A String Theory Theory

[ajb]

When the universe was born only a couple of elementary particles/strings existed, through electromagnetic interactions more were created (or evolved) is it possible there are particles that don't exist yet? after all there is room for many more and the universe could still be in a relatively early stage of its life cycle (evolutionn

I am not sure if one should exactly thing of only a few particle or strings existing just after the big bang. We don't have any good models for very close to the 'beginning' but we are okay a little after.

 

I am not an expert in particle cosmology, but I think you are essentially right. The Universe would have been full of radiation (photons) and they would haven been an equilibrium with pair production. As the Universe cooled this equilibrium was lost and then the massive particles could exist. However, there is still a lot of photons left.

 

I am sure you can find a better detailed explanation somewhere else.

[Mordred]

Your fundamental particles quarks gluons I electrons and photons are considered present at the beginning however the temp was so high they are all in thermal equilibrium. As such they are essentially indistinguishable from one another.

These two links has a good solid coverage. One is a free textbook though the other is also textbook length and style

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

Edited December 11, 2014 by Mordred

[Ophiolite]

Let me - for the moment - concede, in order to advance the discussion, that the analogy holds. Then I am forced to ask, so what? Analogies are useful as explanatory devices. They do not reveal hidden relationships.

[Bluemercury]

Let me - for the moment - concede, in order to advance the discussion, that the analogy holds. Then I am forced to ask, so what? Analogies are useful as explanatory devices. They do not reveal hidden relationships.

I can only respond with what i stated in post #18 above. Also String theory is at a standstill, stalled not advancing we need ideas, and with all due respect that's what. I say we need more ideas not less. and with precious little else to go on parallels are a start. Please remember everything starts with one thought or as JW discovered 5 thoughts.

 

Thanks

[Strange]

Question. are the strings refereed to in string theory (assuming it exists at all) defining the properties and perimeters of a sub atomic particle?.

The short answer is yes. Loosely, you can identify the excited configurations of a quantum string with particle states. Each vibrational mode corresponds to a different particle. Thanks AJB.

 

Question are the strings of DNA refereed to in Biology defining the properties and perimeters of the cell?

The short answer is yes.

 

The problem with this analogy is that the way strings define the properties of particles and the way that DNA encodes the structure of the cell are totally different.

As ajb notes, the excitation of the string (which is a single thing with no structure) corresponds to a particle (which is a single thing with no structure).

 

On the other hand, DNA is a complex structure encoding information to generate proteins. These proteins form the complex structures and biochemical reactions in a a living cell, which may itself just be one part of a multicelled organism.

 

So I see zero value in this analogy. It is like saying that "the human mind is like a grapefruit because you cannot tell what is going on inside".

 

Unless you can show that there is some useful mathematical or structural relationships which can be used to advance either genetics or string theory, all you have is "two long thing things". This class also includes pencils (鉛筆2本が有る)

[Bluemercury]

Thanks for the concise answer, but i don't agree a string or a string of DNA is a set of instructions that has the purpose and authority to define the host particle or body, i fail to see what a pencil has in common, its a little more than just long things.

Forget shape or mass im not saying they have that in common its the purpose that is same. grapefruit and brains also have no common purpose again that's just common shape.

so can we get away from shapes and focus on addressing the overall purpose.

 

Thanks

 

Also can anyone tell me if there is anything else that has a this purpose within its host, hopefully that will eliminate pencils from the debate?.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Bluemercury

[Strange]

So please explain what is the internal structure of a string that corresponds to the base pairs in DNA?

 

What are the analogues to the proteins encoded by these base pairs?

 

What is the equivalent to the system of ribosomes, mRNA, tRNA, rRNA, etc that transcibe the encoding an manufacture proteins?

 

How does the problem of protein folding and enzyme function relate to string theory?

 

What is the equivalent of biochemistry and metabolism in particle physics?

 

How is the internal cell structure (membrane, cytoplasm, organelles, etc) related to the nature of fundamental particles?

 

I could write a long list of questions, but I don't see any point.

