Geometry of String Theory and Dark Energy

I am not closed minded but your judgemental
you have no idea what I think or what I know
your merely an assumer

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
To add on to what you said, yes, nonlocality is a problem for scientists, because they have built there ideas off the wrong foundation. I don't want to get too deep on this point, but it is important to highlight it for JungleLord.

Even ones pioneers in quantum mechanics do not like the idea of nonlocality. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox is very troubling for those who think that things are in status of connectivity because of quantum channeling which acts instantaneously.

Interesting that you mention that bluebird, i seem to remember reading something about that paradox (although it may be another) last night.. i have just started reading "the holographic universe", which is where i think i saw what u mentioned.

I am not closed minded but your judgemental
you have no idea what I think or what I know
your merely an assumer

I am not judgemental. I am merely pointing out to you that string theory etc is going to fall flat on its face in the next couple of years. As i said, im trying to save you time, so you can focus your energy and thoughts on more relevant ideas/ so you can progress even more.

Im not claiming to know you or what you know..stating the obvious, but you brought it up! Im not going to try and convince you of anything, mainly because i don't know you, as i said, thus i don't care whether you know the truth or not (you will see in the end anyway).. but the least i can do is point you in the right direction. Take it or leave it

your judgemental, you have no idea where my energies go.
Or how much or little time I spend doing anything.
Nor do you have any idea of my progession.
You have no ideas about my beliefs
including the validity of string theory in my mind.
Again your merely an Assumer
Your pointing is only a finger in the wind
Your very sure of yourself being correct
and being smarter then Ed Whitten.
so string theory will fall flat
what will replace it?
Lets not just say it, explain it.



[edit on 29-5-2007 by junglelord]

I would like to applaud the main posters on this thread. This debate and conjecture is what this board is all about, and I love being able to utilise others knowledge to expand my own thinking.

Ignore the arrogance of some rubbishing this as non-scientific.

What will replace it is already known, you just haven't looked hard enough for it. I've already given you enough information to begin looking, but if your expecting me to spoon feed you, it ain't gonna happen, as i say to everyone who has done what you do (get angry, then ask me to prove myself).

Sorry

judgmental again, I am not angry

your actually kinda funny in a harmless way.

God Love You Brother, I have read everything you said and the other member.

your basicly talking about "Decoherence theory" or we are always in superposition in reality.

the weak measurement experiment should demonstrate that
decoherence theory cannot be correct.

postbiota.org...

I know all that stuff and things you dont know
Cheers

I hope your progession is proceeding as planned.
I am right on course

PS your first question on black holes and jets?
Its due to spin.

of course thats all an illusion


here is another illusion from Hubble about Dark Energy being present at the Big Bang

www.aip.org...

Dark Energy at Redshift Z=1

Dark energy, the unidentified force that's pushing the universe to expand at ever faster rates, was already at work as early as nine billion years ago, scientists reported last week. New Hubble Space Telescope sightings of distant supernova explosions support the explanation of dark energy as energy of the vacuum whose density has stayed constant throughout the universe's history, the scientists said.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by junglelord]

Well lookie here, the existance of Atoms confirmed!

Existence of Atoms Reaffirmed

A new experiment has reproduced a landmark 1908 study that demonstrated the physical existence of atoms, even to many of those (such as the chemist William Ostwald) who had doubted that matter consisted of microscopic particles rather than being continuous in nature.

The new experiment, conducted partly as an educational exercise for undergraduates at Harvard, reproduced (with modern equipment) the work in 1908 of Jean-Baptiste Perrin, a French physicist, who in turn was seeking to test a prediction of Albert Einstein.

Einstein's miraculous 1905 output included famous papers on special relativity (bearing on features of space-time and on the equivalence of matter and energy) and the photoelectric effect (explaining the quantum nature of light). The propositions of relativity and quantum theory proved to be extremely fruitful and are put to frequent experimental test.

www.aip.org...

