Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Shape of the universe

I thought that there were only two basic types of string theories: those with closed string loops that can break into open strings and those with closed string loops that can't break into open strings. have i made a fatal error?

Go to http://superstringtheory.com
Enjoy reading it .. forget your incompetency in Physics , Maths , topography , group thoery , religion , Music etc...
Do you need to know a Instrument in order to Dance to a tune...??:-))
All it takes is genuine interest and good imagination to come up with a better music..

oops sorry i mean better theory.. but music is right word for my physics...

You mean topology....
And in principle, you don't "need to know an instrument" to dance, but if you knew an instrument, you could play it...Or if you "know" instruments", it is so much more satisfying to listen to music. You should try it.

you should try it fool!

I agree one should try it.
Everyone knows that convergence is taking place ... Biology , Chemistry , Physics ,Psycology ,Music , Photography ... etc...everything can be deducted from a given set of assumptions..
Inherent similar patterns are getting exposed.
And that is the Music ....
Btw I know some "instruments" very well.
And I am fortunate to be able to see everything from that window...
And am not exaggerating.

I am one of those who actually "plays" the instruments, Rodriguez. And as far as your knowledge of strings goes, it sounds to me very much like preschool tune.You know he type, "twinkle,twinkle little star,...".Very similar to the comment you made...

How about this: before "learning" strings from the web,or from popular books, why don't you try reading either Clifford Johnson's book on strings, or Polcinski's books, and then claim you know enough math to understand strings?

I really admire those who have proved it themselves... but I trust every popular science book to share with us both the success and failures of a good theory...
In my opinion Maths is a tool to reach Understanding and not vice versa..
In one of my previous posts I have demonstrated how maths brings singularity in real life.

There are certain concepts which I expected to exist in Modern Physics but I dont find them... for e.g I think any kind of Mass should be experessible using the following formula
M = f(n) * m0 (n is integer and m0 is basic mass)
i.e.the mass should also have been Quantified becasuse it is also a condensed form of energy...
All the basic mass values should be derived from the theory itself..
Have you come across any new development on this front?

dkv:?... but I trust every popular science book to share with us both the success and failures of a good theory...?

OK, your reasoning sounds logical. But here are a few questions about this reasoning: How do you know the author of the popular book is REALLY proficient in the topic he writes about (and B.Green is not exactly proficient)? If the reader is not very familiar with the topic, how can he judge the proficiency of the author? When it comes to such theories (where classical reasoning fails- e.g. quantum mechanics) how do you expect an author to be able to describe it at the level of popular science? How about those ?detail? that cannot be explained in simple terms to a popular audience and which can make or destroy the validity of a theory? How about the other theories not mentioned in a popular science book? How about the ?ganging? phenomenon, where you have exclusive supporters of a theory disregarding other competing theories (and take my word for it, there is a huge rift between stringists and say, loop quantum gravity theorists)?

dkv:?In my opinion Maths is a tool to reach Understanding and not vice versa..?

Very true, in an ideal world. But the complexity of mathematics increases as theories develop, and more and more often, you need very high level mathematics to understand the subtleties of a theory. And the current trend in theoretical physics is not singular, same thing happened a century ago when relativity and quantum mechanics were developed. The major difference is that for those topics, the popular ?curriculum? has caught up with the complexity of the theory; however, this is not the case with strings and other similar theories.

dkv:?In one of my previous posts I have demonstrated how maths brings singularity in real life.?

Well, I didn?t exactly understand your point in that post, but believe me, singularities in theoretical physics are treated in a completely different manner. The current view is that singularities do not exist in the real world, they are only the artifacts of an incomplete description at the classical level, and are expected to disappear at the quantum level. The classical treatment of singularities involves tools like regularization, while at quantum level you look for (natural) cut-offs in the theory, or renormalizability. Maybe you should try to explain your point better, if you?d like to discuss it.

dkv:?There are certain concepts which I expected to exist in Modern Physics but I dont find them... for e.g I think any kind of Mass should be experessible using the following formulaM = f(n) * m0 (n is integer and m0 is basic mass) i.e.the mass should also have been Quantified becasuse it is also a condensed form of energy...?


Well, your reasoning is something of the form: mass is energy, energy is quantized, so mass must be quantized. And it is a perfect example of what I was saying before: common sense logic what does not apply to reality (at least not for the time being). The truth is that there is no theory that predicts you the quantization of classical mass (photons are a separate case, but keep in mind that they are not classical particles either). Heck, electric charge is not quantized at the theoretical level, although in (experimental) practice we know it is (Schwinger suggested a mechanism for the quantization of the electric charge, but this involves the existence of magnetic monopoles, of which we haven?t yet detected any).

dkv: ?All the basic mass values should be derived from the theory itself. Have you come across any new development on this front??

Well, what you say sounds nice, but how do you implement it in a consistent theory? This is exactly the type of arguments which are not accessible to the general public, and that can make and destroy a theory. People keep wondering about such questions, and unfortunately there is no simple way in which someone could present a cogent argument at popular level about why the quantization of mass is not a general underlying principle of the quantum world. The truth in short form is that there is no theory that has as consequence the quantization of mass. Does such an argument make you happy? I would guess not.

My GOD ! You have gought me well.
Anyways let me try to answer again...
dkv:?... but I trust every popular science book to share with us both the success and failures of a good theory...?
REP: Yes I have read Roger Penrose, Stephan Hawking, Amazing Russian Authors, Richard Feynmaan(Lectures on Physics) etc...And they all are gifted ones..
dkv:?In my opinion Maths is a tool to reach Understanding and not vice versa..?
REP:STring theory is now being discussed and I somehow have the advantage of understanding it because I caught it very early...and have extended such concepts for my 'complete' understanding.I have been correct many times in the past...
dkv:?In one of my previous posts I have demonstrated how maths brings singularity in real life.?
What I mean to say is that Sigularity exists in Maths only and it can not be excatly mapped to the real world..You are confusing Real world with the Maths used to describe it...

dkv:?There are certain concepts which I expected to exist in Modern Physics but I dont find them... for e.g I think any kind of Mass should be experessible using the following formulaM = f(n) * m0 (n is integer and m0 is basic mass) i.e.the mass should also have been Quantified becasuse it is also a condensed form of energy...?
I still say Mass needs to be Quantized.

dkv: ?All the basic mass values should be derived from the theory itself. Have you come across any new development on this front??
No and yes

dkv: ?Yes I have read Roger Penrose, Stephan Hawking, Amazing Russian Authors, Richard Feynmaan(Lectures on Physics) etc...And they all are gifted ones??

OK, you have solved one of the issues, namely whether some of the authors are proficient in their fields. How about the rest? And most importantly, how can you judge (besides their peer aura) what they write?

So should I take it from what you say that you are proficient in twistor theory and combinatorial quantization (Penrose), QFT (Feynman), and theoretical cosmology (Hawking), and that we can discuss relevant topics in GR and QG? Or just a dedicated undergrad who read Feynman?s lectures?

dkv :?String theory is now being discussed and I somehow have the advantage of understanding it because I caught it very early...and have extended such concepts for my 'complete' understanding. I have been correct many times in the past...?

Theoretical physics is not a matter of being right based on previous experience. Remember Pons and Fleishman? Nostradamus was not exactly what I would call a scientist. And while it is good to read about such a topic, claiming understanding only from reading M.Kaku?s book and whatever else you found on the internet is beyond any reasonable stretch of imagination. Let me give you a trivial example. Do you know what a CFT is (let me help you, the acronym stands for conformal field theory)? Why is CFT important in strings? Do you believe in Maldacena?s conjecture? I am curious to see the answers.

dkv: ?What I mean to say is that Sigularity exists in Maths only and it can not be excatly mapped to the real world..You are confusing Real world with the Maths used to describe it...?

No, I am not confusing the real world with the mathematical world. I agree with you that singularities should be absent from any consistent physical theory at the quantum level, and that at the classical level they are artifacts of the mathematical language. But removing such singularities even at the classical level is very difficult, because you need arguments that in this kind of theories are not always available. At the quantum level while some classical singularities vanish, some other singularities arise, and problems become even more complicated. Let me give you an example. At the classical level you can have in principle monochromatic radiation (which in the Fourier space translates in the existence of a Dirac delta-function in the spectrum). Try to explain without making any reference to quantum mechanics (ignore Doppler broadening, you can consider your source as stationary) why in reality such monochromatic radiation cannot exist.

dkv: ?I still say Mass needs to be Quantized.?

