Re: We are not Smart Enough

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>http://p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue6/MichioKaku.htm
>
>
>MichioKaku:"Edward Witten, impressed by the vast new areas of
>mathematics opened up by the superstring theory, has said that the
>superstring theory represents "21th century physics that fell
>accidentally into the 20th century." This is because the superstring
>theory was discovered almost by accident. By the normal progression of
>science, we theoretical physicists might not have discovered the
>theory for another century.
>
>The superstring theory may very well be 21st century physics, but the
>bottleneck has been that 21st century mathematics has not yet been
>discovered. In other words, although the string equations are
>perfectly well-defined, no one is smart enough to solve them."
>
>To me Smolin did the right thing. He sifted together the prevailing
>ideas and out of it he brought forth the new math? Wilson loops were
>tackled early and did not provide a good foundation, yet we find that
>a prevailing logic was developed that lead to topological
>considerations?
>
>Are maths naturally created or invented? We see a process that unfolds
>that asks us to look at all that we have , and what do we find? Fuzzy
>logic? Does it work and finding the commonailty of vision in equative
>sense, that is to become consistent lanquage interpretation?
>
>If we can inject our views into this process then have we indeed
>diavowed our self from actually speaking at all, to the physics of ?
>
>Such accidents then become the alien artifact, and there are many who
>have a clear vison of things. They do not know how to describe it? A
>language that could have been universal? Rare events are those then
>that can penetrate the mind, and where does such ideas come from?
>
>Sol


Newton just made stuff up to suit. Some said he plagerized,
but he basically just concieved of thing and then named it,
and showed the relationships. As long as it is based on
logic, can be communicated to another so that the other
person understands, and it makes sense and it has
some bearing in fact and experimental considerations
are taken into account, then anything goes.

Imagine what Newton did. That was a bigger leap than what 
Einstein did.

By the time Einstein came around there were plenty of people
who knew a great deal about calculus and algebra and
physics and chemistry and all the sciences.

In fact, if you look at Hilbert, he was a week ahead
of Einstein, submitting the same theory, but Einstein
had the equasions, and Hilbert did not. 

But Einstein was just one of many people who contributed
to modern physics.

So if string theory, can describe the physical multiverse, 
then that is half the human equasion. It will not be able 
to describe emotions or consciousness or form, as
opposed to substance, I don't think.

The idea of a vibration on a string, is similar to a wave.
That has bearing with reality as we know it.

But how can it describe the view outside a sphere?

A view from hyperspace for instance.

Hilbert space does not put restrictions on dimensions.

Yet string theory talks of ten dimensions.

So how would string theory account for infinity such as
n-dimensional space or Hilbert space which assumes
there an infinite number of possible dimensions.

My line of thinking is that the multiverse consists of
layers of physical spheres, each a shell that is
a set of frequencies, a known or consistent or fixed set,
which make up the elements.

But even the concept of a sphere does not describe 
what we think of as a loaf of bread rising with raisins
in it, with a ruler painted on the side of the rising 
loaf of bread and rulers on the raisins.

So for me, GR and SR still provide the best model,
with gravity as a force, running in the opposite 
direction, of the arrow of time, with matter expanding 
as well as space.

But if you want to merely change the names, and adopt the
model, and apply the strings to the model, that would still
be OK, as long as it moved us further ahead in our
understanding of the way the universe works.

Wave theory is a beautiful thing and applicable in
all areas of our reality, and vibrating strings are 
waves, and so it may not be overly difficult to do.

It might be better as well to encompass the whole
with a new theory such as string theory, rather
than add to relativity, as that might be confusing,
and string theory is already in development.