I can understand what both of you are saying. Both science and mysticism are similar as they try to explain how things work ( but with their own unique explainations). Just as science was able to prove the existance of aura's ( can't seem to find the link but explained that it was basically a thin layer of electrons around a being), dark matter could very well be the "stuff" that keeps this universe together. I've had a theory about how we tie in with the universe and how it is we are unique in aspect. I've sumed it up to one thing, a unique frequnecy. You could think of it as our galactic DNA, is what makes us so different. Both mysticism and Science will one day hopefully prove it.

-Aza

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
It's not a matter of truth, it's existence. Nothing existed before, nothing existed after, and nothing exists now.

No nothing is the lack of something. In order for it to exist, it must be something. Since nothing is our descriptive word to show the lack of something, it doesn't come into physical existance. Now time, exists because it does have some physical existance. It has an effect on matter. Things age, whether you like it or not.

Experiments have shown that speed, when increased, slows time. When time slows, the object ages slower. This is a physical effect of time. Time, unlike nothing, has some sort of physical being, or effect.

Nothing, on the other had, has no physical being or effect. If it did, it would cease to be nothing. Therefore, nothing doesn't exist, or else it would no longer be considered nothing, but rather something. The moment you called it the universe, it ceased to be nothing. It became something. It has some physical effect on matter or things around us.

You just said it was some thing. I agree, it was some thing and nothing. Nothing is immeasurable, the universe is immeasurable, therefore the universe is nothing.

I think I recall a study that said only 20-30% of people use logic. Do not take it as an insult, but given what you are saying, you aren't that 20-30%. You don't make logical sense. You are trying to say that nothing and something are the same thing, which is rediculous because they are opposites. One is the lack of any being, and the other is anything of or in existance. For nothing to be in existance, it can't be quanified as nothing anymore which is my whole point. The moment you quantify ANYTHING as nothing, it becomes something. The only thing that can be quantified as nothing, is nothing. If you call the universe nothing, it is untrue because it is something. It is in existance.

You are trying to say "The universe is immeasurable, and nothing is immeasurable (obviously as to measure nothing is impossible, as it doesn't exist) that must mean the universe is nothing". This logic is horrible. Let me use a test question I had on a logic test administered to me.

Some frogs are mogs, and some chogs are mogs, therefor some frogs must be chogs. Is this true or false?

The answer is false. Just because some frogs and some chogs are mogs, does not mean some frogs must be chogs. There is no logical connection between the two.

Finding a similar trait does not mean they are the same thing. Saying my car is orange, and orange juice is orange, therefore they must both be made of oranges is ridiculous. Saying my TV runs on electricity and my computer runs on electricity therefore my TV must be a computer is ridiculous. They both have a similar trait, but that doesn't mean they are connected beyond that. This is something you have been attempting to do. Just because both are immeasurable doesn't mean they are the same thing, or related in any other way.

Nothing does exist.

OK stop right there. What is nothing if it exists? It is a descriptive word for the lack of something. Something exists. Nothing only exists as a term to describe the opposite of something. In the physical world, it does not exist. In the physical world, time exists. In the physical world, the universe exists. In the physical world, matter exists. In the physical world, nothing does NOT exist, hence the name.

and if it only didn't you wouldn't know what it was.

Sure we would. We wouldn't know it by sight, or touch, or any senses. We wouldn't know it physically. We would know of it because if there is something, there must be something to describe the lack there of. Not that it exists, but that we need to describe the lack of something. In reality, nothing does not exist, and nothing is a flawed idea in our own mind because we don't realize there is ALWAYS something.

You look inside a box, and go "there is nothing in that box" but there is. There is gas, there is space. Space is not nothing, because space exists. We term it as nothing because we can't see it, or describe it. Its not matter, therefore we term it as nothing. You term the universe as nothing as you cannot measure it. Fact is though, it exists. This does not justify the idea that nothing exists, but rather bunks your idea that the universe is nothing. Nothing cannot exist, since it would no longer be able to be classified as nothing, therefore the universe cannot be nothing. The universe IS something.

