MDT an excellent approach to TOE

[Epsilon=One]

(Note from E1: This thread is a continuation from a foreign forum)

Does string theory have any postulates or laws?

Is string theory the first physical theory without postulates and laws?

I've been trying to find string theory's postulates and laws somewhere.

Thanks!
I think you are on to something.

You must go further.

An examination of the postulates of all physical theories will show a dismal lack of establishing “first cause” logic, which leads to erroneous conclusions in the resultant descriptive mathematical formulas. This error becomes apparent as all paradigms so derived, when expanded beyond defined parameters, become both internally irreconcilable and externally irreconcilable with each other . . . and observation.

Even Moving Dimension Theory, a logical, thoughtful, alternative theory that has much merit, falls short in its definitions of terms that underlie its basic postulates. For example, because time does not appear to be adequately defined as two concepts (linear and cyclical) MDT implies that the orthogonal dimensions and time are defined circularly in terms of one another, which makes it difficult to logically explain the particle/wave duality of light.

A beginning postulate might be to assume that everything that exists is defined by motion. Then, when that motion is defined by simple geometry and algebra the enigmatic phenomena of observed nature will become obvious.

I would like to think that string theory was originally a serendipitous attempt to so define this motion. Currently, string theory, appears to have lost its way. Possibly because it never was so ideally concerned; more likely because it fell to the control of conventional theorists who are trying to unify forces that they have yet to define in such a way that is consistent with philosophical logic and observation.

The geometry of fundamental motion should not only logically define the forces of nature; but, it should, also, nicely provide the missing logic to number theory and help sort out the uniform distribution of prime numbers.

(Note from E1: This thread is a continuation from a foreign forum)

MDT actually states that time is an emergent property of a a fundamental postulate: the fourth dimension that is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Thus time has inherited certain aspects of a fourth dimension, but it is not the fourth dimension. But we are not allowed to discuss MDT here: please see http://physicsmathforums.com if you wish to speak of it.

Note to moderators: I apologize for broaching the topic of MDT, but it was only in response to the above post, and for the purpose of illustrating a postulate in a modern theory, and I now return to String Theory.

It seems that String Theory has no postulates nor laws. Does it even want postualtes or laws?

If someone could please name some postulates of String Theory, we would very much like to discuss them. Thanks! I would very much like to comprehend String Theory's beauty that I have oft heard of, and the best place would be to start with its postulates or laws.

When we learn classical physics, we start with Newton's Laws.

When we learn relativity, we start with Einstein's postulates.

So it makes sense that to learn String Theory, we should start with its postulates and laws. Would someobody please post them? Thanks in advance!

You have managed to direct where I have often failed.

I will continue per your request as Epsilon=One.

Both classical physics and relativity can not reconcile with observation because their postulates are too far from natural fundamentals.

[astro]

I think you are on to something.

You must go further.

An examination of the postulates of all physical theories will show a dismal lack of establishing “first cause” logic, which leads to erroneous conclusions in the resultant descriptive mathematical formulas. This error becomes apparent as all paradigms so derived, when expanded beyond defined parameters, become both internally irreconcilable and externally irreconcilable with each other . . . and observation.

Even Moving Dimension Theory, a logical, thoughtful, alternative theory that has much merit, falls short in its definitions of terms that underlie its basic postulates. For example, because time does not appear to be adequately defined as two concepts (linear and cyclical) MDT implies that the orthogonal dimensions and time are defined circularly in terms of one another, which makes it difficult to logically explain the particle/wave duality of light.

A beginning postulate might be to assume that everything that exists is defined by motion. Then, when that motion is defined by simple geometry and algebra the enigmatic phenomena of observed nature will become obvious.

I would like to think that string theory was originally a serendipitous attempt to so define this motion. Currently, string theory, appears to have lost its way. Possibly because it never was so ideally concerned; more likely because it fell to the control of conventional theorists who are trying to unify forces that they have yet to define in such a way that is consistent with philosophical logic and observation.

The geometry of fundamental motion should not only logically define the forces of nature; but, it should, also, nicely provide the missing logic to number theory and help sort out the uniform distribution of prime numbers.



You have managed to direct where I have often failed.

I will continue per your request as Epsilon=One.

