A Cherokee Brave Looks Down on String Theory

A Cherokee Brave Looks Down on String Theory

L. Edgar Otto (ThePeSla)   23 June, 2012

What I have read on string theory comes from the time before the ideas of Membranes.  So I looked into the wiki articles for the discussion and other types of string theory.  It is as if from quasic theory that predates strings I am looking down rather than building up and unifying parts and hints of a general theory.  I do not know how these things were derived or interpreted by the usual math but the problems and conclusions in the article were my problems and conclusions and with some of the ideas I have disagreements in the paradoxes of the theories.  It seems though that as the theories have developed there are hints of higher unities between the types of string theories themselves.  I find it interesting that on certain interpretations certain conclusions are made for what measures we seek in the physics.  Certainly each of the sub theories has a place as a description of some phenomena of physics.

I will now list the points on what I see differs or agrees with the quasic view:

*The question of stings being grounded in a brane and that these are open or closed thus a closed string can travel the various brane spaces is thought to represent gravity mediators does not stand up to the idea, clearly, that such a theory of branes are no more a rigid or absolute concept than the idea of natural dimensions themselves.

*The methods of imaginary analysis can only suggest the mirroring of spaces of various interpretations.  We do desire to assert a space beyond the octonions and to suggest in the bigger picture it is at least sixteen dimensional.

*That in the inverse compliments, of things conceived as the radii of a circle, these are equivalent at the Planck level raises the issue of what is a paradox of unity as well the multiplicity of things.  That this is not the case as a reductionist simplicity is hinted at in the concept of analogs in the 'low dimensions' of which such unity differs from the Planck value (thus Pitkanen is justified from the analogical stance that such a value can be expressed in higher depth and levels in a more general form of space- granted the views between TGD and Quasics in this more general level of physics echos the hints of unified string theories in whole or in part)  For intelligible experiments that act as if these are the most fundamental of theoretical physics or for the explanation of some organic effects this seems obvious, yet my view leans toward the formalism in the faith in mathematics over the vague ideas that tend to be Platonism but this is a matter of taste.  Today, in fact in discussion with a computer student on some hardware issue his remark echoed his teacher that physics was primary over the math.

*I find the debate on if tachyons are part of the theory or not as the general problem of symmetry and the paradox of the discernment of indiscernible as foundational as the distinguishing of indistinguishable like the arrow of time or the idea of the chiral nature of handedness.  We cannot simple assert the grounding relations without reason in depth.

*That part of the explanations involve compactification and the enfolding of regions around tori (it was not clear that the holes in the higher dimensional ones were those of genus in the simple sense.

*If not I imagine an new super blackhole entity that is of course but speculative on an intuitive level that needs clarity yet less than my informational conception of quasars.  I am amazed so many people worked in these developments of the last couple of decades of years in the area of theory.  Pitkanen asks deeper questions in his view of space than what I would expect high positioned and brilliant people to have seen in their contemplations- but if as in the tachyon idea we have a deeper imbalance then that may explain the difficulty in finding an idea that on finding it in retrospect it appears all to obvious.

*I very much agree that the boundary or interface between what were considered brane or superstring supergravity models is an important concept to pursue further, only that boundary theory for me is of the quasic view.

*We cannot simply reduce the idea of a string to point field quantum like levels of derived triviality, not as a definite and rigid theory nor clearly as a default of ideas of probability.  If we could it would have unified the physics long ago.

*I have already stated my foundational position on a geometric and quasic idea of projective (a quasic plane involves or contains the idea of projective planes btw) as well as other concepts of duality which perhaps if we use the matrices we have to modify the mechanism by deeper number theory.  That the symmetry and asymmetry may act on different energy levels is not foundationally a general theory of which as the grounding we should expect that it will fulfill the idea of predictions or perhaps discovery to be found in what we actually can observe in our experiments on any level.  In a sense the difference is everywhere as is the principle that distinguishes (Boson string theory not able to) bosons from the fermions which structurally is obvious.  Some, like Kea were able to discern the idea of this on a level worthy to explore.  That, and as we string along SUSY their are other ways to see supersymmetry sometimes it takes human insight and intervention to prevent the night parrots of New Zealand from going extinct due to the expansion of human environs.

*It seems to me also that the need for a time dimension in the several theories is certainly a false need of distinction, even in four space relativity we can imagine it all as just space.

*In a theory that as of 1995 could not handle weights how can we say that branes have more weight or in general that in some higher dimensional domain there is more energy of which we see but part of it?  Even Einstein considered things differently toward the end in his more cyclic cosmic views.  This is a problem of the limitations of our calculus.

*I have this looking down sense, if I can find the right and unique words and meanings of the geometric and algebraic structures (Einstein said it likely would be a algebraic view and solution) as a sort of deduction- but to raise the idea of Occam to find the simplest hypothesis by induction seems to me an intuitive error in a necessarily complex universe or gene codes beyond our expectations so far (but not too far for the permutation ideas of say Kea will certainly have vast applications to the gene code levels of processes even if these have but impotent identity as indifferent physics paths cosmic code wise.)  We know now, philosophically, that something can exist between induction and deduction as suggested by the teleportation of matter in experiments.

*The analogy with water, water drops, irreducible or discretely composed objects (molecules) is OK in the crude sense (consider dark fluid ideas) which involve no explanation (says the article) of evaporation.  This problem of the one and many, of the connected or not,  multiply.

*In division itself some sting theories rely on zero divisors which is OK when understood but does not seem to be understood dynamically, that is connected and so on is a quasic issue of similarity and the mirroring of some idea of subdivision of a solid. recent suggestions of a particle as having an extension that extension is not as if a point extended into a string- the dimensional terms here read to the layman at least as unclear.  Such an idea of extension is on a higher than string model of particles.

*In the simple understanding of space structure (stereonometry) by condensing to a center rather than to see things in compactification or knots to explain them away, in what is real even as if in four space as a sort of mirror of things, fourth dimension 101, few seem to be able to visualize the quadruplification here involved so how can such artifacts of sign be understood and not be invisible from the equivalent notation of the algebra.

*The proof of reduction of topologies by circles as the conjecture is one of the things while true is not part of a much wider picture where the proof or not is an issue lost in the generalization (again we have to understand what the nature of infinity is as a mirror to the longer time said to master the discrete).

* * * * *