| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"CJ" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2006 02:55:00 PM |
| Object: |
Superstrings and technobabble |
I am working on a science fiction story, and as part of the story I
need some technobabble related to superstrings. The fantasy technology
involved does not have to be in any sense scientifically correct or
possible; but for the benefit of readers who might actually know some
science, I'd like the technobabble to be vaguely plausible. So in
connection with that I have two questions:
1. Does a superstring have a natural resonance frequency? (If so, I
would assume the string related to different particles each have a
unique resonance frequency, but please correct me if I am wrong.)
2. Can a superstring be polarized or not polarized (i.e., vibrate in a
polarized state, and/or vibrate in a not polarized state)?
If the answer is in the negative on either question -- no resonance
frequency, and/or no state of polarization -- I could use suggestions
for other jargon used to describe the parameters of superstrings.
(Like, particles have charge, mass, and spin, superstrings have
<blank1>, <blank2>, and <blank3>, etc.)
Thanks in advance for all replies!
CJ
.
|
|
| User: "The old Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Superstrings and technobabble |
14 Jan 2006 04:10:49 PM |
|
|
"CJ" <charlesjones456@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137272100.590964.12800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I am working on a science fiction story, and as part of the story I
need some technobabble related to superstrings. The fantasy technology
involved does not have to be in any sense scientifically correct or
possible; but for the benefit of readers who might actually know some
science, I'd like the technobabble to be vaguely plausible. So in
connection with that I have two questions:
1. Does a superstring have a natural resonance frequency? (If so, I
would assume the string related to different particles each have a
unique resonance frequency, but please correct me if I am wrong.)
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/waves/standingWaves/standingWaves1/StandingWaves1.html
(turn on all harmonics)
2. Can a superstring be polarized or not polarized (i.e., vibrate in a
polarized state, and/or vibrate in a not polarized state)?
http://www.phy.auckland.ac.nz/adaptiveoptics/radshear/radialshearing.html
--
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sundials.htm
If the answer is in the negative on either question -- no resonance
frequency, and/or no state of polarization -- I could use suggestions
for other jargon used to describe the parameters of superstrings.
(Like, particles have charge, mass, and spin, superstrings have
<blank1>, <blank2>, and <blank3>, etc.)
Thanks in advance for all replies!
CJ
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Superstrings and technobabble |
14 Jan 2006 03:33:59 PM |
|
|
CJ wrote:
1. Does a superstring have a natural resonance frequency? (If so, I
would assume the string related to different particles each have a
unique resonance frequency, but please correct me if I am wrong.)
That's essentially the idea; a string corresponds to a particle, and
each species of particle has its own vibration mode.
2. Can a superstring be polarized or not polarized (i.e., vibrate in a
polarized state, and/or vibrate in a not polarized state)?
Particles are, of course, already known to have "polarisations",
that is to say, their intrinsic angular momenta. (their spins) So a
string, being a particle, must accomodate this fact and have something
which mounts to particle spin.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chantal" |
|
| Title: Re: Superstrings and technobabble |
15 Jan 2006 04:45:46 AM |
|
|
CJ wrote:
I am working on a science fiction story, and as part of the story I
need some technobabble related to superstrings. The fantasy technology
involved does not have to be in any sense scientifically correct or
possible; but for the benefit of readers who might actually know some
science, I'd like the technobabble to be vaguely plausible. So in
connection with that I have two questions:
1. Does a superstring have a natural resonance frequency? (If so, I
would assume the string related to different particles each have a
unique resonance frequency, but please correct me if I am wrong.)
2. Can a superstring be polarized or not polarized (i.e., vibrate in a
polarized state, and/or vibrate in a not polarized state)?
If the answer is in the negative on either question -- no resonance
frequency, and/or no state of polarization -- I could use suggestions
for other jargon used to describe the parameters of superstrings.
(Like, particles have charge, mass, and spin, superstrings have
<blank1>, <blank2>, and <blank3>, etc.)
Thanks in advance for all replies!
