Calling All String Theorists!!!

[STRING]

OK you know the deal by now: only String theorist or those knowing its deep underlying nature and concept need reply. "the theory of everything" ~~~ yada yada yada....

To start off we take it that "All" matter/forces are made up of Strings. (Bosons, Fermions). Through anatomic charge, mass, spin strength and range.

Can String Theory develop the very 1 law of nature and will its conceptualization change the laws of physics as we know it?

The forces of Gravity and Electromagnetism seem the most complicated. The Strong/Weak force more tangble.

Ok lets dive into it.

Does Gravity hold a Graviton and how does it factor into Newtons equation of (G * m1 * m2) / (d2).

Einstein's theory that Gravity and Electromagnetism (and post Einsteinian strong and weak forces) rested upon a "Unified Field". I think the problem was that Einstein was thinking TOO BIG when he should have been thinking small, or as us string theorists would say. "So small we're almost not thinking at all".

[Epsilon=One]

…we take it that "All" matter/forces are made up of Strings. (Bosons, Fermions).Well, yes; depending upon how broad your definition of a “string” is.

Can String Theory develop the very 1 law of nature and will its conceptualization change the laws of physics as we know it?Well again, yes; depending, again, upon some definitions; particularly, how broad you are using the term “String Theory.” If you are referring to the various adaptations of the theory by that name of pomo theoretical physicists where they are trying to reconcile the forces of the standard models; then, the answer is definitely: No! However, if you are using a broad definition of a string as complex oscillating, harmonic motion that resonates, then the answer is, certainly, Yes.

The forces of Gravity and Electromagnetism seem the most complicated. The Strong/Weak force more tangble.I’m inclined to think differently; though, possibly, we are in agreement. The strong and weak forces are without a doubt contrived by their very definition. They are requirements for partial reconciliation of flawed theory. The forces of G and EM are straight forward in that they can be directly observed. However, some definitions of force require acceleration and mass, which makes it difficult to reconcile G and EM, which is neither electric nor magnetic. G and EM are manifestations that have entirely different etiologies; and, are, therefore, only related in that they are both phenomena that exists.

Does Gravity hold a Graviton and how does it factor into Newtons equation of (G * m1 * m2) / (d2).Gravitons are mythical. Newton, himself, realized that he had no understanding of the phenomenon of gravitational attraction-at-a-distance; therefore, little faith can be placed in any simplistic equations that he may have offered in way of an explanation . . . centuries later, Feynman roundly concurred with my interpretation of the academic situation.

Einstein's theory that Gravity and Electromagnetism (and post Einsteinian strong and weak forces) rested upon a "Unified Field". I think the problem was that Einstein was thinking TOO BIG when he should have been thinking small, or as us string theorists would say. "So small we're almost not thinking at all".You have adequately summed the situation. What is required is a “Unified Concept” rather than a “Unified Field.” The answers to unification are quite simple when approached from the simplest to the most complex.

Try seeking the source of integers and the Elliptical Constant. Everything else should fall into place with a bit of reflection, introspection, deduction . . . and, just plain common sense.

[airlinemusic]

Isn't the string solution some glorified sine and cosine or complex series
solution that is a method known to solve equations.

Einstein could have solved it, he just didn't like the answer.

And his choice of transformation may not even be required to understand
the answer, which might be better without it.

[Epsilon=One]

Isn't the string solution some glorified sine and cosine or complex series solution that is a method known to solve equations.Are you discussing string theory (ST)?

Einstein could have solved it, he just didn't like the answer.Einstein could have solved what?

And his choice of transformation may not even be required to understand the answer, which might be better without it.What exactly are you referring to?