Re: Energy?

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 9:22:35 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

>
Stringtheory is imho nonsense.

"String Theory isn't complete or perfect, and may never become either.
It may eventually come to be understood as merely a step, or more likely
a collection of important steps and some missteps that were still
inevitable in our quest for a unified theory.
"But branding it 'nonsense' is just ignorant. Whatever it is –
almost the whole truth, a glimpse of the truth, or a beautiful
non-truth which miraculously manages to come ever so close to
the truth – one thing it cannot be is nonsense. It's a
magnificent, shining edifice of such internal cohesiveness and
beauty that it almost doesn't matter if it doesn't describe
our own universe: the universe it does describe deserves our
attention and exploration.  -- Alon Amit

my own theory is this
>
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
It is far better, because it does not depend on particles or strings.

Why does that make it "better"?  The universe is what it is, neither
"worse" or "better."
“Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
-- Lawrence M. Krauss

The idea is actually very simple, though very unusual.
>
Just take spacetime of GR as kind of 'active background', which is
smooth, but has internal structures.
>
The 'smoothness' does not violate internal structure, because of a
certain phenomenon called 'handedness'.

The universe doesn't appear to be "smooth": not on the macro nor on
the micro.  Why would we expect it to be on the nano?  Field theory,
IMHO, appears to be an attempt to impose smoothness on an inherently
discontinuous reality.

Imagine this as symbolized by a moebius-ribbon.
>
This has two sides, but only one surface.
>
If we take now 'elements' of spacetime (kind of points with features)

So much for "smoothness" :-)