Supermath, string theory and superstring theory

raprap wrote:

Math is not particularly complex. As a language the grammar, dictionary and syntax is relatively simple and straightforward. It's many of the concepts that tend toward the abstract. As a result I feel for you, it must be very frustrating that nature tends to track many abstract mathematical concepts.

Actually this is a concept of Engineering--the use of abstractions as a substitute for reality--A Scientist does the reverse, rejecting abstractions that do not fit reality--See Penrose reference.

BTW, JJ if you can come up with a language that can convey the same rigor, then "go for it" you'll die being remembered for millennia. Asimov (the talented writer), Einstein, Russell and Hawking have all tried and in some cases have skated close to explaining science. But they are constantly being caught by those who prefer the mysticism of a Chaka or John Calvin.

However, there is an interesting unifying polytome I'd recommend. "The Laws of Reality" by Sir Roger Penrose. ---A caveat though! The people that actually understand everything Penrose is trying to unify could share a New York cab.

Rap

As far as I thought, mathematics has no concepts. That is to say, mathematics never presented us with concepts. It is difficult to see how a sign can present a fully fledged concept. We read into arithmetic a useful concept(s) or metaphysics, and then call it mathematics.
Where did people get the odd idea that maths presents us with concepts? I don't want to hear that sort of thing. It's very, very silly.

0 Replies

I want to respond to Post: 1562335 - I was late getting back.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MZathras wrote:
I have been watching the experts four forty years and all they seem to do is generate new scaffoldings to get the results to support their perceived observations. Each new then has to be reconciled with the others. By not stepping outside of the box and start by logically establishing what things are, that is, which ones are real or not, we will continue to fail in the reconciliation efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its often the other way round actually. Hard data can emerge which doesn't fit theories and hence theories must emerge to reconcile observation. That is the basis of all science. Tune it until it all holds, there is nothing mystical about it. If the models are incomplete of course new models emerge and get tested. The models don't have to fit every model in existence - they must however account for the underlying data supporting each model. Now when you accuse folk of not stepping outside the box that is being naive; it's exactly what they are doing. Be careful of accusing scientific theory of disregarding basic scientific methods or scientific premise in constructing its models and verifying its predictive powers, this is exactly the acid test each new model faces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term I used "scaffolding" was a metaphor to describe a methodology, theory, or model used by the person presenting some finding of data they had determined. My point is that they are using the data to drive the architecture of their new scaffolding. I think we both agree that this is the methodology of science. What I am trying to point out is that a lot of assumptions were made by some very prominent people in the past. Some of these are what I am questioning. I am trying to still be respectful to the people but I think some of these scaffolds have taken us to a dead end. That is what I meant by stepping out of the box and looking anew.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MZathras wrote:
It is obvious even to a novice that energy is being consumed when "matter" is at 0 degree K. even though we have not achieved that temperature yet. This tells me there is an energy field that is flowing to the position of the "matter". And oscillations peculiar and unique to different particles can be measured. It only stands to reason that the particle itself is nothing more than oscillations of the energy that flows toward the position (present or future) of the particular particle type.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Energy and matter are simply different forms of a deeper underlying reality. We can reach temperatures within a millionth of a degree of absolute zero - see bose-einstein condensates research. What energy do you find is consumed? What energy flow do you see travelling? Can you give a link to this situation. What particle are you refering to? Remember particles and energy carriers can only be discussed within dimensional frame of reference (e.g. SuSy) as a field effect - what is yours?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What energy do you find is consumed? What energy flow do you see traveling?
I am referring to the ZPE contained in the ZPF. There is a large amount of empty space inside and atom relative to the size of the particles that comprise the atom. You are right we don't know much about what is going on there in reality. I believe that the universe is filled with an energy that can be stratified, that is, it is more or less dense depending on position of observation. Observations we are not able to make directly at such small dimensions, as you have pointed out. Never the less the energy is there and does flow from potentials of greater to lesser. I refer to that general very dense energy field as the Zero point Field and is made up by the Zero Point Energy. It is the smallest dimension in the real world and is much smaller than any particle you refer to, as I believe they are just made up by the collection of the ZPE pulled from the ZPF. This is the energy flow I am referring. I am also proposing that the study and defining of its behavior is the unification we all are seeking. The observations that all the very smart and talented people you refer to of particle or quantum effects they observe, are in fact engaged in the process of describing the properties of the ZPE and ZPF. I believe it is the only fundamental force and is responsible for producing all the effects that the physics community accepts as fundamental forces. This is why so much confusion exists and no unification will occur.

