fredrik's viewpoint on string-think and fundamental physics

[Martin]

I saw my first fredrik post just now and it was something of a wake-up call.

 

 

I do not quite see to what fundamental question, the concept that the world is made out of strings is the answer to. The concept of a "string" is IMO not one bit more modern than the concept of a "particle". The obvious exploit is that since a string has more degrees of freedom, it will be a more flexible model.

 

I think we have reached the domain of physics, mixing both QM and fundamentals like space and time where the concept of fact of truth is no longer obvious. I still await a real revolution in modern physics.

 

...

 

Sorry for the diversion.

 

I think string theory will be remembered as the last attempt to unify forces in the semi-classical domain

...

 

IMO this is an astute perceptive viewpoint. I am very glad you stated it so clearly and it DOES have relevance, indirectly, to understanding the current shift in the way various audiences perceive string research. I will try to answer.

[Martin]

this is a sophisticated post----by someone who has a physics education and knows what he is talking about, but who is thinking "outside the box",

 

it is important to see that the point here is NOT to criticize or defend string-research (there is plenty of that going on----two Nobel laureates who had earlier made favorable statements just weighed in this past month on the "pull the plug" side---there is a huge squabble in progress)

 

what fredrik is saying, if I understand, is let's not waste time beating the horse, let's try to UNDERSTAND WHY this research program which excited wild hopes in the 1980s and 1990s resoundingly failed to meet expectations.

 

I think what he is asking, and trying to answer, is what is the fundamental reason that this program did not proceed as expected

 

It could be very interesting and instructive to explore this.

Other people may want to respond or explicate. I will think about it and get back to this with some comments.

 

his complete post is here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=319585&postcount=21

in this context:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=319585#post319585

[Martin]

"...the concept of a "string" is IMO not one bit more modern than the concept of a "particle"...."

 

the strings branes worldsheets are vintage 1850s objects

 

they live in a continuum which is a differential manifold---the generalized idea of space which B. Riemann invented in the 1850s.

 

indeed the fixed "target" space in which stringy objects are injected DOES have a few more dimensions than usual, but it is not fundamentally different from what Riemann invented.

 

I think fredrik is pointing out that this approach to unifying physics was begun WITHOUT EVER RECONSIDERING THE QUESTION "WHAT IS SPACE"?

 

the string-thinker FIXES some continuum, some differential manifold, at the beginning, usually with some definite preconceived geometry, and then proceeds to inject into it OTHER lower-dimensional manifolds-----lines curves sheets etc.----and to study these lower-dimensional imbedded objects.

And he never once gets away from studying VINTAGE 1850 STUFF.

 

So they began without reconsidering fundamental questions, like what is the BACKGROUND in which the things are living that they want to study. Why should it have a fixed geometry at the outset, and so on. And maybe it should not even be a vintage 1850 after all! Maybe it should be something else.

 

I think fredrik is expressing the viewpoint that the progress may have gotten stalled because the researchers did not address fundamental questions.

 

He may be saying other stuff too, but this is the first thing I noticed when I started reading. I intend to have coffee and do some other stuff and get back and have another look.

[Farsight]

I do declare I think I heard the word aether mentioned there, Martin. I share the sentiment expressed by fredrik. String Theory does not offer grasp. But I wouldn't single it out, the same might be said of Quantum theories, or even the Standard Model. More generally, physics arguably suffers from a surfeit of mathematical abstraction that struggles to provide that satisfying intuitive understanding that we all seek.

[fredrik]

Thanks for the feedback. Discussions are good!

 

I'm not sure where to start one something that kind of have no given beginning and no end...

 

I guess while I meant to imply several things, but didn't intend to present my "personal views" in detail, I mainly gave a personal opinion that I think, put briefly, that the "scientific method" or perhaps more properly the "philosophical method" of string theory development, started off off-track, ingnoring several fundamental aspects like Martin mentions. However it's not just just about spacetime. There is more to it. One of the more important point is the nature of fact, reality. Questions that was also discussed by the founders of quantum mechanics, but perhaps not developed and formalized.

