String physicists assume that energetic pieces of threads are the keys to quantum gravity and to everything else of our perceived reality throughout the universe. The basic elements of this theory are "strings" or membranes, i.e. subatomic one-dimensional energy threads and built areas. The vibrations of these strings generate everything out of a vacuum, like the different characteristics and features of subatomic elementary particles and all elements of the periodic system. Ten and more dimensions are needed to describe a perceived reality, but only Einstein's four dimensions of three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time seem to be sort of "rolled out". The latest attempts to totally describe nature and the universe by energy strings is the very complex "M-Theory", with staggering amounts of possible mathematical solutions.
A tiny little string, about a hundredth of a billionth of a billionth of the size of an atomic nucleus, could form, for example, an electron by its special kind of oscillation. All kinds of particles are unified by a "Super String Theory" because each particle differs only by the oscillation pattern of a string. Even space and time are supposed to be subject to vibrations of strings. The string theory is a breathtaking mathematical approach of highest complexity, but, at least so far, with neither a concrete result for all the existing elementary particles, nor a feasible construction of space-time. One distinctive feature of the string theory is the assumed existence of multidimensional spaces within any single point of space and time. Endless string solutions are the result, by far too many variations to find the suitable ones just by accident. Powerful computers support string scientists to shorten the time towards a feasible result to embrace physics and all wonders of our existence in each of their aspects.
A basic obstacle of string specialists are the insufficient explanations of seemingly clear physical phenomena. Electromagnetism is one example. The effects of electromagnetism are described in great detail by physicists and widely used in daily life by engineers, but the real origins and true nature of electricity and magnetism are undiscovered. Scientists figured out that electricity and magnetism are two sides of the same coin, although they appear with very different features like an electrical particle charge and a magnetic particle spin, indicating an asymmetrical observation with the result of a reciprocal impact in formulas for electromagnetic oscillations. Electrical engineering of electronic oscillation circuits is possible because of the inverted resistances of capacitances and in parallel connected magnetic induction coils; the resistances of electric charge capacitances drop with rising alternating current frequency whereas the resistances of magnetic induction coils increase. Usual electronic circuits use this peculiarity to generate oscillations and radiations. Such electromagnetic waves and particles can be transformed into matter, for example shooting highly energized photons at atomic nuclei to initiate the energy conversion from light, which is an electromagnetic phenomenon, into matter. This process is state of the art and used to produce electrons and positrons in specialized laboratories. This kind of matter generation can be mathematically reformulated by string vibrations and forced string transformations into matter.
The basic theories for elementary particles need getting used to because each material particle is described as a distinguishable excitation state of basic energy strings and areas with quantum mechanical aspects. The classical observations of nature completely fade in the imagination of theoretical physicists, but the quantized approach to all forces and energies of nature challenges these scientists already from the very beginning, looking at a simple electron: Like any photon, any electron either behaves as concentrated particle or as a spreading wave, only depending on the set-up of the experiment. Scientists speak about "the unsolved dualism of wave and particle". Quantum physicists try to handle this inexplicable contradiction by the superposition of several possible states and conditions. There is only a probability that one of these states and conditions actually takes place. The whole of possible states is mathematically expressed by so called wave functions. Any single result of an observation appears accidentally. This way, quantum physics became able to predict atomic processes with extraordinary high precision, fully in accordance with experimental examinations.
Some physicists consider quantum mechanical results to be completely subject to observations. This means that the wave function contains all possible results in an indefinable intermediate state and only the actual observation itself decides upon the selection from possible results. This brings us to the question of necessary repetition sequences to constantly interact with the space-time construction of our perception. A single event cannot be predicted, but many events of the same kind should appear with certain probabilities exactly because of these repetition sequences. The observed system appears to accidentally move on to a new state, never in total chaos, but usually determined by a degree of probability. Repeating such a transition process many times shows different following states, based on a calculable probability. One best example is the decay of atoms: The radioactive decay of a Uranium atom may happen in an instant or only after many millions of years. Its decay is not predictable. The radioactive decay of a certain quantity of Uranium, however, follows proven decay laws of probability.