This is a matter of logic. If you cannot understand logic, then you're a lost soul.

It exists as an expression so that you may have this pleasant discussion with me about some thingness. This expression exists because the universe is the immeasurable nothingness. Nothing is immeasurable, some thing is measurable.

now where did you get this from? Something is not always measurable. Something can be infinite. The universe is infinite, and the universe is something. The universe, as I stated above, by logic, cannot be nothing. For the universe to be classified as nothing, you would have to change what the word nothing means. In actuality, nothing is a human idea, which is never seen in reality. Nothing is made up by the human mind. Something exists. Nothing exists in our minds, but not in reality. Just because it is not made up of matter, and you cannot describe what is there, does not mean it does not exist.

For the universe to not exist, we would not be able to exist. In order for anything to exist, the universe must exist. Your state of mind exists, therefore you exist. If you exist, this world exists. If this world exists, this universe exists. If this universe exists, it is not nothing. When it comes to explaining how the universe came to be, its properties, etc. I cannot help you, nor can any human being. What I can tell you is that the universe IS real, and if the universe doesn't warp infinitely, then whatever is outside the universe is also something, and it also exists.

Nothing is a human concept designed on the idea that if there is one thing, there must be an opposite to it. Nothing is an old idea before people could understand the idea that instead of nothing being the opposite of something, that anti matter is the opposite of matter. Nothing is neutral. Nothing can never be reached in reality. There will always be something. Thats the reason matter on the quantum scale pops into and out of existance, because there is no neutral.

The universe is a seesaw that can never be balanced. Math will never be able to solve the universe because the universe itself is an unbalanced equation. This unbalanced equation means the universe will always be going back and forth in an attempt to balance itself. It can never balance, because if it did, the universe would cease to exist. When the universe ceases to exist, everything in it will cease to exist. But it cannot balance itself because it is nature for it to be unbalanced. Constantly adjusting matter and anti matter, energy and anti energy. It will always have little peices of matter popping into existance, and erasing it, with no end. We are looking for the balanced equation which simply doesn't exists. What exists is an equation going back and forth between positive and negative, never being able to find 0.

From the immeasurable and interconnected nothingness we measure things. Since 'nothing does not exist', then there is never a space of nothingness to separate any thing, therefore when we measure from the interconnected nothingness, we create the illusional perception of things.

This, I am going to disregard, as incoherent ramble.

Does and does not. There is no before and there is no after when it comes to the universe, it is immeasurable in space and time, yet we are allowed to make measurements. Making up the infinite is the illusional finite. The measurements only exist because of the choice to measure them, and thus ignoring the eternal interconnectedness of existence. We know it is eternally interconnected because there is not a space of 'nothingness' existing to separate any thing.

Alright, there is a before and there is an after. And after that, I completely lost you, you're making no sense now.

They do and they do not. We are the eternal experiencing the temporary, and the temporary uncovering the eternal. I do not refuse any thing, not even refusal.

what...are you...talking about? You went from spiritual to cult over the course of this post. You went from flawed logic to borderline crazy. Time exists, it's physical rules and ways it is manipulated in the universe, are up for discussion. Just because it is infinite doesn't mean it is nothing. You have this idea that only nothing can be infinite, and therefore anything that can be infinite is nothing. This logic is flawed and unrealistic. Infinite and finite are both measurements. Both are based on real things. Nothing isn't infinite, as infinite is a measure. Nothing is the lack of infinite.

The future is the past unknown, and the past is the future perceived. The future is the past in regress and the past is the future in progress. .... past was.

The world needed it... and so it needed the world

Nothing is the reason string theory, big bang, M theory, extra dimensions, 1 dimensional, and 2 dimenionsal theories are invalid, ironic, eh?

Time, regardless of quantum physics, exists. Whether you like it or not, it has an effect on existance, and therefore, must also exist. The non-existant cannot physically effect the existant. Nothing is a flawed theory at best. Nothing does not exist in our universe, thus has no bearing on ANY of those theories.

