The Conceptual Errors of String Theory
As I come on to blogspot I find two interesting posts:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/12/surviving-indian-supersymmetric-island.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29
Lubos on a small region where the possible supersymmetry breakthrough may happen (this reminds me of Penrose actually who drew a cartoon of God finding a needle in the haystack of entropy in the creation of the world among all possible entropy's.) It is actually a rather cleaver idea which may hold promise if we can explore it.
Although, string theory (and by that I mean the Brane things also) is not a dead end as once thought but in the running again- after all thought the only game in town if one had to risk an area for their careers, after reading Lubos yesterday and his view of the interrelation and history, and disdain at any finite view, I thought I would consider the errors of differences as I see them from my theoretical assumptions.
My last post fancifully suggests an Otto-Motl statistics- and yet the other poster today has a most relevant discussion: http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2010/12/possible-explanation-of-shnoll-effect.html I am very much in agreement with Pitkanens suggestion as I have said as much myself in general and in posts in relation to numbers- but I did not directly relate it to atom decay rates although on posts on philosophychatforum and perhaps here early on I knew of the phenomenon- and from an intuitionist view the historical evolution of atoms suggested by Weyl and rejected by Einstein I find a very insightful idea if we have a wider view and not a biased faith in a rigid world that either exists or not as an eternal universe or a finite one that ends in either cold or fire. The theoreticians of the structures of space alone, while these philosophers should be describing and understanding the same thing, also seem to be making this error of superficial continuity and assertion that this is the only way reality, observable or not, can make a unified theory.
But theoretical thought has its hidden history too (even in a world that is aware of a jittery non-Newtonian time or perhaps time of a more superficial tachyonic nature) and we should not forget the first objections to the ideas of renormalization which does tend to form a consistent but narrow or even tribal view of physics as a philosophy or faith one has to defend in the name of all faiths. (by tachyon I mean what some think happens among string theorists when a particle interacts with a black hole like entity or is in a state of such interaction.
In this sense Pitkanen and many others who reject a rigid hierarchy (which in a sense will reject the superficial differences of surfaces and content in holographic theory) of so-called Planck regions or scales are part of the picture of what is real in physics also. What after all are branes but this duality between several string theories maybe in cycles- many sheets and membranes of them in space much akin to what I understand of Pitkanen's Topological theory of everything?
But these things are hard to see, especially with the terminology and formulas we want to convey the ideas to others- and if we are not aware of what are our hidden metaphysical assumptions if indeed we can see them. But what is the duality of a unifying theory of strings but Coxeter with his understanding of n-dimensional and rather discrete Euclidean geometry to which some try to apply to the real world of physics and to the areas where not such ideas seem to have intelligible applications?
At this point the perpendicularity, or other worldliness of ideas- such as super-symmetry, or dark matter, or a vision where any expanding world from some viewpoint seems really a static and averaged out unitary flat thing, are all ideas very easy to confuse and only abstractly define, such as dimension itself. That we modify old words to use in a new sense or coin new ones seems to me an equal burden on learning and memory and discovery of new and more comprehensive concepts. To suggest some relation between ideas of which we cannot verify with other ideas still not verified is certainly now a game of metaphysics of which it makes no sense to criticizes as physics or he who so adds to the discussions.
What does Osama have to do with the discussion Lubos? It is the Western tradition that really raises politics to a philosophy of politics. Why not show us a map where the population of many states in Europe may eventually become all Jewish states after all they were a tenth of the Roman population? Perhaps we should consider what the Islamic world chose, the Indian zero and not Aristotle's idea of the eternal unity of a finite but boundless God. The idea of something that can come in its simplicity from the nothingness.
After all, there is the Shroud of Turin whose image seems not to obey the inverse square law. Just maybe when we sent the spent uranium into the caves where he was hiding he zapped back with almost infinite imaginary mass a bit through the singularity of reverse time to find himself resurrected in another cave of sorts to walk the earth as the Messiah and drink wine. How else is it that we have not found him? :-)
* * *
On a more serious note I found this most excellent periodic table with some of the old alchemy symbols:
http://periodic.lanl.gov/default.htm
http://periodic.lanl.gov/default.htm
* * *
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19821-flaming-drives-online-social-networks.html
The question is why- and also for negative political advertizing effectiveness.
Perhaps, there are other forms of the negative- beyond ideas of complex numbers or hypercomplex numbers (the positive roots of unity not equal to one) behind the sceenes of what logic we know- behind the scenes of our ideas of exponetiation that applies to our personal perception which may be only sometimes connected to other things beneath some more comprehensive view of a deeper logic of reality.
* * *
Today's facebook status:
L. Edgar Otto Some imagined physics riding a ray of light, some imagined vibrating like an electron in a lattice- string theory imagines being a little bug crawling around one total and continuous world with compressed dimensions. Any one of the three separately viewed is an error of imagination.
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment