Re: Superstrings cannot be 'fundamental'

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ String Physics XVIII ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Jfnewell7 on July 22, 2002 at 08:08:20:

In Reply to: Re: Superstrings cannot be 'fundamental' posted by DickT on July 21, 2002 at 18:16:35:

Your comments sound strange, but you may be getting at something that is hard to get into words.

First, I doubt that very many people think an electron is really a mere zero-dimensional geometric point. It may be represented as a point in some equations, but an electron is represented in other contexts as a wave in three or four dimensions. When it is "rotating" around a nucleus, there is a probability distribution in the form of a wave, and that is certainly not a zero-dimensional geometric point. But perhaps you are not really saying an electron is zero-dimensional, but are rather trying to get at a property of an electron acting as a single unit (acting as a point, even though it really isn't a mere point in reality). Acting as a point could imply many possibilities, so points to a need for more research.

Your one-dimensional string that has no points is strange as well. I don't think very many mathematicians would hold that a one-dimensional line has no points. But again, I suspect that you are trying to get at something nobody knows how to put into words yet.

I actually suspect that in reality, if superstrings exist, they are very narrow cylinders of 10 or so dimensional space that tend to act like lines in certain equations. That would give them mass and possibilities for tension.
But the psychological data is very clear (except for my small residual doubt because in principle, no matter how sure one is about something, one should retain some doubt) that there are 100+ dimensions. That means that the superstring would exist within a larger number of dimensions, just as a quark exists within three dimensions, and is a restriction of a superstring, "restriction" taken broadly and abstractly.

It is possible that some of the extra dimensions above ten are curled up within the superstring, and some other of the extra dimensions go beyond the boundaries of the superstring. I think at least some must go beyond the boundaries because the 100+ dimensional perceptual process integrates from neurons across a relatively large volume of space compared with the size of quarks, etc. A restriction from superstrings to bosons and fermions could perhaps involve a vibration within and interaction with a space of more than 10 dimensions, rather than the vibration of a one-dimensional line within 10 dimensions. In other words, the vibration part of the theory could be accurate but what is vibrating where may be somewhat confused.

I don't want to be too certain that my psychological touching points 100+ dimensional space is a valid discovery. However, if it is a valid discovery, then you physicists must deal with it. If superstrings interact in some ways with a space of 100+ dimensions, then that will have to become part of superstring theory. Otherwise, there would be a violation of scientific method: that is to say, it would be an exclusion of relevant data.

That doesn't mean you have to just accept my discoveries. You should certainly double check my work and try to decide independently whether or not I have really discovered what I think I have discovered. One thing you might try to do is try to find some concrete flaw in my logic that would undermine the entire discovery. A second thing you might try to do is to come up with a real process that wouldn't involve 100+ dimensions that would account for the integration to a simultaneity that is involved in the perception of images, sounds, etc. Something strong in either of the above two areas would falsify my analysis. I should warn you that I have tried to falsify my theory for many years without success, so this wouldn't be easy. However, I would like to have some other people try to falsify my theory. If they can't either, then I will feel more confidence in my discovery - though on general principle, I think I should always still retain some doubt, and so should the scientific community.