String Theory - Science topic

Last week (August 14-21, 2022) my Research Index was 27.2.

But today (23 August 2022) RG says that my Research Index became 26.2 WOW!

Any Explanation for this my statistics going DOWN???

There is a difference between Lorentz transformations and scale transformations.

Special relativity satisfies Lorentzian symmetry due to the constancy of the speed of light and the special relativity principle.

However, in reality, the aether makes the speed of light locally invariant, so the Lorentz transformation is not necessary.

That n from n-dimensional merely shows how many properties one needs to locate things.

They cannot have extensions .They act in such a manner as to mathematically represent extensions .

Hakan Unal You might be interested in the nature of matter and electric charge explained in this presentation:

Richard

I think that an interesting point is that, using units with c = 1, the 4-velocity (dt,dx,0,0) is a 1-tensor that is the same for any offset of clocks of the inertial frame. Then we have that the 4-velocity (dt,dx,0,0) transforms the same for any synchronization, it satisfies the Einstein addition of velocities and consequently it also satisfies the principle of constancy of speed of light. On the other hand, as it behaves like a tensor under Lorentz transformations, the relativity principle holds for it an for all derived 1-tensors like velocity, acceleration and so on.

Clarence Lewis Protin I had a look on Wikipedia to find out about Thom-Mather stratified spaces:

It mentions its use in the study of singularities. My comment about trying to apply this approach to cosmology is based on the Spacetime Wave theory:

From this worldview, singularities do not exist in physics and the laws of physics apply everywhere and for all time. Also the idea that spacetime may have a sponge like or fine grained structure (quantum fluctuations in empty space) is ruled out by the adoption of the Einstein equations of GR as the fundamental equations of spacetime at all scales. This means that if the Mass Energy tensor is identically zero then spacetime curvature must be identically zero.

This the idea of quantum fluctuations in empty space from quantum theory has to give way.

Richard

In chord space, chord interaction is manifested as spatial interaction, the basic way is: separation and combination.

Music and physics are connected by sound waves and accoustics. Music could not exist without it's physical aspect.

Diana Ambache

Yes, we no longer see particles in the entire universe, present and past for 13.8 billion years. Therefore, we also should not consider mass -- but we can can consider matter and energy. What replaces then, the most famous. equation in Physics, E = mc^2?

No-because chaos is known as a property of classical systems; so it doesn't have anything to do with providing an obstacle for quantizing gravity, i.e. finding the quantum theory, whose classical limit is general relativity. The obstacle to that, rather, is finding the-qantum-degrees of freedom that can resolve the singularities, that appear in gravitational collapse.

André Michaud : I DO think that progress may eventually be made. I simply see that all of the arguments made in favor of extra dimensions in this and every other discussion I've read in the last 50 years include not only great enthusiasm about the concept of extra dimensions, but also note that to date, not one theory has succeeded in convincing the general community that it is valid. Here and there, the comments above state that there are advantages to thinking of extra dimensions in one way or another, but they always include the caveat that the theory involved has yet to be proven or has been abandoned (unsaid is the reason that it proved incapable of producing any testable predictions). So I believe that we need a "quantum leap" in our mathematical and physical understanding of things before any useful theory using extra dimensions has any hope of becoming generally accepted. And although strictly speaking a quantum anything refers to the smallest step imaginable, in its usage as a phrase, 50+ years of reading about so-far useless theories convince me that although at some distant date someone may develop an extra-dimensional theory that is not only mathematically "useful" but also produces testable predictions, none of us will still be alive to read about it. I don't consider that view pessimistic, but pragmatic. Why waste my time reading about probable nonsense, when there are so many things to read about that produce useful results? So along that line, though everyone is free to criticize that viewpoint, I will not be reading any more of the comments about this thread. Instead, I'll be working on projects that are producing useful results, at least in the opinion of my colleagues and students. However, I do keep up with news about cosmology and associated fields, such as the numerous efforts to use extra-dimensional mathematics to solve cosmological problems, and in the unlikely event that I live long enough to read about an extra-dimensional theory that does produce testable and provable results, I will be perfectly happy to accept it as a realistic possibility.

Nice Dear Elizabeth Marie Watts

I suggest

visit this websitess://www.researchgate.net/project/Motley-String-Theory

More than detector about this work .

I think G.M detector as best of all

Kind regard

Qusay Kh. Al_Dulamey

Hi , nice to see your Interest in the High-Dimensional Physics/Universe!

My paper suggests and implies that we must FIRST CONFIRM that we indeed live in a Higher-Dimensional Universe. As a FIRST STEP.

AFTER that we will be BETTER prepared to IDENTIFY and ANALYSE the possible DOMAINS with (POSSIBLY) Different Spacial dimensions (both Motley String theory and Heterotic String Model suggest that) and BEGIN STUDY of them in earnest, using some NEW Methods that still REMAIN to be IDENTIFIED!

In my "W, Z bosons Scatter Experiment" proposal for CERN I suggested and described ONE such method.

David Deutsch has described ANOTHER method of CONFIRMING High-Dimensionality of the Universe using INTERFEROMETER and MIRRORS in his well known book.