Originally posted by junglelord
I have seen no proof only talk as far as the antistring no extra dimension people....talk is cheap which is where my thread has gone

i hope you arent talking about me?! i am supportive of the original intent of this thread. however, i do not have a firm grasp on string theory or dark matter/energy, which limits my ability to comment.

i enjoy and agree with your arguments, junglelord, as to the importance of particle spin, particularly in relation to the dimentional plane in which it is relevant. i would like to comment on that, although i do not have "proof" of any such things...only my own brain wandering around observing synchronicities. much of my research would probably be dismissed as merely metaphysical, nevertheless, my basic model of the universe is outlined below...
______

i prefer not to refer to particles or forces directly. i use the term "holon", which is a well established term. see: holon: common usage

as you can see from the above link, "holon" refers to any unified entity that is observed as part of a nested system. particles and energy states can all be termed as holons. in this model, the atom contains nested "holon pairs", the pair being created by a separation of exactly one dimension (perpendicular to). by nature of the holon pair, each holon is mutually exclusive to it's pair. as the pair is nested upwards, they become a single unit: a new holon on a higher dimension.

interference (or coherence) is caused by the opposing (or co-related) spin states of any pair of holons. this creates a rapidly vibrating "string". this "string" defines the "quantum state" of the pair. the quantum state is then passed on to the next higher level holon.

the excitement doesn't stop there!

stong and weak forces are each 1 dimensional, and therefore interact across the 2nd dimension (quantum), ascending upward they emerge as a 3rd dimensional holon. electro and magnetic forces are 3 dimensional, and therefore interact across the 4th dimension (time), ascending upward they emerge as a 5th dimensioal holon. matter and energy are 5 dimensional, interact across the 6th dimension (gravity), and emerge as an as-yet undefined 7th dimensional holon.

lastly, because the system is nested, observable characteristics are shared with higher and lower levels. therefore, we will expect to see behavioral similarities between 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th level holons. also the model predicts patterns of quantum (string) behavior in the 2nd, 4th, and 6th dimensions.

(caveats: we are typically familiar with the 4th dimension being referred to as "time". in this model, a single unit of matter can be manifested beyond the time constant. also, i have not yet placed dark matter or dark energy into the model. this is not intended as an argument against their exsistence.)
______

and THAT, junglelord, is about as close as i can come to making any sense out of our universe. it is in support of your original intent for this thread, i hope you can see that. i could attempt at finding text references, but to draw the connections between 10 years of personal reasearch would be exhausting.

and i am completely open to criticism. you may also dismiss me as a "quack", but i prefer to think myself more "cutting edge".


dkp

No I was not refering to you and I really like your post.
Thanks for the contribution I did learn something from you.
thats a good way to think about it and to explain it.
I think your very smart, not a quack.
Kudos and Cheers.

I think the other post while valid on certain levels are not the entire truth (illusion of matter)

I am not sold on Strings just interested in them.
I find them to be more elegant as I learn about them and thats very interesting to me.
Math and elegance is often the truth.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by junglelord]

your judgemental, you have no idea where my energies go.

I'm sorry, but that statement and the rest of that rant sounded a little childish. As far as my opinion on this topic goes it's pretty different from yours, so I'm not even gonna bother writing it.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by bartholomeo]

Originally posted by junglelord

I am not sold on Strings just interested in them.
I find them to be more elegant as I learn about them and thats very interesting to me.
Math and elegance is often the truth.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by junglelord]

JL,

I think you might like to check out Quantum Field Gravity.
There is an excellent thread here on ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

I see that spin foam models are a critical componet of the quantum loop gravity model as well as the numbers being real and the information being spread out as qubits of data.
nice model, I had read some of that model before.
thanks for the link.

Originally posted by junglelord
...I think your very smart, not a quack....I am not sold on Strings just interested in them....

whell...if you are not sold on strings, you should be! although i, personally, see no reason to circumvent non-local communication between particles, string theory is able to provide a basis upon which quantum behavior can be observed and appreciated.....


