PsiPog.net

View topic - String Theory

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Modern Sciences » String Theory

Goto page 1, 2 Next

String Theory

Author

Message

String Theory on Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:38 pm

Zephyros

Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 31

Maybe I'm the only one here who has considered this, but perhaps our quantum theory is WRONG? Well, it is technically correct in that every testable statement it makes can be proven. For example, if you smash an atom in a particle accelerator, you get a smattering of energy signatures which promptly vanish. However, the model behind it is nevertheless incorrect. Quantum theory states that there are very small particles clustered together to make up an atom, in a similiar way to atoms making up molecules. (minus a number of intriguing differences, such as the ability to be in multiple places at once, to travel faster than the speed of light, to travel backwards in time, to constantly resonate perfectly with other particles, etc. etc.)

I'm going to make a bold statement and say that psionics is based on the fundamental application of energy over energy, with NO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. An electromagnetic standing wave in the brain is able to manipulate energy the same way lifting up an object is a manipulation of forces (and therefore energy). I don't want to sound like a depraved Full Metal Alchemist fan, but in truth, the only law the universe follows at the lowest level of string-particles is the law of equivalent exchange. When you lift up an object, you are expending force to make it rise. That force is then added to the object, which is released if you drop it. When you add energy to a string to make it vibrate (give it characteristics), the output of the vibration of those strings will always exactly match the amount you put into it, though not necessarily right away.

Now consider this: a string capable of moving and vibrating in 10 different dimensions can have characteristics of location, shape, motion, vibration, pitch, resonance, and volume (amplitude, not physical size) in all 10 dimensions. A violin's strings can only vibrate, and cannot even do it through a dimension. Where the violin string is does not affect how it vibrates, and the direction in which it vibrates along its string is similarly irrelevant. And yet the violin can produce an unfathomable multitude of sounds and music. So, those marvelous subatomic strings can depict beyond an infinitude of varieties of energy. And they can react and interact infinitely to further change their natures. This is the medium with which we work, as psions.

Posted on Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:30 pm

existanceisnothing

Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 139

too bad u still belive in some laws

Posted on Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:30 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

I like to see some people know what string theory is...exect that I don't exactly believe in string theory. Also.........

Zephyros wrote:

Where the violin string is does not affect how it vibrates, and the direction in which it vibrates along its string is similarly irrelevant.

Most of your words were sort of good till I saw this. I totaly disagree with it. I think the direction from which it viderates DOES affect it. It what you said was true it would be a completly solid tune. Where the violin string sounds ok...why? Because it would be stupid to say "Not if you put it under water!?"

The reason why I don't like string theory is because it needs some certain elements for it to work. However what I consider to be its "opposite" is loop theory. Unlike string theory, loop theory explains the spacetime frame a better...however it lacks the power to explain how a graviton moves through a area. String has the opposite for some of you who don't know. It explains how a gravition moves greatly, but not the spacetime frame. However it's not like expansion theory is any better..in that theory gravity donest it even exist. But it does have some good points like any other theory.

Zephyros wrote:

Maybe I'm the only one here who has considered this, but perhaps our quantum theory is WRONG?

No your not the only one, I completly agree with you there. You sound really intellect, hope for your reply and surpise me. Which is not often.

Posted on Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:18 am

sawyerhickory

Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 85

Existanceisnothing, you're really starting to irk me a lot. You can't throw physics out the window, and the only thing you've succeeded in doing in this forum is filling posts with fluff and really atrocious spelling. And as for string theory, it's a very interesting theory that I agree with mostly, but have a few minor issues with it's presentation of dimensions. I do like your statement, however, Zephyros, it's intelligent and well informed and I hope it works well for you Wink

Posted on Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:32 am

Theorist

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 315

i totally agree that the quantum theory is wrong.....

its so insane to place the speed of light into energy physics ( the E=mc^2 )..... there are many other kinds of energy other than photon based ones......

wait, hang on, are quantum theory and string theory related? or the same?

gonna check it out...

*shoot, post limit reached*

((after one hour of waiting..... stupid retarded post limit))

ok.... got it, the string theory is used to explain quantum gravity.... so yea, they are related

Posted on Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:17 pm

pants

Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Posts: 18

You seem to be saying that quantum physics, which is provable and infact in effect in most computers we have on Earth and is allowing you to have this conversation in the first place, is infact wrong.