Most likely there are some OTHER Methods and Techniques of making measurements of High-Dimensional Physics??? That is still OPEN Question.

Possibly Quantum Mechanics Experts (like yourself) can come up with one or two new PRACTICAL Ideas? ;-)

Best regards,

George Matveev

Hej,

appreciate your LONG reply message.

It is mentioned in my question, there SEEMS to be INDIRECT and QUITE SIMPLE way for us to CONFIRM that we indeed live in HIGH-Dimensional Universe!

It is similar to Regge slopes of Hadronic Resonances.

You can find description of "W, Z Bosons Scatter Experiment Proposal" for CERN attached to the Question or on my Motley String Project.

I first sent the Proposal to CERN Theory Division and TOP Management people in August 2019.

Not sure what THEY think since there was NO REPLY so far...

Managers are VERY BUSY and IMPORTANT people, do not like to be disturbed by researchers... :-)

If you have ANY comments regarding the Proposed Experiment, you are Most Welcome to provide them!

Until some one carries out the Proposed Experiment, String theory Researchers will have NO Choice but to Develop Theories that FIT their Models...and Provide ANSWERS to existing problems.

Motley String theory SOLVES ALL EXISTING Problems of High Energy Physics!

Cheers,

George Matveev

"Spatial" , or "spacelike", not 'spacial'. Just sayin'.

In loop quantum gravity, space-time is a network, and nodes replace the smooth background of Einstein’s theory of gravity. Loop quantum gravity studies bits; on the other hand, string theory studies the behavior of objects within space-time.

Rica ederim, dear Furkan Semih Dündar. Glad to help.

Space and other conceptual notions have been historically used to describe what we perceive in mathematical form. They can be understood in the context of conventional agreements, necessary to formulate theories and gain insights into natural phenomena.

In turn, conclusions gained from such theories as well as experimental findings have helped question our sensorial perception.

For example, we might tend to perceive physical objects as individual and even unchanging units yet we know no surface can be actually found that marks the end/beginning of any object.

Space is in the view here presented of a similar quality: is conventionally agreed upon and ingrained in our human experience when sensorial perception is taken as absolute truth.

If we want to understand energy beyond our limited perception, space needs to be examined/questioned.

Relenting to endeavour in such investigation is (in our view) the cause why general relativity and quantum physics cannot be merged and why concepts such as entanglement can remain mysterious or contradictory with grosser / classical aspects of energy.

So space can describe reality to certain level of practicality as you mentioned, yet it cannot describe reality ultimately.

Stam Nicolis So, your problem with my question lies in the terminology I used - correct? Specifically, is it the term "string solutions", by which I mean solutions of effective field equations for the background fields?

Dear Carlos,

I think a good introduction to Ramanujan modular forms (an advanced subject) is:

S. Kanemitsu et al.: Ramanujan's Formula and Modular Forms, Number Theoretic Method-Future Trends; Kluwer (2003). See pages 159-212.

Fabio M. S. Lima

> Opinion on how we and our school is doing in terms of identifying string theory in our ordinary business of life.

Directly I cannot see any way to link string theory with our everyday lives. String theory deals with a proposal of a unification scheme. It potentially gives a framework in which to discuss physics well outside of our usual experiences and the energy scales of collider experiments.

In directly, mathematical methods and ideas that originate in string theory (and related things) could find applications in other areas such as engineering, economic theory etc. However, right now I cannot think of a great example. Maybe one day.

And then there is the philosophical benefit of questioning the nature of our reality. This desire to know more is part of who we are.

There are two sides to your problem: the practical and the ambitional. You will have to look after both. Recognize the practical issues but don't let go of your ambition. You may have to get a temporary job just to live, but that does not mean you give up on your dreams.

Your problem is not unique and has been overcome by famous scientists. Faraday started working for a bookbinder and ended as a revered scientist. His personal drive got him through. Dirac got a first degree in electrical engineering and ended as a revered theorist. Einstein worked early on in a Patent office and ended as a revered theorist. Other examples can be found, such as Ramanujan. Now there's a great example of talent beating disadvantage. So you see, it's not the end of the world if there are practical difficulties in your way at this time in your life. If you keep your spirits high, focused on what really interests you, you may succeed. It may be very hard, but don't give up.

You should understand that training is not enough. You have to practice being creative. Some people on this forum will probably disagree with the following suggestion, but have a go at writing a paper on a novel topic and seeing the reaction. It may take time to find a problem that you can work on, and you may very well get rejection. But having a go will teach you more than doing a lecture course on analysis. Papers do not all have to be in quantum field theory or relativity. Go on the arXives and see what sort of topics are viable for you. Most likely, at this stage, it might be in the General Physics section. But at least you might start from there.

Good luck in your ambition. Never give up.

George Jaroszkiewicz

Dear Stam,

The continuum limit may be unnecessary for someone like you who sees EC as a modest extension to GR that enables modeling exchange of intrinsi and orbital angumar momentum (and improse some other things like elminating some singularities from GR).