You can say it, no problem, but your arguments are?? I don?t want to take your instinct into derision; instincts are useful to have. But without supporting arguments they are mute. In physics the ? I told you so? line has no value. So let me point you into the right (or at the very least another) direction? Have you ever considered the influence of mass on the spacetime? General relativity (GR) that is? Your earlier argument had a strong ?smell? of quantum mechanics in it, and for this reason it failed in validity. What would the quantization of mass mean in GR? Possibly quantum GR? What would that be? Do you know anything about that?

dkv:"No and yes."

Well, in my case it is definitely no.

Frankly I have a theory beyond the limitation of this forum....and it deals with the real life ..
Life as it is lived..
I dont find sigularity anywhere.. so why it should be in its description....it is a collapse of a theroy and not the reality...
The reality simply enters into a new domain consistent with itself.No laws are violated internally .. only its known description fails to update itself.

Frankly, I am slightly disappointed in your response. For two main reasons.
a) You have suddenly gone soft on the scientific side of the discussion.
b) Because you seem not to understand that life in itself, reality is nothing but a succession of singular events, from your birth to your death. you are a singular (read unique) individual in more ways than one, what happens to you are in general singular experiences, which you perceive in a singular manner, and so on and so forth. Uniformism is merely a self-serving illusion. Think about it.

I have not gone soft.
Singularity is also characterized by the expected collapse of the existing physical laws..
Something beyond comprehension happens...
The singularity you are talking about is something different and has no scientifc meaning.

dkv:"Singularity is also characterized by the expected collapse of the existing physical laws..."

I agree with you that at the classical level the interpretation of singularities as "points" where the physicsl laws collapse is justified. But how about at the quantum level? At the quantum level such singularities should not exist, but they do exist and yet the physical laws do not collapse. And the technical tool to "circumvent" such infinities is not exactly what you would call a removal of such singul;arities. You read Feynman, so go look up mass and charge renormalization in QED.

dkv:"Something beyond comprehension happens..."

Yes, sure, but what? You stated it in a very nice form, but from the scientist/physicist viewpoint, such a statement has absolutely no value. You are just stating the obvious, which in physis is rather useless. Physics starts where wondering ends.

dkv:"The singularity you are talking about is something different and has no scientifc meaning."

True, it is something different, but this does not mean that it has no scientific support. Think about DNA, think about the human psyche (psychology if you like) and you will immediately find the singularism I was talking about. And since the term singular has the meaning of standing out (which applies to both math singularities and to the singularism mentioned earlier), it is easy to see the parallel.

Now if you want singularities in terms of infinities that you can encounter in real life, just look at the night sky. You will be looking at physical infinity. Look at the sea or the sand on the beach. You have no ideea how close you are to mathematical infinity. Limited perception brings you closer than you would like to such abstract singularities.

u arre both soft!

scum of the earth

It was a good discussion on Singularity..
You are uttlery correct when you said that physical reality of infinite existence is manifested as finite...
This limited edition of Universe is available not only due to limited perception but also due to limited observations and limited knowledge.
And I am afraid this practical limitation is embedded in the Laws itself...
You can not observe or comprehend 'everything' with absolute certainity... This might sound like a Macro Uncertainity Principle .. but it is a fact and in my opinion someone should prove it.
Thanks for your kind remarks and would like to
share an interesting way of removing infinity from my mathematical equation discussed somewhere in the forum..
Assume that amount x is measured relative to quantity z then the transformed measurement of x will be x-z
As per my growth eqn. assume the intial absolute quantity was 0 and the final quantity is 1 then the transformed quatities (relative to 1) are
-1 and 0...( you can always move the origin)
The growth % is then (0-(-1))/abs(-1) = 1 or 100 % .. I have moved the infinity to a different location but have not removed it from the system...
Isnt it strange that you can make infinities jump from one axis position to other , helping you to solve the equation for your needed comprehension... Which means that everything you observe can be comprehended but there will always be a point where the uncomprehended part will reappear..
In reality that there are no observed infinities ...
Everthing is has a finite number attached to it..
Therefore singularity or the collapse has not been observed and it can not be observed..
Any system which allows it to exist doesnt describe the Truth as it is ..

As much as I would like to play with your equation, and singularity problem, what you wrote up to this momnt does not make too much sense.
Instead of just jotting down your thoughts about it, why don't you state what you want to say in a coherent, complete and logic manner, and I would be more than happy to take a look.

Please me up on my thread "Singularity in Real Life?" I will be very glad to discuss it with you.
Put your intial comments there along with proper reasoning and I will respond...
Or if you want we can chat also...