Bill Hobba wrote:

"Daryl" <daryl_cosine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141681478.671813.251600@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

QCD Apprentice wrote:

Daryl wrote:

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/mtheory_superstrings.shtml

"Vafa recently added a strange twist to this when he introduced yet
another mega-theory, this time a 12 dimensional theory called
F-theory
(F for "father") which explains the self-duality of the IIb string.
(Unfortunately, this 12 dimensional theory is rather strange: it
has
two time co-ordinates, not one, and actually violates 12 dimensional
relativity. Imagine trying to live in a world with two times! It
would
put an episode of Twilight Zone to shame.) So is the final theory
10, 11, or 12 dimensional?"


I can accomodate the concept of time dilation, but can't yet
imagine living with 2 timelines (unless our time is a superposition
of 2 timelines?)

Whether you like it or not. All roads in physics lead to Strings
theory
(or M-theory or any latest incarnations). Note symmetry is key to
physics. In M-theory all the symmetries can be united into a
more primary symmetry. Remember how Kaluza Klein theory
automatically produce electromagnetism when General
Relativity is written in 5 dimensions. It's part of symmetry. In
M-theory, Einstein GR pops out in the equation without any previous
assumption. This is called Elegance (thats why Brian Greene book
is called "The Elegant Universe").

M-theory is the way to go (with high probability of being close to
the truth with more improvement). Some of you may
say it can't make predictions (like Sam Wormley who hates
M-theory). This is because we still haven't discovered the
underlying
physical principle of M-theory (like GR equivalence principle).
Also remember we are talking of enegies in the planck scale
so we still don't have the technology to probe it (but this doesn't
make it theory false)

Alright, as someone who really cares about particle physics
I have to object to the above paragraphs.
There is *no* guarantee that all roads lead to string
theory. String theory has evolved into a general theory of
quantum mechanics of higher dimensional objects (strings and
d-branes), but that is no assurance that it is correct. It
is possible that in order to progress theoretically our
entire concept of quantization may have to change.

Also, I feel there is no compelling reason to believe that
M-theory is close to The Truth beyond infatuation. Given
the past hundred years of history alone it seems rather
unrealistic to think that we'd suddenly be "done" and have
it all figured out. Nature seems to always be more complex
than we understand.

But do you agree that Kaluza Klein theory has something in
it. When general relativity is written in 5 dimensions,
maxwell electromagnetism pops out spontaneously.

Daryl that is simply not true. It is obvious you are getting you info
form
popularizations. The Kaluza-Klein miracle occurs because the left over
covariance once you mopes the cylinder condition is gauge invariance. It
is
unknown if this is telling us something fundamental or is simply a
mathematical quirk.

It
has to do with symmetry which is Einstein greatest
contribution to humanity thru SR and GR.
But KK theory has problems integrating with quantum physics...
unless... scientists realized.. the dimensions must be
increased to accomodate other forces.

That is not the reason - even in string thoery fundamentla issues remain
such as getting the standard model from compatificaiton.

Have you read "The Elegant Universe". What part of it is
a misconception?

Can you give a web site which summarizes
all the weaknesses of the Superstrings or M-theory model??

What book(s) can you recommend that gives a balance view
of it and not popularization with intent to acquire money
from selling books (like maybe Greene and Kaku??).

I have Randall's "Warped Passages". You think it's bad too?

I'd read it tom. I think it's getting the standard model not
from compactification but infinite extra dimensions.
Before
I go to Penrose Road to Reality which can take me months.
I'll read Randall's first. The last popularization book I'd
read (and master) as I've finished all the popular books
already. The serious math based physics education start
soon. What do you think of Randall paper "An Alternative to
Compactification"? (just want to have a bird eye view)

What do you think about 10 dimensions? Strings may not
necessarity be involved but blobs or other exotic thing. But
Kaluza Klein and 10 dimensional reality seems to be
the miximum.. with or without strings. What ya think?

As mentioned on many occasions I think you should learn more actual
physics
before exploring deep waters.

Bill

I'm living underneath deep waters. That's why I'm focusing on them.