CJ
With Superstrings theory. Who need science fiction. It's weirder than
science fiction. Three things come to mind
1=2E Shadow Universe allowed by E8xE8 heteronic theory
2=2E Parallel M-brane Universes
3=2E Large extra dimensions by Lisa Randall
1=2E About Shadow Universes
Is it possible shadow matter (should they exist) doesn't
just interact gravitationally?
Background Brief:
Shadow matter is predicted by some variants of
superstring theories. In the past few years an army
of theoretical physicists led by Ed Whitten of
Princeton's Institute of Advanced Studies has
attached increasing significance to the fact that,
when the mathematical points in space itself are considered
to be extra-dimensional strings, ultra-microscopic loops
that close back on themselves in six or more extra
dimensions, an array of forces and particles is generated
that bear a striking resemblance to those of our
universe.
One of the variants of superstring theory goes by the name
E8 =D7 E8. A consequence of this theory is that it describes
two sets of particles and forces: the normal forces (strong,
electromagnetic, weak) and particles (photons, electrons, neutrinos,
quarks, ...) and a set of shadow-forces and
shadow-particles that share only gravity in common with
the normal world. Thus, our universe could, without our
knowledge, be superimposed on another "shadow" universe
which has its own light and matter and even stars and
planets and animal life which do not interact with ours
except through their common gravitational attraction.
more info:
http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/susy.htm
The following is a physicist (Dr. Phillips) hypothesis that
not only gravity can mediate the two worlds but also other
forces and fields.
"The current dogma of E8xE8' heterotic superstring theory that only
gravity acts between superstrings of ordinary matter and shadow
matter rests on the assumption (not yet proven but made merely for
simplicity) that the former are singlet representations of E8' and
that the latter are singlet representations of E8, so that the
non-abelian gauge fields acting on one type do not act on the
other type. This would imply that none of the 496 gauge fields
of E8xE8' can cross the gap between the two 10-dimensional branes
predicted by this type of heterotic superstring theory. However,
heterotic superstring theory is not M-theory but only but one of
its approximations. According to my work, superstrings are
themselves the product of compactification of 11-branes embedded
in 26-dimensional space-time. There are certain other fields existing
in the 15 higher dimensions outside these branes that play no part
in the interactions between superstrings, which are therefore
supersymmetric strings confined to a 10-dimensional space-time
as projections of a higher-dimensional object. These other fields
can couple superstrings of shadow and ordinary matter, both of
which extend in this higher-dimensional space beyond 11-dimensional
supergravity space-time. They maintain global cohesion between
the etheric and physical bodies."
2=2E M-brane Parallel Universe
It's like the Slider movie where you can slide to an almost endless
parallel M-brane universes. Only in reality (as allegedly believed by
strings physicists). The world you can slide to can be composed
of different rule of physics such that unless you put a native m-brane
containment field, your atoms can be shredded by a plasma planet
for example where temperature are extremes or even a planet
composed of strangelets with negative nucleus that can eat up
your positive based nucleus.
3=2E Lisa Randall large dimensions
Some strings are said to be open ended. Each end connects to the
brane surface and only gravity can escape due its its being closed
loop hence not connected to the brane. But other stuff like smokes
are confined to our 3D brane that's why you can't see smokes
disappearing into other dimensions. But what if one can transform
the strings in the body into close loop. Then one can for all intend
and purposes cross or hide in the other extra dimensions
If the above has basis in reality. Is there something in reality that
reflect it. Well. Majority of alien abductions can be caused by
mental aberrations. But there can be 1% that are genuine.
For those few that involved Reptilians who can vanish into
thin air. This can involved all of the above. The Reptilians can be
parallel M-brane universe inhabitants who can access Lisa Randall
extra large dimension (hence explaining the disappearing
(dematerializing acts) and most reptilian contacts involved
malevolent poltergeist allies (which can tie up with the Shadow
universes where spirits live).
Why don't they make movies that involved something like this
which is related to physics.
But warning. Some of the Reptilians agents in the form of MIBs
can silence those who investigate them in detail.
