Jump to content

Xero1of1

Members
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Xero1of1

  1. I am not aware of any "string number" conservation laws.

     

    However, the dynamics of interacting quantum strings is not well understood. The most sophisticated attempt at this would be string field theory.

     

    The association of particles with strings I think is a little more subtle that you may first think. Even for point-particle theories the association of "field" and "particle" is not very clear outside perturbation theory. The best statement to offer at this stage is that when one quantises a single string then one can associated states in the spectrum with particle states in point-particle theories. You can think of the point-particle theories as emerging as effective low energy descriptions.

     

    A little more specifically, for a critical bosonic string (D= 26, a = 1), we have for the lowest states

     

    Open strings: Tachyon (scalar), massless gauge bosons (vector) and then a tower of higher tensor fields.

     

    Closed strings: Tachyon (scalar), dilaton (scalar), graviton (spin-2), an antisymmetric rank two tensor field and a tower of higher tensor fields.

     

    So, bosonic string theory in a scene "contains" Yang-Mills-type theories and General Relativity. To get a better phenomenological spectrum one needs to consider the superstring which contains fermionic states also.

     

    I'm going to attempt a halfway intelligent response to this one. As I said in my first post, I don't know the high end theories that go along with this, and so if you throw some formulas at me I'm going to be stumped. So, you mentioned Perturbation Theory. Which basically states that if you can't figure out how something works exactly, take all the pieces and parts that have any effect on the outcome, throw them all together and attempt to simplify. Isaac Newton used this when attempting to figure out the exact orbit of the moon, which at the time, was incredibly difficult to do. So he took what the orbit would look like considering only the earth and moon, then he threw the sun into the considerations, and then the other celestial bodies to attempt some feasible equation of the orbit. Eventually this theory led Henri Poincare to create the basis behind Chaos theory. (I know you know the origins of this theory, but you and I aren't the only ones reading this post.)

     

    So what you're saying is that we can't exactly map out the way strings move and interact, and so the only way we can attempt a feasible solution is to use this perturbation theory. I'm not going to argue that, because you would be correct... if I was attempting to figure out the exact motion of a string.

    You then went into detail on the theoretical movement of open and closed strings. Once again, if I was attempting to figure out the exact ways a string or one of those particles moved, then you would be correct.

     

    What you're proposing here is similar to calculating exactly how the wind moves particles. I'm not trying to figure out the movement of strings, I'm attempting to figuratively show the process in which strings interact with each other. I'm taking Chaos theory into account for the movement. To attempt to figure out the exact movements, forces, and spins of each individual particle/string/whatever would take a lot of brainpower simply because there are so many different factors to take into account. This is a theory of interaction and the basics behind strings. I'm not trying to show how strings move/spin/etc.

     

    You don't have to know exactly how an electron moves to understand that eventually, an electron will find itself in orbit around a nucleus... Because I'm not trying to determine the exact movements of anything, I can eliminate the need for chaos theory calculations.

  2. but if no strings have been destroyed are they in energy to? mass is converted into energy so unless strings were in energy wouldn't they be destroyed? i don't know if this is a stupid question because i know almost nothing about quantum mechanics.

     

    Following my theory, strings make up everything. They are in and of themselves energy in the form of vibrations or oscillations. When you think of gas burning, the gas is being oxidized, and therefore combusted, releasing energy in the formation of h2o and co2... The law of conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed, simply changed. We harness this change to power our vehicles. So when you change mass into energy, you still end up with all the pieces and parts you started with, they're just in a different form. I hope this helps you out.

  3. I actually understood most of that. As I said before I'm not proposing my idea as fact, just throwing it out there to get some input.

     

    As far as strings being one-dimensional, I believe that if all strings occupied the same single dimension, they would all fall into the exact same place. As soon as you have a string operating on a different angle than another, it becomes 2 dimensional. 1 dimension being a straight line with no straying outside the line, 2 dimensional meaning two lines falling into two different dimensions, and 3 dimensional falling into three angles and so on. So to say that strings are one dimensional is kind of misleading. As soon as you have a string deviating from the dimensional line of another, you break into the 2nd dimension.

     

    By saying that a string oscillates in many dimensions at once, I am taking into account not the string by itself, but the space with which all strings exist. A string could oscillate in a 1 dimensional line, but given a 10 dimensional space, that string might exist at a 45 degree angle on the x and y axis and a 45 degree on the y and z axis in a 3 dimensional space. The string itself, when looked at individually would be oscillating in a one dimension, but against a framework of dimensions could be seen as operating within 3 or 4 dimensions.