While string theory which is more philosophy than physics and currently has no way of being tested at all is infact correct. All of this under the assumption that both cant be correct.

Quantum physics is still a very early science but much of it is quite clearly very well proven. Sting theory is very different, its a tool of unification and currently has no real practical purpose, it cant even be proven. It is not mutually exclusive of quantum physics you just have to think of the quantum 'particles' in a different way. (Indeed string theory is based on quantum mechanics)

Quantum physics needs refining but it is not 'wrong' if it were you wouldnt have the string theory in the first place.

Posted on Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:30 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

There is a new particle accecteclor up this year that is going to be used to prove or disprove theory.

Einstein wrote:

I am glade that so many people are working on my theory, even it is to prove it is wrong

I think I goof on that quote but the saying is just the same.

I heard the U.S is getting up a budget to restart a new atom smasher. I'm glade there doing this because the last time the U.S did this in the 1980s (or 1990s) they shut it down due to budget problems. However I am worried that can't get the budget up for it now. The glory about the super colinder that was going to be build back 20 years ago would have been stronger then the one the CERN has just made today. Maybe they try to make that new theorical plasma colinder..

Indeed string theory has it bad points but it is still good on gravitons. Which is why so many people like it in the first place.

Posted on Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:39 pm

Zephyros

Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 31

As I said, statements made using quantum physics as a basis are not wrong. It is a good way to explain the nature of the universe. I just said that the model behind it was wrong, yet produces the same output in similar circumstances. Quantum physics is provable, true. But allow me to demonstrate:

16/64. You just cancel the 6's and you get 1/4. Therefore, you can cancel digits. What, you disagree with me? Are you saying that 16/64 does not equal 1/4? I think I've made my point.

When you smash atoms together, quantum physics says you are getting thousands of different types of particles. And if you were to smash hundreds of identical particles into one another, you would get different subatomic particles every time. Doesn't really make much sense. Now, according to string theory, those are actually just scattered bits of energy vibrating randomly after such a colossal collision, which dissipate because they are unstable. After all, they just got nuked (with a very, very small nuke, granted).

Posted on Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:12 pm

Lightbringer

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 293

That example has no ability to dispute quantum theory. That's like saying Newtonian physics is wrong because when 2 cars crash, they break apart into millions of pieces of various shapes, sizes and materials travelling in various directions and velocities.

I suggest you read up on quantum mechanics and string theory before continuing this discussion because from your arguments thus far, I can tell you don't even remotely grasp the theories you're promoting/disputing. You biggest error is the fact that string theory does not disagree with either quantum or newtonian laws. That's the whole bloody purpose of the theory!

The main issue people have with string theory is that it's been purely mathematical (until later this year). Since we sort of just came up with the idea of 10 dimensions simply to make the equations work rather than having proof of such dimensions, many scientists don't like it being embraced as a "theory" because it truly is just a hypothesis so far since it's not testable until the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) in Cern (in Switzerland) is done.

Posted on Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:29 pm

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

Zephyros wrote:

You just cancel the 6's and you get 1/4. Therefore, you can cancel digits. What, you disagree with me? Are you saying that 16/64 does not equal 1/4? I think I've made my point.

Whooooah....trippy, dude.

I'm sorry. I don't have much to say here. I'm not very keen on quantum physics.

Quantum Physics + Relativity = String Theory on Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:42 pm

Zephyros

Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 31

Yes, it's true the theory was created to bridge the gap between quantum physics and relativity. But you make it sound like it is not a change to it. It is compatible with quantum mechanics in that all the previous data which was used to create quantum physics can also be used to support string theory. It is also in some ways an extension in that, in quantum physics, the actual shape of the particle is never considered, as it is not really important. The properties of the particle are what is important. String theory says that these properties are derived from the shape and motion of the particle, and details about exactly what those are in similar fashion to quantum physics. That's all.

And yes, the particle smashing example does disprove quantum physics, but perhaps I should have elucidated why. The goal of quantum physics is to figure out exactly what *is* the elemental component of the universe. What is the point where the pieces cannot be broken down any further? Breaking an atom, consisting of only three different particles, into millions and millions of different varieties of subatomic particles quite frankly makes no sense. Not to mention how they "discover" new ones all the time, while countless repetitions will never yield the same cocktail of particles coming out of them. Identical atoms should be made up of identical things, it just makes sense. But you can smash zinc atoms into each other a million times and never get the same spread of subatomic particles. At the very least, this puts a bit of a sting in the side of quantum physics.