 

In my opinion what we are dealing with here is a kind of fuzzy problem, and I think great care has to taken before debunking parts of the problem as irrelevant with the motivation that it is metaphysics and thus baloney that is beneath us. Is the human brain baloney? I don't think so. Perhaps it induces comfort to dismiss something that is too complex. In may have a good purpose because I think our brains, while amazing has it's limits. I just think we may remember that future progress may require dismissed variables to be reincorporated.

 

In a certain sense, this IS in part metaphysics. But does that make it less important? Since we are dealing with the concepts like reality here, one should try to be as open minded as possible, and respect the fact that this is inherently fuzzy.

 

I think the problem can be decompose on several layers. The prediction of reality by numbers of course. But also the methaphysical aspects of creation of logic. Our brains are designed to find patterns and invent rules. I think the concept of space time and dimensions can probably be considered as a kind of interpretation as well. But that's not the only problem.

 

A problem I see with string theory is that it starts off from something that is fairly ad hoc, attacks it with some complex math and then runs into a number of new problems. I simply have a hard time to accept that legitimacy of those problems, considering the way these problem were derived.

 

I don't have the answers, but I think there are many clear concepts and questions that suggests natural paths. I also think that many phenomena in string theory, like consistency requirements singles out certain things as consequences is interesting. The problem I see is that the whole theory started off using "a prior knowledge" that I can not accept. Thus I have a hard time accepting the implicated problems as sensible.

 

I believe in creating reality in systematic and sensible steps, not start out by an ad hoc jump into something and then try to manually sort out what makes sense and what doesn't and hope to be able to reduce.

 

The whole reductive approach is IMO old faishoned - ie starting out by a grand image of reality, including unobservables, then try to reduce it back to what we observe. I think we need a creationist approach which I think would be far more natural to human intellect. In a certain way they may show duality.

 

I might get back to this thread later with more comments. It's so easy to just enter some state of ramblings that makes sense to none else Eventually of course, success will prove itself in two ways

 

1) predictive power

 

2) increased understanding, which in effects should be "measureable" in the sense that the "fitness" of the organisms increases and allows for further improvement. It's really hard to "improve" a black box, in any other way that the brute force method. But that is the simplest form of development, and I think we can at least aim to do better.

 

I'll be back with more ramblings... comments so far? If you think it's just rabmlings you are dead on. But I think even the universe started with just ramblings. Fortunate ramblings are not banned

 

/Fredrik

[Martin]

Fredrik, I've read this with interest and would be glad to hear more. Please continue.

 

The fact that I disagree with you at several points is not important and I don't wish to interrupt simply to point out some inevitable differences of opinion, since what you are presenting is a valuable and clear line of reasoning.

[Kygron]

Here's my layman's version of physics development:

 

Around the time of Newton, there really was no physics, so all that was nessesary for grand improvement was to record directly, completly observable phenomina. You write some equations, and voila!, prediction of everything.

 

Between Newton and Einstein, people came to realise that if you build a more powerfull telescope, you have more available to observe, and therefore, more equations and better prediction. They began to put together complete models and to use them to discover more complete models.

 

Einstien comes along, and is not afraid to question the models. He is able to take one major fundemental inconsistancy an build a new model out of it. If he was wrong about the speed of light, it would have been a simple matter to prove it, because he altered the fundamentals. With that success, he was able to complete general relativity, forcing the math to fit with a model he knew to be accurate.

 

Now the string theorists, what have they done? Unfortunatly none of the above bold text. They took some existing mathamatical models, extended them to the realm of physics, and followed them along whatever logic route they hoped would show something testable. If they had succeeded, I would have said they found a more usefull perspective. Unfurtunatly, to determine if they're right, you'd need to discover a major fundemental inconsistancy with the current model. That, in my opinion, can be done just as easily by working with observables, as working with possible predictions of the model. Just as easily mind you, which means there's nothing wrong with string, it just happens that there's more to gain from the observations, like a major fundemental inconsistancy that happens to disprove string along with the standard model.

