Science topic

# String Theory - Science topic

Discussion of problems of string theories.

Questions related to String Theory

Hello Research Gate team!

Looking at the Weekly Report for

**2-9 August**I’ve got a Question for you.The results that were DISPLAYED by Research Gate DURING that week (I

**check/record them DAILY**) were:Motley String Book: +1/28 reads

Triangulation of Elliptic Curve: +1/66 reads

Breakthrough to Higher Dimensions with Motley String, Anyone (for Stanford team): +3/21 reads

Motley String theory Project Update (new “Motley String and Quantum Mechanics” paper, posted on Friday 7 August): +5/49 reads

Which means that Total for that week SHOULD have been:

**5+3+1+1=+10/760**(from 750 previous week)But Weekly Report I received from Research Gate said that it was:

**+6/756**.That is -4 (MINUS FORTY Percent) with respect to DISPLAYED reads DURING the week!

Therefore, I wonder WHICH type of Mathematics have you used to arrive at YOUR Total?

P-adic, Quantum or something else? Possibly Minsk or Kremlin type of “calculus”??

Can you EXPLAIN please?

Best regards,

George Matveev

1) Can the existence of an aether be compatible with local Lorentz invariance?

2) Can classical rigid bodies in translation be studied in this framework?

By changing the synchronization condition of the clocks of inertial frames, the answer to 1) and 2) seems to be affirmative. This synchronization clearly violates global Lorentz symmetry but it preserves Lorenzt symmetry in the vecinity of each point of flat spacetime.

Christian Corda showed in 2019 that this effect of clock synchronization is a necessary condition to explain the Mössbauer rotor experiment (Honorable Mention at the Gravity Research Foundation 2018). In fact, it can be easily shown that it is a necessary condition to apply the Lorentz transformation to any experiment involving high velocity particles traveling along two distant points (including the linear Sagnac effect) .

---------------

We may consider the time of a clock placed at an arbitrary coordinate x to be t and the time of a clock placed at an arbitrary coordinate x

_{P}to be t_{P}. Let the offset (t – t_{P}) between the two clocks be:1) (t – t

_{P}) = v (x - x_{P})/c^{2}where (t-t

_{P}) is the so-called Sagnac correction. If we call g to the Lorentz factor for v and we insert 1) into the time-like component of the Lorentz transformation T = g (t - vx/c^{2}) we get:2) T = g (t

_{P}- vx_{P}/c^{2})On the other hand, if we assume that the origins coincide x = X = 0 at time t

_{P}= 0 we may write down the space-like component of the Lorentz transformation as:3) X = g(x - vt

_{P})Assuming that both clocks are placed at the same point x = x

_{P , }inserting x =x_{P}, X = X_{P ,}T = T_{P }into 2)3) yields:4) X

_{P}= g (x_{P}- vt_{P})5) T

_{P}= g (t_{P}- vx_{P}/c^{2})which is the local Lorentz transformation for an event happening at point P. On the other hand , if the distance between x and x

_{P}is different from 0 and x_{P}is placed at the origin of coordinates, we may insert x_{P}= 0 into 2)3) to get:6) X = g (x - vt

_{P})7) T = g t

_{P}which is a change of coordinates that it:

- Is compatible with GPS simultaneity.

- Is compatible with the Sagnac effect. This effect can be explained in a very straightfordward manner without the need of using GR or the Langevin coordinates.

- Is compatible with the existence of relativistic extended rigid bodies in translation using the classical definition of rigidity instead of the Born´s definition.

- Can be applied to solve the 2 problems of the preprint below.

- Is compatible with all experimenat corroborations of SR: aberration of light, Ives -Stilwell experiment, Hafele-Keating experiment, ...

Thus, we may conclude that, considering the synchronization condition 1):

a) We get Lorentz invariance at each point of flat space-time (eqs. 4-5) when we use a unique single clock.

b) The Lorentz invariance is broken out when we use two clocks to measure time intervals for long displacements (eqs. 6-7).

c) We need to consider the frame with respect to which we must define the velocity v of the synchronization condition (eq 1). This frame has v = 0 and it plays the role of an absolute preferred frame.

a)b)c) suggest that the Thomas precession is a local effect that cannot manifest for long displacements.

More information in:

My understanding is the universe is usually considered to be n-dimensional, and thus metrizable. But is this a necessary consequence of physical theory, such as string theory?

If something is next to something without extension that itself has no extension, it never manages to actually be SPACE. Instead it is the juxtaposition of non extended singularities, manufactured into a matrix in whose connection singularities are impossible. It makes no sense to me how space can be the juxtaposition of non extended and non extendable single locales who generate a system of ways of articulating spacial relations of all objects made up of material.

How can material be made of nothing more than frequency of strings working harmoniously. It makes no sense quantum Mechanics...it must be wrong as a model goes, even though it's models are enormously precise in some of their predictions.

IF I am wrong and it is correct can anyone please explain to me how something non extended can be next to something else non extended to between the two of them form a displacement? It's impossible right? So please explaing Quantum Mechanics to me then.

