Is “Strings” a Dud Theory?

Re: # 73

These are medieval arguments, part logic, part common sense, part half truths. Would appear to be forceful and convincing to a gathering of village elders (Chowk ???). In a scientific grouping they appear ridiculous and laughably pathetic.

Mian, progress beyond freshman physics.
Read some progressive scientific material. Start with n-dimensional vectors. Or start with Feynman.

Just because you have not seen Japan does not mean that Japan does not exist.

And as I have explained in interact # 67 that Time does not exist in empty space. Here I want to add something to it.

The concept of time is wholly dependent on the movement of physical objects. Time does not reside in ``space``. Time is there inside of physical objects. Because physical objects always remain in the state of motion. It is only and only physical objects and their mutual interactions that give us the ``idea`` of time.

What has been empirically verified is just that movement of same nature ``events`` slows down with increase in the strength of Gravitational field.

Gravitational field is Not the charactristic property of space itself. Gravitational field is the characteristic property of massive material objects in fact. Events occur only and only in material objects ... Duration between events also has to do only with material objects ... Slowing down of those events is also because of ``mutual interactions`` of those material objects.

Time, so, resides only in the ``behavior`` of ``physical objects``. Time does not slow down because of some property of space itself. Time slows down only due to ``mutual interactions`` of material objects. Let`s at poit `T` of empty space, speed of time is `a`. Now we bring a massive material object near the point `T`. Now speed of time at point `T` shall be slowed down because now this point would be within the range of a gravitational field. This slowing down of time has not happened due to any property of ``space`` whatsoever. It has happened just due to mutual interaction, or type of movement (in case of slowing down of time in high speed objects) of material objects.

Time has nothing to do with Space...!!!

Regards!

Re: # 74

If you just bother to read my interact # 38 and onward ... You shall realize that these are NOT medieval arguments.

The physics you are suggesting is unknown to scientists as well ... They are just running after illusions.

Secondly your so much big argument that ``if you have not seen Japan, it does not mean Japan does not exis``,,, is not the to the point reply to my points. Try to counter my points ... and call that Faynman for your help as well.

Regards!

Re # 73.

Khuram you are very confused about the state of modern physics. It is not as ill conceived as you think.

Let me first just mention that all of us encounter and use the idea of multi-dimensional spaces in our daily lives. Whenever we are dealing with a few independent variables taking value in a certain set we are dealing with multi-dimensional space. So this is not such an exotic concept. For example keeping track of a truck requires 3 numbers: 2 numbers giving the position of the truck on the surface of the earth and one number giving the time when that truck was at that position. Keeping track of 2 trucks requires a 6 dimensional space.

As far as string theory is concerned it is a remarkably self-consistent and mathematically elegant framework. The basic ingredient in its definition is the 2 dimensional conformal field theory. Most of the interesting properties of strings follow from the fact that the string moving around sweeps out surface which is 2 dimensional and therefore the ideas from complex geometry can be used to deal with it. Interesting things happen in 2 dimensions and which do not happen in higher ones.
String theory has been successful in explaining the entropy/area relationship for a black hole, properties of supersymmetric gauge theories, non-trivial correspondence between seemingly diffrent geometries (mirror symmetry), the number of curves of various kind in geometries, knot invariants etc etc.

Dear AmirIqbal,

The usage of multi-dimensional spaces in our ``daily lives`` is quite understandable to me. I am also telling just this thing that more than 3 dimensions must have to be in just usual sense of daily usage.

You should have proved that I was confused in my criticism on the idea of ``physical 4 or more dimensional space``:

Like all my opponent scientists, my knowledge of sting theory is also just marginal. It is good to know however that this theory is successfully explaining all those non-empirical things like ``entropy/area relationship for a blackhole etc. etc.

My main issue of concern is not that such and such things are not right in such and such theory.

Target of my criticism is still the so-called ``empirical method`` of science. Since science is downgrading and ignoring true rational part of science,,, so many many absurd ideas have to be the part of established science. I have no sympathy with this science at all so my efforts have no aim of making any improvments in the procedures of science.

Here I just want to sum up as well as add a thing to what I explained in my intract numbers 38 and 50.

- There is NO clash between Empirical Knowledge and Rational Knowledge.

- Rational Knowledge is NOT opposed to Empirical Knowledge

- Rational Knowledge and Empirical Knowledge are NOT having separate sources of origin.

- These are actually conceptual errors as if Empirical Knowledge and Rational Knowlege are having separate sources of origin, or that they are having some clash with one another, or that they are opposed to one another.

- In previous interacts, I had shown that Rational Knowledge is actually a re-arrangement of Empirical Knowledge. Here I want to add that better way to think of this phenomenon is that Rational Knowledge is actually a Proper Organization of Empirical Knowledge.

- Being a ``proper organization`` of Empirical Knowledge, Rational Knowledge can be considered as ``Finished Product`` and Empirical Knowledge can be considered as ``Raw Material``.

- And as I have no sympathy with ``science``, so I am not going to ask ``scientists`` to please change your procedure.

- As per my ``hostility`` for ``science`` ... I want to tell ``scientists`` that their ``empirical knowledge``, being just a ``raw-material``, is INFERIOR to ``rational knowledge``, which is the ``finished product``.

- Superior Knowledge is Rational Knowledge ... because it is ``Proper Organization`` of ``Raw Empirical Knowledge``.

Thanks and bye for now!

Dear khuram,

You can argue all you want about the properties of space, matter & time. But, can you make better predictions than General Relativity?

If you can`t, then what is the significance of your disagreements?

You claim that science is full of illogical theories. Can you point to a theory that makes false predictions? Do you have an alternative that makes better predictions?

Re: # 79

Dear Khurram,

As I am no scientist ... so making of predictions, for me, is just a trivial part of knowledge. Perhaps Astrologists and Palmists can better perform the task of making predictions. General Relativity Theory had rightly pointed out certain real phenomenon based on logical similarity between accelerated system and field of gravitation. Some points were experimentally confirmed later on. But some findings were not properly interpreted. Concept of Black Hole etc. can be very easily concluded out of General Relativity. If an ordinary field of Gravitation can bent the ray of light ... then it is not difficult to conclude that very anormously strong field of Graviation could ``absorb`` light as well. To determine the ``properties`` of such an anormously strong field of gravitation was also not difficult. Obviously only a very dense object could have so much strong field of Gravitation. Ok I also make a new prediction ... An extra high accelerated system also can absorb light. So when science shall be able to make such extra high accelerated systems, then could confirm this prediction as well.

But see that these predictions are coming out of what could be logically followed out of a logically accurate point. To find the similarity between accelerated system and field of gravitation was a logically accurate ``observation`` or ``conclusion``. Then all the following predictions also have logical relation with the original logical findings. Now see that science is taking full benefits of the application of logic. But the same science is formally un-aware about the importance of logic. It still disregards rational inquiry and theory of logic. It talks about some vogue and unclear concept of ``empirical knowledge``, which is practically not the true party of actual scientific progress. Knowledge doesn`t mean to just make right predictions. Knowledge is self-cognition. What we are,,, what our processes are,,, what our systems are etc. etc. Just like false premises can result in true conclusions, so wrong theories also can result in right predictions. Examples may be many right predictions of Astrologists and Palmists.

Regards!