 

So what can be done? String gained some momentum when it was discovered that many different perspectives could be combined into one, unfortunatly this was not usefull as all of them began as one originally. If there were other perspectives that also merge into string, then it may be worth persuing again, but from what I can see all the perspectives stand on their own, each waiting for that one perfect observation.

 

Are there other possibilities? More powerfull observation works, but we're doing that (cosmic background radiation helped out). Testing fundamentals works (black hole research has come a long way), we should do more of that. There's one more I would like to suggest, and that's new abstraction levels. If stars are made out of atoms, and atoms are made out to particles, what are particles made out of? (NOT "strings" because that's a perspective, 1 particle = 1 string)

 

I have a couple examples to show what I mean, but I'm out of time, so I'll leave them for later.

[fredrik]

A short "precomment" on Kygrons post.

 

I think Kygron has some very good points that I agree with.

 

> take one major fundemental inconsistancy an build a new model out of it.

 

Yes this is one of the keys of development. Rather than beeing a PITA inconsistencies are the key to improvement. We want them! Consistent data is kind of redundant - but it of course builds our confidence levels as the sample size increases, so it is valuable too of course.

 

To improve, provocing inconsistencies is the way to go. I picture two ways.

 

1) Either direct experimental vs predictive inconsistencies

 

2) logical or philosophical inconsistencies that can be found by elaborating implications of taking principles to extremes. I think this is often a "weaker method" for various reasons, but one I consider it fundamental.

 

Method 1 is stronger and preferred source of developement, but when experimental data is not available in excess, we like other organisms have learned to adapt of alternative sources.

 

As has been done in the past, contemplation or theoretical elaborations can indeed lead to improvements. If the full set of implications are worked out and we can prove that the system contains no logical inconsistencies(??) then the more data from experiment is needed since further contemplation alone can not give rise to inconsistencies.

 

But when trying to exploit logical or philosopical inconsistencies I think it can not be overstated the importance of trying to adhere to high philsophical standards. This does sort of get abit metaphysical, but I would rather call it human based inutition. Sometimes we are wrong, sometimes we are right. I find contemplation to be well motivated if the philosophical argumentation has sufficient level of sense. If these aspects are rather ignored, I think one should better stick to method 1.

 

Another point of improvement I see is that of perfecting simplicity and adhering to sound philosophical ideals. Ie. to rework, reinterpret or what we may call it, so that a complex systems is made less complex without loosing information and make the same thing more comprehensible. This does have a value in itself. Compare with other phenomena in nature, such as coregulation in generegulation. Organisms need to synchronize and regulate there genes, and there is several levels of coregulation. Obviously a clever coregulation makes things easier for the cell, probably decreasing energy expenditure and increasing general fitness. This is probably also in part what is going on as we sleep. Our brain reworks the "model" continously.

 

But I think simplicity is relative too. By normal mathematical transformations there may for example be a duality between low dimensional systems with highly "complexly represented" dynamics, or higher dimensional systems with less complex dynamics. What is easier?

 

I'll be back later...

 

( I'll add that as you may notive I registred recently. It was more than 10 years since I diverged from my physics track. I have tried to consume an be inspired by living organisms lately, and I've also considered various modelling approaches to making computer simulations of cells actually just to study my own behaviour during the process, and I learned alot, with regards to their behaviour. To part of the experiment is that I had ZERO background education in biology. I usedto be one of those physics students that thought that biology was baloney, but well I came to see the light Interestingly my modelling attempts went through different phases, and I learned alot. But some week ago, when I was(or still is) reading a book about the neurology of the human brain I got a distinct feeling that it's time to resume some of the thinking I left behind 10 years ago. This was about a week ago so my brain is still filled with the metabolism and gene regulation of S.Cerevisae and I now need to get rid of it, and get back to good stuff It will probably take me a while! But some of the core problems magically reappeared when I tried to make computer simulations of a yeast culture, so in a certain sense the fundamentals has been there all along.