Subatomic particles create the situation above matter in the universe, and so the quality of the object on matter is formed by differentiating from subatomic, so why is that so? Sub-item and sub-item reasons do not work in the same way. Let's think that matter consists of six protons, electrons and neutrons, there are quarks, etc. They also consist of these 3 values. Let's see. If proton positive. If the electron is negative neutron has no charge, there is a mirror substance under the atom, just like the mirror neuron in our brain. Because being a neutron means no load, that is symmetrical. It means equal positive and negative charge. So what does this mean? We first put forward this based on the mirror neuron. First of all, let's look at the property of the mirror neuron: they provide the quality of imitating each other. Mirror matter is also subatomic. Thus, when the proton and electron imitate each other subatomic, a movement takes place in two places at the same time. So how do we reconcile it with string theory? String theory of the subatomic. He says that protons and electrons are composed of one-dimensional filamentous structures. What happens if one filamentous structure imitates the other filamentary structure? At the same time, in more than one place, the same function and action becomes a filamentous substance. Here, the mirror matter feature occurs when the protons and electrons in the string theory, that is, the structures that the subatomic contains, act in the same way. From here, the proton and electron, which are in two places at the same time, multiply the information. And this knowledge is the knowledge of matter. For the supermaterial state, protons and electrons, which can be in two different places at the same time according to quantum and string theory, depending on the same mutual movement of gold, that is, proton and electron. When the electron acts like a proton, it goes beyond matter. When protons act like electrons, they form matter gold. thanks

You can find the wording in the attached file PR1-v3.pdf. Any comment will be wellcome.

More on this topic at:

A fascinating question in theoretical physics is whether it is possible to extend Einstein's ideas beyond gravitation to all aspects of physics. The energy-momentum tensor is usually defined extrinsically over the space-time manifold. But could it rather be derived from the geometry alone ? Likewise our local subjective notion of time is given by a local orientation which need not be globally consistent as in Gödel's famous model.

It has been proposed that space-time may have a foam- or sponge-like fine-grained structure (possible involving extra dimensions) which explains energy and matter and the other fundamental forces in a Kaluza-Klein style. That is, "microlocally" the topology of the space-time manifold is highly complex and there may be even a direct relationship between mass, energy and cohomology complexes in an appropriate derived category. At this fine scale there may even be non-local wormholes that connect distant regions of space-time and explain quantum entanglement.

But why not consider the universe as a Thom-Mather stratified space (one can think of this as a smooth version of analytic spaces or algebraic varieties) rather than a manifold ? In this case "singularities" would be "natural" structures not pathologies as in black holes. It is difficult not to think of matter (or localised energy) as corresponding to a singular region of this stratified space. Has this approach been considered in the literature ?

at large scale, do earth goes around sun or particles of the earth goes around the particles of the sun?

i am proposing new theory which says;

*the Gravitational force in between two objects depends on the most probable distance in between them.....*Preprint THEORY OF MOST PROBABLE DISTANCE

my dear unique scholars welcome to your valuable feedback, answers, comments....

thank you

It has been estimated that we need to build a particle collider, at least of the size of the galaxy to be able to directly observe the strings in action. Since observation is off the table, how about math ? Well, math tells us something pretty freaky.

**The equations that make the string theory work require that the universe has at least ten dimensions.**With this in mind, how would the future research in String Theory be as far as experimentation and validations are concerned ?Chord language is a natural information system, The basic forms are: chords (quantized discrete spectrum), chord geometry (open, closed, membrane strings), and mathematical models of chords (temperament, harmonics), often used in time (music) ), space (painting), life (meridians) and other chord semantic expressions; chord semantics comes from the chord spectrum, which is the manifestation of natural spirit and natural laws.

The impression of chord observation is: the language of chords is the language of time-space (life); the language of all things.

Preprint Chord Language

Preprint Chord Painting

Question solved. We overviewed possible theories of mass defect in gravitation. Energy is conserved in SR and QM (see NOTES), but matter is not conserved in SR or in QM. This is not dependent on any of Noether's theorems. Our previous work may be helpful here:

NOTES:

I am not trying to convince anyone that Minkowski SR is right, and that is the only SR we use in physics That was the thing to do, though ineffective, 100+ years ago. Today, we just watch with mild disbelief, and some amusement.

There are other differences in the SR treatment. For example, matterless energy exists, such as a photon. But, there is no "energyless" matter. Motion is always relative in SR, as well. This is a simple impediment for matter to change with motion, or speed, or acceleration. A fast neutrino passing nearby cannot change one's amount of matter. Motion cannot change mass, even if very fast.

Why, then, two masses reduce their mass when put closer together? Newton gravity theory does not explain. Einstein gravity theory neither. What is your qualified opinion?

NOTES:

- Minkowski special relativity (SR) and Bohr quantum mechanics (QM) apply certainly.
- QM and SR are no longer subject to physics discussions at this level, and not in CS, maybe in History. Maxwell equations are incorrect, and do not explain (e.g.) diamagnetism or lasers. We do not accept the Copenhagen interpretation, nor any "measurement effect" or "wave collapse".
- The laser was invented already circa 1958, uses QM and SR, contradicts the Maxwell equations, and these topics disqualify who question them. More than 55,000 patents involving the laser have been granted in the United States.
- We declare that resolved issues are off-topic, such as "relativistic mass" (not in nature), Maxwell equations (incorrect), QM (cannot be denied), and SR (cannot be denied).
- We will not respond to off-topic comments, valuing the discussion quality not the points.
- Off-topic comments are directed to the history of Physics or Mathematics.
- These and other examples of unacceptable behavior by participants here and prohibited by the RG ToS, even when presented as "ironic" or "joking," include ad hominem attacks and lack of civility. Lack of immediate enforcement by RG is not acceptance.