However, I believe 99% of the graviational researchers (maybe 99% of researchers ove age 40) dont' accept this point of view. For them, the derivation of translatonal holonomy from a single Kerr mass and the continuum limit of distributions of Kerr masses might, just might, ignite a flame insight, or at least respect.

As an example of the problem, in January 2019, I submitted a slightly edited version of " to Phys Rev D, after trying CQG And GRG journals in the past year or two. I have appended the vebatim referre report below, and my response. Every sentence of the review after the first one is unmitigated horsefeathers.I have been on this case for 30 years, and I know what passes for competence out there.

The editor's response was brief: he stands by the original review.

Planck wrote: “A new scientific truth [that alters the elements of a field] does not triumph by persuading its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

--Max Planck, “Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers,” 1949, p 33-34.Quoted in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” by Thomas Kuhn, 4th edition, 2012, p 150.

I would prefer that someone who sees the light like you would help to get this into the mainstream.

The aim of the manuscript is to derive Einstein-Cartan theory form General Relativity by showing that in some GR configurations involving a distribution of Kerr black holes, there exists torsion using the concept of "translational holonomy." It is not at all clear what "translational holonomy" is supposed to be. The usual holonomy that defines curvature (what the author calls rotational holonomy) has the structure that it does precisely because torsion cancels. Therefore, I do not see how one can "derive" torsion when none existed in the first place. Moreover, the configuration that the author uses to "prove" this is not a stationary configuration as the Kerr masses will feel an attractive force with respect to one another.

The first sentence of the review correctly states the most important claim of the work.

The concept of holonomy is defined in references [1] page 87 and [2] page 71.

Translations are not treated the same as rotations in spacetime gauge theory. The root issue is that the geometric structure group (symmetry group) of GR and EC is the semidirect product of the Lorentz group and translations (which has a fixed origin point), not the Poincaré group (which has no preferred origin point). See [3] page 128 for a rather abstract statement of this positon. Therefore we must modify the definition of holonomy for translations.

The definition and construction of translational holonomy is discussed in the manuscript in sections 3.1 and 3.2.

I have provided a brief intuitive description of translational holonomy in section 3 of this document.

This statement is false in Riemannian geometry and in RC. It is a denial that RC can exist.

I believe the referee has in mind the derivation of Riemannian curvature by constructing a piecewise almost–closed loop from four geodesic segments. In this construction, the “failure-to-close” vector is generally nonzero for finite loops. The quantity that vanishes is:

limit[t → 0] (failure-to-close vector)/t^2 = 0.

The manuscript uses only closed loops, in which the “failure-to-close” vector is by definition zero. It use no geodesics.

In RC, my derivations of rotational curvature from rotational holonomy and of translational curvature (affine torsion) from translational holonomy work fine. See manuscript section 3.2. “Definition of curvature in terms of holonomy.”

(manuscript equation 3) limit[t → 0] (rotational holonomy)/t2 = rotational curvature

(manuscript equation 4) limit[t → 0] (translational holonomy)/t2 = translational curvature = torsion

The disruption of ordinary geometry (singularity?) inside each Kerr mass makes this possible, just as the core of a dislocation in a crystal enables torsion to exist around a dislocation, when there is none in the lattice outside the dislocation.

This referee’s statement is true. However, non-stationarity does not invalidate the result, any more than the non-stationarity of cosmological solutions in GR, invalidate GR.

The manuscript (constraint m << r in Table 2 in section 5.1) states that the present computation is valid only if the distance between Kerr masses is sufficiently large.

Here is why non–stationarity does not invalidate the results in the manuscript.

a) My configuration of Kerr masses starts with zero relative velocity. Therefore a finite time interval will pass before the attraction causes the Kerr masses to get so close that the computation requires additional terms. Throughout this time interval, translational holonomy (before the continuum limit is taken) and torsion are present.

b) We can do the computation in an expanding universe, so the torsion appears before the configuration begins to contract. I did not do this computation because argument (a) is adequate, and because adding expansion would make a complicated computation more complex.

This definition applies to structure groups that are inhomogeneous linear groups (groups that include translations).

5.1) Development of curves

“Development of a curve” is defined in section 3.1 of the manuscript. See also references [1] page 98 and [2] page 131.

The rationale for development of curves is to distinguish the influence of manifold geometry and acceleration of a curve.

5.2) Definition of translational holonomy in terms of development of curves

Section 3.2 of the manuscript contains a theoretical and procedural definition of translational holonomy in terms of development of curves into Euclidian space.

The basic idea is to develop a spacetime loop into a Euclidean space, and use the “failure-to-close” vector of the “almost–closed” loop in Euclidean space to define the torsion translation in spacetime.

1. Geometry of Manifolds, 1964, by Richard J. Bishop and Richard L. Crittenden, Academic Press. For physicists, I recommend [1], which is more geometrical and intuitive, over [2] which is more abstract.