Please note I am trying very hard not to include math to describe this phenomena.

All the rest of your responses to my comments are well noted. But I believe are mis-guided because you are looking for unification at a larger level than I am referring.

Please reread my previous comments and keep in mind that I see the understanding of the flow of ZPF and the ability of ZPE to oscillate and produce force effects at higher levels is the underlying cause of all the physics disciplines that have been developed by the different physics guilds.

One last thing I would like to throw in is that I believe ZPF comes in two forms. One is expanded and forms the time dimension effects. The other is condensed where time and dimension do not exist. Hawking may have been wrong (what blasphemy), the center of black holes could be ZPF pushed past the speed of light which then condenses, excuse the over simplification. That would make all black holes connected and singular. Maybe condensed space has a "critical mass" and is responsible for the big bang.

If a very small piece of condensed ZPE is contained inside the 6d of the Higgs model inside an electron that could explain quirky motion at a distance (remote connection if you will) with regards to spin.

Remember Ocums Razor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Replies

MZathras wrote:

I want to respond to Post: 1562335 - I was late getting back.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MZathras wrote:
I have been watching the experts four forty years and all they seem to do is generate new scaffoldings to get the results to support their perceived observations. Each new then has to be reconciled with the others. By not stepping outside of the box and start by logically establishing what things are, that is, which ones are real or not, we will continue to fail in the reconciliation efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its often the other way round actually. Hard data can emerge which doesn't fit theories and hence theories must emerge to reconcile observation. That is the basis of all science. Tune it until it all holds, there is nothing mystical about it. If the models are incomplete of course new models emerge and get tested. The models don't have to fit every model in existence - they must however account for the underlying data supporting each model. Now when you accuse folk of not stepping outside the box that is being naive; it's exactly what they are doing. Be careful of accusing scientific theory of disregarding basic scientific methods or scientific premise in constructing its models and verifying its predictive powers, this is exactly the acid test each new model faces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term I used "scaffolding" was a metaphor to describe a methodology, theory, or model used by the person presenting some finding of data they had determined. My point is that they are using the data to drive the architecture of their new scaffolding. I think we both agree that this is the methodology of science. What I am trying to point out is that a lot of assumptions were made by some very prominent people in the past. Some of these are what I am questioning. I am trying to still be respectful to the people but I think some of these scaffolds have taken us to a dead end. That is what I meant by stepping out of the box and looking anew.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MZathras wrote:
It is obvious even to a novice that energy is being consumed when "matter" is at 0 degree K. even though we have not achieved that temperature yet. This tells me there is an energy field that is flowing to the position of the "matter". And oscillations peculiar and unique to different particles can be measured. It only stands to reason that the particle itself is nothing more than oscillations of the energy that flows toward the position (present or future) of the particular particle type.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Energy and matter are simply different forms of a deeper underlying reality. We can reach temperatures within a millionth of a degree of absolute zero - see bose-einstein condensates research. What energy do you find is consumed? What energy flow do you see travelling? Can you give a link to this situation. What particle are you refering to? Remember particles and energy carriers can only be discussed within dimensional frame of reference (e.g. SuSy) as a field effect - what is yours?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What energy do you find is consumed? What energy flow do you see traveling?
I am referring to the ZPE contained in the ZPF. There is a large amount of empty space inside and atom relative to the size of the particles that comprise the atom. You are right we don't know much about what is going on there in reality. I believe that the universe is filled with an energy that can be stratified, that is, it is more or less dense depending on position of observation. Observations we are not able to make directly at such small dimensions, as you have pointed out. Never the less the energy is there and does flow from potentials of greater to lesser. I refer to that general very dense energy field as the Zero point Field and is made up by the Zero Point Energy. It is the smallest dimension in the real world and is much smaller than any particle you refer to, as I believe they are just made up by the collection of the ZPE pulled from the ZPF. This is the energy flow I am referring. I am also proposing that the study and defining of its behavior is the unification we all are seeking. The observations that all the very smart and talented people you refer to of particle or quantum effects they observe, are in fact engaged in the process of describing the properties of the ZPE and ZPF. I believe it is the only fundamental force and is responsible for producing all the effects that the physics community accepts as fundamental forces. This is why so much confusion exists and no unification will occur.