I think the chaos applies to all theory because chaos existed in classical physics itself so the chaos should exists in quantum and relativity

What is the physical significance of the study of compact object in higher dimensions i.e., beyond 3+1 dimensions? We know that 10D exists in case of string theory but the idea of string theory is in theoretical stage, the observational evidence can't be found till now , on the other hand the compact star is an observable object.

Specifically I am interested in knowing if anyone has had students compare the concepts of parallel universes (multiverse) proposed by both theories?

Hello Everyone,

as you probably know All existing String theories are formulated in High-Dimensional space time.

Motley String theory has successfully established connection between High-Dimensional String theories (All models) and Observable 4-dimensional world and as result solved ALL SIX major problems the Standard Model could not solve.

Quite recently Motley String theory has also explained Gravity’s extreme weakness and absence of Supersymmetric particles (so called SPARTICLES) via High-Dimensionality, see file Matveev-MotleyStringSUSYUniverse.pdf attached.

The question of Experimental Verification of Motley String theory is therefore theoretically addressed (until the Proposed Experiment is carried out) via Indirect method of measuring slopes of W, Z BOSONS Scattering, similar to the Regge slopes of HADRONIC resonances, see WZScatterExperiment.pdf file for details of the Proposed Experiment.

The BIG Question that REMAINS to be answered is this: HOW we can make DIRECT measurements of High-Dimensional Physics phenomena using some New types of Detectors and Sensors?

Is it possible at all?

Which Physical Principles and Engineering Solutions can be used to make such measurements today?

The Other side of this Question has possibly something to do with our MIND and HUMAN BRAIN activity as described in both Scientific and General Literature.

TWO major examples of this PSYCHOLOGICAL Approach are mentioned in the first paper attached: W.Pauli and C.G.Jung collaboration and Brian Josephson’s Mind-Matter Interaction project at Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University.

Any Ideas are Very Welcome, from Physicists as well as Engineers!!

Possibly even Psychologists and Biologists could contribute their two cents to this?

Best regards,

George Matveev

Hello LHCb team.

This is

**W Z Bosons Scattering Experiment**Proposal.Experiment goal: carry out Experiment similar to MESONS (quark-antiquark) scattering experiments where Regge slopes were measured and check if experiments with BOSONS produce

**different slopes**.See details in GM-

**WZScatterExperiment**and GM-**MotleyStringSUSYUniverse**PDF files attached.Motivation: according to the Motley String theory,

**String Tensions T(i) are Different**in i-th spacial dimensions.Therefore, by scattering W and Z BOSONS we may see

**Different slope values**compared with Regge slopes known from HADRONS scattering experiments.If that is indeed the case, as Motley String theory suggests, it would mean that Bosons leave in a

**HIGHER Dimensional Space-time**from Fermions (e.g. mesons). Heterotic String model also implies this.Benefits: This experiment could help us identify SINGLE String theory as Valid Candidate for Theory of Everything (ToE) and give us Much Better Understanding of Physics Beyond the Standard Model and even beyond our current understanding of String Theory!

This Experiment Proposal was initially submitted in late July 2019 as part of my application for job at CERN.

Best regards,

George Yury Matveev

Hello Everyone,

as you probably know All existing String theories are formulated in High-Dimensional space time.

Motley String theory has successfully established connection between High-Dimensional String theories (All models) and Observable 4-dimensional world and as result solved ALL SIX major problems the Standard Model could not solve.

Quite recently Motley String theory has also explained Gravity’s extreme weakness and absence of Supersymmetric particles (so called

**SPARTICLES**) via High-Dimensionality, see file Matveev-MotleyStringSUSYUniverse.pdf attached.The question of Experimental Verification of Motley String theory is therefore theoretically addressed (until the Proposed Experiment is carried out) via Indirect method of measuring slopes of W, Z BOSONS Scattering, similar to the Regge slopes of HADRONIC resonances, see WZScatterExperiment.pdf file for details of the Proposed Experiment.

The BIG Question that REMAINS to be answered is this: HOW we can make

**DIRECT**measurements of**High-Dimensiona**l Physics phenomena using some**New types of Detectors and Sensors**?Is it possible at all?

Which Physical Principles and Engineering Solutions can be used to make such measurements today?

The Other side of this Question has possibly something to do with our MIND and HUMAN BRAIN activity as described in both Scientific and General Literature.

TWO major examples of this PSYCHOLOGICAL Approach are mentioned in the first paper attached: W.Pauli and C.G.Jung collaboration and Brian Josephson’s

**Mind-Matter Interaction project**at Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University.Any Ideas are Very Welcome, from Physicists as well as Engineers!!

Possibly even

**Psychologists and Biologists**could contribute their "two cents" to this?Best regards,

George Matveev

Hello Stanford team!

