Fatal Errors of M-theory Assumptions

Fatal Errors of M-theory Assumptions

I hold a small cardboard cube made rigid by its design elements then covered with silver gray duct tape. As in the accompanying photo I label the faces of this with the letters O | p q b d , my first thought to do this as a first guess of how to orient the letters. After all, the various ways to rotate F is used in books on the discussion of crystal symmetry for two space. This idea took a few seconds really but symmetry and such was on my mind earlier.

You also see a book by Ken Wilbur, his ideas on holons I am familiar with and understand the right wing Christians cut this idea down along with other philosophers, most of them- my roommate knows more of his more Buddhist tenets. It is thought an error in his philosophy is the never ending spiral toward a better state of the human heart and soul and condition described by color frequencies as in the Ouspensky tradition. But Wilbur has already pointed out the kinship between the sociologists with the scientists who make war over their own interpretation of historical reductionism. The scientist call him New Age, and the religious call him heretic. I call him part of the new alternative view of the nature of theories of everything which goes back to earlier reasoning about space and mind and time.

But I only mention him here today because after reading others on the blogs I see that early kinship to some ideas of the unified field theory involving inverse square laws for gravity, electrostatics, magnetism (with adjustment of the measures and certain constants can be seen as the four fold pattern that the general formula covers.)

Now, I hold this cube in my hand and day dream while also doing other things. Resting my eyes reading Zane Gray glued to the ending of the book or eye averted a moment while my neighbor makes kitchen sounds and shouts to the air jumping up- I assume she got something important in the mail she was opening. Then back to ignoring each other. She must be the one who thinks I am out of my mind spending hours playing tiddly winks with geometric shapes. I understand how I can still see that cube of three dimensions as solid, and how others still do- and yet I can see it as if it were not a cube at all but some deeper abstract structure more a symmetric thing of sorts than something dimensional.

OK, as a play on the symmetry of words- what about a parallel electrostatics that would behave as if the "flexom" or "perpendicular magnetism" of Ulla? Not that either of us nor anyone else really understands the heart of magnetism.

This may be true even if we think some idea of relativity explains it (of course what after all is going on with monopoles in otherwise symmetrical equations?) I am sure out in the cybersphere some scientists or cracks in the pot of string theories which will not bend to a more general view and which are invisible to the older view can imagine a reduction to points that are all independent and made of monopoles.

But this sort of thing brings up the "Fatal Error of M-theory Assumptions" - that is the role of gravity, in particular the idea that gravity is described as a closed string not bound to a brane so can escape our own brane universe. It is a powerful idea but I have already shown what may be (finitely) closed as a circle in one quasic dimension may be open in another quasic dimension. In fact a better generalization would be that strings can open and close- a sort of gravity into electric-charge or energy-matter sort of foundational thing (see Rowlands on this too). It is not clear to me that such "gravitons or gravinos" or for that matter neutrinos in a star going nova, or a gluon in a quark-gluon plasma, can escape a certain region of physically real structures. Perhaps their is a different super-symmetry involved here, a superdupersymmetry.

Clearly such quasi-gravitons may not only escape but vanish- for after all as Hawking says in the newly featured book in the Scientific American book club- that the universe can arise spontaneously from the nothingness therefore God is superfluous. It is the same fundamental question of where the information comes and goes into creative black holes and other ones. Even on this level we can quite imagine the philosophy here working just as well to support something more than the natural as possible- and something more than what is saved beyond the nothing flatland and we individual singularities and iota strings of unique learning. The second error of M-theory is one of physicists in general- despite the beautiful and complex and intricate formulas their pictures are mundane and simple and misleading even as to prove what is a simply connected region or not in the greater scheme of things. It is pointless to declare at every point in four space is compacted six dimensions who retain some of the continuity to an asymptotic micro infinity then assume these can stay together beyond an aleph 1 infinity of degrees of freedom and not lose the very idea of such continuity- especially if we involve symmetries of thermodynamics and of time. (and maybe tachyons where string theory may appeal to them). The second error then is the prison we have made from our own imagining.

A third and fundamental fatal error beyond our cautious ignorance as scientists, is this idea of (and one I in clear pictures came up independently recently- let those who studied this or those who want to wiki it search the terms for these primitive ideas so stated they will find there)is the idea of chirality, in particular bilateral symmetry rather than the reduction into a point (lilly pad) or line (snake) direction of evolutionary symmetry. While the snub cube is a good example to explain such ideas of handedness and symmetry it is not clear that we can say such ideas are ideal only on the smallest scales- If we have a complex molecule which has right and left hand mirror sides as if two mirror molecules joined would we still not find on all scales more energy on one side or the other of otherwise identical molecules? The reason more than some metaphysical declaration that there is nothing (not something) and only positive mass (being) is the fundamental answer and not the context of the question as to why nature is biased in its handedness- if it were not so then it would not be biased in the unfolding of energy into the unfolding of our consciousness.

I turn the cube around in with my hands- ahh, let us say there are simplexes of point, edge, triangles, tetrahedrons and so on: Clearly one point is opposite another, and one edge is opposite another, and two triangles (inside the cube with two points outside them) are oriented opposite and parallel (and the four space case perhaps no so opposite orientated and so on in n-dimensional flat euclidean square things or orthogons. The question then is about the spin of these cubes and the well, electrostatic parallels within them.

OK, we imagine two protons colliding in a relativistic way and they flatten like pancakes (which is also they are rotating), Now if I fly at the speed of light in an absolute not curved way past an absolute sphere- at the closest approach we will see briefly the opposite pole of the side. I am perpendicular to that sphere but if we from some some view are literally pancakes then where do we rotate or describe information of points on or within that pancake. Is it not clear that these vague ideas of opposition quite besides ideas of dimension an string theory rotations involve some (well, forever to reach approach) idea of corresponding senses of what one particle will be to another one beyond say the ability of light to communicate that information between them - and worse at "infinite velocity" or as the instantaneous once established, these may not be reached and understood on any level short of the initial creation- that is there is no time to outrun the physical laws where in theory they can be shown it possibly to do so.

* * *

An interesting article today on science daily:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100921144135.htm

Such magnetic fields before the stars!