2. Foundations of Differential Geometry, vol 1, 1963, by Shoshichi Kobayashi and Katsumi Nomizu, John Wiley and Sons.

3. Transformation groups in Differential Geometry, 1972, by Shoshichi Kobayashi, Springer Verlag.

You should get your answer in standard books (eg. Green, Schwartz, Witten), however you may have a look at the following online material from NIKHEF; it includes a fairly rigorous derivation of central charge and critical dimension, and also the relation a=(D-2)/24

Introduction to String Theory, by A.N. Schellekens

tps://www.nikhef.nl/~t58/StringLectures2014.pdf

Section 3.9

Also see this Ph.D thesis, from Universidad Aut ́onoma de Madrid, by Amadeo Jim ́enez, which discusses various ways of symmetry breaking in Holographic models, Spontaneous breaking, Anomalous breaking, transport phenomenon and so on, http://inspirehep.net/record/1607633/files/fulltext.pdf

If "feeling" and "consciousness" are ignored, I think mind and matter could be accomodated in a single theory framework. In contrast, we indeed never assign "consciousness" to matter, and henceforth, the origin of the entire hardship of our concern obviously.

Find some interesting applications of group theory in the following link:

Ziaedin Shafiei Dear Ziaedin,

The problem depends on how one defines and accepts a trick. If we understand by a trick a "skillful act" that can be put in simple sequences of logical steps, then it is a mathematical act. If we understand by a trick an act intended to "deceive or mystify" others or oneself, then this clearly cannot be accepted. The problem is accepting illogical ideas put in deceptive bright capsules.

I'm a postdoctoral researcher and I have been working with the AdS/CFT correspondence for the past 5 years.

Personaly, I don't think that the AdS/CFT can be used to make precise predictions about the real physical world, but I do think that it provides us a large class of toy models that we can use to learn a few things about the physical reality. Let me give you a few examples:

- the most known example of AdS/CFT correspondence is the duality between the so-called N=4 super Yang-Mills (SYM) theory and type IIB supergravity. As you probably know already, some quantities that are very hard to calculate in the SYM theory can be easily calculated in the gravitational description. So, intead of doing complicated calculations in a very complicated quantum theory, you can do some classical calculations in the gravitational description.

One of the first pratical applications of the AdS/CFT correspondence was its use to study the quark gluon plasma (QGP) formed in heavy ion collisions. Of course, the plasma formed in such collisions is in principle described by QCD, but there are a lot of physical quantities of the plasma that cannot be studied (or are very hard to study) using the framework of perturbative or lattice QCD.

One possible approach to this problem is to use the N=4 SYM as a model for QCD and to do the calculations using the gravitational description provided by the AdS/CFT correspondence. The N=4 SYM theory does not describe anything in the real physical world, and indeed is very different from QCD. However, when one considers both these theories at finite temperature, they are not so different after all, and there are some universal quantities that do not depend very much on the specific model that one considers. So, when you use the AdS/CFT to study the QGP, you are not studying the real-world QGP, but you are actually studying some other 'plasma' that is not so different from the real thing. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the phylosophy here is that you have a toy model, from which you hope to learn something about the physical reality.

With these approach people have proposed, for instance, that the shear viscosity of the QGP should be very small, and this indeed was confirmed by the experiment.

There is also a similar approach involving applications of AdS/CFT to study condensed matter systems.

The AdS/CFT duality has also provided inspiration for several other developments in the theoretical physics, for instance:

(1) the development of a hydrodynamical theory in the presence of conformal anomaly;

(2) a brand new description of quantum chaos;

(3) connection between gravity and information theory.

The last two topics are very popular right now. In (1) and (2), the first calculations were done using AdS/CFT, and this inspired some developments which did not rely in the existence of a gravity dual.

Some people might say that AdS/CFT might provide a precise description of reality, but I personally don't know whether this is true. My phylosophy is to consider AdS/CFT a toy model and use that to learn something about the physical reality. From my experience in the field, I can say that this approach has been very successful and it is still very popular. Note that with this phylosophy it does not matter whether string theory has experimental confirmation or not, because you're just using it as a toy model.

Regarding the number of postdocs in the field: I think there is a decreasing number of people working exclusively with string theory, but there is an increasing (and already large) number of people working with AdS/CFT (the two communities are not necessarily the same).

All the best,

Viktor

i follow

I don't enjoy the aggressive tone used by many contributors to blogs on RG. I believe that people who know me do not blame me to be arrogant; and I don't think that I am particularly stubborn. I actually only try to sometimes comment on questions. People who do not like my comments are not obliged to study them! I am retired, and I do not have to make a career, anymore. But sometimes I am still thinking about science, and I am interested in upholding intellectual honesty. (There are no benefits to be gained from kidding oneself into believing that certain problems are understood or, at least, promise to be understood, soon, when they are very poorly understood.)

Before you start investigating textbooks and study programs in fields of science, you should seriously contemplate whether you want to invest your life and talents in these areas.

The Standard Model of Particle Physics were completed in the mid-1970's. Try to explore which new, experimentally verified, ideas have emerged in the field of theoretical particle physics since then. Likewise, string theory was invented in the late 1960's and superstring theory during 1970's. Try to find out what these theories have contributed to observed physics.

The recent discovery of gravitational waves have opened new ways to explore cosmology and astro(particle) physics. This will hopefully lead to new insights and increased activity, both observationally and theoretically.

up date...

