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

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

On Apr 22, 6:51 pm, Tareq
wrote:
What was the main difficulty that faced Einstein
when he tried to unify GR with electromagnetism ?
Thanks

If by "electromagnetism" you mean the Standard
Model/Quanta theory, then the answer is simple
enough: The main difficulty that faced Einstein when
he tried to unify GR with SM/Q theory was, of course,
that Gravity doesn't really "exist" (as a "force").

Therefore there are NO "mediating" sub-particles for
"gravity" (so there can never be any to be found).

And so even proposing such particles theoretically (as
part of a mind-experiment) will create insurmountable
obstacles to their "integration" with particles that do
really exist (and are almost fully explained in SM/Q).

Which SEE: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

It would be like trying to "unify" SM/Q theory with
the works of Shakespea Both work marvelously
BECAUSE they are altogether different things and
exist by incompatible rules. Try to "unify" them,
however, and you instantly run into some really
marvelous problems... something akin to insanity.
(Trying to explain Shakespeare in terms of SM/Q
theory would be as insane as trying to explain SM/Q
theory in terms of Shakespearean blank verse.)

"I am a poet, sir. I know babble when I see it."

That's what happened to Einstein, and to everyone
who has tried the futile exercise since. The Standard
Model/Quanta "forces and particles" work within their
"discovered" frameworks/architectures across logical
and reasonable distances... beyond/outside which they
of course cease to work--thereby proving that it is
through their mediating sub-particles that they work.

"Gravity" on the other hand is purely an "observed
effect" in the universe: There is no point trying to
find a "sub-particle" mediating the "pull" between a
bit of mass at one end of the universe to another bit
of mass at the opposite end of the universe. No such
"mediating particle" exists; and if there really were
geniuses they would have immediately seen that NO
SUCH MEDIATING PARTICLE COULD POSSIBLY EXIST).

And yet Gravity's "pulling effect" (of one little bit
of mass at one end of the universe for that other
little bit of mass at the other, opposite end of the
universe) does "appear" to be occurring. Why didn't
Einstein and other so-called geniuses try to open an
entirely new approach to try to explain this obvious
self-evident "visible effect" of gravity (than the ole
"hardly possible" particle physics one)...? Because he
was a human being after all (something we tend to wish
to forget (for Einstein most especially of all); and
in the end all human beings are prisoners of the time
in which they live: The SM/Q explanation was the only
reasonable avenue of inquiry open to him (and to all
the other antiquarians forever remaining among us).

"Gravity" works. It just doesn't work "because of" the
solutions in Standard Model/Quanta theory. And any
attempt to explain gravity in terms of SM/Q particle
theory is bound to fail (unless it's a sham, or "hyper
science fiction*" stuff, of course--although we've
certainly seen plenty of THAT since Einstein's time).

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

* Hyper science fiction: Something so utterly
nonsensical (such as string theory and other
mathematical graffiti) that the only point to
trying to understand it is to have a good laugh.
(And, of course, we all know the correlation
between humorless apes & their low IQ.)



On Apr 15, 6:41 pm, "B-Hate-Me"
B-Hate-Me@home wrote:
"sdr" wrote in message
ups.com...

[The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
result of an evolution--and as with any
evolution, there is always enough time
allowed for all the factors involved to bring
about the overall harmony and consistency
which eventually gives the impression to
those who believe (like those who believe
that the universe erupted magically from the
Big Bang Bean),

Not according to "M" theory, which is pretty much
accepted as the standard model.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...767bc35417d159

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...a35c05e902a5fd

http://groups.google.com/group/gac.p...0f2d13f2ae2375

'Nuf said...

There are many theories in this human condition
or ours (such as the universe-orbits-the-earth, or
the-earth-is-flat one, et al) which in their time
were thoroughly believed by the most prominent
and respected scientists/philosophers, and were
held to be the absolute God's Truth by the greatest
majority of living persons: That never meant for an
instant that they were true; and no matter the amount
of validation given them by the vast numbers of the
wise (sin hammers) that hammered away with them.
(Astronomers/mathematicians never missed a beat
describing/predicting with phenomenal accuracy the
"heavenly movements" of a universe that orbited our
little planet earth.)

those who believe that all
the problems HAD to have been solved from the
start... and that therefore the only possible
answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
without it arguing a God).

*I* can

I tend to believe that you indeed can. (I have no
doubt that if you set your brain to it you can also
prove that a mouse created the world.) Unfortunately
that is the nature of the brain. [Nothing personal.]

The fact underlying my statement above is basic
and incontrovertible: No matter what you may think
or wish, once you argue that "something came from
nothing" you are arguing GOD. In other words...
"magic." [That is why the Pope who believes that
"evolution is unproven" also loves Big Bang Theory.]

