Supermath, string theory and superstring theory

I know what M-theory is and string theory. What is the differnce between strings and superstrings?

JGoldman10 wrote:

I know what M-theory is and string theory. What is the differnce between strings and superstrings?

The real question is, my good friend: what is the difference between strings, superstrings, G-strings and super-G-strings...(and I'm not talking about violins here)

Er what about topology given dimensions may be curved or knotted - and knotted dimensional space is advanced enough to get the modellers of knot theory (k = 1/p^-1 + 1/p^-2 + 1/p^-3 + 1/p^-4 + 1/p^-5 + 1/p^-6 to describe any possible twisted knot in a 3 dimensional space) the Nobel prize in mathematics about 15 years ago!

If it all seems so simple solve the mu problem for SuSy:

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:hep-ph/0101046

Need the full link for this to work btw!

I think you deploy a strange meaning to the word understand.

But I'll accept that if it works for you. So given its all easy for you, and maths and numbers aren't even needed, feel free to explain the most basic premise and explain the topology of SuSy - what are reality's dimensions and geometry into these extra dimensions?

Whether your metaphysics is dominated by studying what there is (ontology), what is knowledge (epistemology), and what one should do (ethics) - sooner or later you have to hit a hard science for it to be actionable.

Groan, a philosopher is on the loose

String theory is like a cupboard... really?

I thought of it 35 years ago... you've demonstrated your thinking, what you saw a box of dropped string?

we say that there is only one substance in the universe... guess again http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_print.html

typified by its rate of change of curvature... go read quantum mechanics then, consider entanglement

If I want to lear how the curvature changes I'd learn it... well no because its unknown and topology is the first platform you build the rest of M-theory on

We don't need to know the intricies of mathematical operations to understand them... The parody between that statment and Dicken's Great Expectations.. "I don't have to raise children to understand them, I'm a master of young children" is chilling in its ignorance.

This is liberating... I am sure your mind is very uncluttered.

The idea that maths presents itself on its own terms and in its incredible complexity, is simply misguided... What other terms would it express itself in - cooking, cleaning or religious terms? It has to be internally consistent to be of use and it's pretty good for modelling and logical analysis. Don't confuse the means with the end, nor having the skill to understand the tools of mathematics with a desire for complexity. Lack of understanding of maths is grand when it comes to humour or philosophy... "if she floats... its because she weights the same as a duck... because she's made of wood... and therefore she's a witch ... so burn her!"

* * *

So youv'e ducked my challenge above, and said you don't need understanding to pontificate, you just know. String theory is so self evident to you the basics can be dropped or learnt at a whim.

Lovely but properties flow from topology and this isn't fully defined yet. Here's another challenge (what will it be compared to this time, a table or a chair I imagine); M-theory says reality has 10 or 11 dimensions, besides the 4 obivous ones. What are these extra, hidden dimensions? What do your strings tell you?

Er what model do you think we are not abandoning?

I'll say this again - using very small words, very slowly, for the third time... we don't have a model to abandon. Nada model. Nitch, nil, zip, zero, butt kiss on having any formed model. Das model is kaputen!

And nice how you dodged (very poorly and for the third time now) all the criticisms and obivous flaws in your thinking by simply stating flawed and obscure dogma again that maths is presumptious and evil.

So let me be more direct: Put up or shut up! You say for 35 years you have intuitively grasped as simple 10 or 11 dimensional reality that escapes the best scientific minds - congratulations! Raise your hand, explain it to us and earn you Nobel prize ten times over.

Or if you're just a hollow drum, give up before you embrass yourself even further.

PS - learn how to spell while you're at it!

The problem with undertstnding 10 or 11 dimensions is not a problem of maths or theory. That much is obvious. It is a problem of not having an intuitive model to work with and yet being forced to work with one (dimension). Mathematics should be honest with itself and abandon the model.

The closest I can offer to a useful speculation is the following. If you don't posses the faculities to either observe these dimensions directly (like a force such as gravity or light), or measure there consequences indirectly (like the wind) then you need an abstract label to create an abstract framework to consider them. To be useful sooner or later such a framework must bridge to the dimensional reality we can observe to be useful; in making predictions or being verifable.

Without a collider its hard to see quarks. We give them properties (up, down, charm, strange, top and bottom) so we can classify their interactions with other quarks or leptons (e.g. a ferimon table of leptons and quarks http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_cutouts/fermions.jpg )

This doesn't mean a quark is "strange" like some folk on here are... It means they have a characteristic that is defining we want to label.

Membranes from M-Theory and strings from SuSy are currently more abstract then s-particles where we can may predictions and test them eventually with a powerful enough collider (e.g. LHC in late 2007 - at or above 200 GeV).

