Re: Energy?

On 08/04/2024 11:03 AM, gharnagel wrote:

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" :-)

Oh, why are there exactly only three space dimensions
and a ray of time for the field formalism the continuous
manifold what is the Space-Time?
It's as some Linear Continuum it's infinities and infinitesimals
making for orthogonality and two right-hand turns makes a complete
revolution, or the old
time goes back forever / space goes on forever
then as with regards to that Brane Theory and adding dimensions
to the theory, is just making extra paper for book-keeping,
for example the 3 + 0.5 making for a 3 (x3) + 1 "ten dimensions",
and all continuous, that the extras or "curled up" are just
exactly only to balance in account the others, the less, the one.
I.e. the hologrammatic is both continuous and preserves
continuity everywhere, while being a minimal resource,
which jives (or, jibes) well with least-action and the
sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials.
These days the Beta Decay is being seen again a continuous
mechanism, and larger molecules aren't exactly as of course
what's a beautiful and profound and useful theory of the
occupation of electron orbitals, for the stoichiometric,
and of course there's Bohm-deBroglie which makes sure that
it's not just particles.
If your theory is fundamentally grainy and discrete,
it might as well be empty.