You cannot propose conditions in a pre-Big Bang
existence to be identical to those post-Big Bang,
otherwise you must find an alternate definition for
THE Big Bang itself ... than "THE Big Bang." And
therefore any attempt to rationalize the Big Bang
in terms of present-universe virtual particle theory
understanding is rather all "suspect" at best.

Get over it. Move on to another human epoch.
From that of unfounded creative babbling (or,
assumptions often/always contradicted by facts,
many or few. ... to a human epoch of proposals
based on facts NOT contradicted by any other
facts, or only contradicted by obvious prejudices).

The FACTS which contradict Big Bang theory are
not only many but growing almost at every step
taken by researches/thinkers. While there is not
one single fact yet discovered/proposed which
contradicts that the universe is an evolutionary
process in many ways very little different from
that which produces a black hole (only more so).
Which proposal is probably best espoused at:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

I have no illusions about the human species. When
I posted my proposal I fully expected a century or
more would have to pass before most people finally
got sick of mental delusions and other stand-ins
for creationism and finally began to explore the FACT
that the universe is an evolutionary process and not
some magical trick. Almost a decade has passed. Now
all I need do is wait another 90-some more years...

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

wrote in message ups.com...
What Was The Main Difficulty Einstein Faced
When He Tried To Unify GR With Particle Theory?

The Main Difficulty Einstein Faced When He Tried To Unify
GR With Particle Theory, Was How To Make Sure That
If/When He Would Find The Unification, How To Make Sure
That A Century Later Usenet Crackpots Would Break Their
Inferior Minds Over It.

Dirk Vdm

nightbat wrote

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

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


The Main Difficulty Einstein Faced When He Tried To Unify
GR With Particle Theory, Was How To Make Sure That
If/When He Would Find The Unification, How To Make Sure
That A Century Later Usenet Crackpots Would Break Their
Inferior Minds Over It.

Dirk Vdm

nightbat

Correct honorary Officer Dirk for the auk coffeeboys pervade
the deepest reaches of usenet and their endless cluelessness is
monumental. Our AA duty is to stowfile protect these wanton silly auk
creatures of lacking mental propensity for their own good. The Big A
wanted a physical based solution to field unification and it cost him
his 1st marriage due to his brilliant mathematicians first wife's
explanation that the solution was in the deduced mathematical infinite
energy invisible sub quantum.

ponder on,
the nightbat

On 27 Apr 2007 09:57:05 -0700, wrote:

[snip]



The FACTS which contradict Big Bang theory are
not only many but growing almost at every step
taken by researches/thinkers. While there is not
one single fact yet discovered/proposed which
contradicts that the universe is an evolutionary
process in many ways very little different from
that which produces a black hole (only more so).
Which proposal is probably best espoused at:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com


The above link eventually has this paragraph:

{begin quote}
"Since I am not here going to give merely one more
description of the visible universe but am actually
going to show the causes behind its observed effects,
there will be no resorting here either to supernatural
interpretations (uninformed guessing and other leaps
of faith) or to the "usual" mathematical obfuscations
(the mere reduction of manifest observations to
exacting measurements) behind which the absence of
actual basic knowledge has habitually been veiled."
{end quote}


Can Mr. Rodrian provide specific examples of "usual mathematical
obfuscations"? Can he demonstrate how those examples habitually
veil "basic knowledge"?

On Apr 28, 2:47 am, HMSBeagle wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 09:57:05 -0700, wrote:

[snip]

The FACTS which contradict Big Bang theory are
not only many but growing almost at every step
taken by researches/thinkers. While there is not
one single fact yet discovered/proposed which
contradicts that the universe is an evolutionary
process in many ways very little different from
that which produces a black hole (only more so).
Which proposal is probably best espoused at:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

The above link eventually has this paragraph:

{begin quote}
"Since I am not here going to give merely one more
description of the visible universe but am actually
going to show the causes behind its observed effects,
there will be no resorting here either to supernatural
interpretations (uninformed guessing and other leaps
of faith) or to the "usual" mathematical obfuscations
(the mere reduction of manifest observations to
exacting measurements) behind which the absence of
actual basic knowledge has habitually been veiled."
{end quote}

Can Mr.Rodrian provide specific examples
of "usual mathematical obfuscations"?
Can he demonstrate how those examples habitually
veil "basic knowledge"?

Any child could. I'd be a poor adult if I couldn't!
And I have done this exercise many, many times:

.... In the following example, a most innocuous
"mathematical obfuscation" (the superstition
that our reality consists of a specific "number"
of "dimensions") has driven mathematicians to
work out complex purely-mathematical systems
based on that "mathematical obfuscation" which
have then thwarted what would have been (might
easily have been) an examination of reality that
could have/might have then produced the true
understanding of it (of reality/of the universe).