Both classical physics and relativity can not reconcile with observation because their postulates are too far from natural fundamentals.

The geometry of fundamental motion!!! I love it!!

I have added this to the questions that MDT seeks to ask: "What underlies all motion? What is the geometry of fundamental motion that is missing in GR?"

Hopefully we can get some mathematicians to help with this.

Thanks again for your feedback/encouragement.

The blind, herd-mentality of the handwaving, obfuscating regurgitators can get one down after awhile.

A curious sign of the times is that physicists will accept on blind faith the existence of ten, twenty, or thirty dimensions, dimensions that are curled up, or too small to measure, and yet they will reel in shock and horror at a perfectly obvious postulate—the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

They are to be forgiven—it has been a long time since a simple postulate has been offered in the realm of physics, and the foreign nature of truth’s simple beauty is seen as a violent affront to the String Theorist’s convoluted sensibilities.

It's hard to believe that so many have put so much time into Sting Theory and M-Theory and not one postulate or law. How can physics be taught or tested without postualtes and laws?

Hopefully mathematical talent will find a new home in MDT.

Regaridng time, MDT actually states that time is an emergent property of a a fundamental postulate: the fourth dimension that is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Thus time has inherited certain aspects of a fourth dimension, but it is not the fourth dimension. But we are not allowed to discuss MDT here: please see http://physicsmathforums.com if you wish to speak of it.

Einstein, Wheeler, Godel, Penrose--all these major players have problems with time as expressed in QM and Relativity. MDT delves one step deeper to offer a physical reality from where time arises in both case--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions in quantized units at a constant rate. Time is not a dimension, but it inherits many properties of the fourth expanding dimension--hence the common confusion of time with a dimension.

But it is all explained here:

http://physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=54

Note to moderators of PF: I apologize for broaching the topic of MDT, but it was only in response to the above post, and for the purpose of illustrating a postulate in a modern theory, and I now return to String Theory.

It seems that String Theory has no postulates nor laws. Does it even want postualtes or laws?

If someone could please name some postulates of String Theory, we would very much like to discuss them. Thanks! I would very much like to comprehend String Theory's beauty that I have oft heard of, and the best place would be to start with its postulates or laws.

When we learn classical physics, we start with Newton's Laws.

When we learn relativity, we start with Einstein's postulates.

So it makes sense that to learn String Theory, we should start with its postulates and laws. Would someobody please post them? Thanks in advance!

[Epsilon=One]

Hopefully we can get some mathematicians to help with this.

I developed the concept of fundamental motion in 1955; subsequently, Philip Morrison sent me to Einstein. Whereupon, shortly thereafter, I was ostracized from academia . . . probably at the insistence of Oppenheimer???

The mathematics of fundamental motion was finally completed shortly after I left TRW at the start of “Desert Storm.”

As improbable as it may seem, the mathematics includes a constant for all ellipses, which might be referred to as a system independent proof of one, which is dependent upon “epsilon equals one.”


Thanks again for your feedback/encouragement.

The encouragement is well deserved. I have followed the literature for many years. Since Einstein and Gödel (in his strange way) only Feynman is comparable . . . a breath of fresh air among the miasma.

The blind, herd-mentality of the handwaving, obfuscating regurgitators can get one down after awhile.

When down, I refer to this quote from the wife of a passing acquaintance: (Note: Color added by E1)

The two don't talk physics
much at home, she said.

She's interested in
geometrical approaches to
space and time, and
he thinks algebraically.

"When he starts talking about
(exotic kinds of) algebras,
I just think, 'Yuuuccckk.'

'A Lot of It's Guesswork' "

Patricia Schwarz
with reference to her husband John Schwarz
Los Angeles Times, November 17, 1999

Of course there are many other "pick me ups", such as:

The whole of science is nothing more than
a refinement of everyday thinking.

Albert Einstein [1878-1955]

If at first the idea
is not absurd,
then there is no hope for it.

Albert Einstein [1878-1955]

Imagination
is more important
than knowledge.

Albert Einstein [1878-1955]

A curious sign of the times is that physicists will accept on blind faith the existence of ten, twenty, or thirty dimensions, dimensions that are curled up, or too small to measure, and yet they will reel in shock and horror at a perfectly obvious postulate—the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

The gist of your observation is quite correct. Also, I have yet to find a definition of the term “dimension” from a phycist, which definition I can find totally acceptable.


