Belief . . . and string theory.
==.
But your question really is "what does a physical particle look
like?"
My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics..
. . .
So string theory IS my religion.
/ Richard Ruquist /
======..
1
Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’ / by Lee Smolin /
Part 8. The first superstring revolution.
Page 126 – 127.
‘. . . the growing catalog of string theories meant that
we weren’t actually studying a fundamental theory.’ . . .
‘ . . . but the many versions of string theory opened up
the possibility that it was true of essentially all the
properties of the elementary particles and forces. This would
mean that properties of the elementary particles were
environmental and could change in time. If so, it would mean
that physics would be more like biology, in that the
properties of the elementary particles would depend on the
history of our universe. ‘
#
‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing.
How do we find that missing idea?’
/ Page 308. Lee Smolin. /
2
String theory . . . . ‘ Type IIA strings as one-dimensional
objects, having only lengths but no thickness, . . . . . ‘
/ page 311. Book: The elegant Universe. By Brian Greene /
3.
We don't know what we are talking about"
/ - Nobel laureate David Gross referring
to the current state of string theory ./
4.
How did the idea of many dimensions arise?
==..
It began in 1907 when Minkowski tried to understand
SRT and invented 4-D negative spacetime continuum
Nobody knows what Minkowski 4-D really is.
#.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried
to explain SRT using 5D space.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said physicists and mathematicians,
" maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 11D or 27D spaces will explain it".
And they had done it.
But………. But there is one problem.
To create new D space, they must add a new parameter.
Because it is impossible to create new D space without
a new force, a new parameter.
And they take this parameter arbitrarily
( it fixed according to they opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…"
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains? Where is the logic?
#
If we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is negative Mincowski 4-D
how can we understand 11-D, 27-D and string theory ?
=========.
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every physicist who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher must be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense" because they have
won us using the abstract ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