Anyone is ready/looking for Extra Spacial Dimensions?

**Motley String**Theory is based on two simple Postulates:

Postulate 1: Every spacial dimension of String has a unique intrinsic property which we call "

**color**".Postulate 2: There is force between spacial dimensions of string such that it makes dimensions of complementary colors (Red_i , Green_i, Blue_i) interact and unite in a

**colorless threads**perceived as observable**dimensions**.As a result, Motley String theory solves ALL SIX Major Problems the Standard Model

could not explain:

1. Number of elementary particles (6 quarks + 6 leptons)

2. Quarks Fractional Charges

3. Quarks Confinement

4. Quarks Oscillations

5. Neutrinos Oscillations

6. Dark Energy/Mass problem

One web page overview of the Motley String theory is on my web site:

Moreover, in August 2019 I created a W Z bosons Scatter Experiment Proposal (see attached document

**Matveev-WZScatterExperiment.pdf**with details) for CERN SPS or LHC.The Proposed Experiment is somewhat similar to the one conducted by SPS team in 1983,

but one needs to use BOSONS instead of Hadrons.

The Expected RESULT and GOAL of the Experiment is to identifying the UNIQUE String Theory (Motley Heterotic String) as our Leading Candidate for ToE (Theory of Everything).

Major reason for such Experiment Result is the FACT that Motley String Model is EQUALLY APPLICABLE to BOTH Superstring model and Bosonic string model and thus to Heterotic String model for reasons explained in the attached document.

As far as I can see there is NOTHING that prevents Stanford Accelerator team from conducting the proposed Experiment and Discovering TRUE Dimensionalit{y,ies} of the Universe we live in.

Also Motley String offers Plausible Explanation for “Dark Energy/Mass” problem of modern Astrophysics.

My first book

*“Motley String or What Everything is made of”*was first published by German Scholars Press in June 2018.Third extended Edition (with New Chapter on Elliptic Curve – Hydrogen Atom Link) was published in April 2019.

The book is available on Publishers web shop:

as well as on about a dozen of other web shops: Adlibris, Amazon, etc.

Your Constructive EXPERIMENTALIST Feedback would be Much Appreciated!

Best regards,

George Yury Matveev

P.S.

**other Particle Accelerators**with comparable to SPS/LHC characteristics could possibly try to carry out the Proposed Experiment as well.What is the difference between loop quantum gravity and string theory?

I would like to ask what is the structure of space-time in string theory. Is it discrete as it is in loop quantum gravity or causal dynamical triangulations? Or is it described by a manifold as it is the case in general theory of relativity?

In the context of string theory, it has been concluded that space is not fundamental but a phenomena emerging from quantum entanglement. To start a debate on what the core principle behind such mathematical conclusion could be, I suggest that the reason why space cannot be fundamental is because it contradicts the fact that energy is impermanent or otherwise said: continuously changing (and therefore continuously arising).

There is a plenty of examples of classical solutions to low-energy effective theories that were proved to have vanishing α'-corrections to all orders and hence be also perturbatively exact string solutions in the literature, see e.g.

Since in all the literature I'm familiar with, the proof of α'-exactness of leading-order solutions relied heavily on the fact that the corresponding spacetime metric admits a covariantly constant null Killing vector, I'm currious if this is always the case.

**Is anyone aware of some paper which proves α'-exactness for leading-order solutions beyond those with spacetime backgrounds admitting a covariantly constant null Killing vector?**

(I'm aware of the fact there are also different approaches in finding exact string solutions that do not relly on proving α'-exactness of leading-order solutions and hence may yield exact string backgrounds with no covariantly constant null Killing vectors but the present question is focused strictly on this approach.)

What are Ramanujan's modular functions, what are they for and how do they apply in relativity, quantum physics and string theory? And where can I consult bibliography about it?

Opinion on how we and our school is doing in terms of identifying string theory in our ordinary business of life. The synthesis of new Physics and New Economics which happens as the resultant of complex forces and particles accelerated by light environment in the solar system and the learning field.

Greetings,

Completing Bachelors in Engineering this June'19, I thought I'd start with Masters/PhD in Gravitational Physics this fall but I received rejections from almost every graduate school I applied to. To where I received an offer from, I won't be able to pay off the tuition fees.

Of course I knew that to receive an offer, one needs to have some experience with the subject. With the engineering curriculum on one hand, I tried to manage my interests in gravity. From watching lecture videos by Frederic Schuller and Leonard Susskind to reading books by Sean Carrol and to even doing a summer research internship on black hole geometries, I tried to gain experience on the subject.

I wish to understand relativity from a mathematical point of view.

" A good course in more abstract algebra dealing with vector spaces, inner products/orthogonality, and that sort of thing is a must. To my knowledge this is normally taught in a second year linear algebra course and is typically kept out of first year courses. Obviously a course in differential equations is required and probably a course in partial differential equations is required as well.

The question is more about the mathematical aspect, I'd say having a course in analysis up to topological spaces is a huge plus. That way if you're curious about the more mathematical nature of manifolds, you could pick up a book like Lee and be off to the races. If you want to study anything at a level higher, say Wald, then a course in analysis including topological spaces is a must.