Please note I am trying very hard not to include math to describe this phenomena.

All the rest of your responses to my comments are well noted. But I believe are mis-guided because you are looking for unification at a larger level than I am referring.

Please reread my previous comments and keep in mind that I see the understanding of the flow of ZPF and the ability of ZPE to oscillate and produce force effects at higher levels is the underlying cause of all the physics disciplines that have been developed by the different physics guilds.

One last thing I would like to throw in is that I believe ZPF comes in two forms. One is expanded and forms the time dimension effects. The other is condensed where time and dimension do not exist. Hawking may have been wrong (what blasphemy), the center of black holes could be ZPF pushed past the speed of light which then condenses, excuse the over simplification. That would make all black holes connected and singular. Maybe condensed space has a "critical mass" and is responsible for the big bang.

If a very small piece of condensed ZPE is contained inside the 6d of the Higgs model inside an electron that could explain quirky motion at a distance (remote connection if you will) with regards to spin.

Remember Ocums Razor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do mathematicians resolve to make a fit theory? Or do they resolve to make a fit maths?
If the latter is the case, and it is the case, then all mathematicians are concerned with is contradiction and equivalence of number.

0 Replies

JJ

Did you just agree with me?

0 Replies

You can never tell with JJ - he has a profound ability to see things other can't. If he agreed with me then I'd suddenly want to double or triple check my findings.

Bad science filters results before confidence testing them - so its tampering with the signal to noise ration of analysing what is occuring and how well it fits any given model of reality. Good science, especially where the math is better understood later on often corrects this.

Maths has plenty of concepts - for instance numbers (real or imaginary) are a perfect example of a mathematical concept. If you don't believe in imaginary numbers - well solder an capicator to a small light bulb, run a high frequency low voltage (say 3 volt) alternating potential across it and pick it up. After you have been thrown across the room by a 100 volt resonance imaginary voltage that the you'll experience you might re-think your stance on concepts.

ZPE is really I see just one take on the dynamics of our spacetime reality as you get well below sub-atomic scales distances. Its a very fascinating field were the final answers will be absolutely compelling to review. I have no worries which models interest you - followed well they will prove their worth with time.

0 Replies

MZathras wrote:

JJ

Did you just agree with me?

Don't know.
Not where you indicate that objects, such as electrons, are found, and not made (if objects are not found then we are prevented from asking things like 'what really is the electron?').
When mathematicians claim that maths can reveal the world, then they are also claiming that the world presents us with ready-made definitions of its objects.

0 Replies

JJ, "gravitons" are the hypothetical particles that would link the Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics-explaining how gravity could exist in both formats.

0 Replies

John Jones wrote:

MZathras wrote:
JJ

Did you just agree with me?

Don't know.
Not where you indicate that objects, such as electrons, are found, and not made (if objects are not found then we are prevented from asking things like 'what really is the electron?').
When mathematicians claim that maths can reveal the world, then they are also claiming that the world presents us with ready-made definitions of its objects.

My point is that particles (last I heard there were 23) of what ever type are not fundamental pieces. They are all made up of ZPE that flows from the ZPF. This means they are collections of ZPE at specific points in space time that oscillate. What the oscillations are determines what is the particle type.

