String Theory's & LQG's Successes

[caltechpostdoc]

Hello!

I am compiling a list of papers that represent String Theory's & LQG's successes.

I am looking for papers on String Theory, or LQG, that

1) model a fundamental physical reality from which both quantum mechanics and relativity descend.

2) offer a simple postulate which accounts for a deeper physical reality from which both quantum mechanics and relativity descend.

3) offer a simple postulate and/or physical model which simultaneously accounts for quantum entanglement and relativity's two postulates.

This list will be invaluable to researchers. Thanks from all of us!

[Albers]

We just need more colors of chalk!

[Albers]

Advanced Physics Forums > General Discussion > Speculations
new observations! Today, 10:04 #1
Norman Albers
Senior Physics Major

Astronomers are reporting seeing evidence of the long-sought oompah-loompah oscillations. Telescopes were trained on the navel of a willing volunteer (who had to sit quite a few kilometers away) and were able barely to observe a wiggling, string-like mass. Said one, "It's pretty disgusting but we are quite excited." This is no doubt welcome news for Piotr Rumenov Todorov, the theorist who conceived the notion.
__________________
THE STRING UNCUT AND UNSTRUNG HAS NO NOTE.
Today, 13:24 #2
Retsia (Todorov)
Junior Physicist
Join Date: 2005 Dec
Posts: 151

Hehe...

The universe may be more disgusting than we may ever conceive!
__________________
"Arrivederci."

[Epsilon=One]

I am looking for…a simple (String Theory) postulate which accounts for a deeper physical reality from which both quantum mechanics and relativity descend.

...(And,) a simple postulate and/or physical model which simultaneously accounts for quantum entanglement and relativity's two postulates.Postulate:Nature defines mathematics.
Corollaries:The geometry of seminal motion acts as energy “strings” of hyper-relativistic, complex oscillations of slide, swing, and vibration.

Said oscillating “strings” manifest as ellipsoidal harmony and resonances that are the quanta and bonds of all phenomena.
Proof:The quantitative proof is evident from observation of all that exists.

Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. --Einstein

[Albers]

After seeing how people are thrashing about with current attempts I can appreciate more your claims to a good theoretical approach. Can you say anything about dimensionality? Is this not a good term for your superluminal level? As you know I think it is only bound states (particles) which are quantized. Only when the "snake catches its tail" are there necessarily harmonics alone which inhabit the energy space. It is so that these emit only quantized photons so there is of course a major sea of quantized photons in which to do mechanics. However this is not the fundamental nature of the radiation field, which I think should be treated as a nonquantized state space. The phenomenology of photoelectrics demands strong localization of energy packets only. This is what has to be explained. I think our mechanics of particles is in better shape than our vacuum polarization and photon theories. Planck's constant is the characteristic of the snake in a circle only. This is what struck me like lightning in third year college: intrinsic angular momentum is precisely one-half of orbital manifestation. BELLS AND FLASHING LIGHTS. It's obvious the electron is somehow a dance of light and I have proposed just how.

[Albers]

Maxwell's equations express the right-angle relationship of electrics and magnetics. Here the equations are entirely symmetric, as a change in E-field produces magnetic loops around it and in the plane perpendicular to it. The converse is also to be said. One need not be attached to the language, I agree, but simply to "how things act". Charges (I use the word even though I am deconstructing the concept!) force other charges, and moving charges force other currents. Given that charge itself involves current loops we are awfully close to the closure of full symmetry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implied after all of my offerings is "how do you show this?" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I need to read on basic demonstration of entanglement, which I have only recently begun studying. The first paper I read on Bell's theorem left me needing details to know what I am being sold. Reading that detectors flash simultaneously half the time rather than 5/9 seems like loss of information. I can deal better with a statement like, "dependence on relative detector orientation would be expected to go as 'theta' but instead goes as 'theta-squared' which is the second term in the polynomial expansion for cosine.

[Epsilon=One]

Your last two posts are very insightful. You open enough thoughts for a book. The following is probably too succinct. Don’t hesitate to doubt or question for more detail or clarification.

Can you say anything about dimensionality?Probably not much very exciting. I consider dimensions as something to describe a physical event.

Thus, with this concept, if a description is to be given for the motion of say a moon in another supergalactic cluster from the observer, there are many dimensions.

However, when the term "dimensionality" is used I think of the orthogonal spatial framework. Unlike most theoretical physicists, I limit dimensionality to three orthogonal vectors (one Universe) that fundamentally reflect the Inverse Square Law. This phenomena arises from the Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101) that describes the ellipsoid and is mathematically derived from what I refer to a the “vector” (x^2) and the “soliton” (X^2 – X) where the “perigee” is “x.”