Anyway. With Strings theory. Who needs science fiction.=20
chan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Superstrings and technobabble |
14 Jan 2006 04:36:42 PM |
|
|
CJ wrote:
I am working on a science fiction story, and as part of the story I
need some technobabble related to superstrings. The fantasy technology
involved does not have to be in any sense scientifically correct or
possible; but for the benefit of readers who might actually know some
science, I'd like the technobabble to be vaguely plausible. So in
connection with that I have two questions:
1. Does a superstring have a natural resonance frequency? (If so, I
would assume the string related to different particles each have a
unique resonance frequency, but please correct me if I am wrong.)
2. Can a superstring be polarized or not polarized (i.e., vibrate in a
polarized state, and/or vibrate in a not polarized state)?
If the answer is in the negative on either question -- no resonance
frequency, and/or no state of polarization -- I could use suggestions
for other jargon used to describe the parameters of superstrings.
(Like, particles have charge, mass, and spin, superstrings have
<blank1>, <blank2>, and <blank3>, etc.)
Thanks in advance for all replies!
CJ
You need to talk to some string theorists; try sci.physics.strings.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Superstrings and technobabble |
14 Jan 2006 03:08:56 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2006 12:55:00 -0800, "CJ" <charlesjones456@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am working on a science fiction story, and as part of the story I
need some technobabble related to superstrings. The fantasy technology
involved does not have to be in any sense scientifically correct or
possible; but for the benefit of readers who might actually know some
science, I'd like the technobabble to be vaguely plausible. So in
connection with that I have two questions:
1. Does a superstring have a natural resonance frequency? (If so, I
would assume the string related to different particles each have a
unique resonance frequency, but please correct me if I am wrong.)
2. Can a superstring be polarized or not polarized (i.e., vibrate in a
polarized state, and/or vibrate in a not polarized state)?
If the answer is in the negative on either question -- no resonance
frequency, and/or no state of polarization -- I could use suggestions
for other jargon used to describe the parameters of superstrings.
(Like, particles have charge, mass, and spin, superstrings have
<blank1>, <blank2>, and <blank3>, etc.)
Thanks in advance for all replies!
CJ
ahahaha... You certainly picked the right subject for your fiction
because superstring theory is 100% pseudoscientific crap. ahahaha...
You should talk to Brian Greene at Columbia university. He's one of
the most visible crackpots of the superstring con game. He's also a
believer in time travel (right up your sci-fi alley) and a frequent
guest of Art Bell's Coast-2-Coast crackpot radio show. ahahaha...
Michio Kaku (Mucho Kuckoo) is another superstring con man and a
fixture of Coast-2-Coast, it seems. You'll like him. He's full of
voodoo science ideas that would be perfect for your story. And don't
forget the little charlatan in the wheelchair over in England.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "chantal" |
|
| Title: Re: Superstrings and technobabble |
14 Jan 2006 04:14:06 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
On 14 Jan 2006 12:55:00 -0800, "CJ" <charlesjones456@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am working on a science fiction story, and as part of the story I
need some technobabble related to superstrings. The fantasy technology
involved does not have to be in any sense scientifically correct or
possible; but for the benefit of readers who might actually know some
science, I'd like the technobabble to be vaguely plausible. So in
connection with that I have two questions:
1. Does a superstring have a natural resonance frequency? (If so, I
would assume the string related to different particles each have a
unique resonance frequency, but please correct me if I am wrong.)
2. Can a superstring be polarized or not polarized (i.e., vibrate in a
polarized state, and/or vibrate in a not polarized state)?
If the answer is in the negative on either question -- no resonance
frequency, and/or no state of polarization -- I could use suggestions
for other jargon used to describe the parameters of superstrings.
(Like, particles have charge, mass, and spin, superstrings have
<blank1>, <blank2>, and <blank3>, etc.)
Thanks in advance for all replies!
CJ
ahahaha... You certainly picked the right subject for your fiction
because superstring theory is 100% pseudoscientific crap. ahahaha...
