Beyond English: Can hologram have gravity?

I ain't gonna flatter no cosmos . . . if he ain't got no self-confidence, it ain't no skin off my nose.

This would go under the rubric of wild speculation at best. The string theories or M-Theory that has purportedly replaced them have never worked. Actually they were born in 1912 and have been dusted off several times since then for different problems and have NEVER been successful.

The idea that they "makes the same predictions as standard quantum physics in fewer dimensions." is also wishful thinking. They cannot be used to calculate anything at normal energies and so have no predictive power at these levels. The only realm in which they purportedly work so far is at the Plank level which is 30+ orders of magnitude greater than the energy level of normal particles and far, far, far beyond our ability to test.

The main reason particle physicists have moved to these theories is that the current standard theory has stalled and the National Science Foundation is not likely to throw money at a proposal that says give us big bucks to sit around and spin our wheels. Some see mathematical "beauty" in them.

If you want pedigree rather than my insights, giants in the field Richard Feynman and Sheldon Glashow (in the 1980's) loudly ridiculed this area of research. Very little has changed since then.

The two-dimensional system may not have gravity, but it will have rules that govern how things react with each other.

Things clearly work out so that the contents of the three-dimensional illusion comply with the law of gravity as it is understood within that three-dimensional illusion.

I'm trying to find the quotations about these ridicules made by Richard Feynman and Sheldon Glashow. Would you like to offer links or paste their opinions here?

Unfortunately I can't provide links as my learning mostly comes from before the web existed. I have a recording of a 1987 BBC-3 radio program where they interviewed the big names in strings along with Feynman and Glashow. They made a book of the transcripts which I have put away somewhere. If I think of the title I will let you know. I provided a few quotes from the audio.


Feynman
[After noting that when he was young he saw that old physicists could not take to new ideas easily and often dismissed them. They later looked somewhat foolish when these theories proved useful. He notes he may have fallen into that trap but regarding Superstrings...

...I do feel strongly that this is nonsense I can't help it...

[Why?]
I don't like they are not calculating anything. I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that anything that disagrees with experiment, they cook up an explanation - a fix-up to say 'Well it might be true.' ... It doesn't produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn't look right.

[Carelessness?]
It not that they are careless, but it is very difficult. So they are unable to make a prediction not out of carelessness but inability. But they continue to say it looks like a promising theory, in spite of the fact that they have to add all these guesses.

[What about the theory being able to possibly remove recalcitrant infinities in the calculations, isn't that a reason to favor these theories?]

Yes if it also agreed with experiment. But what they say is 'Suppose we take the view that there is no way to get rid of the infinities and then suddenly discover there is one way to get rid of the infinities, but you can't work out the consequences. Since it is so compelling it must be the right theory'. Then they sit around saying, 'well you can't disprove it'... They are not deducing anything, they are saying that this is the only thing they can come up with and since you can't disprove it it must be true. It's possibly what drives them on. They may be right but I don't think so.

From Glashow:

The interviewer notes in the introduction that Glashow is 'waiting for the Superstrings to break.'

[The string theorists believe they have a truly unified field theory.]

They have a feeling that they require 5 new fields of mathematics before they have a theory (Witten). The do not have a theory they have a complex of ideas that do not form a theory and they cannot even say whether their structures describes the successful accomplishments that have been obtained in the laboratory and theoretical physics.

He notes:

That Superstrings are more infective than aids and more damaging and notes he is trying to keep them out of his Harvard with little success.

I will try to find the book so I can give you the ISBN number.

You mean there is wood at the subatomic level? Isn't it turtles all the way down?

There should be a c before the k. Maybe it is a German board.

No. He meant Planck Level, not Plank level.

I am wondering how to answer this. You really think I didn't know that? That I thought there might be wooden atoms, or something? I know perfectly well what he meant. I just thought it was funny that someone who purports to tell people about physics cannot spell Max Planck's surname, so I made a "joke". (The other thing you see a lot is "Stephen Hawkins".)

Thank you for the kind defense but as you can see a dropped letter means I have no knowledge of physics. Most of the heavy posters here come across as sad lonely people so it is better to let them preen and try to build up their egos rather than attempt adult conversation with them. If you look at this poster's history you will see they are expert at everything and never wrong.

I am still hunting through my boxes for the book I mentioned.

Many people at A2K are afraid to open-mindedly speculate and theorize for fun because it makes them feel uneasy being out of their comfort zone, so they tend to stick to proven scientific "fact" and won't look beyond that.
Remember, today's speculation and theory may well become tomorrow's proven scientific fact..

I knew you knew and I tried being fun and I knew Contrex would defend himself as well.

Take time. Thank you for your kindness.

I sent you a PM (personal message) with the information you need. It should be in your inbox on your profile page.

I'm reading the book right now and pick up the part in which Glashow says he's "waiting for the superstring to break". What an implacable opponent of superstrings.
The book calls this phenomon as "mathematical disease". Very funny.
Good book.