There are some fundamental exchanges of terms involved that I have withheld waiting for challenges to the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107) from academia. Amazingly, regardless of how much I provoke, academia is intimidated by the term and refuses to rise to the bait???

Is this not a good term (dimensionality) for your superluminal level?Absolutely!!! Emphasis is on "level."

As you know I think it is only bound states (particles) which are quantized.I understand. I just don’t agree.

Only when the "snake catches its tail" are there necessarily harmonics alone which inhabit the energy space. It is so that these emit only quantized photons so there is of course a major sea of quantized photons in which to do mechanics.I just don’t understand photons as particles.

However this is not the fundamental nature of the radiation field, which I think should be treated as a nonquantized state space.See if you can’t fire your imagination with Loop Quantum Gravity Theory (LQG). I’m not suggesting I like LQG, just suggesting it may help understanding a “radiation field” as quanta.

The phenomenology of photoelectrics demands strong localization of energy packets only. This is what has to be explained. I think our mechanics of particles is in better shape than our vacuum polarization and photon theories.I agree; if only because you use the word “mechanics.” It seems to me that what has to be explained is the morphing of “energy packets” to manifestations that exhibit the many characteristics of gravity phenomena.

Planck's constant is the characteristic of the snake in a circle only. This is what struck me like lightning in third year college: intrinsic angular momentum is precisely one-half of orbital manifestation. BELLS AND FLASHING LIGHTS. It's obvious the electron is somehow a dance of light and I have proposed just how.Yes. Your “BELLS AND FLASHING LIGHTS” are appropriate. However, don’t limit yourself to the electron. The electron is only a small part of the complexity of “dark” matter.

The key to bringing the current state of theoretical physics out of its miasmic situation is an understanding of “dark” matter; not only its physical state, but its relationship to the illusion of gravitational attraction.

Maxwell's equations express the right-angle relationship of electrics and magnetics. Here the equations are entirely symmetric, as a change in E-field produces magnetic loops around it and in the plane perpendicular to it. The converse is also to be said.Again, to understand the symmetry and orthogonal relationships you must go back to the intrinsic right-triangle (wave, radius, and hypotenuse) that generates the propagating, seminal ellipsoids.

Maxwell depended on observation of data and mathematics without ever understanding the fundamental, propagating concepts.

One need not be attached to the language, I agree, but simply to "how things act". Charges (I use the word even though I am deconstructing the concept!) force other charges, and moving charges force other currents. Given that charge itself involves current loops we are awfully close to the closure of full symmetryI concur . . .

"how do you show this?"Good question, if you’re implying how do you convince. I’ve tried for over 50 years without success.

I need to read on basic demonstration of entanglement, which I have only recently begun studying.I’m not sure what you can gain studying entanglement. I’ve never found anyone with a clue toward understanding it. There is something impressed in the minds of theoretical physicists that sidetracks any serious consideration of hyper-relativistic phenomena. Morrison sent me to Einstein to discuss the situation. I’ve always wondered what would have happened if he had lived another day. Instead there was Oppenheimer, despite folklore to the contrary, he was a very narrowly focused person.

The first paper I read on Bell's theorem left me needing details to know what I am being sold. Reading that detectors flash simultaneously half the time rather than 5/9 seems like loss of information. I can deal better with a statement like, "dependence on relative detector orientation would be expected to go as 'theta' but instead goes as 'theta-squared' which is the second term in the polynomial expansion for cosine.Much of this I have forgotten; however, my general impression of Bell and his work is that I was very impressed. I remember the impression that he was a cut above the “hack” theorist.

[edwynne]

hi
I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me to what is new is string theory?... I recently watched 'the elegant universe' and found it really interesting... but that documentary is pretty old now.... so if anyone can explain wots been happening in simple terms..I would greatly appreciate it
cheers
chris

[Epsilon=One]

I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me to what is new is string theory?... I recently watched 'the elegant universe' and found it really interesting... but that documentary is pretty old now.... so if anyone can explain wots been happening in simple terms..I would greatly appreciate itThe strings continue, every day, to be ever more tangled. The theorists, themselves, outside of their cabal, continue to lose credibility. Sorta analagous to "W" and his cohorts; the base is rabid, others are "jumping ship."

String Theory's goal is to unite the metaphysical forces that underlie pomo theoretical physics. Logic would conclude that this goal is beyond reason.

For some rationale as to "Why" "strings" are assumed to be fundamental, you might peruse Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63).

Particularly, note the various "mystique of ellipses" (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=234) posts as they develop.