Infighting
and conflict was the result. Then, the second String Theory revolution
in the nineties unified them all in 11 dimensions and peace returned.

Nevertheless impatience grew because it predicted no SM parameters.
Then, luckily, the latest String Theory revolution adequately solved
this
nuisance with the Landscape model which tells the world there's no need

to predict anything since it's just all "random". And so, it relieved
the
community from the outside pressures.

Two days ago there was a panel discussion about what the next String
Theory revolution could be:

http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/progra...005/panel.html


Why should you want yet another one when you've already achieved that
String Theory can't be falsified in a thousand years? Making it THE
theory for
the next Millennium... :smile:


Regards, Hans

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

marcus07-14-2005, 12:34 PM
Vanesch (Patrick wlcm back long time no see) says QM and GR need to be
unified in a single theory (a quantized Gen Rel I guess) because in
situations where they both are supposed to be applicable they DISAGREE!
It is disturbing to have models of nature that you believe describe
things right which say different things. nature cant really be that
way, can it?

So then Hurkyl says that String program and QG program are two very
different ways of responding to the problem.
One (QG) simply tries to quantize Gen Rel. But Gen Rel is a geometric
theory of gravity that says "gravity=geometry", gravity effects arise
from the shape of the universe, from dynamic spacetime geometry. So
that means that QG has to somehow get a handle on all the possible
geometries of the universe. So in some way QG is modest and focused on
one goal---quantizing Gen Rel. But that involves a somewhat dauntingly
ambitious project of coping with all these shapes of spacetime.

The other programme (String) says Hurkyl, "is to take the wildly
successful Standard Model, and tweak in a way that is likely to
preserve the successful features of the Standard Model, yet also
includes a graviton from which General Relativity can emerge. Also, it
would like to provide a way to derive the fundamental constants of the
Standard Model."
That is, you dont try to quantize the geometries, you take a static
geometric stage on which things happen and you quantize a particle that
carries the gravitational force or mediates gravitational interaction,
just like photon mediates EM interaction. the nice part is you dont
have to worry about a myriad changing uncertain spacetime geometry, you
usually just take one smooth fixed geometry and let particles run
around in it---that makes things easier. but there is also the hard,
ambitious part, of wanting to include the whole standard model, all the
usual particles, and add gravity in, and get a single picture.

so the first thing one notices is that the two programs have radically
different aims. even if String program could be a smashing success (no
clear evidence that is happening) even then it wouldnt satisfy the QG
people. Because there would be a smooth fixed, usually flat, geometric
background, in which the particles run around. Just seeing gravitons
swimming in a static background wouldnt make them happy. they have to
see expanding space, big bangs, collapsing stars, colliding black holes
and all that very dynamic actionpacked highly curved stuff. they want
all those possible geometries quantized in a blurry cloud of
uncertainty. and geometric operators reading off information from it.

And even if the QG program overwhelmingly succeeded it would still not
satisfy the String people because it would only quantize Gen Rel. It
would not include all the colors of quark and the families of neutrinos
and all that Standard Model business. It would just provide a quantum
spacetime for things to happen in.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Severian59607-14-2005, 01:11 PM
I'm not looking for trouble.

I'm just looking for someone to direct me to a couple of the leading
papers on String Theory.

Then we can pick one and perhaps discuss it.

Thanks in advance!
Hopefully I'm not repeating someone else, but have you looked at this
forum topic yet?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=8493 ( Useful annotated
overview of string theory literature)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-15-2005, 08:21 AM
Thanks for all the feedback here, but all I'm looking for is one or two
papers we could discuss.

If nobody else suggests a couple papers, or if nobody knows of any,
then I will introduce a couple papers to discuss, which I believe are
the leading papers/definitive papers on String Theory.

But it seems very strange to me that nobody can name a definitive
paper.

When we discuss Relativity, be it SR or GR, there are a couple of very
definitive papers, written by an Individual--Einstein.

When we discuss QM, there are perhpas more definitive papers, but there
are definitive papers, written by Bohr, Planck, Einstein, Debroglie,
Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, Shrodenger.

But somehow String Theory seems to get by without any definitive papers
or individuals. I know there's Brian Greene and Edward Witten, and I've
read some of their scholarly work, but I wouldn't call it definitive,
as it doesn't add up--it's more of a promise and a request for faith.

Thanks again for all the feedback, and I hope I'm not stepping out of
bounds, but to have a proper discussion of string theory, it seems we
would need to start with string theory's central postualtes, which
would be in a definitive paper somewhere.

Thanks!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-16-2005, 08:44 AM
I move that we discuss Witten's foundational paper which includes
Witten's postulates of String Theory.

After that I propose that we discuss Brian Greene's revolutionary paper
on String Thoery and the Laws of String Theory he lays out.

