lucaspa

"String theory, as stated above, postulates the existence of tiny vibrating strings that correspond to the observed elementary particles. Strings can undergo an infinite number of different vibrational patterns, called resonances, whose evenly-spaced peaks and troughs fit exactly along its spatial extent. By analogy, the strings of a guitar can similarly undergo an infinite number of vibrational patterns that meet the same requirement, though we only come in contact with a few of them. These recognizable vibrations are perceived by human ears as different musical notes. Similarly, the vibrations which strings undergo not only correspond to, but actually create, the different masses and charges observed in the various elementary particles. In other words, an elementary particle's precise properties are caused by the vibrations of its string. This connection is best illustrated for the mass of a particle. A vibrational pattern's energy is related to its amplitude, or the maximum height of a wave peak (or depth of a trough) and the wavelength, or the distance between one peak and the next. Greater amplitude and greater wavelength correlate with greater energy - that is, the more frenetic the vibrations of the string, the greater energy it has. Since energy is related to mass by Einstein's famous equation E=mc2, high vibrational energies correspond to high-mass particles." http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/stringtheory1.htm http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic3a.html and following pages: "This is classical string. When we add quantum mechanics by making the string momentum and position obey quantum commutation relations, the oscillator mode coefficients have the commutation relations [equation in here on page] The quantized string oscillator modes wind up giving representations of the Poincaré group, through which quantum states of mass and spin are classified in a relativistic quantum field theory. So this is where the elementary particle arise in string theory. Particles in a string theory are like the harmonic notes played on a string with a fixed tension. By looking at the quantum mechanics of the relativistic string normal modes, one can deduce that the quantum modes of the string look just like the particles we see in spacetime, with mass that depends on the spin according to the formula: [equation did not copy]"

Acutally, String Theory does all of these. Defining mass in non-mathematical terms is simply convenience and involves translating the language of mathematics to English. ST says mass is the result of vibration of strings. Thus mass exists because strings vibrate and the vibration is the cause of mass. You need to read more on String Theory. Of course, ST does not tell you the source of strings. But then, it doesn't have to. The implication here is that the Standard Model can explain this in mathematical terms. If you don't understand the math (like I don't), too bad for you. That is our failure, not a failure of the theory. Your theory must "predict", from the statements of the theory, that charge will exist and have the values it does. If the allocation of the fractional charge to quarks is wrong, then that hypothesis would not give the charges we see. Your theory must give the charges we see. Does it? "why particles have there [sic] paticular mass" is predicting mass. Does your theory really predict what the particular mass of particles is? I know that isn't true. The "waves" in QM are often probability waves, not movements. This is one of the assumptions about the physical universe necessary to do science. It is usually put as the universe is accessible. That is, we CAN understand it (explain it). This isn't a fact as it is stated, but an assumption.

No. The idea that you need to know what something "really" is is an illusion. Things are what they are. What you are trying to do is impose your ideas on the universe instead of figuring out what the universe is. Charge is defined as a property that does such and so to other particles. Anything beyond that is philosophy and not science. What people are trying to tell you is that your theory must "predict" knowledge we already have AND predict new knowledge we should find IF it is true. This is the standard method of theory evaluation. Instead, as far as I can see, your "theory" is simply a philosophical interpretation of current theories. That is outside the scope of science. Try a philosophical journal. There are several, including the Journal of the Philosophy of Science Association: http://philsci.org/ Look at the site, get the Instructions for Authors for the journal, and submit your paper.

In all three cases, the scientists involved took their ideas to their peers. NOT to amateurs on an amateur board. Einstein went thru the peer-review process. Darwin discussed his ideas with Lyell, Hooker, and Gray for 20 years before publishing. Galileo broached his ideas to fellow astronomers. The fora for that is scientific meetings, not here. Most exciting discoveries do have their roots in wild ideas first broached to colleagues at their institution or at meetings. One essential of introducing wild ideas is the willingness to admit the idea is wrong when confronted with existing data that refute it. This is where 99.9% of scientific hypotheses die. In the investigator's head as he tests it against data in the literature or with colleagues who know a piece of the literature the investigator does not. Unfortunately, that is not what happens in Internet forums. Instead, someone posits a brand new theory but will not listen to the data that refutes it and refuses to give the theory up. This results in a lot of wasted time by the other posters as they try to convince one person who simply will not be convinced. It is these types of discussions that tend to get squashed. In order to be a good scientist, you have to be willing to abandon an idea when the data shows it to be wrong.