Re: We are not Smart Enough

If you trace back through history, form and substance
and the cosmos and lines of force and the universe and 
then the multiverse, it has always been concieved of as
spheres within spheres.

The music of the spheres.

Even the concept of quantum foam, is multiple tiny spheres
as a base form of reality. The speheres themselves 
not being independant, but passing through each other and
bisecting each other and forming larger spheres, amd
even to the point of fractals and order out of chaos.

pi and the golden mean, and geodesics, and topography,
and the Riemann sphere. The Rhieman spere was merely an 
attempt to rationalize a limit, which Planck seemed
to find when he examined black body radiation.

The idea that at the most fundamental level there
might be straight or flat sections. 

But if you look at it from the perspective of a 
vibrating string.

Then a string would be like a ray, and each main crest
of a wave, travelling at c, along the string,
might be a shell and the distance between crests,
might be of planck length, or perhaps Planck length
times two, with a real and an imaginary part.

Then you could encompass such things as harmonics, and all the
rest of wave theory into the model.

Irrational vibrations and chaotic vibrations and even faster
than c vibrations, and red shifts, etc.

But keep in mind that these waves sometimes meet. And explode ;-)
with a doppler effect. So the idea of the string as in a
a ball of string is insufficient to account for the actual
flexibility or etheric quality of lines of force.

Or perhaps the power of these waves. 

However, there is one great advantage.

You can curve the string ray, in two more directions
x, and y, and that allows you to visualize something that you 
cannot visualize with spherical shells.

So it is worth pursuing for that reason alone.

What would that equate to?

If relativity would be the stretching or contracting of the 
string, maybe quantum uncertainty or hyperdimensional
twisting of perspective reality might be the x and y axis.

If you look at it like a time line, then that allows you
to move from one string to another string laterally,
and that equates to free choice.

Non locality might be a transferance of resonance from
one string to another but how can you describe that
across great distances? Perhaps if the strings all
originated at the smae smaller more condense area,
and some information that travelled on these strings,
was not reliant on the limitations of c, then
information could travel the strings perhaps
instantaneously in a way that might describe
non-locality.

A photon is a wave packet. But what about light cones?
Polarization?

I think that we are smart enough, but I am not sure we
are ambitious enought to try and turn it into 
the GUT when we can concieve of the GUT with SR and GR
and some additions or addendums.

But if anyone is up to the challenge, you don't have to
replace any previous theory. Newtonian physics
is still Newtonian physics even with SR and GR and
quantum physics just says, well you can't relate the
quantum world to the macro world.

So looking for a quantum description of gravity, is
like looking for something that does not exist, when quantum
pohysics deals with different types of forces, not
specifically mass, as mass is implied, although the Higgs Bosun
was put forward, it does not exist (At least I don't think
it does) and gravity is like mass. A quality things posess
like mass, based on the same thing, the expansion of the 
universe.

Electromagnetism is more like interactions of waves, which 
are on a different plane of existence than gravity in
one sense. Gravity has already happened, as an artifact
of time, and EM waves are ripples left over from the
event. They linger, and interact, but gravity is like the 
engine driving the whole thing on, and creating mass
in the process. The waves, do not have mass. Only the
atoms have mass and gravity. When we say light is bent
by gravity, what we mean is that light follows the geodesics
of an expanding universe.

-*-