I suppose we can continue the discussion in this thread. I have the
papers--can anyone find any online copies or online descriptions of the
central postulates of String Theory?

Feel free to post away concerning Witten's and Greene's postulates.

Here's the wikipedia page on Witten:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten

Here's the wikipedia page on Brian Greene:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene

Unfortunately neither of these pages describe their postulates of
String Theory, nor link to any of Greene's nor Witten's definitive
papers. Perhaps we could add that information--wikipedia is "open
source."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-16-2005, 01:38 PM
I apologize if I have done anything to inhibit this thread.

I agree that we should only discuss theories here, and not
personalities. I am sorry for bringing up Brian Greene and Edward
Witten. From hereon out let us discuss only their postulates and laws,
but not their names, quotes, tv shows, assertions, musings, opinions,
promises, nor personalities. Physics, after all, must be based in
physics.

Let us only discuss String Theory's leading postulates, laws, and
predictions in the perfect vacuum it deserves.

Thank you.

Please feel free to post a postulate, law, or prediction of String
Theory, but nothing else.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

brunardot07-17-2005, 12:39 AM
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 a
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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-19-2005, 09:57 AM
Could someone please post a postulate, law, or prediction of String
Theory?

We would all very much like to discuss it!

Thanks!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

marcus07-19-2005, 10:31 AM
Could someone please post a postulate, law, or prediction of String
Theory?


One important basic postulate of String Theory, is that
LQG won't work

this is known as the Motl Axiom and is invoked to prove an important
theorem, the One Best Hope Theorem:

String is our one best hope of a theory unifying QM and GR

Your next statement, Mcgucking, is quite possibly mistaken, unless
ironically intended

We would all very much like to discuss it!


[the above post is kidding]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

marcus07-19-2005, 11:28 AM
Well I just caught on to the fact that Dr. McGucken has a similar
format to PF site

http://physicsmathforums.com/index.php?

http://physicsmathforums.com/

and it evidently has parts that havent been posted in yet
and the maximum visitors was in March 2005
so probably is asking for some aggressive promoting

so now I think i understand better why we have some commotion and
occasional argumentativeness

Mcgucken I believe you would like to attract some of us (not me because
i am basically too stodgy but some of the faster crowd) to come over to
your Forums site! I think that is fine and perfectly legitimate and i
hardly blame you since there is a fine bunch of people here! You would
naturally like some to come and be members. That is all well and good.

However it means that you personally are not someone whom we can
assimilate to the PF culture and all that, such as it is (and it is
pretty nice actually) because you HAVE YOUR OWN OUTSIDE THING.

So I think I will not try to pursue this thread and discuss what LQG
and other approaches to quantum gravity are trying to do---which is
pretty hard any way. quantum gravity people ARE trying to achieve
something, but it really is not easy to talk about IMHO.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcgucken07-19-2005, 11:32 AM
Hello Marcus,

I am only trying to discuss the postulates of String Theory, wherever I
can on the internet.

I'm assuming that the postulates will be the same, assuming that all
posters are in inertial frames.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

brunardot07-25-2005, 01:47 AM
Could someone please post a postulate, law, or prediction of String
Theory?

We would all very much like to discuss it!

Thanks!
As I understand ST, its current postulates are assumptions.

ST assumes that fundamental energy evolves and manifests in the form of
strings of varying or unknown definition, in an unknown manner, from an
unknown source.

These strings are usually said to vibrate; however, the better string
theorists realize that they oscillate; though, I am not aware of anyone
that has described the geometry or relativity of said oscillation in
detail. From what I understand the only validity of ST is the
assumption of oscillating energy. If the internal structure of this
energy was understood and all else thrown out, ST might have some
redeeming merit.

Then, ST attempts, with the "vibrating" strings to explain the
etiology of light and gravity from the coalescence, or whatever, of
said string phenomena. Thus, light and gravity would have a common
foundation; and thus, be unified. At present ST depends on conventional
theory to explain the process of "whatever" and that which is being
unified.

Assuming that the problems of paragraph one and two can be resolved
(they should require little more than a desktop computer, philosophical
logic, and a day or so to reconcile with current observation.); ST
still can not achieve its goal. You cannot reconcile ill-defined forces
that are currently defined such that they are little more than
metaphysical (requiring much faith to accept) concepts.

Understanding nature cannot be accomplished from the "top down." A
good beginning would be to agree on a most fundamental concept and then
determine its source and evolution. I know of nothing that "exists"
that does not have motion; so motion of "nothing" would be a good
starting point. Next its source, geometry, and "nothing" must be
pinned down. Once this is done, the other parts of the jig-saw puzzle
should quickly fall into place, as we have observation to guide the
procedure.