BEGIN QUOTE:

wrote:
wrote:

Could I be more specific about what I mean?
Let's try:
NOTHING CAN BE LIMITED TO
"ANY" NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.

Conversely: Reality consists of ALL possible
dimensions, and is NOT really "3" dimensional:

YOU CAN NOT HAVE MORE
DIMENSIONS THAN ALL OF THEM.

Once you state, "This is 1 dimension above/beyond
ALL OF THEM" you are talking gibberish.

Pure mathematics allows for gibberish BECAUSE pure
mathematics need not have ANY connections with
anything other than itself (its equations balance
themselves alone, using NOT reality but its own set
of imperfect/incomplete/mortal rules/principles).

If one abstracts the least single dimension from
ANYTHING it effectively removes that something from
reality. And then you are talking fantasy (science-
fiction).

This is true of anything termed "three-dimensional"
(no purely "3" dimensional anything can really exist).

And it is just as true of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING
assigned ANY (whatever) purely arbitrary "number" of
dimension(s).

.... Reality consists of a never-ending infinity of
possible ways to describe the dimensions of ANY
and EVERY object that exists. There can exist NO
manifold, however complex, which is not already
part of our so-called "3-D" reality (because the
term "3-D" is not a pure description of reality but
merely/purely "short-hand" mathematics--it ONLY
makes sense in mathematics: out in the real world
it is pure gibberish). And every time one attempts
to describe the universe in terms of mathematical
gibberish, one must eventually be forced to pay a
high price indeed for one's blithering foolishness.

In pure mathematics it is quite acceptable to speak
gibberish: Our children often use "(infinity + 1)"
in their "equations" while understanding that while it
may make a kind of perfect mathematical sense, IN
REALITY it's really senseless (meaningless/nonsense).
And this "mathematical gibberish" is not confined to
"(infinity + 1)" or "reality as purely 3-dimensional."

The trick is not being led to believe that
"mathematical gibberish" HAS ANY REALITY.

If one does, then one might begin to sprout on about
time-travel, and "other dimensions," and every other
kind of gibberish in the universe. And then either we
must confine such gibberish-sprouting chaps to the
lunatic asylum as soon as possible or we are all mad.

Trying to advance the process,

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com



Self-evidently, this must include ANY/ALL
"dimension(s)" which EXCLUDE ANY OTHER
"dimension(s)."

PLEASE RE-READ this thread from the original post!

"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...&rnum=1&lnk=ol

from "The Achilles Heel of String Theory."

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

I don't mind the use of fantasy in mathematics because
mathematics concerns the harmonizing of equations in
the same manner that a science-fiction story must be
purged of story-line self-contradictions (anomalies).
My objection is when either mathematics or science-
fiction tries to pretend that it has a greater hold on
reality THAN does reality.

One can say that a hollow sphere has two dimensions,
but that does not remove such a sphere from our
reality. And in the same way ALL imagined manifolds
("a topological space in which every point has a
neighborhood that is homeomorphic to the interior of a
sphere in Euclidean space of the same number of
dimensions") can never exist apart from our reality.

The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely
mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
reality."

It's not really a matter of the gimmick we observe in
animation where the RoadRunner runs into the "reality"
of a painting, which painting then seen from behind
proves to "really" be nothing more than a "two-
dimensional" painting. The fact is that even theoretically
it would be hard to conceive of anything being even
one-dimensional:

Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would
one even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT
looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions
than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have
to look at it from a little to the side).

Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air:
Your floating arm is describing an impossible
journey through an infinite number of (certainly
more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any
circumference such as the earth's...

And because all it would take would be a very tiny
"little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And
we are talking strictly theoretically here.)

The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally
tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let's say that a Planck's
Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no
lengths as small as a Planck's Length to our Planck's
Length, although I do not know of any objection to
that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck's
Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a
Planck's Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on
because if it were but even the smallest fraction to
any side it would have to look at it from a second,
third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it's
much more easy to just look at a comic strip and
believe the fiction that it's a two-dimensional
drawing... even though we know that no true purely
two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.]

HINT: It's your mind agreeing to "go along with"
the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo
graphic is two-dimensional.

And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely
three-dimensional object can exist in our reality,
then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered-
dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside
our reality. And if you can't see this, you're not
really very smart, no matter how clever you may be
(and not even though you be even as clever as a
checkers-playing computer).