I'd also say a good course in classical differential geometry (2 and 3 dimensional things) is a good pre-req to build a geometrical idea of what is going on, albeit the methods used in those types of courses do not generalise. "

- Professor X

^I am looking for an opportunity to study all of this.

I would be grateful for any opportunity/guidance given.

Thanking you

PS: I really wanted to do Part III of the Mathematical Tripos from Cambridge University, but sadly my grades won't allow me to even apply :p

The classical limit of loop quantum gravity is Einstein-Cartan theory (EC), not general relativity (GR). I would like to know whether the other main approach to quantum gravity - string theory - also has as its classical limit EC, with torsion and the spin-torsion field equation. Or is its classical limit GR or something else?

At the April APS meeting:

(a) I attended a presentation on a loop quantum gravity model of the origin of cosmic inflation. I asked the researcher what quantization contributes to the model, compared to just using classical EC (which causes inflation-like expansion). The presenter thought the classical limit of loop quantum gravity is GR.

(b) A researcher at a major university told me that the Hamiltonian and other mathematical properties of EC as so much superior to those of GR that they do all their theoretical research based on EC and not GR.

Is EC quietly displacing GR as the foundation of quantum gravity research, and do some of the researchers not recognize this is happening?

Can someone please point me to where an explicit computation of the critical dimension of superstring theory in the RNS formalism is done? Preferably a calculation involving the commutator of the Lorentz generators.

Within the most general linear axions Einstein Maxwell dilation model(EMD), translational and rotational symmetry are both broken. Recovering translation invariance is not as much as simple to restore the rotational one. For the latter it is enough to set the condition Y

_{x}(φ)k_{x2}=Y_{y}(φ)k_{y2 }while for the former it is not so straightforward.Is there an alternative theory that accommodates mind and matter? After all, the universe we observe has a logical structure that the mind can understand. If we do not understand something, it must have some measure of illogic. Can we unify all known theories...String Theory, SR, GR, QT, MOND, Standard Model, Big Bang, and so on. Is it possible to unify mathematics and physics (not in the sense of one can explain the results of the other) but in the sense of principles that govern the two? Can science explain miracles, TIME, SPACE, the forces of Nature? Why is gravity? Was Einstein right? Is a complete theory of nature able to explain even notions of God?

*. It starts with understanding how the mind processes information. Read Book 1..***There is such a theory**What is the most interesting and powerful application of Group Theory?

In reference to the attached presentation material regarding the sum of the following infinite series 1+2+3+4+... the following comments are due

• The obvious answer is a huge positive whole number beyond our imagination

• But what if a theory wants the answer not to be so?

• Are we allowed to challenge the theory?

• Are we allowed to bend the rule or even cheat to get the desired value?

• Is this bending, of the rule, only applies for exceptional cases or can be exercised freely?

My conclusions are

- It is a well-known fact that how feeble tricks are used in mathematics to obtain some haphazard values from divergent series to baptize certain theories in physics.
- Three types of tricks are used to obtain the desired results

- Ignoring or hiding divergent quantities
- Ignoring or hiding conditions for formulas
- Extending the domain of a formula

- These tricks simply erode confidence in mathematics as a sure scientific tool.
- It is a legitimate question that if these flagrant deceptions are exercised to fool ourselves, who knows what other tricks are used to obtain desired results from complicated mathematical derivations?

The main question is; why for heaven’s sake, mathematics needs cheating in dealing with new challenges in science. Either it is not competent enough to cope or it is just a subjugated slave in the hand of any popular theory

I was very excited about the potential of the AdS/CFT duality to link physical phenomena to models in string theory, especially quantum gravity. Indeed, I was very interested to pursue my Master thesis in this subject.

However, I was wondering if doing research in this area would be to risky as there are even fewer post-doc positions in this field, since string theory seems to be slowly losing support after the experimental data at LHC. In particular, I like both the mathematical formalisms of theories and the experimental confirmation of models, and I would like to involve at least some computing in the mix.

Should I still pursue this field or it would be safer to switch to something more concrete?

unification theory, string theory

In other words, if you project the ten-dimensional space of string theory onto a four-dimensional space-time, is the resulting space-time, which will have an uncertainty principle in the coordinates at the Planck scale, accurately represented by a spin foam?

What is the possibility that I'll get a PhD job for research in String Theory and Particle Physics? I'm currently in my 3rd Year of Undergraduate Studies and have done research work in Photonics. Due to unavailability of faculty specialized in relativity, cosmology, particle physics etc., I chose to do research in Photonics. To manage my interests, I studied relativity, particle physics from online resources. What are the chances that I'll get a PhD job at institutes like Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Stanford, Kavli IPMU etc.?

My theory gives a solve to gravity and the rest of forces on the universe. Only can be a unificated theory of everything.

At this point this is in draft so there may be many questions and are welcome.

Does String Theory provide specific numerical data information on atomic particles such as electron, proton or netron?

The Lagrangian of a tachyonic scalar field T can be expressed as

L

_{T }= - V(T)( 1 - d_{u}T d^{u}T)^{1/2}When T only varies with the cosmological time t, the energy of density is

rho

_{T}= V(T)( 1 - d^{t}T d_{t}T)^{-1/2}where d

_{t}T is the tachyonic velocity."