[Bluemercury]

Your right there would be no point as the 2 are functioning at a completely different quantum levels, so each will have radically different mechanisms, that i would expect, you point out many of them thanks.

 

Although they have the same purpose, and are probably unique in that purpose, are there any other anythings besides a computer program with this purpose in the universe.

 

Thanks.

[Ophiolite]

I can only respond with what i stated in post #18 above. Also String theory is at a standstill, stalled not advancing we need ideas, and with all due respect that's what. I say we need more ideas not less. and with precious little else to go on parallels are a start. Please remember everything starts with one thought or as JW discovered 5 thoughts.

Let me be blunt. I know of no instance in which someone almost wholly uninformed on a topic has been able to offer suggestions that have led to an advance in that topic. If you know of such an example please provide it.

 

Advances are made by innovative thinking based upon sound understanding of the subject matter, not seat of the pants comparisons that fail to stand up to even cursory scrutiny. Your belief that your analogy might stand some chance of overcoming the standstill you say exists in string theory is at best naive and at worst arrogant.

 

In post #18 you say:

i would love to see some of the difficult questions answered in my lifetime, so ill weld my mallet to start and leave to the Wittens of this world to finish. everything that is dis-proven is a victory for the most patient.

 

Sorry, if you wish to see advances made you have to do the hard work. I can churn out half a dozen analogies and out-of-the-box thinking every hour on the hour. Each would have as much potential as your string-DNA analogy appears to have. You have to do a much better job of convincing me that you may have something of value here.

[Strange]

Although they have the same purpose, and are probably unique in that purpose,

 

They don't have anything like the same purpose (as I have tried to explain).

 

are there any other anythings besides a computer program with this purpose in the universe.

 

This is unanswerable.

 

For one thing your definition of "purpose" is unclear. Is it the construction of a living organism based on the encoding of small number of amino acids, that allows for the evolution of a wide range of different complex organisms? Or is it a mathematical model that can, perhaps, describe the behaviour of quantum particles? I fail to see how these can be united into a single purpose. How does this differ from an instruction manual (which is a better analogue from DNA) or the vibrational modes of a musical instrument (which has something in common with string theory) or the electron orbitals that define crystal structure and protein folding.

 

And "in the universe"? How on Earth (*) would we know. If there other living organisms have evolved, who knows if they will use DNA or some totally different mechanism to support heritability and variation.

 

(*) Pun intended.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Strange

[Bluemercury]

Well im not trying to convince you of anything, but ill accept your assumptions, i understand human nature more than quantum physics.

 

Let me be blunt. I know of no instance in which someone almost wholly uninformed on a topic has been able to offer suggestions that have led to an advance in that topic. If you know of such an example please provide it.

Yes ill find that for you and get back, although that is not my intention.

 

Google "The mastermind Principle" when you understand that you will understand all this.

 

Thanks.

[Strange]

Google "The mastermind Principle" when you understand that you will understand all this.

 

The first result appears to be some sort of religious thing. Is that what you mean? Is this some sort of creationist argument? (God created strings and DNA in her own image)

[imatfaal]

 

The first result appears to be some sort of religious thing. Is that what you mean? Is this some sort of creationist argument? (God created strings and DNA in her own image)

 

http://www.exponentialmastermind.com/DrMarcDussault-HowtoCreateaFunEffectiveandPowerfulMasterMindGroup.pdf

 

Provided for information only - not endorsed in any way

[Bluemercury]

No nothing to do with religion i assure you, Its a brain thing, the MM principle is complex you will have to do some research if you want grasp it, i assure you it is used and proven by some of the finest thinkers, im not including myself in that description, no hubris here.

 

I'm just trying to contribute sorry to upset.

 

Thanks.

 

Maybe only corporations use the MM Principle, I'm surprised you don't know of it its Decades old and a proven way to solve complex problems, it requires many minds.

[Strange]

 

I'm just trying to contribute sorry to upset.

 

I don't think anyone is upset.

 

 

it requires many minds.