You should talk to Brian Greene at Columbia university. He's one of
the most visible crackpots of the superstring con game. He's also a
believer in time travel (right up your sci-fi alley) and a frequent
guest of Art Bell's Coast-2-Coast crackpot radio show. ahahaha...
Michio Kaku (Mucho Kuckoo) is another superstring con man and a
fixture of Coast-2-Coast, it seems. You'll like him. He's full of
voodoo science ideas that would be perfect for your story. And don't
forget the little charlatan in the wheelchair over in England.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Louis,
Do you know why Superstrings is so beloved by so many scientists.
It's because of its sheer elegance. It has to do with the Kaluza Klein
concept. While tickering with Einstein's equations in which
gravitational force is explained in terms of the curvature of a
four-dimensional continuum of spacetime, Kaluza had wondered,
as mathematicians do, how the equations would look if written
down to represent five dimensions. He found that this five-dimensional
version of General Relativity included gravity, as before, but also
another set of field equations, describing another force. The
force is Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Kaluza
had unified gravity and electromagnetism in one package.
Electromagnetism seemed to be simply gravity operating in
the fifth dimension.
Superstrings as you know add more forces, fields and their
carriers and the dimensions are increased from the fifth to
the eleventh that can accomodate everything.
Now I'd like to ask you about the Kaluza Klein concept. Can you
give an argument or explain the tricks involved of how when
General Relativity is written in 5 dimensions, Maxwells
Equations come up spontaneously?? This is what drives
superstrings physicists wild.
chan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Superstrings and technobabble |
14 Jan 2006 04:58:42 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2006 14:14:06 -0800, "chantal" <chantalcareys@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[cut]
Louis,
Do you know why Superstrings is so beloved by so many scientists.
Yeah. It's because it's a perfect way for a bunch of grownup nerds to
show off and feel important. It gives them a boner.
It's because of its sheer elegance.
Sheer elegance your *****. It's ugly as sin. ahaha...
It has to do with the Kaluza Klein
concept. While tickering with Einstein's equations
That's exactly what's wrong with it. Tickering with equations = nerd
crap. No physical foundation.
in which
gravitational force is explained in terms of the curvature of a
four-dimensional continuum of spacetime, Kaluza had wondered,
as mathematicians do, how the equations would look if written
down to represent five dimensions.
Since spacetime is a fictitious pile of crap (nothing can move in
spacetime), I fail to see how gravity can be explained by the
curvature of something that does not exist. I suggest you go to the
corner meat market and get yourself a couple of neurons to replace the
ones between your ears. The've atrophied for lack of use. ahahaha....
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
He found that this five-dimensional
version of General Relativity included gravity, as before, but also
another set of field equations, describing another force. The
force is Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Kaluza
had unified gravity and electromagnetism in one package.
Electromagnetism seemed to be simply gravity operating in
the fifth dimension.
***** Kaluza and the fucking mule he was sleeping with! He should have
packed his fifth dimension up his *****, IMO. That would surely add a
much needed empirical and logical dimension to the theory. ahahaha...
Superstrings as you know add more forces, fields and their
carriers and the dimensions are increased from the fifth to
the eleventh that can accomodate everything.
AFAIC, superstrings theorists might as well be sucking the hind tit of
a fucking mule.
Now I'd like to ask you about the Kaluza Klein concept. Can you
give an argument or explain the tricks involved of how when
General Relativity is written in 5 dimensions, Maxwells
Equations come up spontaneously?? This is what drives
superstrings physicists wild.
Yeah. I know. Nothing gives a nerd a boner like a bunch of math
puzzles.
Kidding aside, you don't create a theory of everything by postulating
vibrating crap at the fundamental level. At the fundamental level, you
first need to explain motion and the composition of your fundamental
crap before you can even begin to talk about vibration. When string
theorists come up with a good explanation for why bodies move, then
I'll listen, although I doubt it. In the meantime they're all a bunch
of crackpots in my book. And you are just an ***** kisser for admiring a
bunch of lonely grownup nerds who need to get a fucking life and get
laid. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "chantal" |
|
| Title: Re: Superstrings and technobabble |
14 Jan 2006 07:58:09 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
On 14 Jan 2006 14:14:06 -0800, "chantal" <chantalcareys@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[cut]
Louis,
Do you know why Superstrings is so beloved by so many scientists.