Now, regarding string theory, I have a simple and interesting picture. Imagine there are two auditoriums, in every respect identical. And inside these auditoriums there are two orchestras of several hundred players. These orchestras are, in every respect, identical as well. Now smash the two auditoriums into one another at 500 miles per hour, and observe the sounds it produces. Also observe the patterns in the flying shrapnel and twisted bits of orchestral instruments spiraling off from the wreckage. Repeat as necessary. Twisted Evil

Re: Quantum Physics + Relativity = String Theory on Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:29 pm

paraplayer

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 147

Zephyros wrote:

Now, regarding string theory, I have a simple and interesting picture. Imagine there are two auditoriums, in every respect identical. And inside these auditoriums there are two orchestras of several hundred players. These orchestras are, in every respect, identical as well. Now smash the two auditoriums into one another at 500 miles per hour, and observe the sounds it produces. Also observe the patterns in the flying shrapnel and twisted bits of orchestral instruments spiraling off from the wreckage. Repeat as necessary. Twisted Evil

*sigh* Quantum Mechanics always used to be a good little boy. Now he's smashing metaphorical auditoriums together. Tsk tsk tsk....

Posted on Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:44 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

OF MY GOSH! The mass murdner! the blood shred! OOOOOoo the inhumanity! Who would have imagine that in that really instant they fly into each other for no reason! There are no survivors! You monster!

lol Laughing

Re: Quantum Physics + Relativity = String Theory on Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:37 am

Lightbringer

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 293

Zephyros wrote:

And yes, the particle smashing example does disprove quantum physics, but perhaps I should have elucidated why. The goal of quantum physics is to figure out exactly what *is* the elemental component of the universe. What is the point where the pieces cannot be broken down any further? Breaking an atom, consisting of only three different particles, into millions and millions of different varieties of subatomic particles quite frankly makes no sense. Not to mention how they "discover" new ones all the time, while countless repetitions will never yield the same cocktail of particles coming out of them. Identical atoms should be made up of identical things, it just makes sense. But you can smash zinc atoms into each other a million times and never get the same spread of subatomic particles. At the very least, this puts a bit of a sting in the side of quantum physics.

Wow, you really have NO idea what you're talking about. You just read an article in Scientific American and "filled in the blanks" with your own brand of common sense. Too bad the quantum world isn't exactly intuitively laid out. Quantum mechanics' hallmark is it's predicted randomness!! The world has laws that work on that small scale that are based on probability! Have you never heard of Schrodiger's Cat or the Heisenburg Uncertainty equation? Obviously not, yet you imply your all-knowingness in this topic.

The goal of quantum mechanics isn't to explain what the smallest elements of the universe are. It's to explain the workings of the universe on a very small scale. As for what the most elementary particles of the world are, we've already discovered all but one (the Higgs boson). Quantum physics PREDICTED that those particles would exist and one by one we found them. They didn't just show up and we made them fit into the theory, they were predicted. Just like quantum mechanics predicts that the smattering of fermions and bosons and neutrinos, etc. from smashing two atoms together will be somewhat random. The standard model then accurately predicts how those particles interact, what their properties are, etc. But you seem to think quantum mechanics is just mini-Newtonian physics because you have the ego of an uninformed bullshitter.

Finally, I'm a 2nd year chem/physics student...that means I take 5 or more chemistry courses and 3 or more physics courses...per year! Not including labs. I do know a thing or two about this topic. So honestly, what are your hobbyist musings when compared to my thousands of dollars spent in education?

Posted on Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:31 am

sawyerhickory

Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 85

Lightbringer, there's no need to be rude. The in-depth principles of Quantam Mechanics and String Theory are both complex, and Zephryos is merely presenting his opinion on what he has learned so far. I don't believe he has ever been egotistical, merely asked for feedback, and most of us have given it to him gently. There is no reason for you to be insulting or dismissive. If anyone's ego needs to be turned down slightly, it would be yours.

Goto page 1, 2 Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Modern Sciences » String Theory

You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.