Accepting these peculiarities of quantum physics, it is possible to calculate the probabilities and whereabouts of events, particles and energy states with astonishingly precise results. The actual measurement causes a seeming collapse of the wave function of probabilities, extracting only one possibility out of the given repetition sequence. The process of measurement and evaluation is considered to represent an active disturbance of this wave function that leads to the then actual and noticeable result. In the phase before the actual measurement, everything still was in a state of uncertainty. The unknown origins of quantum physical aspects of the microcosm lead to the major dilemma today's string physicists are faced with, trying to reformulate classic physics with energy strings and quantum physics. New super gravity approaches introduced one or even more additional dimensions on top of the 10 dimensions of classic string theories, partly not being any more subject to quantum mechanics. Proponents believe that one or more additional dimensions on top of those 10 will open the way to unite all string theories.
This wave function approach seems much more plausible than the alternative interpretation by multiple parallel universes that host all of the possible measurement results, one in each. The latter imaginations describe a complex reality, split into multiple parallel universes. There is no communication facility between these multiple parallel universes and we cannot notice that we follow only one possible path through permanently splitting universes. Nevertheless, this view is another mathematical possibility, beyond all doubt.
Better understanding of all physical disciplines, like electromagnetism, particle physics, nuclear physics, gravitational physics, nonlinear field theory and ultrahigh pressure physics will be the important key to elicit more secrets from nature and to pave the way for the string theory or even a new theory to capture the entire universe with only one picture. Many research centers around the globe work on these fundamental research issues and many more centers are planned.
Practical evidences of the existence of strings will be the ultimate challenge for string scientists, because sooner or later powerful computers will be able to complete the theoretical calculation and to describe a complete universe of strings just by inventing as many dimensions as necessary to capture all processes of nature, including the startling peculiarities of quantum physics, with its uncertainties and probabilities, and culminating in the still unsolved integration of gravitation.
Modern cosmology will strongly influence the further development of the string theory, because of the recently found phenomena of dark energy and dark matter. Attempts of cosmologists to describe cosmic processes few moments after an assumed big-bang led during the past 3 decades to a model of an inflationary universe. Driving force of the inflation are postulated scalar fields. The introduction of such scalar fields follows the unifying theory for elementary particles called Grand Unified Theory, "GUT". Fields of this kind serve in GUTs for a description of changing symmetries that have their origin in one single type of initial force. These fields determine the development of the hierarchy of today's fundamental forces of nature. The existence of these postulated scalar fields could not yet be confirmed experimentally, but a majority of scientists see the early universe filled up with such scalar fields and our cosmos starting with an initial high symmetry and high energy density of scalar fields and heading towards low symmetry and low energy density of scalar fields because of progressive expansion and cooling.
The theoretical transition of a highly symmetrical state of vacuum into an asymmetrical state has one peculiar feature that is different to anything physics could observe and describe so far: the energy density of a vacuum bubble that has been filled up with any of today's known types of matter and energies decreases during the expansion phase of this bubble, whereas the energy density of a symmetry-asymmetry transition vacuum seems to stay constant without a dilution. The pressure within such a transition vacuum equals a negative density. The expansion of the universe means for such a type of vacuum the necessity of a scalar quantity of work against the negative pressure. This implies the gain of energy. Such peculiar characteristics of symmetrical origin and peculiar vacuum towards asymmetry can be combined with the modern string theories. One result is the observable accelerating expansion of the universe against the forces of gravity, i.e. against Einstein's mass caused curvatures of space-time.
Despite the logical fact that any observer throughout the entire universe perceives an own central position, because of looking from any place into any spatial direction the same 13.7 billion years into the past, the universe appears inhomogeneous and asymmetrical. The question comes up, whether this is the true picture or the distorted view from the observer's asymmetrical anchoring in space and time and other rolled up dimensions of the string theory.
Astrophysicists today use sophisticated statistics to interpret the forms and distributions of galaxies, including their average speed through space. The complex processes of gases, birth and death of stars makes it difficult to precisely extract the phenomena of dark matter that keep all galaxies stable. Current computer models use the critical energy density factor 1, applying about 23 percent of energy density contributions by dark matter and about 72 percent of energy density contributions by dark energy, the latter interpreted as a cosmological constant for an accelerating expansion of the universe. String physicists have to integrate these new cosmological aspects into their theory to hopefully come to a meaningful mathematical description of the entire universe.