The answer to the question raised is a simple No.

String Theory is not a theory in the sense of a 'physical theory' *). It is a collection of mathematical ideas and promises for the future. From Wikipedia: "It is not known to what extent string theory describes the real world." Nevertheless, there is a lot of public propaganda (“The Elegant Universe”) and hopefulness (in 2001), as expressed by the sentence:

"The successes of the theory depend on a sequence of amazing discoveries that is just not plausible if the theory is an accident, rather than part of the description of nature." (E. Witten: Lecture notes "String Theory", Princeton, Oct. 2001)

Considering that the 'amazing discoveries' are of purely mathematical nature (without any hope of experimental verification), everybody can agree that they are not 'an accident'. But the conclusion that, therefore, they must be 'part of the description of nature' is not based on empirical observations, but rather on this argument: The mathematics is too amazing not to be the real description of nature.

* A physical theory is a model of physical events. It is judged by the extent to which its predictions agree with empirical observations (from Wikipedia: Theoretical Physics). An Advocatus Diaboli could ask: Where are the physical events, where are the predictions, where are the empirical observations, on which String Theory is based.

what if the Tachyon is neither matter nor energy but a third kind of entity which is only defined by it's speed being greater than that of light? in my book, which i have uploaded on this website, called, "Musings of a Neurologist", there is a theorem on Tachyon(s). they do not interact with either matter or energy. however, we can know about their existence indirectly. this indirect existence of Tachyon(s) is if we see matter moving at speeds greater than that of light in vacuum. i believe, the astronomers have observed many galaxies moving at speeds that is greater than that of light. they have tried to explain this by saying that if we add up the speeds of the galaxy to the rate of expansion of the universe, then the observed violation is only apparent and not real. however, this goes against the very basic idea of relativity, which says that what you observe is the truth for your frame of reference. also, one cannot use the galilean addition of speeds and the relativistic addition of speeds at the same time. thanks. 

One dimensional objects are not observed anywhere in nature. Strings are just an idea of locations best represented physically as the intersection of two surfaces. Vibration modes can be made to represent fundamental particles, depending on the character of the intersecting sources.

Infinities are not observed in nature either. There is no way to measure them. So in principle the structure of scientific theory cannot be derived from infinities.

The soundness of string theory is debatable. It needs 26 dimensions or a super symmetry of 12 dimensions. A family of Dark Matter particles is essential in the super symmetry, but the Dark Matter particles have not been found. I give the 26 dimensions a better chance of success.

For your question the answer should be no. Infinities do not help a physical theory. 

Alright Bianca, Dibakar,  et al,

I’ll see ALL YOUR QUANTUM FIELD THEORY TEXTBOOKS…and raise you the 2017 CRISIS IN PARTICLE PHYSICS: “Spiropulu in 2014 compared the current crisis in particle physics to the situation before 1905 when the concept of the classical materialism ether as the medium for all electromagnetic waves could not be verified, stating that if sparticles and dark matter are not detected within the next few years, then radical new ideas will be required.”

[12] M.Spiropulu,TheFutureoftheHiggsBoson,2014.http://meetings.aps. org/Meeting/APR14/Session/A1.2

[13] American Physical Society, Particle Physics Gathering Storm, 2014. http://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/42

Check the calendar, it’s 2017 and radical new ideas are still required—which you will not find in your outdated textbooks or conference proceedings. The current path your 4D quantum geometries and torsion project is on is not going to solve anything either, since the dirty little secret (DLS) of the prevailing theories of modern physics is all your “explanations” ultimately depend on “hidden dimensional unknown material mechanisms”—all of which are conjectured to act by unobservable AdS/CFT background in direct contradiction to the observed forces you claim to be describing!

Scandalous. For example, Bianca, Dibakar, et al, find the sections in your textbooks where the strong nuclear force is said to act by the unobservable AdS/CFT background of quark-gluon-quark fluxtube continuous emission-carrier-absorption. The fundamental contradiction being it is always observed any such emission-carrier-absorption always results in a repulsion from any would-be line of attraction.

Note the opposite of quantization and reproducibility is divergence…and now in the 2017 CRISIS IN PARTICLE PHYSICS the entire Standard Model of Physics is diverging en masse into Supersymmetry sparticles…all of which are zero-dimensional (0D) imaginary-invisible mathematical point particles having the 4D spacetime measurements of nothingness…containing all of your Tensor Network Initiative 4D quantum geometry torsion project hidden dimensional unknown material mechanism compounded ethers…all of which, so you say, exploded from the original Big Bang 0D mathematical point having the 4D spacetime measurements of nothingness…before spacetime existed! If you are looking for just how to characterize the source of the 2017 CRISIS IN PARTICLE PHYSICS…there you have it.

The problem with dark energy is it’s difficult to assign yet another compounded hidden dimensional unknown material mechanism to “explain” dark energy because that indicates everything is connected just like in rejected pilot wave theory.

The fundamental multiverse self-contradiction by self-definition is an “infinite number” of random unobservable disordered universes are conjectured to “explain” the observed finely-tuned ordered universe.