The same thing with "time," which is strictly a notion
in the human mind. In reality the universe consists of
changes (most of which are oscillations, an electron's
or a satellite's orbit). If the universe is considered
to be "one thing," it may be possible to say it runs
through a time-line from beginning to end; but the
universe is not really "one thing" (in fact, it is not
possible at this point in human history to point to
anything which is absolutely "one thing" except we use
the term loosely as a point of reference). Therefore
each item (with the proviso that each item consists of
sub-items each with its own "time"), each item has its
own "time" apart from the "time(s)" of every other
item in the universe. [Set ten identical tops spinning
at the same time and most of them are all likely to
stop spinning at the same time, all things being
equal. But we're really talking coincidence here,
since nothing demands that they--or all the tops in
the universe--be set spinning at the same time.]

Strictly on principle, because energy is neither
created nor destroyed, some scientists may be
therefore obliged to believe that "time" fluxes
between the objects/items of the universe, neither
going forwards nor backwards in sum. But thereby
they also being forced to give up the notion of
"time" as we're known it to this time. [Others see
in this the sinister absence of enough anti-matter
to harmonize the "timing' of the universe... and
suspect that time indeed does go marching on.]

This is why not all the atoms of a given element in
the universe decay at once. But one thing is true: The
matter of atoms which may have decayed may again be
reconstituted into their original form inside a star's
furnace or explosion. And then where does that leave
the time-line of matter that has gone from old age
(and even death) back to youth!

In any case, our description of time is always quite
superficial. And we usually limit such a description
to a small fraction of a number of related changes, as
the notion of a "past" (or a "future") are merely
conveniences we use to "make sense to ourselves" of
the human condition: In "Caesar's time" he was both
child and man, but what we conveniently agree to
overlook is that Caesar is still right here "in our
own time" as well, just in some other form than either
child or man. And yet every last atom that was Caesar
is still here with us.
"

String theory is marvelous mathematics. But if ANY
part of it depends on the existence of Santy Claus,
then it has NO connection with reality PERIOD. And
since string theory can only balance its equations
by piling on extraneous (e.g. impossible)
"dimensions" it is pure FICTION--"pure/absolute."

I am assuming that the possibility exists that
there are more than 3 spatial dimension.

And I am telling you there ain't nothin' that ain't
made up of all the innumerable (look up that word in
a book called The Dictionary) dimensions of our
reality.

IF SOMETHING LACKS EXISTENCE IN ANY
DIMENSION (or part thereof) IT CANNOT EXIST.
(And if something exists in one or more dimension
than those of our reality... then those so-called
other "dimensions" are superfluous: PURE FANTASY.)

String Theory is pure mathematics ONLY. Get over it.
Rejoice, in fact. Now you won't have to waste your
life trying to figure out how string theory governs
life!

see: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

from "If String Theory Cannot Be Proved--Can It
Be Disproved? Yes!"

It's very simple: "If anywhere in your equations
Santa Claus is required: your equations are utterly
divorced from reality."

Well, the Santa Claus Law disproves string theory
and Ed Wood's--I mean Ed Witten's supersymmetry
nonsense--and thereby potentially bestows incalculably
monumental savings to the physics establishment by
keeping it from chasing rainbows with no pots of gold)
.... the Santa Claus Law disproves string theory because
all string theory equations require the utterly embarrassing
notion of "dimensions" (a truly goofy Abbot &
Costello confusion which arises innocently enough
from the innocuous historical tradition of referring
to our reality as "three" -dimensional).

Follow such time-wasting nonsense to its logical
conclusion and you're likely to end up lost in a
Star Trek script world full of time-travel, worm
holes, and dark matter/dark energy clouds teeming
with intelligent non-corporeal beings, Mister Spok.
It's rather all so simple that it pains me to have to
point it out (and why I had to come up with the Santa
Claus Law for theoretical physics, in the first place):

In the "real" world there "is" no such a thing as
"dimensions" of any kind, sort, or flavor (be it the
eleven dimensions of string theory, or 11,000
dimensions, or the singularities of legend & lore):

The very idea that the world is somehow restricted to
three-dimensions is a purely mathematical fiction (a
mental convenience, mathematical shorthand) which
SEEING any object with more than six sides instantly
disproves (if such proof be needed). Hell, if we
lived in a universe in which only six-sided blocks
existed I might forgive some "mental deficient"
believing that such a universe was three-dimensional,
but purely six-sided blocks are rare natural objects
(just a few crystals), and therefore I can only look
with contempt upon those who still cannot separate
[the mathematical shorthand of calling ours a
"three-dimensional reality (universe)"] from [the
"real" universe]. Embarrassing to even be in the same
species as these theoreticians, for Heaven's sakes.

