On 10/25/2012 7:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
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


Hi Richard,

How does Vafa explain the stability/instability of compactified dimensions? My chief worry is that all of the stringy and loopy theories assume a pre-existing continuum of space-time of some sort, the very Aristotelian "substance" idea that Bruno's argument successfully attacks. The assumption of primitive substances is very problematic as it does not allow for any room for consciousness to occur or be causally effective. I do like the idea of hyper-EM fluxes, but am not so sure that they are anything more than fancy math, fiber bundles and sheaf transform groups on n-genus topological manifolds and so on.... Where are all of the sparticles and bosinos that are supposed to exist if SUSY is correct? Occam's razor keeps me from believing in them...

--
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.

Reply via email to