Notice I am not trying to define those oscillations or combinations of oscillations at this point. I am trying to point out that these oscillations absorb ZPE from the ZPF. This causes a movement or flow of the ZPF and this affects other oscillations in its path causing the second oscillation to move with the flow. That is the effect I call gravity. Also note that with concentration of ZPE larger than the average found in the ZPF new effects or forces manifest that are stronger than gravity. But I won't go there yet.

Electrons are made of ZPE that oscillates. Since it moves at the speed of light for the most part, you can not find just one (they like to be in pairs)and know where it is. You can only know it's general area by disturbing it with something. I would suggest that the Higgs model which includes two weakons, these draw ZPE from the ZPF at an offset location beside the electron, and so the electron is constantly moving to that future position to obtain it's ZPE or it will collapse.

This would infer to me that ZPE generally moves at the speed of light thru the average ZPF.

You can't find an electron but I believe you can make one (no two), if you could cause the right type of oscillations to occur at a given point.

0 Replies

23 particles? Try in the hundreds so far, and this doesn't count theorised s-particles, or heavy, slow high-energy particles above 180GeV, look up CERN or here for the basics:

http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_print.html

and here - follow haldron decay - its a fun javascript showing lots of haldron decays when you collide the fundamental building blocks of existence at ultra high energies:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/fireworks/intro_eng.swf

0 Replies

JGoldman10 wrote:

JJ, "gravitons" are the hypothetical particles that would link the Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics-explaining how gravity could exist in both formats.

Let me get this straight, and tell me if I am wrong. I will put it like a question in an IQ test:

Q. Fill in the missing word:
Matter....information....Mind,
Relativistic gravity...______....QM gravity.
If the missing word is 'gravitons' then its a bit fishy.

That's probably obscure. What I mean is that there are words we employ that are paradigmatic oxymorons. I suggest that graviton and information are two such words: each of these words tries to bring together two incompatible paradigms, in a way that appears to resolve the incompatibility. For example, it is not clear whether the word 'information' refers to mind or matter. This lack of clarity enables the word to be used in cases that appear to resolve the incompatible notions of mind and matter. We say, for example, 'the mind processes information', or 'the brain processes information'. The word 'information' tricks us into glossing over logical confusions. I am suggesting that 'graviton' is employed similarly.

0 Replies

MZathras wrote:

John Jones wrote:
MZathras wrote:
JJ

Did you just agree with me?

Don't know.
Not where you indicate that objects, such as electrons, are found, and not made (if objects are not found then we are prevented from asking things like 'what really is the electron?').
When mathematicians claim that maths can reveal the world, then they are also claiming that the world presents us with ready-made definitions of its objects.

My point is that particles (last I heard there were 23) of what ever type are not fundamental pieces. They are all made up of ZPE that flows from the ZPF. This means they are collections of ZPE at specific points in space time that oscillate. What the oscillations are determines what is the particle type.

Notice I am not trying to define those oscillations or combinations of oscillations at this point. I am trying to point out that these oscillations absorb ZPE from the ZPF. This causes a movement or flow of the ZPF and this affects other oscillations in its path causing the second oscillation to move with the flow. That is the effect I call gravity. Also note that with concentration of ZPE larger than the average found in the ZPF new effects or forces manifest that are stronger than gravity. But I won't go there yet.

Electrons are made of ZPE that oscillates. Since it moves at the speed of light for the most part, you can not find just one (they like to be in pairs)and know where it is. You can only know it's general area by disturbing it with something. I would suggest that the Higgs model which includes two weakons, these draw ZPE from the ZPF at an offset location beside the electron, and so the electron is constantly moving to that future position to obtain it's ZPE or it will collapse.

This would infer to me that ZPE generally moves at the speed of light thru the average ZPF.

You can't find an electron but I believe you can make one (no two), if you could cause the right type of oscillations to occur at a given point.

