| String Theory Discussion Forum |
| [ String Theory Home ] [ Forum Index ] |
Spheres, or not?Posted by JohnCauthen on October 01, 2003 at 01:47:29: We've been talking about spheres, because they are a convenient way to figure out the configuration of points in space when the points have distance between them. The sphere doesn’t really exist, and the next step in physics will be describing how physical reality really looks. For example, a point particle really has spatial dimensions, but its spatial dimensions don’t register in its role as a physical point in the universe. For example, the original “single non-dimensional point” that the universe started from may be a non-dimensional point that is really a sea of matter as large in diameter as a galaxy. What is a literal string? There can be a couple of interesting possibilities. One is a literal string of matter, so that the point is not a point but a string just like string theory suggests. The string has great tension and can vibrate. Imagine space made of actual physical strings that form equilateral tetrahedrons, with arms or edges that go in only seven directions. Things would have to move only along the strings. A rock, for example is squirming its way though the seven dimensions of this physical string space. Its protons, neutrons, and electrons ride only along the strings that go in seven directions. Could this rock fly through space and not be slowed down by the physical strings? Or, "Choice B”, do the physical strings pull the rock through space using a motor that is related to the speed of light? The answer is “B”. But we know that free motion exists, but with actual physical strings creating space, there is no possibility for unstructured motion. Everything has to be pulled along strings along the seven underlying dimensions. The structure I arrived at is a space made of physical strings that contain mostly nothingness, so free motion is possible. I came to realize the string is made of two physical points that have real mass, and made of a manifold vacuum, surrounding them. The vacuum is literally sucking the two points back together, but the points are expanding as space expands, so they are under tension. Having two points and the vacuum satisfies the several requirements of theory and reality. One is, there can be free motion though space. Two, the two points and a vacuum sucking them together can be described as a two-dimensional string that is fat and has walls that have no thickness. The vacuum is nothing, but it is the tension of the string. The vacuum manifold is fat, but it has walls with no thickness. Instead of spheres, use discs (pennies) and lay them out on a table. Arrange them as close together as possible, and they form many equilateral triangles. If you arrange about 40 pennies in a big hexagon, you can start to remove pennies, and make something that looks like a snowflake, which may suggest water molecules ride on the dimensional lines of a plane of space, then freeze into snowflake shapes. We assume snowflake shapes have something to do with the electromagnetic attraction of water molecules. A closer examination reveals some inconsistencies, because too many molecules are arranged, and they repeat on six arms of the snowflake and yet they are all different on different snowflakes. It would be better to believe this was formed on a plane of space and it froze into a snowflake. The extraordinary thing, which is probably true, is that you can see the distance between the lines of dimension in free space. Within molecules, which are very much more dense, the lines of dimension are much smaller, and that’s where Planck lengths come in. Molecules are an arrangement of strings, and space is a much less dense arrangement of strings. They consist of nothingness, mostly, but can be defined as two-dimensional strings, along which photons are propelled through space through seven dimensions at very consistent speeds.
Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)
|