For purely illustrative and needless additional
elaboration: Once you assign an arbitrary number (as
is the "3" dimensions in the infamous historical
mathematical shorthand) you can use that number in
calculations/equations/theories to construct all
sorts of math; but this does not mean that that
particular number has any reality outside our minds
(and the purely mental, detached from all reality,
equations that can live in the brain exclusively
quite "elegantly"): Our reality should be better
described as something like "infinitely dimensional,"
since there is no practical means of limiting the
number of ways you can slice a sphere. All manifolds,
of whatever design, are impossible to separate from
our "spherical reality" and are merely "combinations
of perverse slices" of the "sphere."

The Möbius strip, for example, is perhaps the
easiest and most self-evident misinterpretation of
reality (the suspension of its reality from the rest
of reality): Take a strip of paper and just before
gluing its two ends together twist one of the ends,
now you can run a pencil down one side of the strip
and discover that without having lifted the pencil
from that one side... the unbroken line you've drawn
runs down BOTH sides of the strip: Does this mean
you've created a piece of paper with only one side
(something akin to one-dimensionality)? No, of course
not. Or, more aptly: ONLY IN YOUR MIND.

Another optical illusion is the "two-dimensional"
film screen. In it you can "see" two-dimensional
objects "existing." And I have actually heard
otherwise very respected physicists (apparently the
modern day equivalents of metaphysicists or your
everyday lunatics, can't tell which) going on and on
about the existence of these "two-dimensional
objects," when describing what we "witness" on film
screens! But, as all first year art students know,
the purely merely "optical illusion" we're seeing is
achieved with different shades/colors and the art of
perspective: In reality, in the reality in which we
actually live, there is not even the remotest
anything related to "two-dimensionality" about
anything ever "seen" on any movie screen or a
Renaissance painting.

.... The same thing with the silly notion of a
"singularity" (or, a one-dimensional object), which,
like all things impossible, are/is "hidden" by their
magician theorizers by conveniently reducing it/them
"out of sight" and into a physically impossible small
size ("absolute" size... something which ought to be
an instant tip-off for even silly inflation aficionados
of entire universes growing out of jelly beans and
other flyspecks) in flagrant violation of all the laws
of physics.

Therefo ANY and ALL mathematical models claiming
a connection with/to reality... which employ ANY
(always necessarily arbitrary) number [of dimensions?]
to balance their equations are and ever will be "ultimately"
divorced from reality (agreeing with reality ONLY when
forced into it, and only inside the human mind). In
special relativity, for example, the number "3" is
restricted to the construction of a three-dimensional
grid whose purpose extends ONLY to the orientations
of the required map (which is the principal purpose
of having devised/assigned the number "3" to the
"dimensions" of reality in the first place--That is,
so that such a map could be drawn up). And so:

S D Rodrian's Santa Claus Law:

"If anywhere in your equations Santa Claus is
required: your equations are utterly divorced
from reality."

END QUOTE

The examples are endless. From the most basic one
(above) "that Einstein did not know what Gravity was
(in reality)" so instead of trying to find out "what it
was" he produced "a geometrical description of what
he saw Gravity doing." And from this "mathematical
obfuscation" to "veil his utter lack of basic knowledge"
(which has thwarted basic research into exactly WHAT
Gravity really IS, rather than just what it's "doing")
we've gotten mired in utter insanities such as "warped
space" , "worm-holes" , "time-travel" and so many,
many more it's a wonder we don't all believe Star Trek
is real---instead of just most of "us"). Every one of which
"mathematical obfuscation" is and remains one more
confusion we will have to dispense with before we can
finally get at "basic knowledge" of still veiled Reality.

The very concept of "time" as something other than
(more than) just "the timing of one arbitrary motion
against another arbitrary motion" (the science fiction
that "the Future" and "the Past" actually "exist") is
yet another insanity for which we can thank Einstein's
"mathematical obfuscations" (where it simply used to
be just a beautiful fantasy in the imagination). The list,
as I said, is endless. And when we shall bring an end
to it all is anybody's guess (because the careers/prestiges/
monies of most of the world's thinkers/physicists/teachers/
mathematicians are all wrapped up now in the perpetuation
of nonsense rather than in the pursuit of "basic knowledge").

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

On 28 Apr 2007 06:23:09 -0700, sdr wrote:

On Apr 28, 2:47 am, HMSBeagle wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 09:57:05 -0700, wrote:

[snip]

The FACTS which contradict Big Bang theory are
not only many but growing almost at every step
taken by researches/thinkers. While there is not
one single fact yet discovered/proposed which
contradicts that the universe is an evolutionary
process in many ways very little different from
that which produces a black hole (only more so).
Which proposal is probably best espoused at:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

The above link eventually has this paragraph:

{begin quote}
"Since I am not here going to give merely one more
description of the visible universe but am actually
going to show the causes behind its observed effects,
there will be no resorting here either to supernatural
interpretations (uninformed guessing and other leaps
of faith) or to the "usual" mathematical obfuscations
(the mere reduction of manifest observations to
exacting measurements) behind which the absence of
actual basic knowledge has habitually been veiled."
{end quote}

Can Mr.Rodrian provide specific examples
of "usual mathematical obfuscations"?
Can he demonstrate how those examples habitually
veil "basic knowledge"?

