On 10/24/2012 10:20 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Nonsense Stephan,
I totally agree with everything you copied over
but totally disagree with your interpretation of it.
Richard
OK, please tell me how else the math is to be understood.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2012 2:35 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I do not understand what you are saying here.
The compact manifolds are 10^90/cc, 1000 Planck-length, 6-d particles
in a 3-D space.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Calabi-Yau_manifold#Calabi-Yau_manifolds_in_string_theory
.
How can those 6d dimensions be orthogonal to 3D space?
I admit that it is a conjecture that each particle maps the universe
instantly.
So if you have a means to falsify that conjecture I would like to hear about
it.
Richard
Hi Richard,
The strings are not free moving particles! From the link:
"To make contact with our 4-dimensional world, it is expected that the
10-dimensional space-time of string theory is locally the product M4×X of a
4-dimensional Minkowski space M3,1 with a 6-dimensional space X . The
6-dimensional space X would be tiny, which would explain why it has not been
detected so far at the existing experimental energy levels. Each choice of
the internal space X leads to a different effective theory on the
4-dimensional Minkowski space M3,1 , which should be the theory describing
our world."
Note the words "... string theory is locally the product M4×X of a
4-dimensional Minkowski space M3,1 with a 6-dimensional space X" . This
implies the orthogonality of X with respect to M4.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