The String Theory and the Grand Unified Theory get additional valuable impulses from another exciting direction of modern theoretical physics and practical research: Super symmetry concepts for Einstein's space-time and known forms of energies turn the asymmetrical energy distribution picture into a symmetrical set-up. This way it is possible to widen Einstein's four space and time dimensions with opposing, relatively rolled up space-time dimensions and to correctly describe a rotational symmetry for this space-time grid and all energies within. Opposing energy values then astonishingly behave like the inverted resistances of magnetic induction coils versus capacitances of electric oscillation circuits and complete the missing puzzle pieces for strings, dark energy and its postulated scalar energy fields. Relatively rolled up but turned or opposing dimensions, either appear with the relative standstill of time, or with extremely accelerated processes, or reciprocal development. All peculiarities of quantum physics become explicable by the relative acceleration sector and its repetition of energy processes just until one solution is selected by the disturbance of the wave function, realizing the following state.
Wormhole engineering by an innovative kind of space-folding theoretically becomes possible by the use of this rotational symmetry. This is not yet a physical reality, but more than pure science fiction; it is a mathematical possibility. This way, mankind might become able to cover light years across deep space within moments, which might open the gate for a survival on the long run and perhaps to extraterrestrial civilizations. Well-known mathematicians confirm the correctness of the so far purely mathematical concept. Accelerating an evacuation spaceship close to the speed of light and slowing it down for the arrival at any habitable planet seems to be currently the only, certainly extremely difficult, but physically possible solution. This one-sided view of practicable space-travel could completely change within the next decades if the postulated symmetry becomes provable by practical experiments. This cosmic super symmetry is also most important for particle physicists and their currently assumed super symmetrical and weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPS) that are today supposed to form the extensive dark matter halos that stabilize all galaxies throughout the entire universe.
Despite all discoveries in physics and mathematical formulations of nature ahead, one ultimate question will remain: who invented and possibly still pulls all these energy strings that possibly form our universe?
And it's that discovery that makes Newton (and the people who had thought about the very same thing before him) great. They have observed something that is of intrinsic truth.
Therefor the really good ideas in physics are infinitely more valuable than any ideas people have come up with during the centuries that were specific to their particular circumstances.
Spinoza was an important step towards atheism. But once you have the insight that God is a useless concept, and the civil liberty to say it out loud, you can forget about all of Spinoza's waffling of how he could take the sting out of God without ending up as BBQ.
That's too bad, then, because Kepler's solar system never existed in reality, either. The real solar system is chaotic and would, eventually, fall apart... if not for the sun turning into a red giant, first. I wonder if that is part of the music? And how could Kepler have known about it, four centuries before discovery of classical chaos?
"Spinoza understood reality-even Bertrand Russell admitted he'd have been a monist, had his very powerful arguments convinced him. Spinoza gave Einstein his basic orientation."
How does Spinoza's God matter in a universe in which there seems to be no God, whatsoever, not even one of Spinoza's very limited (and rather useless) kind?
Couldn't care less. All I care about is the Kepler who was sitting up night after night, measuring the movement of planets, weather permitting.
"In fact, Renaissance Neoplatonism, with its extensive solar symbolism had a lot to do with the revival of Heliocentric theory."
But doesn't require precision measurements. Astronomy, on the other hand, does. And that is the difference between philosophical ideas and physics. In philosophy you can talk all day long about things and not LOOK at them even once. In physics you have to look, first, before making up your mind. And today you have to work for a decade plus to launch the next space science experiment or build the next larger observatory.
"Have you heard Willie Ruffs sound realization of Kepler's solar system?"
No. But I am pretty confident that neither Mars, Venus, and for sure not Jupiter, care.
I cite the fact that you are typing this on a machine that wouldn't have been possible without the insights of physics into quantum mechanics. No amount of philosophy can ever build a CPU running at several GHz clock frequency.
"as for Whitehead-all I said was that some thought him a tolerably good cosmologist."
Who was wrong. And with that he is excused from the rest of the discussion. I didn't say that science is not cruel about it. Either you guess right about nature and you are in, or you don't, and then you are out.
"Help me out-what predictions violated which observations? OK?"
Whitehead was somewhat vague about the physical interpretation of his formulas. So people have tried (even until recently), to fix them in a ways that preserve their merits. Even with all that help, Whitehead's formulas predict that the mass of the galaxy should exert forces on the solar system that are hundreds of times larger than observed and that the earth and the moon should be falling towards the sun at different accelerations. And that hasn't been observed, either. Einstein's theory has neither flaw.
I would attribute calculus to a lot more people than just Leibniz. Calculus, of course, is mathematics, not science. Do I really need to discuss the difference?