 

Indeed. Team work is almost always more effective than an individual working alone. Which is why it is so odd that there are so many individuals on science forums who think they have (all alone and ignoring all science) their own "theory of everything" or disproved relativity or whatever. If they had been part of a tema from the start then they might not have wasted 20 years or more on something that was so obviously wrong. By the time they come to share their ideas, they have become so narrowly focussed on their own correctness, they are not open to evidence, corrections, learning, etc.

 

Sorry, drifting off topic there ...

[Bluemercury]

Yes many mind but each must be unique, many points of view help. its just an idea maybe i should have found a more philosophical group to engage, what you stated above is fair and i don't think you would accept that sometimes it happens in reverse, i have no fixed idea im totally flexible and adjustable, but i fear at your level of intellect you may be transfixed by the math, we as a species have to be very careful in assuming anything absolutely.

 

Many concrete, bulletproof theory's have been dis-proven when the the technology had caught up. The truth is we simply do not know. but i put it out this out there just in case.

Just for the record i wasted a whole 5 hours on this thought not 20 years that's silly. There was a time when if you said the world was round you would be ridiculed, im not sure if physiologically we have come very far from that point.

 

Please remember the most intelligent thing a man/woman can say is i don't know. and that is the ultimate truth. and please do not assume i am alone, my advantage here is i ignore nothing.

 

Thanks. my objective is complete.

The essence of string theory is that the smallest, most fundamental objects in the universe are not little balls knocking around like billiards, as had been thought for about 2,000 years. Instead, these small objects are supermicroscopic filaments—like tiny strands of spaghetti—whose different vibrational modes produce the multitude of particles that are observed in the laboratory.

So when a string vibrates in one way, it might appear to be an electron. If it vibrates in a different manner, it would look like a quark. It could vibrate in a third way and display the properties of a photon. Or perhaps it vibrates in a fourth mode and physicists say, "That's a graviton!" This gives strings an inherent ability to unify phenomena that had always been assumed to be different. If string theory ultimately proves correct, then strings are truly the DNA of reality.

[Strange]

Just for the record i wasted a whole 5 hours on this thought not 20 years that's silly.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I was talking about you. Just agreeing on the importance of (diverse) teams and the extremes that some people can go to in their isolation when developing their ideas.(These people often use the fact that they have been working on their idea for decades as evidence it must be right.)

 

 

The essence of string theory is that the smallest, most fundamental objects in the universe are not little balls knocking around like billiards, as had been thought for about 2,000 years.

 

No one has thought that way for 100 years.

 

then strings are truly the DNA of reality.

 

That analogy truly is the kitten in the fruit bowl.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Strange

[MigL]

Just to be controversial...

A ticker tape encodes information in a linear fashion.

So does an old style cassette tape ( even a digital one ).

A VHS tape even has the spiral substructure of DNA in its encoding.

Not to mention any serial data stream such as in a USB or SATA cable.

 

I wonder what insights these can provide into SString theory ?

 

No seriously, other than a generalization that information is encoded along a line segment, what other similarities are there ?

The SPECIFIC encoding method is totally different. SString encoding makes use of vibrational states, and by definition cannot employ any groupings, as that would imply structure ( a string must be fundamental ). DNA encoding makes exclusive use of groups of proteins for its encoding. DNA uses more fundamental objects to encode information.

[Bluemercury]

Very good thank you main difference would be artificial vs natural,

 

Thanks.

Let me be blunt. I know of no instance in which someone almost wholly uninformed on a topic has been able to offer suggestions that have led to an advance in that topic.

I totally disagree with this proposition, think about it what came first the Expert or the Subject. eg a bicycle maker started maned flight, simplest example. there are many more dramatic examples, i can only suggest you research the evolution of ideas. you may be surprised.

 

Thanks

 

Democritus (dĭmŏkˈrĭtəs) c.460–c.370 B.C., Greek philosopher of Abrade; pupil of Leucippus. His theory of the nature of the physical world was the most radical and scientific attempted up to his time. He avoided the abstractions of his predecessors, Anaxagoras (mind) and Empedocles (harmony and discord), by employing consistent mechanistic postulates that required no supernatural intervention. He held that all things were composed of atoms.

