Torgny, thanks for your explanations...Let me interject

On 9/17/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  John Mikes skrev:
>    - 1.- Q: *What are light and fermions?*
>    - A: Light is a fluctuation of closed strings of arbitrary sizes.
>    Fermions are ends of open strings.
>    - 2.- Q: *Where do light and fermions come from?*
>    - A: Light and fermions come from the collective motions of
>    string-like objects that form nets and fill our vacuum.
>    - 3.- Q: *Why do light and fermions exist?*
>    - A: Light and fermions exist because our vacuum is a quantum liquid
>    of string-nets <>.
> This is from the introduction of the URL so kindly provided by Torgny. It
> looks very interesting, a gteat idea indeed. I like better a 'liquid' of
> spacetime than a 'fabric'.
> Xiao-Gang Wen looks like a very open-minded wise man.
> I wonder if he made the circularity of his Q#1 and Q#3 deliberately? (if,
> of course, we include Q#2).
> Originally - before reading Q#3 I wanted to ask 'what is OUR vacuum? but
> here it is: a QUANTUM liqud and it has the substance of "string-nets".
> He also postulates closed strings and open ones. (What-s?)
> the closed ones fluctuate in waves (=photons) and the open ones have
> endings we consider electrically charged (also callable: particles).
> In my original (uneducted) question I wanted to ask what kind of a vacuum
> is "filled"? is it still a (full) vacuum? Do the 'strings' have a 'filling'
> quale? or is a 'string-filled' plenum still empty (as in vacuum)? If the
> strings fluctuate into waves, what fluctuates? I am afraid that ANY answer
> will start another string of questions.
> The vocabulary is not so clear, then again it is the nth consequence of
> the mth consequential result of an old  assumption: the assumption of the
> physical world.
> Please, do not reply! I just realizes that this entire topic is way above
> my preparedness and just have "let it out".
> T-Th: Some clarifications:
> The vacuum IS a string-net liquid.

JM: Ex cathedra. If I am a faithful, I have to believe it. - I am not.

But the strings are not continous.

JM: Then what makes them into a continuous 'string'? OR: do those individual
points arrange in unassigned directions they just wish? If they only
fluctuate by themselves, what reference do they (individually) follow to be
callable 'string' -'fluctuate' - or just "vibrate on their own"?
(below you said it: "there the strings consist of discrete points.")

As you can see in the picture in Figure 1.8 at page 9 (page 14 in the pdf
file) in Xiao-Gang Wen: "Introduction to Quantum Many-boson Theory (-: a
theory of almost everything :-)", that can be found at<>,
and in the 10th slide of his talk "An unification of light and

>  there the strings consist of discrete points.  And it is these discrete
> points that ARE the space.  There is no space between the points.  The
> vacuum IS these points.

JM: so THOSE (discrete) points are SPACE and also VACUUM. Now what keeps
them 'discrete' if there is NO space between them? They mold together into
an 'undivided' continuum - without any divider in between. Two discrete
points have got to be discretized by something interstitial  separational -
in the geometrical view: their spatial image (what they do not have, because
they ARE space).
In this same image vacuum is also a bunch of discontinuous points that move.
Vibrate. Fluctuate. Undulate into waves. But without anything "interstitial"
they melt into a continuum? Your next sentence is TRUE:

This might be hard to understand.  But this is the same thing that there
> were no time "before" the Big Bang.  The time started with Big Bang.

JM: I overcame this contradictory duality of yours  about time, which - of
course could not exist before it  was started, - by including into my
narrative about  (my) Bigbang that the occurring Universe (ours at least)
organized its complexity into space and time from the aspatial - atemporal
plenitude it popped out from.
The wrong expression you applied is "BEFORE", a time-reference  referring to
qualify a state where time is not identified. (It mixes the "within-universe
view" with the view OF the universe from outside of it).

T-TH: And there is the same thing with the space points in the strings in
the discrete space.  There is no space "between" the space points.  This is
hard to understand mentally, but it can be understood mathematically.

JM: I would say: 'it can be described mathematically'. Realizing the formal
match in the math expressions is no understanding.  Not in the 'applied'
math at least, where the truth of 2+2=4 depends on what the 2s and the 4 are
applied for. Change the referents and understading may be gone.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to