String Theory

[docbill]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

You'd like Kaluza-Klein and Heim Theory.

Heim Theory is bunk, but it's got one of those "duh" moments that so important to great breakthroughs.

I'm not up on my string theory, but it borrows the idea of a compactified dimension from KK.

TFS

I am not sure why you would conclude Heim Theory is bunk. The problem with Heim Theory is that it is not based on anything that adds to our understanding of the Universe. Albert Einstein did not just postulate the metrics for general relativity, and say that we now understand gravity. No, he observed the universe and came up with a set of equivalence princables. From those basic princables he derived the metric tensor we know in love. When I am faced with a physics problem, I always start from the basic postulates in order to setup the problem. Without them I am lost and have no way of knowing if my results are reasonable.

I have been searching, but I still have not come-up with any of the basic equivalence princables that lead to Heim theory. (I have found some basic princables of Heim theory, but that is not the same thing.) The theory could be right, but without those princables it is no more than a set of equations grabbed from the air. In order for physicists to take the theory seriously, someone will need to figure out what basic princables lead to Heim theory. Given those princables the challenge will be to prove the princables to support the theory.

Super String Theory on the otherhand is based on some basic princables. While our ability to grind those princables into firm predictions that can be experimentally tested have been dismal at best, most comologists and high energy physists believe ultimately the theory will be tested by experiment.

Interestingly enough, it is not a question of "which theory is correct?" It could well be that both Heim Theory and Super String Theory are correct, each giving access to a different level of details. Or it could be that both are wrong. Given the mathematical form of General Relativity, I have to believe that no matter which unified theory is correct that there is a correct formula very much like Heim theory. However, the only solid reason I would have for believing Heim stumbled on the correct ones is the accuracy of the mass calculations. Even then, I am not convinced tho neutrino calculations are correct leading me to believe at least one term in the equation is wrong.

Bill

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by docbill

Mathematically though it is a nightmare, in that you have to use intuition to subtract infinities to come up with constant values. Those "constant" values are what allows the theory to fit practically anything we experimentally observe. I think of it more as a form of mathematically day dreaming then actually calculating results.

Infinities must also be subtracted in RQFT and yet it has been used for decades to calculate many things, many of which have been measured.

[docbill]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Infinities must also be subtracted in RQFT and yet it has been used for decades to calculate many things, many of which have been measured.

Physists frequently do things that aren't mathematically correct, because they work. Eventually the mathematicians catchup and formulize why it works. This is never a desired state, as you never know what missing details are important. But sometimes it is a neccessary evil. I just get very uncomfortable when I go to a talks and ask the top experts how he knows something and they admit it is just a guess.

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by docbill

The problem with string theory is it is not really a predictive theory. Basically, it is like fitting a polynomial to data. No matter how much data you collect, you can always find a polynomial that fits. The only predictive power comes in assuming you have enough terms in your polynomial. String theory is remarkably successfull, in that it yeilds what appears to be the natural form you need to fit high energy physics observations. Mathematically though it is a nightmare, in that you have to use intuition to subtract infinities to come up with constant values. Those "constant" values are what allows the theory to fit practically anything we experimentally observe. I think of it more as a form of mathematically day dreaming then actually calculating results.

Bill

Sounds like a mistake that every first year student makes when they are taught to fit equations to graphed data.
They always try a 7 or eight term poly to get an equation that matches their data 99% but then when asked to tell me what each of those terms represents they're like "ummmm, what do you mean?"

[docbill]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Sounds like a mistake that every first year student makes when they are taught to fit equations to graphed data.
They always try a 7 or eight term poly to get an equation that matches their data 99% but then when asked to tell me what each of those terms represents they're like "ummmm, what do you mean?"

Not quite. When you ask a theorist what each of the integrals/sums means he can give you a precise answer. But when you ask why he matched the terms he did prior to summing, the best he can answer is that it gave him the right answer.

[HappytheStripper]

Imagine the universe as "nothing" .. an eye of a needle .. that knows everything and is self aware .. totally within itself .. no interfacing .. just a dot .. a pinpoint .. under pressure .. a matter of thought creating mass ..

Then within a trillionth of a trillionth of a second .. the pressure becomes to much and the eye of the needle begins to open .. allowing enough room for a piece of string to be pulled through .. and a new awareness of a self .. interfacing ..

Now imagine the string represents plasma .. a cell like structure and a set of codei .. instructions for a universe .. what do you have .. recipe ..

Now what do you think .. ??

Man jumped through the eye of a needle .. how did he do it .. ??

Why he did it in the blink of an eye .. just one thought and a piece of string .. !!!!

Regards Ashley