One must be careful not to go astray because of the influence of
current academic theory.

And, of course, as McGucken/Astro is aware, the puzzle's solution
should not be rushed, as it will detrimentally influence many grants
and consequent sinecures.

Imagine, if metaphysical gravity waves were shown to be a hoax how many
jobs would be lost. Caltech, alone, is approaching a billion dollars on
a single gravity wave seeking experiment.

The above is form
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive...p/t-82096.html

http://physicsmathforums.com -- where new ideas are allowed.
ch-ch-ch-ch-check it!!!

wrote in message
ups.com...
http://physicsmathforums.com -- where new ideas are allowed.
SNIP

Finally, why should we have to unify relativity and QM?

A 21st century step on the road to "knowing thyself".

BOfL

"Brian Fletcher" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
http://physicsmathforums.com -- where new ideas are allowed.
SNIP

Finally, why should we have to unify relativity and QM?

A 21st century step on the road to "knowing thyself".

BOfL

You don't unify alternative faces of the same thing. Alternative ways of
seeing the same thing. Alternative physics. Inside out. Outside in.

GLB

"G. L. Bradford" wrote in message
...

"Brian Fletcher" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
http://physicsmathforums.com -- where new ideas are allowed.
SNIP

Finally, why should we have to unify relativity and QM?

A 21st century step on the road to "knowing thyself".

BOfL

You don't unify alternative faces of the same thing. Alternative ways of
seeing the same thing. Alternative physics. Inside out. Outside in.

GLB

yeah it is crazy, but it seems like there could be a mathematical
representation of both sides.
Maybe you can never put an equal sign between them though.
I know the symbol for "approximately", but is there a mathematical symbol
that means "sometimes"?
How about "maybe"?
Hehhe, I bet there is, and it is a whole blackboard of equations in a dark
office and a physicist at home drunk
-Phil Clemence

Hi REVOLVER45, Physics is about what's observed, the rest is metaphysics.
But what's observed depends on how far you can zoom in and out.
General_Relativity zooms out to cosmic scales, making us look tiny and frail.

General_Relativity is ultra high-tech... to a fault, almost.

Zooming out like that is why so many religious types censor Einstein and Darwin.
Quasi_Measurements at the quantum scale are not a fifth _Spatial_ dimension,
as string theory posits.

Mass_Energy is the fifth spatil dimension, I posit,
because the kilogram could ( at least in theory ) be defined as
X oscillations of a ( atom ? ) laser, just like the second and the meter.

Further, a photon from the birth of the CMB ( just hitting us now )
has a length, a duration, and pressure ( and so, by conversion, a mass ).

If the first and second laws of thermodymanics are universal
( and I think they are ) so that no energy ( dark or otherwise )
is ever created or destroyed and if, by the second law,
energy ( say heat ) spontaneously dissipates ( increasing entropy ),
....then the accrual of spacetime over cosmological-time is inevitable,
and it happened much faster when the observable universe was much denser.

Gravity is the intrinsic momentum ( mass-energy ) of spacetime,
the ground state of a virtual ether.

Like life itself, gravity is a remnant of a once denser ( dissipating ) cosmos,
a Local/Temporary reversal of entropy ( i.e. an open system ),
like winning the jackpot in a virtual casino
( where the house always wins in the end ).

Given dark energy has negative pressure, 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_Matter * c^2
( the positive pressure of radiation is insignificant ).
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/W.PNG

This means black holes'd have much negative energy ( i.e dark energy );
in other words, they'd be a time-dilated White_Hole with great
coherence, Gibbs_Free_Energy, NegEntropy, _Life_ and Relativistic_Mass.

Cold_Dark_Matter might be an _Ultra_ cold, low NegEntropy state.

By " life ", I mean something much more general than water-based life, i.e.:

Vices are just different ways to burn out ( and all things burn out ).

They're ok ( to a point ), because they're a celebration of life;
but which ones get condoned ( e.g. sex, gasoline and reproduction ) and
which ones don't ( e.g. smoking ) is a _Soft_ ( random ) science.

Each is imprisoned in a virtual casino... the house always wins in the end.

Like you're both God _And_ Devil ( i.e. " God/Devil " )
to the animals and plants you raise to feed yourself
( i.e. like you punish and reward them, to control them ),
you're a God/Devil's tenant and a God/Devil to your tenants.
Entropy ( i.e. spontaneous dissipation ) is the top God/Devil
because, like a lit match, consumption
( i.e. ignitions wich spontaneously lower Gibbs_Free_Energy )
both creates and destroys all that ever was.

Although control is the goal, it's a mirage.

Time is pseudo-directional ( i.e. spatial )
because, like a dice toss is known to be pseudorandom ( i.e. causal ),
all randomness is pseudorandom.