What is a 'fundamental' particle? A particle is called fundamental when it is one particle. Is that right? Fair enough. What counts as 'one'? If the particle disappears into energy, does it still count as a 'fundamental' particle? Maybe yes. And if the one particle can split, then it is not fundamental? Maybe no. What do you mean by 'fundamental particle'?

Further, what is 'particle'? To be simplistic, is it like a sort of nutty, hard thing that resists movement? Or is it less nutty and hard, but still resists movement, like a sort of watery, wave thing? Is our metaphysics, our models, serving us well here? or should we forget models altogether and just rely on the numbers thrown up by QM theory to predict what happens to our nutty, wavy things? If we do that, then how far does QM actually represent the world?

My point about 'finding an electron' was that we must have a theory of objects before we can talk about 'finding an electron'. I asked whether electrons are pre-defined and displayed by nature, or whether they are constructions of theory, where theory itself is not displayed by nature, but constructed by humankind. If this point is not addressed, we have no grounds for asking questions like 'what is the electron really like'; we also will not be able to use terms like 'fundamental particle' with clarity.

0 Replies

g__day wrote:

'Elementary particles' are not really defined by giving names to them. Here is a list of of changes. Which of them could be regarded as describing an elementary particle and which would not?
1. A particle disappears into its equivalent of energy.
2. A particle changes into another single particle.
3. A particle changes into many particles.
4. A particle remains unchanged for billions of years (calculated).
5. A particle changes in nano-seconds.
6. A particle changes its spin.
7. A particle changes its symmetry.

Water. The word must be recognised. The way in which it is recognised is displayed by the word. But 'fundamental particle' has no common recognitions. If QM uses the phrase, it should help us with a definition. I hope that list above is helpful to that task.

0 Replies

Point 1 - don't quote pages as a block when its immediately above your post - it's lame.

Point 2 - don't evade the question asked. Binary choice pal - I'll ask it again - is water predefined or a construct of nature by your definition

Point 3 - things are labelled by names but defined by observed properties within an identified measurement system of defining characteristics - you've missed that basic point somehow

Point 4 - elementary particles are generally defined under particle physics, which measure things surprise, surprise in terms of particle characteristics. You coined the phrase - just wanted to tell you which measurement system you had stepped in to.

Point 5 - Energy and mass are simple representations we can percieve of some deep underlying reality. Both can move within the realms of spacetime and both tell spacetime how to curve - so they must in some way interact. If you choose only particle physics models you have an incomplete methodology to examine this.

Point 6 - Motivation - are you merely expasperated on how technical are the jargon and constructs used to plumb some very exotic theories, or do you see it's a personal conspiracy to feed you bull and keep you in the dark - and you are thereby on a crusade to liberate anyone else you can convince to feel the same way?

Point 7 - Are you lost in definitional analysis somewhere and screaming to get out? Perhaps simpler language and logic constructs would help you level a more credible protest.

0 Replies

g__day wrote:

Point 1 - don't quote pages as a block when its immediately above your post - it's lame.

Point 2 - don't evade the question asked. Binary choice pal - I'll ask it again - is water predefined or a construct of nature by your definition

Point 3 - things are labelled by names but defined by observed properties within an identified measurement system of defining characteristics - you've missed that basic point somehow

Point 4 - elementary particles are generally defined under particle physics, which measure things surprise, surprise in terms of particle characteristics. You coined the phrase - just wanted to tell you which measurement system you had stepped in to.

Point 5 - Energy and mass are simple representations we can percieve of some deep underlying reality. Both can move within the realms of spacetime and both tell spacetime how to curve - so they must in some way interact. If you choose only particle physics models you have an incomplete methodology to examine this.

Point 6 - Motivation - are you merely expasperated on how technical are the jargon and constructs used to plumb some very exotic theories, or do you see it's a personal conspiracy to feed you bull and keep you in the dark - and you are thereby on a crusade to liberate anyone else you can convince to feel the same way?

Point 7 - Are you lost in definitional analysis somewhere and screaming to get out? Perhaps simpler language and logic constructs would help you level a more credible protest.