Multiverse theory is a bait-and-switch scientific con game—starting with its “infinite randomness” conjecture: In an “infinite number” universes anything imaginable (e.g., a “miracle” cure of all ALS cases) has a 100% probability of occurring in an “infinite number” of so-called “trivally real” parallel universes.

Infinity being the bait is of course not a number, so infinity must be switched out for some number: 10^(400) universes says Hawking, no no there are 10^(500) says Linde re their Higgs Boson Doomsday conjectures. Notice however switching infinity for some number—pulled out from wherever…constitutes semi-intelligent design. Nevertheless that is what all of your promising Phd careers are based on right now.

Funny story: When I was an undergraduate intern at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Nuclear Science Division, I asked my mentor, Dr. Hans Georg Ritter, Director of the Theoretical Physics Group, “How is it you think the virtual quark-gluon-quark interaction—in its virtual state—carries the attractive strong force, contrary to the always observed repulsion of emitter-absorber pairs from the would-be line of attraction?” He answered:“Everyone makes their own little toys to explain it.” I thought it was the best answer he could have made, except I didn't like those toys. I didn't want to play with those toys, which never worked like they say they do anyway.

The point being Bianca, Dibakar, et al, right now all you are doing at the Perimeter Institute Tensor Network Initiative 4D quantum geometry torsion project is constructing yet more fatally-flawed imaginary toys that will never work = CONTRADICTION BY AI FAILURE.

Sadly the Perimeter Institute Tensor Network Initiative is the closest match I’ve found to the radical new idea of my 4D GEM EOS optimized lattice gauge group spin-stress pressure tensor wavetrain integrations group operation—leaving me more convinced than ever the only way to prove the conjecture (other than just by clicking through the Mathematica code) is by AI-ATP Peer Review.

Once added to the Mizar corpus, Standard Model researchers, such as at the Perimeter Institute, could then modify the conjecture python code to attempt to find your infinite variations of hidden variables—if the Perimeter Institute has any interest in actually doing so. I rather doubt that though. Like the growing list of Phd’s before you, I’ll wager you are thinking about deleting these comments right? Talk about it first.

OK fine, at this posting there’s only been 16 project reads. So I’ll just sign-off with the following all upper-case conclusion:

"Can we write Dirac equation with replacing gamma matrices with others that we construct in the aim to describe graviton?"

Yes, it is possible (but not simple!). The Dirac algebra corresponds to spin-½. The Kemmer algebra corresponds to spin-1. The graviton (if it exists) would be a massless spin-2 particle. There is a general theory of “spin-s” field equations (see for example Corson’s book https://archive.org/details/IntroductionToTensorsSpinorsRelativisticWaveEquations.

Madhava Rao http://www-old.ias.ac.in/j_archive/proca/15/3/139-147/viewpage.htmlhttp://ci.nii.ac.jp/els/contentscinii_20170711162124.pdf?id=ART0001534632

investigated the spin 3/2 and spin-2 algebras.

@ Adrian Sfarti ;;

my dear Adrian Sfarti do you have any objection if i comment? arey faltu he constructed his theory on string theory go and read once again empty vessel...

Dear Mr. Lin,

Here is a quora reply where I explain why GR is wrong.

See the activities of V. O. Manturov

This link may help you

I think that the most primitive form of consciousness is humanity. It exists among all creatures. Its vibration harmonizes with nature and transmitting in the universe without fading. It links with the rightness Qi and nourishing particles.

There are tangible world and intangible world coexist in the universe. The intangible world regulated the tangible world with invisible power. However, this power is hard to be noticed if anyone refuses to recognize its exist. If only study the tangible world, the wisdom is limited and leave many mysteries without explained. If put both of the tangible and intangible into consideration, wisdom generated, time-test solutions coming out that solve the real-world problem from the root level. It does not harm the other creatures and can last long to pass the time test.

Newton and Einstein's theory treats time as continuous flowing in one direction from past to present to future. In my theories I consider this as imaginary time. And since space time are not independent of each other, both are imaginary. The reality is based on wavelengths and periods of the particle waves. So time is periodic in nature. Definition of this periodic time quanta comes from de Broglie formalism as discussed in following article. The shortest time for anything to happen is Planck time 10^(-43) sec. When the period of the wave gets any smaller than this, it crosses the compton limit on wavelength 10^(-35) m. and this will make the particle wave to collapse leaving no mass gap. So energy of the particle will become perfectly motionless.

as string theoreticians saw that the theory isn`t completely they introduced more dimensions, branes, m-branes; nonstandard Analysis (where a*b=-b*a) and so on. string theory won`t sove the Problems physicians have (that`s what I Postulate) 

Yes, there is a free pdf of paper on google.

As pointed out above, the fundamental difference between Quantum and classical mechanics is the algebra of the obervable operators. Classical mechanics in the Hilbert space was introduced by Koopman and von Neumann.