Any child could. I'd be a poor adult if I couldn't!
And I have done this exercise many, many times:

... In the following example, a most innocuous
"mathematical obfuscation" (the superstition
that our reality consists of a specific "number"
of "dimensions") has driven mathematicians to
work out complex purely-mathematical systems
based on that "mathematical obfuscation" which
have then thwarted what would have been (might
easily have been) an examination of reality that
could have/might have then produced the true
understanding of it (of reality/of the universe).

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.

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.

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.


BEGIN QUOTE:

wrote:
wrote:

Could I be more specific about what I mean?
Let's try:
NOTHING CAN BE LIMITED TO
"ANY" NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.

Conversely: Reality consists of ALL possible
dimensions, and is NOT really "3" dimensional:

YOU CAN NOT HAVE MORE
DIMENSIONS THAN ALL OF THEM.

Once you state, "This is 1 dimension above/beyond
ALL OF THEM" you are talking gibberish.

Pure mathematics allows for gibberish BECAUSE pure
mathematics need not have ANY connections with
anything other than itself (its equations balance
themselves alone, using NOT reality but its own set
of imperfect/incomplete/mortal rules/principles).

If one abstracts the least single dimension from
ANYTHING it effectively removes that something from
reality. And then you are talking fantasy (science-
fiction).

This is true of anything termed "three-dimensional"
(no purely "3" dimensional anything can really exist).

And it is just as true of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING
assigned ANY (whatever) purely arbitrary "number" of
dimension(s).

... Reality consists of a never-ending infinity of
possible ways to describe the dimensions of ANY
and EVERY object that exists. There can exist NO
manifold, however complex, which is not already
part of our so-called "3-D" reality (because the
term "3-D" is not a pure description of reality but
merely/purely "short-hand" mathematics--it ONLY
makes sense in mathematics: out in the real world
it is pure gibberish). And every time one attempts
to describe the universe in terms of mathematical
gibberish, one must eventually be forced to pay a
high price indeed for one's blithering foolishness.

In pure mathematics it is quite acceptable to speak
gibberish: Our children often use "(infinity + 1)"
in their "equations" while understanding that while it
may make a kind of perfect mathematical sense, IN
REALITY it's really senseless (meaningless/nonsense).
And this "mathematical gibberish" is not confined to
"(infinity + 1)" or "reality as purely 3-dimensional."

The trick is not being led to believe that
"mathematical gibberish" HAS ANY REALITY.

If one does, then one might begin to sprout on about
time-travel, and "other dimensions," and every other
kind of gibberish in the universe. And then either we
must confine such gibberish-sprouting chaps to the
lunatic asylum as soon as possible or we are all mad.

Trying to advance the process,

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com



Self-evidently, this must include ANY/ALL
"dimension(s)" which EXCLUDE ANY OTHER
"dimension(s)."

PLEASE RE-READ this thread from the original post!

"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...&rnum=1&lnk=ol

from "The Achilles Heel of String Theory."

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

I don't mind the use of fantasy in mathematics because
mathematics concerns the harmonizing of equations in
the same manner that a science-fiction story must be
purged of story-line self-contradictions (anomalies).
My objection is when either mathematics or science-
fiction tries to pretend that it has a greater hold on
reality THAN does reality.

One can say that a hollow sphere has two dimensions,
but that does not remove such a sphere from our
reality. And in the same way ALL imagined manifolds
("a topological space in which every point has a
neighborhood that is homeomorphic to the interior of a
sphere in Euclidean space of the same number of
dimensions") can never exist apart from our reality.

The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely
mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
reality."

It's not really a matter of the gimmick we observe in
animation where the RoadRunner runs into the "reality"
of a painting, which painting then seen from behind
proves to "really" be nothing more than a "two-
dimensional" painting. The fact is that even theoretically
it would be hard to conceive of anything being even
one-dimensional:

Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would
one even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT
looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions
than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have
to look at it from a little to the side).

Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air:
Your floating arm is describing an impossible
journey through an infinite number of (certainly
more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any
circumference such as the earth's...

And because all it would take would be a very tiny
"little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And
we are talking strictly theoretically here.)

The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally
tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let's say that a Planck's
Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no
lengths as small as a Planck's Length to our Planck's
Length, although I do not know of any objection to
that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck's
Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a
Planck's Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on
because if it were but even the smallest fraction to
any side it would have to look at it from a second,
third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it's
much more easy to just look at a comic strip and
believe the fiction that it's a two-dimensional
drawing... even though we know that no true purely
two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.]