"The point being that Rationalists as well as Empiricists contributed to the scientific revolution. Math may not be Science-but without math-what kind of science would we have?"
Empiricists have always developed whatever math they needed. In case of physics, many important concepts were and are still being developed by theoreticians, first, before the mathematics community catches up with the necessary precise proofs and concepts. There is nothing wrong with that and it does not set physics up against mathematics. If anything, both fields are helping each other with a fresh perspective from time to time. But how does this effect philosophy, which is neither?
"Your statement about philosophers-has one insulted you, or something?"
No. I just can't find anything in philosophy that is even remotely useful.
"How about substituting our favorite religious or ethnic group for philosophers, in that statement-and see how it reads."
It's the same. Religion and philosophy are equally useless.
"would be nice if you gave one or two examples, considering how you demand empirical proof of everyone else."
Do you find Leibniz's Monads and Theodicy of any appreciable usefulness?
"I suppose that Newton cam after them also-and is thus a mere afterthought."
Newton is in the same line of empiricists that Kepler and Galileo are in. His ideas are true because NATURE says so. One can't say the same thing about Spinoza's ideas. Big difference.
"I know all about Eratosthenes aka BETA-but I fail to see what this has to do with Spinoza or Descartes-you think only Hobbes and Bacon count?"
I think that only NATURE counts. Whatever someone says that is not about nature, might even go unsaid. It's of no importance. So if Spinoza said something about NATURE that has still relevance today, more power to him. Otherwise... dustbin of history.
So, if anything, string theory is not particularly "revolutionary" in its approach to the world. It has done away with point particles... only to replace them with strings. But it hasn't touched, at all, at the fundamental ideas about space and time. In that regard Einstein has made two much, much more amazing leaps ahead. We need something that will come closer to that kind of rule breaking to make the next step. And string theory simply does not cut it.
That's, in short, the line of reasoning that dominates cosmology, right now, greatly complicated by the macroscopic structure of spacetime, as described by general relativity,
In comparison, quantum field theory is still struggling with a static spacetime description and models like string theory are no exception.
That, of course, is merely a lack of imagination on their part. If we have learned anything about the world in the last four or five centuries of physics, it is this: the world does not care about what we imagine it to be. It is, what it is, and it is up to us to discover it in all its complexity, no matter how much it violates our sense of order.
The enormous amount of energy it takes to excite those degrees of freedom. It's no different from you being able to walk easily on a flat road but being completely unable to jump to the moon. For that feat you need a giant rocket that supplies the necessary energy to overcome the gravitational potential of the Earth. Similarly, extra dimensions are separated by a large energy gap from our three/four dimensional reality. There can be (and if these extra dimensions exist, will be) subtle effects on particles in the 3+1 dimensions we are familiar with, but it takes a giant accelerator like LHC to bring those out. And if we wanted to interact strongly with those dimensions, we would need even larger machines. Depending on the actual details of the real physical vacuum, including extra dimensions, it might be possible that the current universe is, for all practical purposes, even completely decoupled, and no amount of engineering can get us back to the kind of energy range that played a role in the early universe, when all dimensions played an equal role in the physical dynamics of the universe. In that case the universe has simply evolved from a high dimensional, hot, compact object, to a low dimensional cold but giant one and there are simply not enough horses in the whole universe to put Humpty Dumpty back together, again.
Factoid 2: Vibration, of any kind, needs at a minimum of 2 dimensions.
Factoid 3: Theories are mere fantasy, until experienced.
Factoid 4: Membranes, or any concepts thereof, require at a minimum 2 dimensions.
Factoid 5: All perception is subjective, and thus can not be considered as fact.
Factoid 6: Actual observation of a physical phenomenom can not be considered as real until there is physical interation that can leave physical evidence, and that it has been experienced more than once.
Factoid 7: There is no center to the 3D universe because it is a 3D hypersurface formed in a 4D structure in a 4D hyperspace. The 4D stucture is the outside surface half of a torus.
Factoid 8: Wormholes fold matter, such as solid oak, as well, while forming to create the shortest path between 2 points in spacetime (3D + 1T).
Factoid 9: Functional Wormholes, macrosized, have been observed, 5 times in all.
Item 2: Correct. The string theory needs more dimensions.
Item 3: Any physical theory is merely a model to describe perceived nature. The model is acceptable if it desribes nature precisely enough to work with it, and if it can make predictions.
Item 4: Correct.