Daryl

Daryl

Bill Hobba wrote:

"Daryl" <daryl_cosine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141681478.671813.251600@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

QCD Apprentice wrote:

Daryl wrote:

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/mtheory_superstrings.shtml

"Vafa recently added a strange twist to this when he introduced yet
another mega-theory, this time a 12 dimensional theory called
F-theory
(F for "father") which explains the self-duality of the IIb string.
(Unfortunately, this 12 dimensional theory is rather strange: it
has
two time co-ordinates, not one, and actually violates 12 dimensional
relativity. Imagine trying to live in a world with two times! It
would
put an episode of Twilight Zone to shame.) So is the final theory
10, 11, or 12 dimensional?"


I can accomodate the concept of time dilation, but can't yet
imagine living with 2 timelines (unless our time is a superposition
of 2 timelines?)

Whether you like it or not. All roads in physics lead to Strings
theory
(or M-theory or any latest incarnations). Note symmetry is key to
physics. In M-theory all the symmetries can be united into a
more primary symmetry. Remember how Kaluza Klein theory
automatically produce electromagnetism when General
Relativity is written in 5 dimensions. It's part of symmetry. In
M-theory, Einstein GR pops out in the equation without any previous
assumption. This is called Elegance (thats why Brian Greene book
is called "The Elegant Universe").

M-theory is the way to go (with high probability of being close to
the truth with more improvement). Some of you may
say it can't make predictions (like Sam Wormley who hates
M-theory). This is because we still haven't discovered the
underlying
physical principle of M-theory (like GR equivalence principle).
Also remember we are talking of enegies in the planck scale
so we still don't have the technology to probe it (but this doesn't
make it theory false)

Alright, as someone who really cares about particle physics
I have to object to the above paragraphs.
There is *no* guarantee that all roads lead to string
theory. String theory has evolved into a general theory of
quantum mechanics of higher dimensional objects (strings and
d-branes), but that is no assurance that it is correct. It
is possible that in order to progress theoretically our
entire concept of quantization may have to change.

Also, I feel there is no compelling reason to believe that
M-theory is close to The Truth beyond infatuation. Given
the past hundred years of history alone it seems rather
unrealistic to think that we'd suddenly be "done" and have
it all figured out. Nature seems to always be more complex
than we understand.

But do you agree that Kaluza Klein theory has something in
it. When general relativity is written in 5 dimensions,
maxwell electromagnetism pops out spontaneously.

Daryl that is simply not true. It is obvious you are getting you info
form
popularizations. The Kaluza-Klein miracle occurs because the left over
covariance once you mopes the cylinder condition is gauge invariance. It
is
unknown if this is telling us something fundamental or is simply a
mathematical quirk.

Hey. Genius.

Try to edit wikipedia about KK then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza-Klein_theory

It's mentioned "In physics, Kaluza-Klein theory (or KK theory, for
short) is a model which sought to unify the two fundamental forces
of gravitation and electromagnetism. The theory was first published
in 1921 and was discovered by the mathematician Theodor Kaluza
who extended general relativity to a five-dimensional spacetime. The
resulting equations can be separated out into further sets of
equations, one of which is equivalent to Einstein field equations,
another set equivalent to Maxwell's equations for the
electromagnetic field and the final part an extra scalar field
now termed the "radion".

From the above I summarize it in one sentence. "When general

relativity is written in 5 dimensions, maxwell electromagnetism
pops out spontaneously".

Try to edit the wikipedia site and mention about the cylinder
condition you are talking about.

I know math is essential,
but for any process or fact, it is possible to explain it using
words to get a bird eye view (before going into details). I can
spend 7 years mastering the math for M-theory, but it is not
bad idea to get some insight into it as one goes on.

For example.
One can use calculus, differential equations, Riemann metric tensor
and even quantum mechanics to describe the act and dynamics
of the physical movement in sexual activity where
bodies move as one. But it is possible to give an insight into it...

like.. you insert that thing into the hole and move back and
forth to cause friction. Well, I know math is very important, but
a physical insight or thinking guide is a good complement
before spending years into it. For example, Einstein has
the insight about the Equivalence Principle before delving into
pure mathematics in the sense of Riemann Geometry. We
are not as lucky as you to be a physics major where one
is exposed to the math early on before one slowly gets
interested in particular subject like QM.