HINT: It's your mind agreeing to "go along with"
the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo
graphic is two-dimensional.

And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely
three-dimensional object can exist in our reality,
then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered-
dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside
our reality. And if you can't see this, you're not
really very smart, no matter how clever you may be
(and not even though you be even as clever as a
checkers-playing computer).

The same thing with "time," which is strictly a notion
in the human mind. In reality the universe consists of
changes (most of which are oscillations, an electron's
or a satellite's orbit). If the universe is considered
to be "one thing," it may be possible to say it runs
through a time-line from beginning to end; but the
universe is not really "one thing" (in fact, it is not
possible at this point in human history to point to
anything which is absolutely "one thing" except we use
the term loosely as a point of reference). Therefore
each item (with the proviso that each item consists of
sub-items each with its own "time"), each item has its
own "time" apart from the "time(s)" of every other
item in the universe. [Set ten identical tops spinning
at the same time and most of them are all likely to
stop spinning at the same time, all things being
equal. But we're really talking coincidence here,
since nothing demands that they--or all the tops in
the universe--be set spinning at the same time.]

Strictly on principle, because energy is neither
created nor destroyed, some scientists may be
therefore obliged to believe that "time" fluxes
between the objects/items of the universe, neither
going forwards nor backwards in sum. But thereby
they also being forced to give up the notion of
"time" as we're known it to this time. [Others see
in this the sinister absence of enough anti-matter
to harmonize the "timing' of the universe... and
suspect that time indeed does go marching on.]

This is why not all the atoms of a given element in
the universe decay at once. But one thing is true: The
matter of atoms which may have decayed may again be
reconstituted into their original form inside a star's
furnace or explosion. And then where does that leave
the time-line of matter that has gone from old age
(and even death) back to youth!

In any case, our description of time is always quite
superficial. And we usually limit such a description
to a small fraction of a number of related changes, as
the notion of a "past" (or a "future") are merely
conveniences we use to "make sense to ourselves" of
the human condition: In "Caesar's time" he was both
child and man, but what we conveniently agree to
overlook is that Caesar is still right here "in our
own time" as well, just in some other form than either
child or man. And yet every last atom that was Caesar
is still here with us.
"

String theory is marvelous mathematics. But if ANY
part of it depends on the existence of Santy Claus,
then it has NO connection with reality PERIOD. And
since string theory can only balance its equations
by piling on extraneous (e.g. impossible)
"dimensions" it is pure FICTION--"pure/absolute."

I am assuming that the possibility exists that
there are more than 3 spatial dimension.

And I am telling you there ain't nothin' that ain't
made up of all the innumerable (look up that word in
a book called The Dictionary) dimensions of our
reality.

IF SOMETHING LACKS EXISTENCE IN ANY
DIMENSION (or part thereof) IT CANNOT EXIST.
(And if something exists in one or more dimension
than those of our reality... then those so-called
other "dimensions" are superfluous: PURE FANTASY.)

String Theory is pure mathematics ONLY. Get over it.
Rejoice, in fact. Now you won't have to waste your
life trying to figure out how string theory governs
life!

see: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

from "If String Theory Cannot Be Proved--Can It
Be Disproved? Yes!"

It's very simple: "If anywhere in your equations
Santa Claus is required: your equations are utterly
divorced from reality."

Well, the Santa Claus Law disproves string theory
and Ed Wood's--I mean Ed Witten's supersymmetry
nonsense--and thereby potentially bestows incalculably
monumental savings to the physics establishment by
keeping it from chasing rainbows with no pots of gold)
... the Santa Claus Law disproves string theory because
all string theory equations require the utterly embarrassing
notion of "dimensions" (a truly goofy Abbot &
Costello confusion which arises innocently enough
from the innocuous historical tradition of referring
to our reality as "three" -dimensional).

Follow such time-wasting nonsense to its logical
conclusion and you're likely to end up lost in a
Star Trek script world full of time-travel, worm
holes, and dark matter/dark energy clouds teeming
with intelligent non-corporeal beings, Mister Spok.
It's rather all so simple that it pains me to have to
point it out (and why I had to come up with the Santa
Claus Law for theoretical physics, in the first place):

In the "real" world there "is" no such a thing as
"dimensions" of any kind, sort, or flavor (be it the
eleven dimensions of string theory, or 11,000
dimensions, or the singularities of legend & lore):

The very idea that the world is somehow restricted to
three-dimensions is a purely mathematical fiction (a
mental convenience, mathematical shorthand) which
SEEING any object with more than six sides instantly
disproves (if such proof be needed). Hell, if we
lived in a universe in which only six-sided blocks
existed I might forgive some "mental deficient"
believing that such a universe was three-dimensional,
but purely six-sided blocks are rare natural objects
(just a few crystals), and therefore I can only look
with contempt upon those who still cannot separate
[the mathematical shorthand of calling ours a
"three-dimensional reality (universe)"] from [the
"real" universe]. Embarrassing to even be in the same
species as these theoreticians, for Heaven's sakes.

