Credit: SPL
I was recently talking with a colleague who was a fellow theoretical physics graduate student at Princeton University back in the early 1980s. He had been thinking about an obscure academic physics journal he would occasionally skim in the library during those years. This journal was filled with bizarre extra-dimensional models of particles and forces, esoteric ideas about cosmology, and a slew of highly speculative theorising, with little in common other than a lack of any solid evidence for a connection with reality.
"You know," he said, "at the time I thought these things were a joke, but now when I look at mainstream physics papers, they remind me a lot of what was in that journal."
Why is it that central parts of mainstream physics have started to take on aspects that used to characterise the outer fringes of the subject? At the very centre of the physics establishment, things have been getting more and more peculiar.
A QUARTER-CENTURY AGO, in the 1980s, it was clear to both of us what serious theoretical physics looked like. A hugely successful theory of elementary particles and the fundamental forces governing them had come to final form a few years earlier. It was referred to as the Standard Model (see "The whole shebang", p62), and evidence for it was pouring in from experiments around the world.
The Standard Model is a quantum theory of fields – of which the electromagnetic field was just one variety – and much of our time as students was spent trying to master the complex mathematical techniques needed to understand these quantum field theories. According to the Standard Model, there are three fundamental forces: electromagnetic, weak and strong. There are also a small number of fundamental particles carrying specified charges that determine which forces they experienced, such as photons for the electromagnetic force, and gluons for the strong nuclear force.
The mathematics of the theory is deep and highly sophisticated; the fields responsible for the forces are basic geometrical quantities that mathematicians call 'connections'. The excitations and interactions of these fields were also responsible for the fundamental particles. The whole thing satisfied a beautiful equation as presented to the world by British physicist Paul Dirac in 1928.
At the time, no experimental evidence had been found that contradicted the Standard Model, but it was clearly not complete, since it didn't address certain fundamental questions. The task for theorists was to find a better theory that could.
On of the key questions was regarding the origin and nature of mass. In the Standard Model, one conjectures the existence of something called a 'Higgs field' (named somewhat arbitrarily after Peter Higgs, one of several theorists responsible for the idea it implements). This field is responsible for giving particles their unique mass. Unfortunately, in many ways, the Higgs field just highlights our ignorance; the mass of a particle is determined by a number that characterises how strongly it interacts with the Higgs field, but we have no idea where these numbers come from.
Another crucial question was why we have this specific pattern of forces and fundamental particles. In particular we'd like to be able to explain the charges of the fundamental particles, as well as the three different numbers that determine the strengths of the three forces.
Then there's the question of the mysterious fourth force: gravity. We have an excellent theory of this force – Einstein's theory of general relativity – but this theory doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics, and there appears to be a problem of inherent inconsistency in treating one of the forces differently than the other three.
What neither my fellow student nor I would ever have guessed during our graduate student days was that, in our middle age some 25 years later, we'd be no closer to answering any of these questions, and ever more speculative attempts to find such answers would have taken on some of what used to be the characteristics of the fringes of science.
Too early
How many well-founded scientific ideas were established after a mere several decades of effort? None!
Ideas such as string theory are in their mere infancy; it is too early to give-up on them. Even if the future reveals such models are not as useful as hoped much can still be gained by continuing to pursue them at this time. Modelling is as important to science as experimentation. A part of the scientific model is to construct a number of candidate models. With time, these candidates are either pruned or modified. Also, some components of string theory, and the like, may help in directing the modification more of fruitful models, including the current standard model.
Finally, we never know if a model will be useful until it is fully tested. The premature abandoning of new ideas is poor science.
Trevor Phelps
a "mere" several decades of effort?
Go back and read a history of scientific accomplishments over the past three centuries. There were major reality-shaking theories, followed by empirical discoveries, nearly every other decade - until the 70's, 80's, and 90's. The problem with most of the the newer theories is that they are untestable, therefore, they are not falsifiable.
Unified String Theory
To find the mass of fundamental particles, try going back to an ether with mechanical waves that has a simple parameteric wave energy equation for a one-dimensional string/spring:
mc^2 = (1/2)k(x^2)
where m = mass of particle that corresponds to the potential energy stored in the spacetime fabric, x = range of force (amplitude of string). The value of k = 7.18 x10^17 N/m in the above equation is the same for the boundary conditions of the four forces as follows:
{x = radius of universe = 2x10^26 meters, m = mass-universe = 10^53 Kg}.
{x = Planck Length, m = mass of photon (JP Vigier) = 10^-69 Kg},
{x = strong force range = 7x10^-15 meters, m = mass of +pi-meson} and
{x = weak force range = 10^-18 meters , m = predicted mass of electron-neutrino = 2.24 eV}. The value of k is also close for the mass of the electron and radius of electron. Particles are appearances of interacting waves/strings.
M. Harney
looking at the universe as an artist
microcosms reveal the macro or vice versa
perhaps we see the universe as we ourselves are patterned - lets look at mystical concepts - the great Geometer - the Logos - obviously the Uneverse is reflected within us perhaps selfsame with tiny variations in all its parts like fractals - there are many correct ways of seeing and descrbing the same thing -- when I think of string theory visualized, I think of neural networks, dna, when i see flowers I see giant radio receivers and the sun and its corona sending data that forms what it touches i.e. informs -
the universe is made of "matturgy" a constant substance infinitely sensitive and rarefying and conrracting in pulses without losing contact with the rest of the fabric but stretching it around the contracting pulse the universe is a topological plain
spin is electromagnetic having an axis and a diameter perpendicular to it -spin is the prime movement
opposing spins are the source of gravity -interlocking spins cause aggregation and the axis of the spin is force - orientation of axes will weaken or multiply the force - diameter and orientation hence geometry creates pattern i.e.interconnecting vibrations -the fabric of matturgy can sustain many dynamics as it pulses, many states of matter and shape in its contractions and of energy in its rarefaction -when spins form contractions that are complex and more or less tightly bound this we interpret as matter in its many shapes -(spins bound together as gravity) and retaining their combined electric field as a corona or halo (fron the multiple spin axes) this force field is light or heat in the spectrum - when the node is too dense from the interlocking magnetism of spin which is gravity - then no light escapes but perhaps is infraheat that creates a fluid dynamic that splashes out as say a supernova and rarefies out as a pulse seething though the matturgy in tighter coils at first and flattening into the fabric as it extends ..... the greatest mystery is the prime mover since movement is all and movement is pattern and force
---- these are the words of a science idiot, but sometimes lofty minds can find a seed in the most abject places - what I am trying to say is lets start or keep on listening and looking at different ways of seeing the same thing so we can see the forest in the trees - anonymous
looking at the universe as an Idiot
Why and How are the questions
Or is there a why
But what a gift
It is to exist
oh my
you're insane