Membranes and strings need alot of theory before we can ask can we make them manifest into a scale where we can definitely observe them. Until then we might as well call say a 11 dimensional reality (x, y, z, time, D0, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7) where we don't know what D0 to D7 do! There is some advantage to this. Some very complex interactions are easier to solve if you add abstract dimensions to your calculations and zap them at the end (its analogous to a platinium catalyst in leaded petrol - it doesn't alter the operation, its inert, but it makes it go a hell of alot better)!

Beyond this scientists start abstracting D0..D7. The very first question you ask is what properties does each dimension have and how do they interact. This is a question of topology. We can say how the theories overlap (the "edges" for want of a better word of our topology, but not what is smack in the middle of the table)! Until we can paint this middle all further mind experiments are halted.



Now for most theorical physicists you say these extra dimensions are psoitional, for example, but the distances involved could be minute (on a Planck scale - 10^-43 or something). Enter the heirarchy problem - there is no brute force way to probe these scales without the power of a supercluster supernova explosion with incredibly controlled precision. The physics you are dealing with here is Big Bang ~ start of Planck time situations.

Adrielle on the Advanced Physics forum described this as...

http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=698&page=1

Ground zero: The universe is created in a big bang. Don't ask what went bang. Before the Planck time, 10-43 seconds after the big bang, nothing is really known, although it is presumed that at this stage there was total chaos, and all the forces, matter, and space time were unified.

At about the Planck time the universe underwent a phase change corresponding to the supergravity symmetry breaking, which created a space-time "foam", and the three remaining forces were unified into one single interaction SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1).

About 10-35 seconds after the big bang, expansion had dropped the temperature of the universe to about 10^27 K. At this temperature the energies were too low to support the unified interaction, which separated into SU(3), the strong interaction, and SU(2) x U(1), the electroweak force. With this symmetry break spacetime and matter separated creating the elementary particles known as quarks and leptons, and a vast amount of energy was released. This energy triggered the rapid expansion of the universe known as inflation, increasing the size of the universe at an exponential rate.

Between 10-35 and 10-32 seconds, the universe grew far beyond the horizon, the edge of the region of the universe falling within the light cone originating at inflation. The expansion in this case happened to the geometry of space-time, rather than the matter in it, so relativity was not violated.

and the excellent insights here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/Planck.html#c1"

* * *

What this leaves us with is how do we study something hidden that will require alot of smarts to understand it well enough to make it economically possible to have it manifest? Its nice to know both Philsophers, Cosmologists and Theoretical and High energy particle physicsts are all working on the problem.

How do you expect us to measure your capacity for intelligence other than how you have demonstated your understandings and views, coupled to your biases and tendencies to make unsupported, general, vague and wide claims? I am unsure of the we you are refering to when you say "we are not idiots". Who else did you think was being included in that labelled group?

But whilst your "we" isn't clear, your own individual activities stand out like a sore thumb! When called out multiple times of sloppy thinking or erroneous thinking or unsupportable claims, you ignore all points, offer no substantive clarifications or counter arguments. Your response is merely to say "heh what's your favourite band"?

Well that is not idiotic, but neither will it help you approach a Nobel prize.

Quoting me verbatim merely to say "hey I'm smart you know", whilst offering no discernible proof of this yet leads me to ask why not just change your nick to FIGJAM?

Whilst I see no hard data to say you're are an idiot, you have a consistent tendency and bias to claim what you can't, don't or won't support and belittle what you can't intuit and frightenly misunderstand it. So I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In small words - you missed the point of the last post by a country mile. Read it again and see if you can get the meaning this time - then your reply can potentially have some value. If you don't get the meaning simply ask, cause I do not wish to embrass you through your simple misunderstanding undermining your own arguments.

You're understanding of dimensions is frighteningly lacking, biased and void of insight. Whilst one can translate colours to a blind person how does one teach archery to a rock?

I cringe when you ask what does a dimension look like, there you are rather ironically showing ignorance in full. Again I say - read the post carefully, you missed some key words in "Now for most theorical physicists you say these extra dimensions are positional". That's is not saying they are positional as you assumed, nor that most theoretical physicists say they are (its just an interesting approach). By saying consider if they are - how does that affect our understanding of spacetime? (So its a framework to approach the heirarical problem).

The answer is enormous, because it covers the transition stages between relativity and science you might have absorbed at school and the quantum world. Studying reality and the transition from Einstein's 4 forces and spacetime, uncertainity and reaching for grand unified theorum (GUT). It is perception that allows us to intrepret reality; its dimensions are what they are.

Now if you want you can say bunk; scientists have got it all wrong - but that is all you seem to be doing. And very loudly at that. Science is based on models, their predictive power and statistically variation analysis of data testing these predictions to show measure the reliablity of confidence intervals of parametric distributions in the underlying model. Science is weighted carefully against hard data.

Your contributions are like talking to flat Earth followers. Colourful, but uninformative. You signal to noise ratio is way off.