     

    Concerning a single string making up a single fundamental particle... What you wrote doesn't exactly disagree with what I proposed unless you play the word game. Given your explanation that a string is in itself a fundamental particle, then even so, to create higher particles, there would have to be some interaction between the particles. My theory simply stated a possible way that this interaction could happen.

     

    'In string theory, the overall universe of universes (the “bulk”) is made up of 11 dimensions, 10 spatial and 1 time. Our local universe is a “3-brane”. There are other branes of various dimensions. All fundamental particles are 1-branes or strings of a finite one-dimensional size: 10-33 cm.'

    This statement disagrees with nothing I said. You're basically saying the universe is comprised of multiple dimensions, that all fundamental particles are made of strings, and from my understanding, which may be wrong, but our 3 dimensional universe, unless you count time is a 3-brane. 3 operational dimensions, 3 branes... so, you haven't really said anything counter to what I've proposed.

     

    As far as Protons and Neutrons not being fundamental particles, I never said they were. Concerning the mass difference between an electron and a proton or neutron, it would seem very unlikely that they are both fundamental particles.

    I'd also like to present this argument. Given general atomic theory.. a proton or neutron weighs 1 amu... Hydrogen has an atomic mass of 1.00794amu. Using some simple math you could say that the atomic weight of a proton is 1amu, and the atomic weight of an electron is .00794 amu. So, if a single string is also a quark, given the explanation you've given, an electron is made of one string, and a proton should be made up of about 126 strings or quarks. If you were to take into account relativity, then the reaction between strings/quarks could lower the number of quarks needed to create a proton because of increased oscillations/resonations. But even so, I don't think you could narrow it down to just 3 quarks.

     

    You said that the forces are attributed to particles. These particles inevitably being made of strings. So to create the force, you'd need to have something bigger than a single string, which does not go against what I said about 'No other forces can act upon strings.' Now if these forces affect a particle, that particle being made of strings, then yes, in a roundabout way, the forces are affecting the strings, but I was trying to illustrate a place where no particles have been made yet. The individual strings themselves are immune to those forces. The particles they make are not... I'm not sure if this is confusing or not... Let me know if it is...

     

    Concerning the Pauli Exclusion Principle. I'm afraid I don't know enough about this principle to illicit a good response. The actions of an electron around a nucleus are for me, like this... Once en electron is formed, it follows the same string bonding situation I illustrated above. However, a proton being made up of many strings has a much stronger oscillation distance, therefore, electrons cannot get too close to the nucleus without risking destabilization from super resonance (ie the glass shattering effect) and so the electron maintains a distance from the nucleus and falls into the resonant frequency along that dimension. With more protons, there is a need for more electrons for harmonic resonance of the atom as a whole. The reason for the energy level of electrons I'd like to attribute to a Doppler like effect. As the electrons orbit the nucleus, if they get too close to another electron, there is a possibility for instability, per another example of two like strings being unable to get close to another, and so, while maintaining a resonant distance from the nucleus, there is an additional push between electrons that get too close. The more protons you add, the more space is needed by the electrons to maintain a harmonic resonant distance from the nucleus. As you put more and more particles within resonance, the higher the amplitude of the particles extends the distance with which the electrons can orbit the nucleus. To me, this is a very elegant and simple explanation that takes into effect everything both you and I have said so far.

     

    According to your explanation of dark matter, we both agree that it is made up of strings, and that this makeup of strings makes it fundamentally different from the matter we know and love.

     

    For the Uncertainty Principle, you say that virtual particles appear, and annihilate each other. So, following my explanation of strings, two strings get together, two other strings get together, form two oppositely charged (charged being used as a illustrative term) that attract and then smash into each other, destabilizing each other and going back into their component strings.

     

    Thank you for your response.. I was hoping I'd get a good one. Please read what I've written in response and tell me what you think.

  4. After reading through many of these topics on string theory, I wonder if this is really the place to submit this idea to the judgment of others. I don't know all the high end theories that go along with this, and so if you throw some formulas at me, I'll probably be stumped. I prefer to write and explain things in leyman's speech...

    So i've seen the arguments for branes, conservation of energy of strings etc.. I've even seen some people refer to strings as particles. I'm not saying anyone is wrong or that anyone is right. I'm just throwing this idea out there. I may type things as statement-of-fact, but all of this is only a theory.

     

    First concept. A string is the base building block of all particles known and unknown.

    Second concept. A string is not a particle, they MAKE particles.

    Third concept. All strings in the universe were created at once, at the beginning, none have been created since then, none have been destroyed since then.

     

    Here's the problem we face with string theory. A string is an oscillation, that oscillates along many different dimensions. We live in a 3dimensional world, 4 if you believe time is the 4th dimension. We can only see and analyze what is within our own dimensional awareness. This is why string theory is so hard to explain.