'Elementary particles' are not really defined by giving names to them. Here is a list of of changes. Which of them could be regarded as describing an elementary particle and which would not?
1. A particle disappears into its equivalent of energy.
2. A particle changes into another single particle.
3. A particle changes into many particles.
4. A particle remains unchanged for billions of years (calculated).
5. A particle changes in nano-seconds.
6. A particle changes its spin.
7. A particle changes its symmetry.

Water. The word must be recognised. The way in which it is recognised is displayed by the word. But 'fundamental particle' has no common recognitions. If QM uses the phrase, it should help us with a definition. I hope that list above is helpful to that task.

0 Replies

What's the difference between particles and sparticles? What are all these particles named after Greek letters?

0 Replies

JGoldman10 wrote:

What's the difference between particles and sparticles? What are all these particles named after Greek letters?

yeh bloody right. And what's an elementary particle? Can you get a straight answer? No. So comon give us some straight answers someone. And I don't mean fancy names given to QM equations and numbers.

0 Replies

Well JJ - that repost with no content added sure delivered a whole lot more value - per your usual style!

I see we still don't know what you think water is, but we're prepared to wait while you figure it out Smile

An s-particle is a super-symmetric particle under the SuSy model. SuSy predicts there should exist super symmetric particles for all normal particles. So for an electron there should exist a s-electron, for a tau muon, there should exist a s-tau muon, for a anti-positron there should exists an s-anti-positron etc...

S-particles are predicted to be far heavier than normal particles - so to find and study them you need a much bigger collider - like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN scheduled to go into operation in 2007. Until SuSy is developed further it can't make many predictions that caeventually be tested. Some of its predicitions might be statistically infered in ultra high energy colliders. An example of this is hidden dimensions - if ultra high energy collision tracks show energy leaks out at a quantum levels (meaning at a sub atomic level we see a bubble chamber crash of elementary particles where the energy is suddenly dips) this could infer it's leaking into hidden dimensions - if it doesn't leak it might mean hidden dimensions either are less likely to exist or are more subtle in their interactions with energetic particles.

I have no idea why they chose Greek versus Japanese of Russian or numbers or colours etc to label subatomic particles - maybe it goes back to where scientific method first began?

0 Replies

g__day wrote:

Well JJ - that repost with no content added sure delivered a whole lot more value - per your usual style!

I see we still don't know what you think water is, but we're prepared to wait while you figure it out

An s-particle is a super-symmetric particle under the SuSy model. SuSy predicts there should exist super symmetric particles for all normal particles. So for an electron there should exist a s-electron, for a tau muon, there should exist a s-tau muon, for a anti-positron there should exists an s-anti-positron etc...

S-particles are predicted to be far heavier than normal particles - so to find and study them you need a much bigger collider - like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN scheduled to go into operation in 2007. Until SuSy is developed further it can't make many predictions that caeventually be tested. Some of its predicitions might be statistically infered in ultra high energy colliders. An example of this is hidden dimensions - if ultra high energy collision tracks show energy leaks out at a quantum levels (meaning at a sub atomic level we see a bubble chamber crash of elementary particles where the energy is suddenly dips) this could infer it's leaking into hidden dimensions - if it doesn't leak it might mean hidden dimensions either are less likely to exist or are more subtle in their interactions with energetic particles.

I have no idea why they chose Greek versus Japanese of Russian or numbers or colours etc to label subatomic particles - maybe it goes back to where scientific method first began?

We know what we mean by water. You may take any common meaning at your leisure. But I still have no common meaning for elementary particle. What's the point in QM talking about particles vs elementary particles if QM itself has not said what they mean by these terms?

0 Replies

I have no view on your understanding of how water fills your definitions - and stop using the royal "we" when you wish to proclaim your views are generally held ones.

Do you think QM is so simple it is well understood yet? Perhaps that is your mistake.

0 Replies

Supermath, string theory and superstring theory

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know