 

2000 Years ago

 

Thanks

 

Even if you abstractly consider Democritus to be a scientist his teachers were not there abstract though trigger his propositions, and that is the mastermind principle at work.

 

Thanks

Edited December 12, 2014 by Bluemercury

[Ophiolite]

I totally disagree with this proposition, think about it what came first the Expert or the Subject. eg a bicycle maker started maned flight, simplest example.

A simple example that proves my point and refutes yours. As bicycle makers they were very familiar with the practicalities of constructing robust frames, providing mechanical controls and selecting appropriate materials in terms of strength and weight.

Do you seriously think they did not become well versed in the internal combustion engines characteristics before their first flight? And do you actually imagine they were not aware of the principles being employed by other inventors experimenting with powered flight? They pushed the envelope, for sure, but it was an envelope they knew intimately. To assert otherwise is a combination of disrespect and ignorance.,

i can only suggest you research the evolution of ideas. you may be surprised.

Based on your input so far I can objectively conclude I have done considerably more research on the evolution of ideas than you.

 

Democritus (dĭmŏkˈrĭtəs) c.460–c.370 B.C., Greek philosopher of Abrade; pupil of Leucippus. His theory of the nature of the physical world was the most radical and scientific attempted up to his time. He avoided the abstractions of his predecessors, Anaxagoras (mind) and Empedocles (harmony and discord), by employing consistent mechanistic postulates that required no supernatural intervention. He held that all things were composed of atoms.

And perhaps you fall into the common trap of thinking his atoms were akin to our atoms. Not so. Matter had to be either particulate, or continuous. It wasn't a huge leap to propose the possibility that matter was discrete. There was, however, no sense in Democritus's atoms of different kinds; no notion of elements; no perception of components of atoms; absolutely no awareness of size. Just the simple idea that matter was particulate. Good thought, but so what?

2000 Years ago

 

Thanks

 

Even if you abstractly consider Democritus to be a scientist his teachers were not there abstract though trigger his propositions, and that is the mastermind principle at work.

 

Thanks

[Bluemercury]

Unfortunately you again miss the point, your points seem somewhat narrow to me, i could rebuke every point you have made but that is not the purpose of my tread.

 

I Finnish with the simple observation that evolution in all its form favors the generalist, you must know what eventually happens to rigid specialists.

 

If i follow your logic to its natural conclusion, no idea would exist

 

Thanks for your well thought out responses, all your ideas are more than welcome.

Just the simple idea

 

1900 years before we knew, and i have a feeling it may have advanced the subject somewhat. i think most particle physicists are glad he made his simple loose suggestion.

 

Can you really not see the point, with all due respect open your mind.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Bluemercury

[Ophiolite]

I Finnish

Me Scottish.

 

Can you really not see the point, with all due respect open your mind.

I see your point. You are mistaken. I have demonstrated why you are mistaken. My work here is done.

[AndresKiani]

DNA is a highly complex molecule pertinent to a highly complex system. Usually in physics we don't work or (I'm not a physicist) rather physicists don't work with such highly complex systems or instances, atleast not in particle physics.

 

And as far as if the strings correlate with big bang? Yes that's one of the assumptions and goals in physics in general is to study the beginning or what seems to be the beginning since time is only makes sence at our level of observation and doesn't make sense at other levels.

 

For example in biology we talk about how proteins evolved into a macromolecule, into an organism unit or simple cell, into a complex cell or more complex prokaryote, into a multicellular organism and such..

 

In chemistry obviously we talk about how matter became massive and how massive particles started evolving out of the initial hydrogen and helium.

 

But for some reason people think that the laws of physics or the nature of physics has always and will forever be constant.. what if they weren't?

Edited December 13, 2014 by AndresKiani

[Bluemercury]

I see your point. You are mistaken. I have demonstrated why you are mistaken. My work here is done.

Your statements do not support that proposition.

 

Me Scottish.

Not relevant.

 

Thanks for your time and space.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Bluemercury

[AndresKiani]

And how accurate is it to describe the strings in string theory as what we describe to be stringy? What if they are more like rubber bands, I've always imagined them as such lol.