     

    Ok. So a string is oscillation. There are no other forces that can act upon them. The forces come into play after particles are made. So, how do we make a particle. A single string is balanced. It oscillates in many dimensions at once, but by itself, it is balanced. Any harmonic disturbance creates a push or a pull. So let's say that you have two like strings close to each other. Because all dimensional oscillations are the same, the only instability is caused by the strings being at a distance that they are not resonating with each other. This means that two like strings cannot get close to one another.

     

    So what does this mean? There are many different types of strings, operating on differing dimensional lines and at different frequencies. Also remember that these are not continuous frequencies, but oscillations, the farther you get from the center, the weaker the oscillations. This is an important point in this theory.

     

    Let's say we have two strings. One of their dimensional oscillations are the same. Another is inverted. Think of a sine wave. At certain distances from origin, a sine wave and an inverted sine wave fall on the same path. If you combine two sine waves at the same frequencies and wavelengths, the amplitude is increased. This is how a string becomes stronger.

     

    So the first dimensional oscillations determine the points at which the oscillations are harmonic. The second dimensional oscillations determine an exact point where oscillations are harmonic. The strings are balanced and resonant at this distance, and overall amplitude is increased. We now have a rudimentary particle. These two strings have a third dimensional oscillation that are parallel to each other at their resonant distance, and therefore have no effect on the joining of the two strings. This third dimensional oscillation creates another direction of force.

     

    Let's take a short leap and say that these two strings when formed together create an electron. Well, that's great, but what's the point? We still need a proton and maybe some neutrons.

     

    Ok. So we understand the pairing of these two strings. This is only a two string pairing. If you vary the dimensional angles and the frequency of oscillations, you can get 3pairing, 4pairing, and more. These are some high end geometric calculations that at this point, I am incapable of doing. But I know it's possible. So let's say that someone is capable of doing them and has discovered a million and one ways that strings can be formed together. Some of these pairings will inevitably use dimensions we have no way of analyzing. So, is that a problem? Not at all.

     

    Our universe is vast, and we can only 'see' a fraction of its total volume. So, my guess is that what we can see are the results of those string pairings that utilize dimensions we can analyze. So if you'd like to explain dark matter, antimatter, etc, they're are simply a different pairing of strings that don't exist in our physical universe. Although saying it like that is misleading. They do exist, they are within this universe, we just can't see them.

     

    I understand the people at CERN have created antimatter. Here's my explanation of how it happened. They have their calculations and explanations, and I'm sure they're right, but I believe that they altered the operating states of some of those strings.

     

    If you apply a strong enough vibration to an oscillation, you can physically change the way it operates. If you apply a strong enough resonant frequency to a wine glass, it will shatter. The strings were attempting to change, but held in place by the physically composition of the glass. The resonations were so strong, that they broke the composition of the glass. Once these pieces were out of range of the resonating frequency, they returned to their resting state.

     

    If you can create a strong enough resonant frequency and apply it to any object, it will shatter or break down. This has been well documented over the years.

     

    So can we use this concept to test this theory? Absolutely. Although I don't have the equipment to do it. So let's say we take a volume of hydrogen, and put it into a vacuum (Yeah, I know, if you put something into a vacuum, it no longer is a vacuum) But the point is to ensure that hydrogen is the ONLY thing in there. So now you have to find a way to pick up the frequencies of Hydrogen. It's going to static, because our equipment can't read separate frequencies into multiple dimensions. So, we get a brilliant person to be able to pick apart the static and create the base frequencies and dimensions. (I wouldn't be that brilliant person) Once we have those, we figure out how to create an emitter that can give frequencies in multiple dimensions. Or maybe just figure out how to replicate the static exactly. Then we pump up the volume. If we use all the frequencies, we'll break down the electrons and protons into their base components, and then into strings. The strings will destabilize and break out of their formations and become photons and escape the vacuum. No more hydrogen.

     

    Eventually, if we can streamline this process and figure out how to turn protons into neutrons by changing the operating freq/dimen's of the strings within protons, we can then bond two hydrogen protons with that neutron (it would happen automatically based on the operational characteristics of the neutron), we'd have an excess of 1 electron from the process, and boom. We have fusion.

     

    So this is the basis of my theory. I've written a LOT, but it was necessary to explain the theory enough for a person to catch on. Let me know what you think...

     

    Oh, heh. And on a side note... I realized this after coming up with this theory.. What created the strings? Strings are vibrations and frequencies... A voice is vibrations and frequencies... Uni Verse - One Word. 'In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth'... Kind of an interesting parallel isn't it? I'll let you guys digest that one.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.