 

I was a physics student but instead of going along the research route, I was disgusted by the local research politics and the uniform thinking that I was presented. I didn't want to pay the price of beeing controlled, "doing somebody elses research", just to make a living. So I got a normal job and kept my passion and tough "free", and I am glad I took the decision.)

 

/Fredrik

[fredrik]

Martin, I'd be interested to *briefly* hear your part of things? (not asking you to write a philosophy paper here) I take it that you are in favour of the string approach? If so, one simple question: Do you consider the string starting point a exploit or something fundamental? or is this inspired by those experimental data that some has been interpreted as string nature of particles? From what I recall many string theorists really doesn't believe in the strings themselves as fundamental, as the theory has evolved from strings to membranes and that there may be a bigger theory where things make more sense? So what started out as a sort of silly "string theory" may in fact mature into something that makes more sense. Is that anything like your opinion?

 

Like I wrote, I recently felt reinforced and inspired to resume many things after several years of other thinking. Also there are so many levels to dicuss this, and there are so many things in the typical postulates that I am not sure I accept, that it seems ridicilous to even try to make a general treatise at this point. I have some immediate open wires from the last time, which I intend to re-analyse, sharpen and eventually I may be able to get back on here with something more substantial, and not only talking. Otherwise I could ramble on forever. I know I don't like hear too much of other peoples unstructured ramblings either. Some of those parts are needed but belong in private contemplations.

 

So to summarize what I don't like about string theory in short: It is not that I think it can not possible be something. It can, of course. My main objection is that it ignores problems that was also existent in the old theory, and withing the old theory that noone could answer properly, and it maybe really didn't matter that awfully much. But as we want to sharpen our theory to unite forces, I think these details will. Which means that even if string theory finds it way to apparent consistency, I am not sure it is answer to the right questions.

 

I believe in stronger use of various symmetries from start. That is to start with the ultimate symmetry and then we may find that broken symmetries does generate what we are looking for. This would be a natural way of doing it. That's all I can say for now without doing some more elaborations. Many of the symmetries may have philosophical justifications and are plausible. And in those cases symmetries should be forced on the model at all cost. I believe in a strong theoretical approach. the other part of the evolutionary approach is that broken symmetries can be quantified as error terms, and these error terms gives birth to new phenomena in a kind of natural and plausible way. I don't think a good approach is to start out with a complex grand assumption and then reduce. I belive in starting out with a minimal assumption with basically complete symmetry, then find that symmetry transformation does generate all the dynamics of the systems. I do have specific ideas of how this can be done, but that is what I will resume now. It will take me some time I am sure.

 

Perhaps string theory can be reinterpreted in these terms? That I can not answer. I am not deep into that approach myself. Anyone? In either case the starting point is not particularly minimal. So I suspect it can not be interpreted that way.

 

Meanwhile I'll be happy to listen to other peoples ideas on this, and I'll stop here for now.

 

/Fredrik

[Martin]

Martin, I'd be interested to *briefly* hear your part of things?

 

/Fredrik

 

busy just now, but thanks for asking. I see your post just now with question to me and i will respond as soon as I have a moment to think a bit.

 

String is not an issue for me----havent been interested in it since 2003.

the KKLT paper that year gave clear indications that it was probably on wrong track and wouldnt get anywhere.

 

lacks explicit background independence (already a feature of vintage 1915 General Relativity). a theory of spacetime and matter probably cannot be fundamental unless it is free of a prior specified geometry----theorists have various ways of trying to dodge this but never very convincing

 

dependence on prior background geometry incl extra dimens. is at the root of string's LANDSCAPE problem that came out noisily with the KKLT paper (Kachru, Kallosh, Linde Trivedi) and then was made worse by Leonard Susskind's reaction later that year.

 

 

Present events seem to me not new but rather more people catching up to the realization (from 2003 or earlier for some people)

 

So there is no need to talk about string-think and string-thinkers---we need to study the non-string alternative approaches to QG----to a unified understanding of spacetime and matter.

 

I am not so philosophical as you. I have complete faith that the tradition of empirical science is sufficient here.

