String Theory has nothing to do with Physics

Quantum and Relativity mathematicians argue today that String Theory has now become mainstream. Strings have displaced the ‘quantum’ in great measure because Quantum Mechanics is making no progress in understanding. Discrete islands known as ‘particles’ have already been replaced by vibrating peninsulas known as ‘fields’.

But String Theory is all Math and no Physics. String Theory admittedly has nothing to do with the real world. String Theory is Math taken to unnecessary, ridiculous levels. All the funds pouring into string research are a waste of money. The irony is that this redirection deprives the ‘old’ experiment-oriented mainstream of money.

#bgaede #ropehypothesis #physicstheory #rationalscience #quantumparticles

#relativitytheory #theoryofrelativity #relativisticquantummechanics #theoreticalphysics

#quantummechanics #specialrelativity #stringtheory #quantumphysics

#einsteintheory #einstein #stephenhawking #hawking #briangreene

#neiltyson #neildegrassetyson #michiokaku #michio #spacetime

#blackholesexplained #blackholeshorts #entanglement #light

#transverse #atom #atomicstructure #magnet #magnetism

#electromagnetism #electricity #dimensions #bigbang #god

#gravity #gravitytheory #gravitationalwaves #exist #existence

[jaydenwilson]

Geometry and String Geometry > String Theory

I wrote this a while ago... its pretty straight forward.

Abstraction of the Foundational Magnitude

By Jayden Wilson

Abstract:

In general, can it be said that all concepts other than distance itself need to be reified via this foundational magnitude?

This would imply that there are no units other than length, but only abstractions built on top of this core notion.

This line of thinking echoes in dimensional analysis and geometrization of physics, where all physical quantities are fundamentally reducible to a foundational unit-typically length. In this interpretation, many other physical concepts (such as angles, areas, volumes, and even time) can be seen as derived abstractions built on top of the core concept of distance or length.

Applying Ratios and Distances to Various Concepts
• Angles: An angle can indeed be defined as a ratio of distances, such as the ratio of the arc length to the radius in a circle, giving the dimensionless concept of radians. This interpretation grounds angular measurement in geometry (length relationships).
Area and Volume: These quantities are also derived from the multiplication of lengths (area as length x length and volume as length x length x length). So, these are clearly abstractions that extend the notion of distance into higher-dimensional spaces.
• Time: You could go as far as defining time indirectly through distance. In relativity, space and time are treated in a unified framework (spacetime), where time is often scaled by the speed of light and related to distance through the notion of interval or proper distance in spacetime.

The Core Idea:

What I'm suggesting aligns with the concept of reducing all units to a single fundamental unit, length in this case. This would mean:

• Force, energy, charge, etc.: These would need to be reified in terms of geometric interpretations -momentum might be seen as a motion over length, and energy might be a more complex ratio involving lengths and their transformations over different scales.

Implications:

If length is indeed the primary unit, other quantities would be abstractions of different configurations of lengths:
• Density: Could be framed as a volume of lengths per unit area (another abstraction of length).
• Momentum: Could be conceived as a spatial movement with a specific orientation or alignment.

This approach would simplify our conceptual framework by making all units geometrically interpretable, relying solely on distances and their relations. Ultimately, this implies that other units are perhaps just specific configurations of "bubble" formations in space-built fundamentally on distances between "bubble surfaces."

Thoughts:

By reducing all concepts to one core magnitude, length, and viewing other quantities (mass, time, energy) as emergent abstractions of spatial relationships, one can simplify the necessity of extra dimensions.

Instead of introducing additional dimensions to explain different forces or particles, the idea would be to show how these forces/particles are just different spatial configurations of a fundamental distance-based construct (bubbles, strings, etc.), suggesting that they are manifestations of complex geometries within fewer actual dimensions.

Example:

This is an astute concept as even units such as mass are established using a standard that involves distance.

The kilogram is the SI unit of mass.

It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant h to be 6.62607015 x 10–34 when expressed in the unit J's, which is equal to kg m2 s–1.

1. Planck Constant and Units: The Planck constant h is expressed in units of joules-seconds (J-s). A joule is a derived unit that itself breaks down into:
1J = 1kg. m2/s2
So, when you express the Planck constant h in terms of kg·m2-s ́1, you're linking mass, distance (through meters squared), and time (through seconds).

2. Mass as a Derived Concept: By defining mass using a fixed numerical value of the Planck constant, which relates to energy (and energy is linked to motion, position, and time), mass becomes reified through relationships that fundamentally involve distance and time. This reinforces the idea that mass, while appearing as a fundamental concept, is intertwined with distance through its ties to energy and the Planck constant.

Implications:

Foundational Role of Distance: Your observation that distance (or length) could be the
foundational magnitude upon which other physical concepts are built seems well-supported by modern physics. Even mass, which we often consider a primary quantity, is defined through a relationship involving length and time.

Geometrization of Physics: The fact that mass is defined via the Planck constant, which involves distances (m2), aligns with the idea that many physical concepts, including momentum, energy, and force, can be derived or reinterpreted in terms of geometrical relationships involving distance.
This observation strengthens your perspective that we can potentially simplify physics by treating distance as the foundational concept, with other quantities being abstractions or reifications built upon this core idea.



I expect to get some push back from the "advanced" physics crowd who would better be known as Natures Mythomagical Accountants. But meh, screw them and their anti-social twattery!

[giakon]

11:50 correct Bill... theory explain, while hypotheses describe.

[FrankRogerOfficial]

The real problem they have is that they don't have a working model of the atom. That’s the starting point. In the rope model, just by showing how the atom is made you can start to understand gravity and light. It's like they don't even know what a brick is and they already start talking about complex constructions.

[giakon]

13:40 Bill, the word "state" means 'condition', a concept... so 'vibrational state' means the condition of oscillatory movement... the concepts of static and dynamic have nothing to do with it!

[giakon]

Bill.... how you can see 2DIMENSIONAL concept??? oh mein gott!
"1D object" is a concept
"2D object" is a concept
"3D object" is a object
"4D object" is a concept
"26D object" is a concept
...

[viyye]

Fix your bloody sound, its terrible and off putting