So as we grapple with
the hard math now decades after school days we need a
physical insight of the principle to get going and be awake
struggling with the equations and math we ignored in our
school Hope you get what I mean. Again. I know math is
essential, I'm not belittling it.

Daryl

It
has to do with symmetry which is Einstein greatest
contribution to humanity thru SR and GR.
But KK theory has problems integrating with quantum physics...
unless... scientists realized.. the dimensions must be
increased to accomodate other forces.

That is not the reason - even in string thoery fundamentla issues remain
such as getting the standard model from compatificaiton.

What do you think about 10 dimensions? Strings may not
necessarity be involved but blobs or other exotic thing. But
Kaluza Klein and 10 dimensional reality seems to be
the miximum.. with or without strings. What ya think?

As mentioned on many occasions I think you should learn more actual
physics
before exploring deep waters.

Bill

Daryl

"QCD Apprentice" <qcd.apprentice@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:duicuh$dbl$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...

Daryl wrote:

QCD Apprentice wrote:

Daryl wrote:

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/mtheory_superstrings.shtml

"Vafa recently added a strange twist to this when he introduced yet
another mega-theory, this time a 12 dimensional theory called F-theory
(F for "father") which explains the self-duality of the IIb string.
(Unfortunately, this 12 dimensional theory is rather strange: it has
two time co-ordinates, not one, and actually violates 12 dimensional
relativity. Imagine trying to live in a world with two times! It would
put an episode of Twilight Zone to shame.) So is the final theory
10, 11, or 12 dimensional?"


I can accomodate the concept of time dilation, but can't yet
imagine living with 2 timelines (unless our time is a superposition
of 2 timelines?)

Whether you like it or not. All roads in physics lead to Strings theory
(or M-theory or any latest incarnations). Note symmetry is key to
physics. In M-theory all the symmetries can be united into a
more primary symmetry. Remember how Kaluza Klein theory
automatically produce electromagnetism when General
Relativity is written in 5 dimensions. It's part of symmetry. In
M-theory, Einstein GR pops out in the equation without any previous
assumption. This is called Elegance (thats why Brian Greene book
is called "The Elegant Universe").

M-theory is the way to go (with high probability of being close to
the truth with more improvement). Some of you may
say it can't make predictions (like Sam Wormley who hates
M-theory). This is because we still haven't discovered the underlying
physical principle of M-theory (like GR equivalence principle).
Also remember we are talking of enegies in the planck scale
so we still don't have the technology to probe it (but this doesn't
make it theory false)

Alright, as someone who really cares about particle physics
I have to object to the above paragraphs.
There is *no* guarantee that all roads lead to string
theory. String theory has evolved into a general theory of
quantum mechanics of higher dimensional objects (strings and
d-branes), but that is no assurance that it is correct. It
is possible that in order to progress theoretically our
entire concept of quantization may have to change.

Also, I feel there is no compelling reason to believe that
M-theory is close to The Truth beyond infatuation. Given
the past hundred years of history alone it seems rather
unrealistic to think that we'd suddenly be "done" and have
it all figured out. Nature seems to always be more complex
than we understand.

But do you agree that Kaluza Klein theory has something in
it. When general relativity is written in 5 dimensions,
maxwell electromagnetism pops out spontaneously. It
has to do with symmetry which is Einstein greatest
contribution to humanity thru SR and GR.
But KK theory has problems integrating with quantum physics...
unless... scientists realized.. the dimensions must be
increased to accomodate other forces.

Kaluza-Klein *is* beautiful, but as far as I know you can only get abelian
forces out that way. You couldn't get something that behaves like QCD or
electroweak. Just because it's a gorgeous idea doesn't mean that's how
things work. That being said I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turns
out to play a significant part of the next step beyond the standard model.