 

I think we will probably get another model of the continuum than the vintage 1850 one invented by Riemann and used by Einstein.

I think Cartan's vintage 1923 generalized differential geometry is turning out to be useful (since 1998 and the positive cosm. const.) I am watching people like Derek Wise and Laurent Freidel.

 

there is a huge lag in using the fundamental inventions from mathematics.

 

I am talking impromptu whatever comes to mind, which can be confusing for us both, so I will stop and get back when I have more time.

 

But basically I don't go into the philosophical realms you do because, for me, the fact that string theorists have screwed up and wasted 30 years is meaningless. It does NOT suggest that we need to abandon the traditional program.

 

BTW fredrik does your computer let you watch this talk by Ashtekar?

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/singular_m07/ashtekar/'>http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/singular_m07/ashtekar/

 

It is better if you download the whole movie of the hour lecture first (which takes about 5 minutes) and then watch.

the long way is to first go here

http://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/activities/auto2/?id=332

 

then click on "talks"

 

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/singular_m07/

 

then click on Ashtekar talk

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/singular_m07/ashtekar/'>http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/singular_m07/ashtekar/

 

you get video and audio, with shots of his projected slides as well

 

I think this is an historical conference.

 

Ashtekar is talking to the string theorists of KITP and knocking their socks off.

 

the other talk from that workshop to watch is Gary Horowitz, it is silly in parts but gives an idea of where string theorists are at about the important questions of Big Bang and Black Hole singularities.

[Norman Albers]

Whatever the essential nature of the manifesting space, we are slowly circling and posing necessary questions like symmetry and helicity in the small. In general relativity, I elucidate the Schwarzschild solution in terms of a dielectric medium distinct in radial and transverse density. H.Puthoff interprets the isotropic possibility of "dark gray holes", where the geometric assumption of isotropy yields a more condensed result. The important focus here is, that the matured theory of the vacuum will choose the more correct answer, or declare the synthesis of future understanding. Going "out there", I told another correspondent that I don't care if he gives me a fractal theory of superluminal nature, just so it yields a vacuum response of dipole availability and a glass of good red wine.

[fredrik]

Thanks Martin, no worries about your free writing, I understand It seems we both see the need for something new and at least at this point there are no obvious disagreements. I am probably more philosophically inclined than others when it comes to methods, and philosophical inconsistencies isn't something that I can ignore, even if data show none. It tells me that there is something yet to be found. And more often than not, such thinking are successful in many modelling attempts, that is my experience.

 

The example of a priori knowledge of spacetime is one example where philosophers long has askd questions that physicists has ignored because it was allowed of their data, at that time. Dismissing it as metaphysics or whatever their motivation may have been. I remember discussions with one of my old teachers, who is currently a professor of string theory and while nothing in the world would have me say that he seems anything but bright! to me, as a young student even, he seemed somewhat ignorant about essential philosophical aspects, and it was beyond me that it was happening at that position he had. And as a young student, you can not really enter argumentations, because you are by definition ignorant, at least that's what your beeing told. And philosophical argumenation was efficiently debunked as metaphysics. I also figure that if I wanted to go that route I'd have to participate in research political battles of which I had no desire to waste my energy. My interpretation of this was that he inofficially admitted some legitimacy of the question but that they were too hard to solve, so instead of sitting 30 years and think about this hard questions, it was best "ingored" for the time beeing. And look what we got instead...

 

I think my philosophical nature served me well. Hopefully we can have some interesting discussions of concepts here in the future. Since these are all private projects for me, it is all "afterwork stuff" so it takes some time. So far most of that time has been dedicated to studying biological systems that last 3 years, I will have to compete with that, or swap projects.

 

I will read the links you posted alter.

 

/Fredrik

[fredrik]

Just to comment on Norman's post.

 

> The important focus here is, that the matured theory of the vacuum will choose the more correct answer, or declare the synthesis of future understanding.

 

This is a good scentence which I like.

 

> or declare the synthesis of future understanding.

