Stephan,

Since yesterday it occurred to me that you may be thinking of the 10
or more dimensions of string theory as being orthogonal because they
were so before the big bang. But the dimensions that
curled-up/compactified went out of orthogonality during the big bang
according to Cumrun Vafa. I'll look up that reference if you are
interested.

According to Vafa 2 dimensions compactified for every single space
dimension that inflated. In over simplified terms,  2 dimensions
(actually in strips of some 10,000 Planck lengths) to be compactified
lined up say in the east-west space dimension so that space in an
orthogonal direction could expand. So some semblance of orthogonality
exists in the compactification process, but it is clear that the
compactified dimensions become embedded in 3D space for inflation to
occur.

Again from Vafa but a different reference, the hyper-EM flux that
winds through the 500 topo holes in the resulting compactified
particle (or crystalline element) is what constrains the particle from
re-inflating. The manner in which the flux winds through each Compact
Manifold (CM) particle apparently determines the laws and constants of
physics and is the basis of the so-called string theory landscape

As far as I know the hyper-EM constraining flux are not the strings
that are the basis of physical particles like photons or electrons.
But they may be related. I am admittedly just a (string-theory)
systems analyst and not a string theorist. I take the word of
theorists like Vafa and Yau at face value (whatever that means) for
the properties of the CM particles.
Other than reading the literature, my limited understanding comes from
auditing one of Vafa's courses on string theory at Harvard as an
alumnus.
Richard

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 12:46 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> Please inform ST Yau of your views. He will be interested for sure.
>> I have informed him of my paper and he found it interesting.
>> Personally I think your perspective is intellectualism.
>> Richard
>
> Dear Richard,
>
>     Your point is well made. It is quite possible that I am merely
> intellectualizing the idea, but as a philosopher I have to press hard on the
> idea that there is a possibility that we mistake our ideas of things for the
> things. The problems that I have pointed out are unanswered in the
> literature that I have found. I may have missed their solution. ;-)
>
>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/24/2012 11:25 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>> Stephan,
>>>
>>> The compactified dimensions curl-up into particles
>>> that resemble a crystalline structure
>>> with some peculiar properties
>>> compared to ordinary particles,
>>> but nevertheless just particles.
>>>
>>> What about that do you not understand?
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Richard,
>>>
>>>      That picture is not consistent with the mathematics as I understand
>>> them, they do not "curl up into particles". The explanations for laymen
>>> books like to invoke such ideas, but the math tells a different tale. The
>>> compactified dimensions exhibit the properties of particles, yes, but
>>> they
>>> are not free floating. The string picture is very much like a cellular
>>> automata on a 3d lattice. This looks like a crystalline structure, yes.
>>>      One of the problems of string theory is that there is no explanation
>>> as
>>> to what prevents the compactified manifolds from "uncurling" if we relax
>>> the
>>> strict orthogonality condition. The Kaluza-Klein theory that inspired
>>> string
>>> theory has the same problem. There does not seem to be a way to prevent
>>> the
>>> uncertainty principle from being universal such that the "size" of the
>>> compact manifold's radius is not subject to uncertainty. We can try to
>>> hand
>>> wave this away with the T-duality, but that just pushes the problem
>>> somewhere else.
>>>       I have tried hard to make string theory "work" for me. I appreciate
>>> your enthusiasm for them, but the theory seems too dependent on the
>>> assumption of a fundamental substance (in this case an a priori existing
>>> lattice of manifolds) and on the vicissitudes of scalar fields. I hope
>>> you
>>> can appreciate that I simply see string theories as very elegant examples
>>> of
>>> "pure math".
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Onward!
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to