For purely illustrative and needless additional
elaboration: Once you assign an arbitrary number (as
is the "3" dimensions in the infamous historical
mathematical shorthand) you can use that number in
calculations/equations/theories to construct all
sorts of math; but this does not mean that that
particular number has any reality outside our minds
(and the purely mental, detached from all reality,
equations that can live in the brain exclusively
quite "elegantly"): Our reality should be better
described as something like "infinitely dimensional,"
since there is no practical means of limiting the
number of ways you can slice a sphere. All manifolds,
of whatever design, are impossible to separate from
our "spherical reality" and are merely "combinations
of perverse slices" of the "sphere."

The Möbius strip, for example, is perhaps the
easiest and most self-evident misinterpretation of
reality (the suspension of its reality from the rest
of reality): Take a strip of paper and just before
gluing its two ends together twist one of the ends,
now you can run a pencil down one side of the strip
and discover that without having lifted the pencil
from that one side... the unbroken line you've drawn
runs down BOTH sides of the strip: Does this mean
you've created a piece of paper with only one side
(something akin to one-dimensionality)? No, of course
not. Or, more aptly: ONLY IN YOUR MIND.

Another optical illusion is the "two-dimensional"
film screen. In it you can "see" two-dimensional
objects "existing." And I have actually heard
otherwise very respected physicists (apparently the
modern day equivalents of metaphysicists or your
everyday lunatics, can't tell which) going on and on
about the existence of these "two-dimensional
objects," when describing what we "witness" on film
screens! But, as all first year art students know,
the purely merely "optical illusion" we're seeing is
achieved with different shades/colors and the art of
perspective: In reality, in the reality in which we
actually live, there is not even the remotest
anything related to "two-dimensionality" about
anything ever "seen" on any movie screen or a
Renaissance painting.

... The same thing with the silly notion of a
"singularity" (or, a one-dimensional object), which,
like all things impossible, are/is "hidden" by their
magician theorizers by conveniently reducing it/them
"out of sight" and into a physically impossible small
size ("absolute" size... something which ought to be
an instant tip-off for even silly inflation aficionados
of entire universes growing out of jelly beans and
other flyspecks) in flagrant violation of all the laws
of physics.

Therefo ANY and ALL mathematical models claiming
a connection with/to reality... which employ ANY
(always necessarily arbitrary) number [of dimensions?]
to balance their equations are and ever will be "ultimately"
divorced from reality (agreeing with reality ONLY when
forced into it, and only inside the human mind). In
special relativity, for example, the number "3" is
restricted to the construction of a three-dimensional
grid whose purpose extends ONLY to the orientations
of the required map (which is the principal purpose
of having devised/assigned the number "3" to the
"dimensions" of reality in the first place--That is,
so that such a map could be drawn up). And so:

S D Rodrian's Santa Claus Law:

"If anywhere in your equations Santa Claus is
required: your equations are utterly divorced
from reality."

END QUOTE

The examples are endless. From the most basic one
(above) "that Einstein did not know what Gravity was
(in reality)" so instead of trying to find out "what it
was" he produced "a geometrical description of what
he saw Gravity doing." And from this "mathematical
obfuscation" to "veil his utter lack of basic knowledge"
(which has thwarted basic research into exactly WHAT
Gravity really IS, rather than just what it's "doing")
we've gotten mired in utter insanities such as "warped
space" , "worm-holes" , "time-travel" and so many,
many more it's a wonder we don't all believe Star Trek
is real---instead of just most of "us"). Every one of which
"mathematical obfuscation" is and remains one more
confusion we will have to dispense with before we can
finally get at "basic knowledge" of still veiled Reality.

The very concept of "time" as something other than
(more than) just "the timing of one arbitrary motion
against another arbitrary motion" (the science fiction
that "the Future" and "the Past" actually "exist") is
yet another insanity for which we can thank Einstein's
"mathematical obfuscations" (where it simply used to
be just a beautiful fantasy in the imagination). The list,
as I said, is endless. And when we shall bring an end
to it all is anybody's guess (because the careers/prestiges/
monies of most of the world's thinkers/physicists/teachers/
mathematicians are all wrapped up now in the perpetuation
of nonsense rather than in the pursuit of "basic knowledge").

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

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..."

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).

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).

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

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.