 

This part is where I personally will put my main focus. For various philosophical reasons, I do not believe that that theory of everything will really be a theory of EVERYTHING. It would even be almost selfcontradictory in my eyes. I am absolutely sure that once we have this fantastic answer, it will generate new even more mind boggling questions.

 

This is why I consider the "process of synthesis" to be important, it is not only a tool to me. If we can abstract the "process of synthesis" a little bit more than what has been done, my hope is that this may live also past the next revolution. My own reflections over how in the abstract sense, problems are solved, each revolution is so dramatic, and I am not sure it has to be that way.

 

What I am looking for as a model for physics will partly apply to generic systems. Not necessarily physical. That's kind of my point of view. It would by construction be a creationist approach from start.

 

The conceptual idea is relativelt clear to me, and what remains is to formalize it and then apply the idea on various systems. Physics is a particularly interesting area, but my hopes is that the ideas will reach beyond that.

 

/Fredrik

[fredrik]

> creationist approach from start.

 

I'll add that this has *nothing* do with religious beliefs as such where the same word is used, so there are no misconceptions of my intentions I use it in a totally different meaning.

 

/Fredrik

[TriggerGrinn]

A string, a particle, a whatever, I do not see how anything can be fundamental in the sense that it is capable to support its own existence. As we understand time is "the now factor" is a zero dimensional point of experience.

 

I aint no pro but I do not see much of these (and more) very basic concepts implemented into fundamental physics theory...

 

ie:

-Nothing can be an event without motion.

-Every event must be at minmum two seperate frames of reference.

-Every two minimum frames that form an event experience it equally and oppositely.

-All frames are manifested out of the field of energy that is and has always been connected to each and every frame of mass. (ie, can shine a laser into space, but there was already a frequency long ahead of the trailing laser)

[fredrik]

When one thinks of it locally, it is almost clear that time itself is never perceived directly. Time defines itself trough relative change. The typically periodic change of some choice of clock device, interacting with the same environment as the "observer" can be used to parametrize chanins of events.

So I seems the fundamental concept of an events preceeds time?

 

I'd think most people would agree on that, right?

 

Yet, this symmetry is disrespected in the formulation of quantum mechanics when we pull out a spacetime reference to describe something. So it seems almost obvious that it is our choice of formulation of the formalism that breaks this symmetry.

 

The same goes with space. Without configurational changes.

 

Einsteins postulated a signal whos speed would give an upper bound to information transfer in "spacetime". This postulate is a key to the development of relativity.

 

IMO, the missing additional part, is that information transfer has to be an interaction. To imagine some "principal" information transfer that implies no configurational changes or events anywhere, and that "only" has a defined

"speed", is also inconsistent with basic philosophical guidelines, right?

 

So what are we looking for? I don't have the answer but to me the basic quest is clear in this way.

 

- Consider Einsteins general relativity (GR) to be a relativitiy of some "old fashioned reality".

 

- Consider the essence of quantum mechanics, though not as well formulated as GR!, can be thought to be an non-relative "information mechanics".

 

So what we are looking for is a General theory of relativity of information. Which IMO must imply a equivalence principle that there is no physical difference between the information possessed by a superobserver, and the reality that is giving rise to it. Ie. we respond to the given information we have, not to the information we could have had in some unobservable, imaginary world.

 

This principle is to me clear and must be respected. Anything else would IMO be ridicilous.

 

Perhaps the theory may prove wicked, but we need to find the information transformations, that respect the observer symmetry. Also, to explain reality and creation of the universe, we really need something wicked, so bring it on.

 

Loosley speaking, Einstein postulated that the laws of physics should be the same to all observers, regardless of frame of reference. This is an almost obvious constraint on anything that is to be considered a universal theory. The problem is that Einstein didn't seem to consider information to be relative in the full meaning. He only considered the speed of information exchange. Not the contents of information.

 

I think the full symmetry is that the laws of physics should be the same to all observers, regardless of fram of reference AND regardless of relative information possession.

