What Was The Main Difficulty Einstein Faced When He Tried To Unify GR With Particle Theory?

On 29 Apr 2007 07:08:41 -0700, sdr wrote:

On Apr 29, 7:34 am, HMSBeagle wrote:

The idea of extra dimensions from quantum field theory only arrises
secondarily from that theory. It is not the case that physicists
religiously assumed that there are more dimensions and that they then
painted themselves into a mathematical corner and are now "driven", as
you say, to work out complex mathematics.

God, I hope it never crosses your mind
to unabomb anything.

As for the rest of this post, I don't know who is addressing who and
it seems like several posts all appended togethor in a chain. There
are so many things stated below that are simply factually false or
otherwise bad analogies. There are too many for me to spend over an
hour picking them apart for you.

Ah! You really ought to be a researcher! O what
a marvelous researcher you would be: "There are
50 ways to get cold fusion, so I won't bother
explaining all 50 of them..."

Thanks for telling me who was talking to who there.
Anyways ...


Just to point out a falsehood at random --,
The extra dimensions are NOT used to "balance an equation". This is a
fundamental misunderstanding of string theory. Take for example,
bosonic strings. Their equations have to be stated in 26 (twenty six)
dimensions. If you don't use 26 dimensions, you get infinities under
certain conditions or other oddities such as zero divided by zero.
Point being that it's not a matter of "balancing an equation", rather
it is a matter of having the theory even make sense at all.

Sir, take it from me: You are mentally unbalanced.
(Either that, or you just don't realize that getting
your equation properly balanced is the same as
not having it turn up queer results [not make sense]
as you mention above!) Which is really the same...
So I suggest a good doctor (sir, this means NOT a
poor one, you understand).


Oh how nice. A newsgroup troll! Hi, newsgroup troll.


As for sane folks... and string theory: The rule
(against it) is self-evidently inviolable (so there
really is no reason to go beyond here):

If there is a fundamental particle
it requires God to have created it.

In conventional religion the universe itself is
that fundamental particle, therefore God creates
the universe (actually, the originators of these
religions didn't even know about the existence of
the universe so they have their gods laboring for
days on planet Earth to the neglect of "the rest
of the stuff out there"). In string theory it is the
"strings" themselves which are fundamental...
and that makes string theory fantasy, not science.
String theory "science" requires taking the string
apart. And we're not there yet.

In this arena, science is about the ongoing quest
to discover what our most fundamental particles
are made of (how they are put together). And NOT
(never) about setting any of them up as ultimately
fundamental. This is why modern physics is said
to have begun with the idea that it was possible
to split the atom (the last fundamental particle ever
proposed by true/real science).

"The atom is the last fundamental particle of ever proposed by
true/real science".
You heard it here first, kids.