They are to be forgiven—it has been a long time since a simple postulate has been offered in the realm of physics, and the foreign nature of truth’s simple beauty is seen as a violent affront to the String Theorist’s convoluted sensibilities.

They are not to be so easily forgiven. The layman positions theoretical physicists close to gods; and, without caveat, most theoretical physicists issue forth statements that badly mislead that rely upon illogical theories. I often contend that secular faith (that of the theoretical scientist) is more harmful to sanity, tolerance and sustainability than religious faith. What layman does not believe that gravity is the illogical, and unfound, "attraction-at-a-distance"? And, when was the speed of gravity last seriously considered in depth at a seminar. Who seriously proposes that inertia is a force .*.*. or that light is not?

It's hard to believe that so many have put so much time into Sting Theory and M-Theory and not one postulate or law. How can physics be taught or tested without postualtes and laws?

The Big Bang theory has been accepted; and, at its most fundamental level is also so bereft.

Hopefully mathematical talent will find a new home in MDT.

Since Gödel, mathematicians have wandered into wondrous discoveries; but, they no longer are concerned with the fundamentals of number theory, which ironically is most important to the theoretical physicist.

Mathematics does not
explain Nature;
Nature explains
mathematics.

All mathematics is a
function of Nature;
thus, its sublime poetry . . .

Einstein, Wheeler, Godel, Penrose--all these major players have problems with time as expressed in QM and Relativity. MDT delves one step deeper to offer a physical reality from where time arises in both case--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions in quantized units at a constant rate. Time is not a dimension, but it inherits many properties of the fourth expanding dimension--hence the common confusion of time with a dimension.

I have problems with Wheeler (Kip Thorne) and Penrose.

Now is not the moment to discuss the connotations of the term “dimension.” That said, as time is usually connoted, it is an amalgam of concepts that are dependent upon a refinement of the definition and ORDER of dimensions that is derived from the geometry of seminal motion.

It is cyclic time that accounts for the “photon effect” that MDT seems to be unclear about. Possibly, I am unclear about MDT???

It seems that String Theory has no postulates nor laws. Does it even want postualtes or laws?

If someone could please name some postulates of String Theory, we would very much like to discuss them. Thanks! I would very much like to comprehend String Theory's beauty that I have oft heard of, and the best place would be to start with its postulates or laws.

Should you elicit a response from anywhere, I would be most interested in the logic.

When we learn classical physics, we start with Newton's Laws.

When we learn relativity, we start with Einstein's postulates.

Neither Newton nor Einstein had access to modern observation. Their theories, though practical within parameters, do not begin to explain the observable Cosmos: i.e. Galaxy cohesion; accelerating galactic recession; the Pioneer anomaly; high-energy, background radiation; “dark” matter; “dark” energy; gravitational "attraction at-a-distance”; the speed of gravity; quasars and gamma-ray bursts; Cosmic entanglement; etc.; etc.

[Epsilon=One]

I have added this to the questions that MDT seeks to ask: "What underlies all motion? What is the geometry of fundamental motion that is missing in GR?"
The logic of: What underlies seminal motion involves the most subtle of all logic; it is the crux of a successful TOE. It is beyond this forum until other fundamental concepts are established.

I would prefer to start from scratch with your second question. When you include GR, it is like being far out on the branch of a sparse tree and wanting to reach the top; where you must first backup (unlearn) to the trunk before continuing up.

Let's start at the base of the tree.

The geometry (according to Ockham) must be simple. It must include the geometry of all phenomena; thus the elliptical curve and sinusoidal curve must be unified.

It must explain the nature (motion) of subatomic particles as well as the nature (motion) of the most massive Cosmic structures; and all scales in-between; such as the phenomenon of life.

This includes the "photon effect," EPR, and gravity as other than "attraction-at-a-distance," the mechanics of light morphing to mass, etc.

The simplest point to begin (No, this is not metaphysics) is with the establishment of a clear definition of infinity; as it is the heuristic source, for the moment, of fundamental motion, which is triquametric (levels beyond quaquaversal and quaquametric).