 

I suggest we all go back to the basic postulates. That's where the key is IMO. Rather than try to by mathematical means just try to get to obivously fundamentally incompatible formalisms to fit by means of ad hoc manipulations. I say we start from scratch with a new formalism, and just make sure it corresponds to the old stuff in the limiting cases.

 

So to me the first step IMO is to find a new set of postulates. And each of them should be philosophically motivated rather than overly ad hoc, like is custom.

 

/Fredrik

[Norman Albers]

Fredrik, I enjoy your mindset, and feel that theorists need to spend more time literally on a mountain (as I have) or wherever they find productive sabbatical. I have undertaken several field studies with the attitude of seeing what necessary mathematic statements may be made, given clear ideas put in. Moving into a new house, we may or may not choose to hang all our old pictures on the new hooks.

[fredrik]

Thanks Norman. I suspect we are all different. Once you get to know people, you tend to get to know how they think (generally), like what sort of abstract patterns they tend to prefer. This is interesting stuff. I guess everyone who is living in a relation have found that it happens more than what would be allowed by conincidence alone, that you know you partners point before the lips has started to move. Our brain is amazing, and I am sincerely impressed by nature. It's unbeatable.

 

I have too sensed, and it is not hard to imagine, that it's very interesting to get indoctrinated into typical patterns of thinking. And different kinds of problem solving needs different thinking. I've found that the typical thinking required to solve typical "student problem", like proving this and showing that etc. It really requires a kind of logic that often tends to be very strict, ie non-fuzzy. Such thinking can I think severly inhibit creative thinking.

 

Apart from physics, I have spent alot of thinking to these general phenomena from a philosophical aspect. And everytime I do something, wether it is brushing my teeth or solving a problem, I have come to the habit the last 10 years to try to observe myself (brushing your teeth can feel so silly at times) and reveal myself of repeating patterns of thinking, and the most repeated pattern I have perceived is a kind of induction. If I abstract something, then I tend to immediately want to further abstract the abstraction until I reach a "point". Which I find that this usually doen't happen, which is annoying. But then again the rescue is another abstraction. That the ultimate abstraction isn't the abstraction, but the abstraction process which is just the induction step.

 

I've always belived in catching the moments, so this sudden resumption was not planned two weeks ago. I think I know why this happend. When I left this project 10 years ago, I was part emotionally rejected by the reality of reasearch politics, and second I have to admit I was kind of a little bit stuck, and felt that in order to solve the physics problem, I need to solve this other (bigger problem). While I have not solved the bigger problem yet, I feel that now I have improved my thinking alot since that time, and I have plenty to small ideas inside that accumulated during the time, sufficient to motivate another attempt.

 

I too, think contemplation is severly understimated. Nature is so amazing, and it has perfected our brains for a long time. Why the lack of faith in the human mind? In particular when it comes to solving problems, where data is not so abundant and experiments are expensive. We can not waste an infinite amount of money to do experiments on random just to get something to feed on.

 

/Fredrik

[Norman Albers]

I no longer use the word "stuck". As Pete von Hippel said, "A good scientist is never wrong. He or she is only incomplete. There are just dimensions to the problem that you don't know about."

[fredrik]

> "A good scientist is never wrong. He or she is only incomplete. There are just dimensions to the problem that you don't know about."

 

I used to have a similar "philosophy", but I have found that trick no longer works for me. Dunno, but it's like, "I know what I know, and when I don't know I declare my ignorance.". So using transformations one can also transform wrong into incomplete, and thus still be right But I came to kill this rescue myself because this strategy seem to suggest that there is a finite amount of knowledge, and we acquire it bit by bit. I am not sure that is in line with my mind. I think we are in continous motion and growth, and I think I am constantly wrong.. but still learning. Weird, but each time I find an answer, my new insight generates a follow up since my first answer wasn't consistent. I just can't leave it simple. Symmetries really DO break spontaneosly don't they? I think that I keep learning, thanks to my ignorance.

 

Anyway, I get your point, and while I disagree for a number of reason, it kind of makes sense Well that's enough of my posterior talking for tonight. Nice talking to you Norman.