Absolutely. The question however is if it is telling us something about
nature. The reason for the Kaluza-Klein miracle is now well known - the
cylinder condition makes the left over covariance gauge symmetry. However
the modern versions of Kaluza-Klein such as Wesson's STM have an interesting
take on issues in particle physics' such as the Higgs:
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~wesson/pubs.htm

QCD Apprentice wrote:

Daryl wrote:

QCD Apprentice wrote:

Daryl wrote:

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/mtheory_superstrings.shtml

"Vafa recently added a strange twist to this when he introduced yet
another mega-theory, this time a 12 dimensional theory called F-theory
(F for "father") which explains the self-duality of the IIb string.
(Unfortunately, this 12 dimensional theory is rather strange: it has
two time co-ordinates, not one, and actually violates 12 dimensional
relativity. Imagine trying to live in a world with two times! It would
put an episode of Twilight Zone to shame.) So is the final theory
10, 11, or 12 dimensional?"


I can accomodate the concept of time dilation, but can't yet
imagine living with 2 timelines (unless our time is a superposition
of 2 timelines?)

Whether you like it or not. All roads in physics lead to Strings
theory
(or M-theory or any latest incarnations). Note symmetry is key to
physics. In M-theory all the symmetries can be united into a
more primary symmetry. Remember how Kaluza Klein theory
automatically produce electromagnetism when General
Relativity is written in 5 dimensions. It's part of symmetry. In
M-theory, Einstein GR pops out in the equation without any previous
assumption. This is called Elegance (thats why Brian Greene book
is called "The Elegant Universe").

M-theory is the way to go (with high probability of being close to
the truth with more improvement). Some of you may
say it can't make predictions (like Sam Wormley who hates
M-theory). This is because we still haven't discovered the underlying
physical principle of M-theory (like GR equivalence principle).
Also remember we are talking of enegies in the planck scale
so we still don't have the technology to probe it (but this doesn't
make it theory false)

Alright, as someone who really cares about particle physics
I have to object to the above paragraphs.
There is *no* guarantee that all roads lead to string
theory. String theory has evolved into a general theory of
quantum mechanics of higher dimensional objects (strings and
d-branes), but that is no assurance that it is correct. It
is possible that in order to progress theoretically our
entire concept of quantization may have to change.

Also, I feel there is no compelling reason to believe that
M-theory is close to The Truth beyond infatuation. Given
the past hundred years of history alone it seems rather
unrealistic to think that we'd suddenly be "done" and have
it all figured out. Nature seems to always be more complex
than we understand.

But do you agree that Kaluza Klein theory has something in
it. When general relativity is written in 5 dimensions,
maxwell electromagnetism pops out spontaneously. It
has to do with symmetry which is Einstein greatest
contribution to humanity thru SR and GR.
But KK theory has problems integrating with quantum physics...
unless... scientists realized.. the dimensions must be
increased to accomodate other forces.

Kaluza-Klein *is* beautiful, but as far as I know you can
only get abelian forces out that way. You couldn't get
something that behaves like QCD or electroweak.

That's why it ran out of favor early in the century because
there was no sign of the fifth dimension and it was the time
when quantum mechanics dominate so Kaluza Klein was
forgotten for 60 years...

For historical perspective. When Yang Mill fields became
successor of Maxwell and 't Hooft' was able to make it
renormalizable. It became the Standard Model with
the summary: All matter consists of quarks and leptons,
which interact by exchanging different types of quanta,
described by the Maxwell and Yang-Mills fields.

But the Standard Model produced 19 arbitrary constants
and 3 separate symmetries of SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1).
So GUT (Grand Unified Theory) was born which attempted
to unite them under one large symmetry group. The
SU(5), which used 25 Yang-Mills fields.

However no proton decays were detected (but they are
still waiting). And since GUT made no mention of
Gravity and it couldn't predict the fundamental constants
such as the quark masses. It's definitely not the TOE.

In the early 1980s. The frustrations of the physicists
resurrected KaluzaKlein theory to unify gravity with the
other quantum forces. Earlier some researchers found
out that it was possible to impose symmetry on hyperspace
if Kaluza Klein was extended to N-dimension. When the
fifth dimension was curled up, they saw that the Maxwell
field popped out of Riemann's metric,

But when N
dimensions were curled up, physicists found the
celebrated Yang-Mills field, the key to the Standard
Model, popping out of the equations.