Yeah. It's because it's a perfect way for a bunch of grownup nerds to
show off and feel important. It gives them a boner.
It's because of its sheer elegance.
Sheer elegance your *****. It's ugly as sin. ahaha...
It has to do with the Kaluza Klein
concept. While tickering with Einstein's equations
That's exactly what's wrong with it. Tickering with equations = nerd
crap. No physical foundation.
But tickering with equations can produce predictions. For example.
Weinberg and company used 1800s mathematics called Group
Theory developed by Sophus Lie to unify electromagnetism and
the weak force. What's impressive is that not only did they predict
the there are Ws and Z particles, they mentioned their masses
as well which a decade later the CERN accelerators were able
to confirm down to the right GeV. So tickering with equations is
not nerd crap. Similarly. Gell-Mann predicted there are 3 quarks
which can explain all the interactions. Then the accelerators
using higher momentum and smaller wavelength probe
peek in the proton and indeed detected there are many pieces inside
the protons as a result of different scattering output (rationale
being that it would produce one output if there is just one
piece inside but it produces more). Then when 3 gluon vertex
shows up. The physicsts jumped with joy. And from that days onwards.
Superstrings Theory which accomodate all of them is born and
the official candidate of TOE.
Of course I didn't say I believe in Superstrings. I mean. Next year
we'll know if the Large Hadron Collider can detect Supersymmetic
particles.. which is a requirement in strings theory. It's just that
Superstrings is built on all the foundations and that's why it's
pretty impressive. You are talking about billions of dollars of
experimental support versus your mere $10 Traveller data (or
bus tickets).
What I'm wondering now is supposed the Higgs are not found.
What to make of the Electroweak Unification. Could it all be some
darn coincidences again like how they detect the Ws and Z which
tally with predictions made a decade earlier? But it's unlikely.
About your statement that you'd only believe in superstrings if
it can explain how objects can move in space. I don't get you
dude. You are a Traveller. You know you move because you
use feet to walk or run. I don't know what you are complaining
but I'd look into your previous messages to see what "model"
you have that you are supporting so strongly and resisting any
that doesn't tally with it.
chan
in which
gravitational force is explained in terms of the curvature of a
four-dimensional continuum of spacetime, Kaluza had wondered,
as mathematicians do, how the equations would look if written
down to represent five dimensions.
Since spacetime is a fictitious pile of crap (nothing can move in
spacetime), I fail to see how gravity can be explained by the
curvature of something that does not exist. I suggest you go to the
corner meat market and get yourself a couple of neurons to replace the
ones between your ears. The've atrophied for lack of use. ahahaha....
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
He found that this five-dimensional
version of General Relativity included gravity, as before, but also
another set of field equations, describing another force. The
force is Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Kaluza
had unified gravity and electromagnetism in one package.
Electromagnetism seemed to be simply gravity operating in
the fifth dimension.
***** Kaluza and the fucking mule he was sleeping with! He should have
packed his fifth dimension up his *****, IMO. That would surely add a
much needed empirical and logical dimension to the theory. ahahaha...
Superstrings as you know add more forces, fields and their
carriers and the dimensions are increased from the fifth to
the eleventh that can accomodate everything.
AFAIC, superstrings theorists might as well be sucking the hind tit of
a fucking mule.
Now I'd like to ask you about the Kaluza Klein concept. Can you
give an argument or explain the tricks involved of how when
General Relativity is written in 5 dimensions, Maxwells
Equations come up spontaneously?? This is what drives
superstrings physicists wild.
Yeah. I know. Nothing gives a nerd a boner like a bunch of math
puzzles.