Item 5: If more observers perceive the same they can agree to define this perception as "reality". The concept gets lost with quantum mechanics and the relativity of simultaneity of events of relativistic mechanics.
Item 6: Example for a one time experience is the big bang: There is plenty of physical evidence!
Item 7: It depends on the physical model you use. There is no proof for the existence of any 4D hyperspace, but plenty of proof for Einstein's 4-dimensional space-time: Any observer perceives a central position (in a universe without center) because of looking into any direction back in time along a distance with past events.
Item 8: Wormholes of classic physics fold space; the mass of billions of suns is needed. Supersymmetrical concepts mathematically allow space-time eddies. All theory only!
Item 9: Their existence is speculation, even if someone claims 5 observations. Your "Factoid 5" and "Factoid 6" and my items 3 and 5 are the scientific hurdle.
Per Item 3: I did model the nature that I was a witness of and did perceive to be true. I can make predictions with it, just not ones that would be acceptable to most individuals.
Per Item 5: 100 people can witness the same event, and when questioned, one will get 100 different answers, and none will be likely the actual truth of fact, unless it has hit them hard in the face, and even then, if it was a one time event would likely be considered a 'coincidence' and not view as a part of 'reality'.
Per Item 6: I tend to agree with the Big Bang Theory, however I have a different view of it, and what it was / is, the dimentional constraints, and relative relational coditions, and so forth.
"Не смотря на все открытия в физике и математической формулировки природе вперёд,один главный вопрос остаётся:кто придумал и,возможно,до сих пор тянет эти энергетические строки,которые возможно формирование нашей вселенной?"От Ианна.Гл.1,1.В начале было Слово,и слово было у Бога,и Слово было Бог.Слово это один из способов передачи информации.значит вначале был способ передачи информации.Этот способ был у Бога,и способ передачи информации одновременно являлся информацией.
3.Всё через Него начало быть,и без Него ничего не начало быть,что начало быть.
Я не физик это просто мой комментарий к статье.
Maybe you can see some similarities in your religious preferences. I, as a physicist, can not.
Electormagnetic transmission through the vacuum of space, is radiated photonically. High Energy Particles have momentum, and transmit that momentum upon impact, yielding a kinetic energy transferance, and is no way "fundamentally linked to gravity." Photons, in and among themselves, are IHO unit forms of momentum. As Momentum has a mass term, and if IMHO, a photon is a unit of momentum, whaterever form it is in when it is observed, can be affected by gravity.
('Push' is a concept of mine and its units are mass/time)
An Impulse is in SI units of Newtons x second, or (kg·m/s), or Push meter, also is the units for Momentum. The 'thing' per second, is the 'kg·m', that gets transfered, per second, from a particle system high in KE to a particle system low in KE, is what I call the unit of Heat.
Permeability of Free Space or Force / Ampere^2 or 1.2566370614...×10−6 (Force x second)/ (6.24150965(16)×10^18 )^2 = 3.225749e-44 impulse / point, or Momentum per point in free space. At each point in free space, continous impulse is applied outward in all directions, from each point.
Permitivity, of free space, then is = s4 × A2 × m-3 × kg-1 = Ampere^2/ (Push x velocity^3) which = Coulomb^2/ (Push x velocity^3 x seconds^2) = C^2/((kg·s)v^3) = 3.89564427110431225e+37 particles / (kg·m^3/s^2) or mass·area·acceleration. IF v = 3e8 m/s, then v^3 = 2.7e+25 then the Permitivity of free space = 1.4428312115185e+12 (charged) particles / (force·area), where an area of force, units of which are: force·area, Newtons x area, is a force field of sorts. This means that 1.443 Teraparticles distributed over an area of 1 square meter generates a force of 1 Newton.
Sorry... if you need medication for impulse control... I am not a psychiatrist and I can't help with that.
Fail.
prior to our birth we are nothing and when we turn to dust we are nothing
how is our physical existence even slightly possible using scientific standards?
yes, i too can put together multiple unproven/controversial theories until your eyes glaze.
so why are we searching the galaxy for answers to theories when we have no answers to our most basic questions?
Why ask "who"? What evidence do you have to suggest that a "who" has anything to do with it?
The only question we have reason to ask right now is "how did conditions come about to have this happen"
If when we find an answer to that question, there is evidence to suggest a "who", we are then justified to ask "who".
Until then it is malformed and WRONG!