.....more like watching a sunset. when you understand the complexity that is involved, you can appreciate it all the more.

do not back out of strings nor dark matter/energy!

and thanks for the kudos. i dont get that very often.


dkp

DEBATE THE ISSUES, NOT PERSONALITIES!

This is the science forum. It's for discussing ideas (with links to supporting data.)

It's not an arena to slight others for their beliefs and opinions.

what I mean about not being sold on strings is that I have a inquisitive mind and not afraid to stretch myself.
In fact I will entertain strings until something else more elegent replaces it like maybe the braids.

I think the braid quantum gravity is a nice combination of strings and gravity and spacetime...again I am not sold but hey I dont mind thinking its correct.

Originally posted by blue bird
String theory is wildly changing - maybe it does not work? Not to mention that there is no provable experiment what so ever.

That's precisely the issue... it doesn't work, and is slowly losing favor in physics. To be a Real Theory (as opposed to a "whacky idea I thought up in the bathtub"), the theory can't simply explain things... it must predict things and you must be able to ask testable questions of it.

So, if I have a Theory of Carbohydrates, my Theory must not only explain the current situation but model new situations and predict new things (like "Carbohydrates can be folded like accordians and when they folded like accordions then the cells that they're in shrink to 1/40th their original size.")

A good example of this is that String Theory wrongly predicts things about antimatter states. It's not for lack of tinkering with the theory, as this 2006 paper that reviews a number of attempts shows :
ej.iop.org...

Such claims dismay Krauss, a leading expert on cosmic dark matter and dark energy who is popularly known as author of a best-seller, "The Physics of Star Trek." In his book "Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions," to be published by Viking in September, Krauss argues that string theorists have produced no satisfactory explanations for anything.......... "has probably been the least successful 'great' idea in physics"

Krauss, Anderson, and Woit are not the only ones to believe this. I'm seeing fewer papers with this in the math and physics field, though Anderson's comment that we're seeing it show up in very poorly-thought out ideas in other fields is dead on the mark.

I think that Nova's popularizing the theory has much to do with its longevity, as does its adoption by folks who get told their version of "how the universe works" just doesn't match what conventional physics says.

Incorrect byrd there are valid experiments and results for strings

In fact although still a theory there has been some experimental evidence that Strings are very real.

It involves the surpession of energetic quark jets that should have come from two gold nuclei being collided.

The paper goes on to show there are other test being performed to again prove the existance of Strings

String Theory Explains RHIC Jet Suppression

String theory argues that all matter is composed of string-like shreds in a 10-dimensional hyperspace assembled in various forms. It has won acclaim from many who appreciate the theory's elegant mathematics and ambition to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, and skepticism from others who cite the theory's lack of a practical track record. String theory, the doubters say, makes no testable predictions.

But this isn't exactly true. Indeed, the theory has not yet been experimentally vindicated in the realm of quantum gravity, but has been put into play in the realm of high-energy ion collisions, the kind carried out at Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). A few years ago string practitioners attempted to establish a relationship between the 10-dimensional string world and the 4-dimensional (3 spatial dimensions plus time) world in which we observe interactions among quark-filled particles like protons (for background, see Physics Today, May 2005).

This duality between string theory and the theory of the strong nuclear force, quantum chromodynamics (QCD), was recently used to interpret puzzling early results from RHIC, namely the suppression of energetic quark jets that should have emerged from the fireball formed when two heavy nuclei (such as gold) collide head on. The thinking was that perhaps the plasma of quarks and gluons (quarks bursting free from their customary proton and meson groupings) wasn't a gas of weakly interacting particles (as was originally thought) but a gas of strongly interacting particles, so strong that any energetic quarks that might have escaped the fireball (initiating a secondary avalanche, or jet, or quarks) would quickly be slowed and stripped of energy on its way through the tumultuous quark-gluon plasma (QGP) environment.
www.aip.org...