Kidding aside, you don't create a theory of everything by postulating
vibrating crap at the fundamental level. At the fundamental level, you
first need to explain motion and the composition of your fundamental
crap before you can even begin to talk about vibration. When string
theorists come up with a good explanation for why bodies move, then
I'll listen, although I doubt it. In the meantime they're all a bunch
of crackpots in my book. And you are just an ***** kisser for admiring a
bunch of lonely grownup nerds who need to get a fucking life and get
laid. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Superstrings and technobabble |
16 Jan 2006 08:35:53 AM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
Since spacetime is a fictitious pile of crap (nothing can move in
spacetime), I fail to see how gravity can be explained by the
I already disproved you, retard.
crap before you can even begin to talk about vibration. When string
theorists come up with a good explanation for why bodies move, then
I'll listen, although I doubt it. In the meantime they're all a bunch
Bodies shift (move) because they bode (exist). If they shiftn't, they
boden't. Any body that shiftsn't with its others, is in equilibrium
with them, and as such cannot participate in any happenings.
of crackpots in my book. And you are just an ***** kisser for admiring a
bunch of lonely grownup nerds who need to get a fucking life and get
laid. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
No one wants your book.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Superstrings and technobabble |
14 Jan 2006 04:51:02 PM |
|
|
chantal wrote:
Traveler wrote:
On 14 Jan 2006 12:55:00 -0800, "CJ" <charlesjones456@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am working on a science fiction story, and as part of the story I
need some technobabble related to superstrings. The fantasy technology
involved does not have to be in any sense scientifically correct or
possible; but for the benefit of readers who might actually know some
science, I'd like the technobabble to be vaguely plausible. So in
connection with that I have two questions:
1. Does a superstring have a natural resonance frequency? (If so, I
would assume the string related to different particles each have a
unique resonance frequency, but please correct me if I am wrong.)
2. Can a superstring be polarized or not polarized (i.e., vibrate in a
polarized state, and/or vibrate in a not polarized state)?
If the answer is in the negative on either question -- no resonance
frequency, and/or no state of polarization -- I could use suggestions
for other jargon used to describe the parameters of superstrings.
(Like, particles have charge, mass, and spin, superstrings have
<blank1>, <blank2>, and <blank3>, etc.)
Thanks in advance for all replies!
CJ
ahahaha... You certainly picked the right subject for your fiction
because superstring theory is 100% pseudoscientific crap. ahahaha...
You should talk to Brian Greene at Columbia university. He's one of
the most visible crackpots of the superstring con game. He's also a
believer in time travel (right up your sci-fi alley) and a frequent
guest of Art Bell's Coast-2-Coast crackpot radio show. ahahaha...
Michio Kaku (Mucho Kuckoo) is another superstring con man and a
fixture of Coast-2-Coast, it seems. You'll like him. He's full of
voodoo science ideas that would be perfect for your story. And don't
forget the little charlatan in the wheelchair over in England.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Louis,
Do you know why Superstrings is so beloved by so many scientists.
It's because of its sheer elegance. It has to do with the Kaluza Klein
concept. While tickering with Einstein's equations in which
gravitational force is explained in terms of the curvature of a
four-dimensional continuum of spacetime, Kaluza had wondered,
as mathematicians do, how the equations would look if written
down to represent five dimensions. He found that this five-dimensional
version of General Relativity included gravity, as before, but also
another set of field equations, describing another force. The
force is Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Kaluza
had unified gravity and electromagnetism in one package.
Electromagnetism seemed to be simply gravity operating in
the fifth dimension.
What Klein doesn't mention about superstrings, of course,
is that every mathematician since Descarte discovered gravity.
Which is really why Gauss told the idgits that
"fools are afield, although idiots group",
And so led to the discovery of set theory and fractals.
Superstrings as you know add more forces, fields and their
carriers and the dimensions are increased from the fifth to
the eleventh that can accomodate everything.
Now I'd like to ask you about the Kaluza Klein concept. Can you
give an argument or explain the tricks involved of how when
General Relativity is written in 5 dimensions, Maxwells
Equations come up spontaneously?? This is what drives
superstrings physicists wild.
chan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