This, QCD Apprentice, is how you got something
from KK that behave like QCD or electroweak.

Now Supergravity. Remember Einstein unified field
theory is deriving matter and forces from the geometry
of spacetime. Supergravity produces the Supersymmetry
which can connect gravity to matter by interrelating
bosons to fermsions (these being superpartners). But
supergravity ran out of favor because it was not
renormalizable and the symmetry O(8) was too
small to accomodate the symmetry of the Standard
Model.

Then came Superstrings with the power to make sense
out of GUT and Supergravity as well as combining with
Einstein General Relativity. This is the first quantum
theory of gravity in the history of physics to have finite
quantum corrections. When the constraints that the
string places on space-time were first calculated,
physicists were shocked to find Einstein's equations
emerging from the strings.

This is what I mean that all roads in physics lead to
Superstrings. Remember those roads were backed
up with tons of experimental data in each department
of the standard model. This is why I think Superstrings
has more theoretical and experimental backing than
all the 30+ crankpot theories out there.

In case its not Superstings and you don't believe it.
What do you think is the alternative to unification
(if such thing is not unrealizable in the first place)?

Lastly you said that "It is possible that in order to progress
theoretically our entire concept of quantization may have to
change". Why did you say that? Well. I know QFT and
electrodynamics itself is not the complete picture. They
missed something else... there are other forces at work
that can't be detected by our electron based photonic
system and herein lies the incompleteness of QFT.

Do you think its possible that by reformulating QFT,
We can bypass the Yang Mills, GUT, Supergravity
path and go straight to the Theory of Everything?? But
Yang Mills field and the entire Standard Model is
backed up with the most surgical precision experimental
data... so I don't see how to go to the TOE without passing
thru Yang Mills, GUT, Supergravity and Superstrings.

Daryl

Just
because it's a gorgeous idea doesn't mean that's how things
work. That being said I wouldn't be surprised at all if it
turns out to play a significant part of the next step beyond
the standard model.

What do you think about 10 dimensions? Strings may not
necessarity be involved but blobs or other exotic thing. But
Kaluza Klein and 10 dimensional reality seems to be
the miximum.. with or without strings. What ya think?

I don't really know of hard reasons for 10 dimensional
spacetime other than the fact that 10 is the critical
dimension for superstrings.

For historical perspective.

QCD Apprentice wrote:

Daryl wrote:

QCD Apprentice wrote:

Daryl wrote:

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/mtheory_superstrings.shtml

"Vafa recently added a strange twist to this when he introduced yet
another mega-theory, this time a 12 dimensional theory called F-theory
(F for "father") which explains the self-duality of the IIb string.
(Unfortunately, this 12 dimensional theory is rather strange: it has
two time co-ordinates, not one, and actually violates 12 dimensional
relativity. Imagine trying to live in a world with two times! It would
put an episode of Twilight Zone to shame.) So is the final theory
10, 11, or 12 dimensional?"


I can accomodate the concept of time dilation, but can't yet
imagine living with 2 timelines (unless our time is a superposition
of 2 timelines?)

Whether you like it or not. All roads in physics lead to Strings theory
(or M-theory or any latest incarnations). Note symmetry is key to
physics. In M-theory all the symmetries can be united into a
more primary symmetry. Remember how Kaluza Klein theory
automatically produce electromagnetism when General
Relativity is written in 5 dimensions. It's part of symmetry. In
M-theory, Einstein GR pops out in the equation without any previous
assumption. This is called Elegance (thats why Brian Greene book
is called "The Elegant Universe").

M-theory is the way to go (with high probability of being close to
the truth with more improvement). Some of you may
say it can't make predictions (like Sam Wormley who hates
M-theory). This is because we still haven't discovered the underlying
physical principle of M-theory (like GR equivalence principle).
Also remember we are talking of enegies in the planck scale
so we still don't have the technology to probe it (but this doesn't
make it theory false)

Alright, as someone who really cares about particle physics
I have to object to the above paragraphs.
There is *no* guarantee that all roads lead to string
theory. String theory has evolved into a general theory of
quantum mechanics of higher dimensional objects (strings and
d-branes), but that is no assurance that it is correct. It
is possible that in order to progress theoretically our
entire concept of quantization may have to change.