**In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. It describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other.**" -- Wikipedia.Greetings Bianca,

I'm interested in your research interests, several of which closely match my recently uploaded paper:

**AI Peer Review Challenge: Standard Model of Physics vs 4D GEM EOS**. Naturally then I would value your opinion of it.In particular, I find your interest in an

**AdS/CFT background independent**encouraging--which, as I am sure you are aware, is an interest shared by the*Clay Mathematics Institute*regarding the Yang-Mills mass gap problem. I'm currently working on a slightly revised*Maplesoft Application Center*version of the paper, which of course features**Python code conversion**, wherein I'll also be making reference to the*Perimeter Institute***Tensor Networks Initiative**.Please consider then the attached

**4D GEM EOS**paper and its**Mathematica code**establishes a total field formal frame optimized lattice gauge group in direct accord with the**Tensor Networks Initiative**.we will try to write matrices whose obeys to some algebra to describe the graviton. is that is possible? if your answer is no, why ?

Erik verlinde said; this emergent gravity constructed using the insights of string theory, black hole physics and quantum information theory(all these theories are struggling to take breath)..

**its appreciation to Verlinde of his dare step of constructing emergent gravity based on dead theories**..we loudly take inspiration from him...!!!!!!!Just read "Inflation and the Measurement Problem". If I understand correctly, they proposed a model with interaction between Fourier modes. By tuning parameter one will obtain Harrison-Zel’dovich scale-invariant

power-spectrum as well as Gaussian Random field. What I don't understand is that I think it still need measurement to form a classical field configuration. Did I misunderstand it?

Thanks for answering.

I am doing project in Quandles . And I am reading Thesis by David joyce An Algebraic Approach to Symmetry with Applications to Knot Theory . In its Section 4.5 Knot quandles page number 46 there is a line " when a loop in X-K links once with K " , I am not getting what it means . And after that knot quandle is defined as nooses linking once with K upto homotopy which is also not clear to me . I have not done course in Algebraic topology and knot theory but I have read fundamental groups myself . If possible please explain through figure.

Any type of help will be appreciated.

Can I find a mathematical model of vibration phenomena where the speed of propagation is missed, or unknown for some reason ?

All discrete objects in the universe are modules or modular systems and all modules are observers. Sets of elementary modules exist that configure all other modules. These elementary modules. Does their way of observation represent consciousness? If the answer is positive, then this form of consciousness is certainly the most primitive form of consciousness. All observers receive their information via vibrations or deformations of the continuum that embeds them. Elementary modules receive that information in the most primitive way.

Elementary modules are pointlike objects. Physics knows them as elementary particles.

Elementary modules are represented by coherent and dense swarms of clamps. These swarms contain a huge number of elements. Each clamp carries a standard bit of mass. The clamps represent the most primitive form of matter.

Should time be considered continous or are there definitions for a time quantum (e.g. shortest time for anything to happen)?

Regarding my understanding string theories — type I, type IIA, type IIB, (heterotic) SO(32) and (heterotic) E8×E8 — to one another and to eleven-dimensional supergravity (a particle theory). The discovery of these connections led to the conjecture that all of the string theories are really aspects of a single underlying theory, which was given the name ‘M-theory’ (though M-theory is also used more specifically to describe the unknown theory of which eleven-dimensional supergravity is the low energy limit). The rationale, according to one kind of duality (S-duality), is that one theory at strong coupling (high energy description) is physically equivalent (in terms of physical symmetries, correlation functions and all observable content) to another theory at weak coupling (where a lower energy means a more tractable description), and that if all the theories are related to one another by dualities such as this, then they must all be aspects of some more fundamental theory. Though attempts have been made, there has been no successful formulation of this theory: its very existence, much less its nature, is still largely a matter of conjecture.

Professor F.Ngakeu has stated in his important article "Levi-Civita Connection on Almost Commutative Algebras" that the coefficients of Levi-Civita of example 3.8 is a consequence of theorem 3.7. How can I obtain those?

Dynamics in the complex space to describe the quantum dynamics is a very interesting approach. In the other hand, classical control is a strongly develop theory. Is it possible solve Quantum control problems using complex dynamics? Any reference? any advice?

Your descripción, Is it related to Clifford algebra?

Thanks and congratulations for your works

Proposed in late 1997, this correspondence is a theoretical result which implies that M-theory is in some cases is equivalent to a quantum field theory

- How does one show the equivalence?
- What is the structure of this quantum field theory ?
- Is it a 4 dimensional local gauge model ?
- Are there any phenomenological implications ?
- What is anti - deSitter space ? Is there a set of transformations from Cartesian coordinates ?

In my paper in Phys. Letts..vol 68A (1978)409-411, I have discussed a metric

projectively related to Friedman/R-W metric with identical geodesics.Questions:

Are there other such solutions for this case or for other conformaly flat

spaces? One such solution defines an infinite succession. Is there a computer

program to find infinite succession of (covariant)Einstein tensors.; the

change represents the erruption of matter-energy in assumed spontaneous

projective change. on approach to a singularity. Physically the change is

caused by intervention of Gauge fields to avoid gravity-induced collapse.