In this way, the classical equation of motion is linear and very similar to Liouville's equation. The price to pay for having a linear equation of motions is that it becomes a partial differential equation, which is in most cases more difficult to solve. This represents an important challenge at the time to apply control. Nevtheless, it is possible as shown in one of my preprint publications.

The AdS/CFT correspondence is one of the largest areas of research in string theory. AdS/CFT stands for Anti-de Sitter/Conformal Field Theory, an expression that’s not particularly elucidating.

AdS/CFT is a particular, and deeply surprising, example of a duality. It relates two very different theories and at first sight seems obviously wrong.

It states that there is a duality between theories of gravity in five dimensions and quantum field theories (QFTs) in four dimensions. This correspondence was first formulated by Juan Maldacena in 1997, and is generally thought to be the single most important result in string theory in the last twenty years.

The original example of AdS/CFT linked two very special theories. The gravitational side involved a particular extension of gravity (type IIB supergravity) on a particular geometry (5-dimensional Anti-de-Sitter space). The QFT was the unique theory with the largest possible amount of supersymmetry. There’s a specific dictionary that translates between the theories.

This relationship has no formal mathematical proof. However a very large number of checks have been performed. These checks involve two calculations, using different techniques and methods, of quantities related by the dictionary. Continual agreement of these calculations constitutes strong evidence for the correspondence.

The first example has by now been extended to many other cases, and AdS/CFT is more generally referred to as the gauge-gravity correspondence. Formally this is the statement that gravitational theories in (N+1) dimensions can be entirely and completely equivalent to non-gravitational quantum field theories in N dimensions.

The AdS/CFT correspondence has a very useful property. When the gravitational theory is hard to solve, the QFT is easy to solve, and vice-versa! This opens the door to previously intractable problems in QFT through simple calculations in gravity theories.

Moreover AdS/CFT allows a conceptual reworking of the classic problems of general relativity. Indeed if general relativity can be equivalent to a QFT, then neither one is deeper than the other. Finally physicists can use it to develop new intuitions for both QFT and general relativity.

Your interesting general question reminds me of my more specific question of whether or not someone is strong enough to write down the field equations in such a way that the speed of light c is a global constant (and not just an everywhere locally valid constant)?

For the Kerr (-Newman) black holes this is given by the Komar integral belonging to the Killing field, associated to the SO(2) isometry group. For details, see e.g. my GR- book (Springer 2013), eq. (8.187).

But in the typical reflection the kinetic energy goes to zero at the wall while the potential energy is at a maximum so there is a force that explains the reflection,  If a wave travels down a funnel it does not reflect.  So I say these imaginary traveling ways are nonsense.  Where is the equation of motion if the wave is standing?  Where is the stroboscopic image of these two waves that some how reflect to make one.  There is a curve lifting function between the string at rest and the string in wave form that is point-for-point so the only force vectors are orthogonal to the string axis.

Statements about the string without quantifiers are provable.  Can you prove there is a mode lower than the fundamental with wavelength 2L? Of course not.

This Is a good question with many possible answers.

Let A be an n-dimensional geometrical figure represented by.a set

of points on an n-sphere S^n (hypersphere). And let

f: S^n --> R^n be a continuous mapping such that f(A) is a

feature vector that describes A, e.g.,

f(A) = (area(A), diameter(A), ...) in R^n

Then represents (describes) A.

No, sorry, most of this does not make sense to me.  The bottom line is that there is no way you are going to make the two-element set F₂ into a field with operations + and * that are the same.

If you are trying to model the notes in an octave via an interval on the real line and you want to identify notes that differ by an integer number of octaves as the same, the natural way to do that would seem to be the quotient group R/Z (the real numbers modulo the integers), which is isomorphic to the circle group S¹.  Note that this is only a group, though, not a field.

The wave equation is an equation, for the amplitude of vibration, which is a function of position and time. What the wave equation expresses, is a relation between the spatial and time derivatives of the amplitude. So to solve this equation means to search for a function of position and time, whose derivatives satisfy the appropriate condition. Now an arbitrary function of position isn't, necessarily,  an eigenfunction of the spatial derivative operator (defined on the space of functions that satisfy the boundary conditions appropriate to the problem), which is a linear operator. Therefore it can be expressed as a linear combination of the  eigenfunctions of this operator, that are called, in this context, the modes of vibration. Since the spatial derivative and the time derivative, defined as operators that act on the function space referred to, can be shown to commute, it's possible to expand the amplitude in a basis of functions that are common eigenfunctions to both operators.

If the wave equation is a linear equation, then each mode, also, is a particular solution of the wave equation. 

That's all there is to it. 

They need not be, but, indeed, what matters is that the scale, where they're relevant, is that where gravitational effects become comparable to quantum effects, which is much smaller than the scale of the cell, where electromagnetic effects dominate.

In elementary particle physics, particles assume zero volume, that is they are point particles. If uncertainty in position is zero, then uncertainty in momentum is very large. Therefore, while calculating amplitudes of physical processes, one has to integrate over momentum from zero to infinity. The physical cross sections therefore diverge. One has to then renormalize the theory.