Also, I feel there is no compelling reason to believe that
M-theory is close to The Truth beyond infatuation. Given
the past hundred years of history alone it seems rather
unrealistic to think that we'd suddenly be "done" and have
it all figured out. Nature seems to always be more complex
than we understand.

But do you agree that Kaluza Klein theory has something in
it. When general relativity is written in 5 dimensions,
maxwell electromagnetism pops out spontaneously. It
has to do with symmetry which is Einstein greatest
contribution to humanity thru SR and GR.
But KK theory has problems integrating with quantum physics...
unless... scientists realized.. the dimensions must be
increased to accomodate other forces.

Kaluza-Klein *is* beautiful, but as far as I know you can
only get abelian forces out that way. You couldn't get
something that behaves like QCD or electroweak.

That's why it ran out of favor early in the century because
there was no sign of the fifth dimension and it was the time
when quantum mechanics dominate so Kaluza Klein was
forgotten for 60 years...

For historical perspective. When Yang Mill fields became
successor of Maxwell and 't Hooft' was able to make it
renormalizable. It became the Standard Model with
the summary: All matter consists of quarks and leptons,
which interact by exchanging different types of quanta,
described by the Maxwell and Yang-Mills fields.

But the Standard Model produced 19 arbitrary constants
and 3 separate symmetries of SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1).
So GUT (Grand Unified Theory) was born which attempted
to unite them under one large symmetry group. The
SU(5), which used 25 Yang-Mills fields.

However no proton decays were detected (but they are
still waiting). And since GUT made no mention of
Gravity and it couldn't predict the fundamental constants
such as the quark masses. It's definitely not the TOE.

In the early 1980s. The frustrations of the physicists
resurrected KaluzaKlein theory to unify gravity with the
other quantum forces. Earlier some researchers found
out that it was possible to impose symmetry on hyperspace
if Kaluza Klein was extended to N-dimension. When the
fifth dimension was curled up, they saw that the Maxwell
field popped out of Riemann's metric, But when N
dimensions were curled up, physicists found the
celebrated Yang-Mills field, the key to the Standard
Model, popping out of the equations.

This, QCD Apprentice, is how you got something
from KK that behave like QCD or electroweak.

Now Supergravity. Remember Einstein unified field
theory is deriving matter and forces from the geometry
of spacetime. Supergravity produces the Supersymmetry
which can connect gravity to matter by interrelating
bosons to fermsions (these being superpartners). But
supergravity ran out of favor because it was not
renormalizable and the symmetry O(8) was too
small to accomodate the symmetry of the Standard
Model.

Then came Superstrings with the power to make sense
out of GUT and Supergravity as well as combining with
Einstein General Relativity. This is the first quantum
theory of gravity in the history of physics to have finite
quantum corrections. When the constraints that the
string places on space-time were first calculated,
physicists were shocked to find Einstein's equations
emerging from the strings.

This is what I mean that all roads in physics lead to
Superstrings. Remember those roads were backed
up with tons of experimental data in each department
of the standard model. This is why I think Superstrings
has more theoretical and experimental backing than
all the 30+ crankpot theories out there.

In case its not Superstings and you don't believe it.
What do you think is the alternative to unification
(if such thing is not unrealizable in the first place)?

Lastly you said that "It is possible that in order to progress
theoretically our entire concept of quantization may have to
change". Why did you say that? Well. I know QFT and
electrodynamics itself is not the complete picture. They
missed something else... there are other forces at work
that can't be detected by our electron based photonic
system and herein lies the incompleteness of QFT.

Do you think its possible that by reformulating QFT,
We can bypass the Yang Mills, GUT, Supergravity
path and go straight to the Theory of Everything?? But
Yang Mills field and the entire Standard Model is
backed up with the most surgical precision experimental
data... so I don't see how to go to the TOE without passing
thru Yang Mills, GUT, Supergravity and Superstrings.