The point is that addition to Christofell connection of a term (Identity tensor

times Vector) leaves a system of geodesics unchanged,and is in accord

with equivalence principle. This way one can relate both gauge field and

Q.M. with G .R..Details on request.See also Matsience Report no92(1978)/

paper 9,14pp (www.imsc.res.in/Library)-Black Body Structure of a Black

Hole. And Lie Structure of Quasiconformal Maps in R*(*=N). And Physics of

String Theory in Quantum Field Theory. QM,& Optics- Ed VV Dodonov &

V I Manko , Moscow (1990) Nova Publishers (N,Y)vol 187 of Proc 0f Lebedev Phy. Inst.Acad. 0f Sciences 0f the USSR./pp113-116..

L= r x p is a 3 dimensional relation. In 4 dimensions r and p are 4 vectors and L is a 4x4 matrix. We want to discuss conservation laws related to angular momentum in 4 space time dimensions. Then discuss the issue of angular momentum of a Black Hole.

The string detained between two points can sustain harmonic motion. At the string midpoint, the potential and kinetic energy are inverse, so that when the string is in the mid-line, the kinetic energy is 1 and the potential energy is 0. When the string is at the boundary the string stops for an instant, so the kinetic energy goes to zero while the potential energy is 1.

A node is defined as a point on a string where there is no movement possible, so that both the kinetic and potential energy are zero. The fixed-point theorem says if pitch is a real function defined on [0, 1], then there must be a fixed point on the interval.

Since the kinetic and potential energy is just the result of basic trig functions sin and cos, it seems clear to me then that wave reflection cannot occur at the string endpoints. The endpoints are fixed points which are in effect

*fulcrums*with a fixed-point position so that length L = 1 is a bound variable. The fulcrum allows the fundamental in the monochord to drive the string on the other side of a node, but the condition for wave reflection does not exist at the node.When a sin wave crosses zero there is no requirement that the point is fixed, so the boundary cannot simply be added to the wave function arbitrarily without changing the nature of Fourier analysis.

If the waves reflect at endpoints, do they also reflect at nodes that are not enpoints? Of course not! But then, in the 1/3 mode, what makes the middle wave where there are 4 nodes and 3 waves? Is the middle wave the reflection of 2 traveling waves between the two non-endpoint nodes?

The boundary condition for traveling wave reflection is 1, 0 , 1 which is clearly a false statement.

Significantly, the frequency and the wave length are bound by the string and not free variables subject to real analysis as continuous variables. Nodes and waves cannot add at the same point.

If physicists really think there are two traveling waves on a string moving in opposite directions that make a standing wave, but no one can see or demonstrate these waves, then maybe they have action-at-a-distance wrong, too. After all, the basic error is assuming frequency is continuous, and then using functions with free variables adjoined with arbitrary integers.

i would like an answer from experts in string theory, quantum physics...

I think it is clear classic string theory is defined in Z2, if only because waves are 1 and nodes are zero.

If we assume the string waves and nodes are defined in Z2 as a deductive system, the fundamental is defined on the interval [0, 1] with the wave boundary condition 0, 1, 0 and the identity of the fundamental is [0, 1].

In "Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms" by Cox, Little, and O'Shea (Springer, 2007) the

*F*_{2 }= {0, 1} field is described, but I am having trouble with the way that multiplication and addition are defined.I would like to know if this is the only way that addition and multiplication in the F2 field can be defined. Or, is it possible the way it is in the text is a natural representation of the string wave boundary that I don't get?

The book says these are the rules for F2:

0 + 0 = 1 + 1 = 0

0 + 1 = 1 + 0 = 1

0 x 0 = 0 x 1 = 1 x 0 = 0

1 x 1 = 1

But it seems more like it should be;:

1 + 1 = 1

1 x 1 = 1

The reason I think this is because if we add two waves we get a new mode. If we add two octaves we get a new octave. If we add two strings we get a new unit. The 1 + 1 = 1 equation describes the behavior of projective sets and other topologic sets like algebraic fields (and I think nullstellensatz). If two closed sets can form a closed union and intersection, then they make an arrow with a 1. Or just a 1.

I want Z2 to be the the principle ideals of the algebra of the string. The string is the union, intersection, and complimentaion of two disjoint sets (which are the pitch and position set defined on the string).

I think that since the boundary and matrices for

**[****Z2]**cannot add or multiply if the dimensions are not equivalent, this shows waves with different dimensions do not add.^{n }The string has to be an integral domain and not the sum of an infinite series.

In classic string theory the string vibrates in multiple modes of vibration so that the string is the sum of all the possible modes that are demonstrated using the monochord.

For instance, I was taught that plucking the string and then detaining the string at the 12th fret shows that the first octave harmonic is

*inside*the string and merely revealed by dampening all the other modes of vibration. That implies the string has 2 states of system at the same time.Classic string theory then implies that the string can have many different fundamentals at the same time so the state of system of the string is not a constant but an infinite series.

It seems more likely that the string always vibrates in the lowest mode and can only be forced into a higher mode by an additional point of detainment. The third point of detainment creates a new fundamental. Only the octave is true, the higher overtones are not in the diatonic order and do not have the metric of the octave.