 

( Btw, in despite you beeing a piano tuner, I take it you are not a fan of strings either? Is there *any* fan of string on this forum btw? I'd would have been nice to have some arguments in favour of it, because I am sure there are a few. )

 

/Fredrik

[Norman Albers]

I can agree with von Hippel because a "good" scientist explores hypotheses which should be explored. Regarding string theoretics, I do have faith that all excellent mathematics will be useful, just maybe not as the first proponents hoped! Like I said about collapsed dimensions of the interior Schwarzschild solution... THOUGHTS TO CHEW GRANOLA BY: I have great appreciation for strings cut and strung. Their job is to coherently and thus strongly vibrate the larger soundboard of wood. This is a transducing problem characterized by impedance and energy transfer. By itself the string moves little air and has no "acoustic reality".

[Kygron]

I posted those two examples I promised earlier.

 

What are particles made out of?

 

Self-binding Photons

 

(edit: is there a way to edit my earlier post to update it with these links?)

[fredrik]

"...the concept of a "string" is IMO not one bit more modern than the concept of a "particle"...."

 

the strings branes worldsheets are vintage 1850s objects

 

they live in a continuum which is a differential manifold---the generalized idea of space which B. Riemann invented in the 1850s.

 

indeed the fixed "target" space in which stringy objects are injected DOES have a few more dimensions than usual, but it is not fundamentally different from what Riemann invented.

 

I think fredrik is pointing out that this approach to unifying physics was begun WITHOUT EVER RECONSIDERING THE QUESTION "WHAT IS SPACE"?

 

the string-thinker FIXES some continuum, some differential manifold, at the beginning, usually with some definite preconceived geometry, and then proceeds to inject into it OTHER lower-dimensional manifolds-----lines curves sheets etc.----and to study these lower-dimensional imbedded objects.

And he never once gets away from studying VINTAGE 1850 STUFF.

 

Hey Martin,

 

Do you advocate LQG? If so, what is your current attitude towards the dimensionality of spacetime?

 

What bothers me more than anything, is not just the geometry or structure of spacetime it's also maybe more the spacetime dimensionality itself. While the dimensionality may appear inuitively obvious, I don't think this is a valid assumption. It is far too strong. I'd expect there to be a better explanation for the apparent dimensions.

 

What is the mental rescue the LQG advocates uses to handle this? This is to me an important point, and my feeling is that ingnoring this is really too much.

 

While I'd like to answer that the answer is in the data - there still has to be a intelligent method for deriving "dimensionality" out of data.

 

Is this ignored also in LQG or have I missed some alternative more advanced interpretations of LQG? (I ask because I am no LQG expert)

 

/Fredrik

[gcol]

Norman:

 

"By itself the string moves little air and has no "acoustic reality"".

 

I like that.

 

How about "That old string don't mean a thing if it ain't got no ping" (I am crudely paraphrasing a line from an old jazz classic).

 

For me, a string is simply the notional boundary envelope of the sum total of harmonic energies that make it ping. It is as physically unreal as the notion of a single bounded physical particle.

 

As a 3 dimensional object may appear different according to the angle from which it is viewed, so the shape and length of a notional string may change too.

 

In my overly simplistc way, it seems to me that particles and strings are the same thing. Both peceptions may be useful to a point, but bedrock theories based solely on either are likely to lead to dead ends, methinks.

[Norman Albers]

Gcol, I'm glad you caught that, as I just floated it as a concept. It is a concept already used: Higgs fields giving the response of mass is perhaps one such, but certainly the whole question of the vacuum pertains. I see electrons as stable (vortex) states of the vacuum fields, which directly we do not sense, as a fish limited to water may not understand any other world environment. It could be useful idea that the harmonic stucture is created by the string cut and strung, but the string is the underlying excitation which is manifested in the soundboard moving a large amount of air. This is then the sonic reality we experience. Only the tuner/builder understands all the effort that went into deciding string gauge, length, and tension, and in tuning actually retensions the string. . . . . . Martin, Fredrik, I am impressed with the boldness and depth of thinking in this discussion.