One may ask whether it is possible to get rid of this problem by considering particles as extended objects such as strings. Strings are not points, but they are one dimensional objects living in more than four dimensions. We know that a particle sweeps out a world-line when it moves in 3D. In a similar manner a string sweeps out a world sheet. Which is a two dimensional surface. Space time coordinates Xμ (μ=1,2,..10)  are functions of world sheet coordinates, that is, they are described as scalar fields X_μ(σ,τ) . They are determined by a two dimensional field theory defined on the world sheet. One such (2D) field theory model is given by the Nambu-Goto action.  Another more sophisticated model is given by the Polyakov action. In this way space-time coordinates (including the compact ones) are dynamically generated in a string picture.

Strings represent a theoretical concept possibly useful to provide a mathematical description of a certain subset of natural phenomena. Modern physics does not talk about "substance" (such as ether, heat,...), anymore; i.e., we do not ask what things like particles, fields or strings are made of. Instead, these notions refer to theoretical concepts that appear as mathematical objects in some of our theories. The success of these concepts is gauged according to whether those theories yield accurate descriptions of natural phenomena, or not. - For the time being, string theory isn't really a THEORY, but, rather, a surprisingly coherent set of rules enabling the experts to perform many amazing calculations and mathematical operations. It retrodicts a large set of physical phenomena from a fairly unified point of view; but it has not made any specific predictions that could serve to prove it wrong or right.

This is a very interesting question with lots of possible answers.

A place to start in looking for answers to this question is in

Sujan Dabholkar, Exploring Warped Compactifications of Extra Dimensions, Ph.D. thesis, Stony Brook University, 2014:

In this thesis, we have higher-dimensional views of the universe, e.g.:

5D view: 5-dimensional Minkowski space M5, the Anti de Sitter (AdS) Universe is a hypersurface, p. 67.

7D view: This 7D view results from considering Buscher rules along z direction.

1D, 2D, 3D and 4D views of space-time are considered in

Maroun, Michael Anthony, Generalized Quantum Theory and Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory, Ph.D. thesis, UC Riverside, 2013:

See Section 5.1.1., starting on page 72, on counting the dimensions of space.

Dear Nounahon,

                               I would suggest you take a look at my papers on Haag Theorem and Politcial Environment and Stock Markets papers on my RG page. They might be helpful. Although I do not know what exactly you mean by topological twist is it conformal flows or heterotic flows that you are looking for? SKM QC FEPS(D)

No. We do not have even a consistent theory for quantum gravity(and it seems probable that Einstein's theory cannot be quantized at all)

In general, one can have a holographic correspondence for open manifolds. Maldacena conjectured that all information of a string theory in AdS_5\times S_5 is contained a 4d N=4 Super-Yang-Mills theory. The correspondence can be reasonable generalized only for few other cases. The particular case that I have mentioned is substeined by calculations' tests, but it was not demonstrated.

Gluons don't interact-directly-with photons, because gluons don't  carry electric charge and photons don't carry color, the charge of the strong interactions. Of course, since gluons do interact with quarks and quarks do carry electric charge, also,  it is possible to describe an effective gluon-photon interaction this way and is a standard calculation. While electromagnetic waves are affected by variations of the spacetime metric, an example being bending of light, the weakness of the interactions is such that it isn't possible to detect individual photons interacting with individual gravitons. In any case, however, the interaction is known since Reissner and Nordstrom and can be found in all textbooks. It is also relevant for describing perturbations in the early universe.

While ``graviton shot noise'' may not be observable, that gravitational waves can be described as coherent superpositions of spin-2 excitations is a well-known property of general relativity and the agreement between the calculation of the variation of the period of binary pulsars with time, and its measurement-that resulted in the award of the Nobel Prize in Physics to Hulse and Taylor isn't possible otherwise.

I don't know to what paper or text Smolin was referring, but Einstein's thoughts on Kaluza-Klein are discussed in some detail in Pais's scientific biography of Einstein.

At first, Einstein sought singularity-free, empty space solutions of the 5-dimensional theory. I.e., he was hoping that Kaluza-Klein might produce a solution that corresponds to an electron in our four dimensional spacetime. Together with Grommer (Scripta Jerusalem Univ. 1, No. 7, 1923) he showed that no such centrally symmetric singularity-free solutions exist. In 1926, in a letter to Ehrenfest, he expressed his misgivings that Kaluza's theory is "too unnatural". But then, in 1927, writing to Lorentz, he stated that unification was "achieved in a completely satisfactory way in by the five-dimensional theory".

In 1931, with Mayer (PAW, 1931, p. 541), he presented a new formalism in which the fifth dimension was no longer an "extension of the physical continuum". However, in this formalism it was necessary to assume that F_kl is the curl of a 4-vector, and the field equations were not derivable from an action principle. This approach was abandoned after 1932.

Later, in 1938, Einstein once again considered a five-dimensional theory. This time around, his hope was that the quantum nature of our four-dimensional world would arise from a classical five-dimensional field theory. (Einstein and Bergmann, Ann. Math. 39, 683, 1938; Einstein, Bargmann, and Bergmann, T. von Kármán Anniversary Volume, p. 212, CalTech 1941.)

When this ho