Since we know by Euler the string is detained in a concatenation (not a sine wave), it is not possible that the higher modes of vibration can co-exist with the lowest mode. This is clear at the string ends (the angle of deformity is greater with higher modes), as well as at the nodes which cannot co-exist without cancellation.

Since the concatenation is not a sin wave it is clear the string mode of vibration and the sounded emitted in radiation are orthogonal and independent. If the string emits frequency that is not the fundamental, then those vibrations are not defined in the musical state of system; they are incidental and have some other fundamental that has no simple arithmetic relation to the tone value system.

Absurdly, many authors claim that vibrating string is an example of the string theory of closed and open strings. Many experts say the wave moves along the string over time, apparently because this allows the introduction of trigonometric functions. (If we assume the frequency domain is a sin wave then it looks like the trigonometric functions are the elemental property of music but this violates the principle of spectral resolution in which frequency is a winding number but defining points between frequency cycles calls for an assumption. Assume frequency is a sine wave, then pitch is a sin wave, too. But frequency must be a 1 or a 0 in measure theory. 1 is a homomorphism which is not a function of time.

It seems to be overlooked that music is a theory of strings that are at once open to polyphonic union and closed by the octave. Strings are clopen and nonreducible, so we cannot separate the pitch from the string state of system. This is not the modern string theory where strings are either open or closed, but not both at once. The problem of how the string is a musical set is resolved in projective space where lines are always circles too. The natural overtones are not a closed system, and to make 12-tones you have to go to many higher partials.

It seems clear then that neither classic or modern string theory applies to music theory.

Is there some well-respected official of modern or classic string theory who wants to try to revive classic string theory for music? Or can we agree the 300 year-old theory of the musical string is dead?

Can the dynamics in concentrations, structures, interactions and location of all the entities in the produce cellular states defined as state of "energy" with extra-dimensions?

Doing a comparison with special relativity for example, the event is described by a point which has four coordinates in space time, but string is what? And came from what ?

Physics has a lot of abstracts like energy, or momentum that are properties of something. Is there a something equivalent for strings? Something that can be related back to what I can sense directly even if the story is a long one.

Or are strings a new invention whose value is in its explanatory power?

Any physical phenomena that occupies space in time has to be described by coordinates and the optimal minimal number of coordinates required for this description determines what is called the dimension of the space-time in which the object is and properties of this physical phenomenon can be studied either as evolution along its temporal axis or by its spatial behavior in terms of rates of change across the coordinate axes. One of the fascinations intuitionists of string theory create is the claim that space is not actually 3+1 dimensional but is of higher than that.

The intuition is that a one dimensional linear string from a distant when observing up close yields a three dimensional feature than one dimensional and therefore all the three dimensions we all know extrapolated to generate 9 dimensions of space with new six extra invisible dimensions that are curled to be seen. But if these somehow intuitively sensed dimensions which need to have variables of curled coordinates are not detected and manifest themselves during mathematical descriptions of positions and behaviors in time or independent of time, then either they do not exist at all and mere intuition or the formulations of differential equations we all along use to describe fundamental laws of physics are not formulated correctly and incomplete.

If their existence is very small (minimally small to the extent of not being observed), then unlike the usual coordinates and the usual derivatives, we might create another structural concepts in mathematics to incorporate such existences. But giving a mathematical meaning to something which does not exist is a mathematical paradox and loses it place in mathematics it self and therefore in reality. In line with this,Tom Morley puts in his short article (see attachment below) that space is 3+1 dimensional and I put the question in line with his arguments.

I want to accelerate my research in topological quantum field theories, I know that in N=1 super Yang-Mills there is conformal twist, but how to get to obtain topological twist in this case is actually my problem, does somebody have any idea?

We know that Classical Mechanics can be shown as special and approximated case of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Is the case similar here?

I was wondering about the AdS/CFT correspondence basics. It is constructed on the idea of conformal compactification, in which a open manifold M is homeomorphic related to a closed one N through a conformal transformation of both metrics. The open manifold acquires a conformal boundary in which the conjecture is stabilized. If one thinks on the Index Theorem, a single issue appears: a pseudo differential operator (e.o.m) on the topological boundary does not have a well defined index, so would not be possible to extend the idea of holography to closed compact spaces?

The graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless and must be a spin-2 boson. The spin follows from the fact that the source of gravitation is the stress–energy tensor, a second-rank tensor. But by no means is it universally accepted.

But there are many articles about the interaction between Photon and graviton or graviton-photon scattering.

How can graviton's mystery be solved? Should graviton be detectable or like photon (same as photoelectric effect) be able to explain the physical phenomena?

Some time ago I saw a program where Lee Smolin talked about how Einstein was originally interested, at least some what, with Kaluza-Klein theory. But, after some time he became disinterested in Kaluza-Klein and other extra spatial dimension theories. Smolin claimed Einstein thought about the possibility of extra spatial dimensions, but rejected it on some fundamental principles/insights. I've tried, so far unsuccessfully, to find Einstein's article/text to which Smolin referrers. Does anyone know Einstein's reasoning/insight against extra spatial dimensions? Or, perhaps, the article that Smolin refers to?