String Theory's Missing Logic

[Epsilon=One]

String theory's logic has several missing links. They are areas that have not been adequately addressed . . . that must be settled before String theory, or its derivatives, can become viable candidates for the "Theory of Everything" (TOE).

Some of the unresolved problems of String theory are:

1.) What are "Strings"?: -i.e., What is their etiology? What are they "made" from? Where have they come from? Where are they going? What is their internal structure?

2.) How, or do, the "Strings" that comprise mass and Light differ?

3.) How does String theory explain the mechanical evolution of Life . . . to Conscious Design?

4.) Other String theory problems are such as: How does the creation of "Strings" reconcile with the Big Bang theory of creation? And, what, exactly, is the relationship of "Strings" to the forces of Light and Gravity . . . and, time? Et cetera.

If the "Strings" of String Theory are considered to be ellipsoids in the manner of Pulsoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98), as described heuristically by Pulsoid Theory's (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63) Brunardot Ellipses (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=267#post267); and, the "Strings" are within a congeneric environment, such as the Equilibrium Theory of Reality (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=297#post297), all the discussed difficulties can be rather easily resolved.

Please ask questions. :)

[Philomath]

Honestly, I'm not sure as to why these questions would need to be answered in order for String Theory to become a TOE. Not getting too much into semantics here, but I'm assuming that by 'TOE' you mean it in a physics context.

In that case, question 3 isn't really a question for this theory to answer.

As for the other questions, I honestly haven't read enough to know whether we've already answered them or whether we're working toward their answers.

Out of curiosity, how deep does your own research of the subject delve?

[11dimensions]

in simple terms, say string theory is correct and we actually discover these strings are real, then we will ask what makes the strings up? say we discover some other particle/energy makes them up, we then ask, what makes this energy?

what I'm trying to ask is, is it even possible to have a simplest particle, and it doesn't get more complex than that, it is made of just itself...I don't think this is possible

I've been thinking that to keep creating a new particle to explain what makes up quarks, electrons etc is not the answer...I think at the very smallest stages, there are no particles, and as I read somewhere else its the configuration of the 10th dimension that makes us see a different particle, depending on the position of this dimension

but then that makes me think about the nature of a dimension, i mean why do we have three dimensions, and why this configuration..I mean out of nothingness came hopping along these dimensions, why them? there really should be just...nothing...I find the existence of reality so incredibly bizarre, it really shouldn't exist at all!