But your question really is "what does a physical particle look
My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics..
. . .
So string theory IS my religion.
/ Richard Ruquist /
Do you advise me to believe in your religion of metaphysics?
Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’ / by Lee Smolin /
Part 8. The first superstring revolution.
Page 126 – 127.
‘. . . the growing catalog of string theories meant that
we weren’t actually studying a fundamental theory.’ . . .
‘ . . . but the many versions of string theory opened up
the possibility that it was true of essentially all the
properties of the elementary particles and forces. This would
mean that properties of the elementary particles were
environmental and could change in time. If so, it would mean
that physics would be more like biology, in that the
properties of the elementary particles would depend on the
history of our universe. ‘
‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing.
How do we find that missing idea?’
/ Page 308. Lee Smolin. /
String theory . . . . ‘ Type IIA strings as one-dimensional
objects, having only lengths but no thickness, . . . . . ‘
/ page 311. Book: The elegant Universe. By Brian Greene /
We don't know what we are talking about"
/ - Nobel laureate David Gross referring
to the current state of string theory ./
How did the idea of many dimensions arise?
It began in 1907 when Minkowski tried to understand
SRT and invented 4-D negative spacetime continuum
Nobody knows what Minkowski 4-D really is.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried
to explain SRT using 5D space.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said physicists and mathematicians,
" maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 11D or 27D spaces will explain it".
And they had done it.
But………. But there is one problem.
To create new D space, they must add a new parameter.
Because it is impossible to create new D space without
a new force, a new parameter.
And they take this parameter arbitrarily
( it fixed according to they opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…"
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains? Where is the logic?
If we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is negative Mincowski 4-D
how can we understand 11-D, 27-D and string theory ?
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every physicist who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher must be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense" because they have
won us using the abstract ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
On Jan 24, 4:22 pm, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I always considered "h" to just be a constant of proportionality
> between energy and frequency that is determined empirically.
> What a quantum particle is may be metaphysical- that is, beyond
> measurement and subject to belief.
> For example I believe in a Quantum Mind- Physical world duality where
> both wave functions and their quantization exist in the quantum mind;
> whereas only physical particles exist in the physical world. That is,
> fields, forces and action at a distance all exist in the quantum mind.
> So lets consider the radiation of EM waves/fields from electrons in an
> antenna. As the waves spread out, their intensity or amplitude
> decreases as 1/r squared, so that one quanta of energy (or one photon)
> requires integration of the amplitude over larger and larger area
> and/or time.
> It is my conjecture that arithmetics of the Quantum Mind do a running
> quantization so that virtual particles are realized in the Quantum
> Mind that are digital equivalents to the analog EM fields, Same for
> all quantum wave functions in general.
> In the MWI scenario, every such virtual particle becomes a physical
> particle in a new universe. However, it is also possible that all
> virtual particles but one get cancelled by anti-particles ala Feynman
> QED or Cramer analysis thereby resulting in a single universe (SWI).
> That thinking combines a collapse model with a hidden variable model;
> but both models apply to the quantum mind and not the physical world.
> I believe that for my combined model to be true, the arithmetics of
> the quantum mind must be instantaneous, consistent with the Quantum
> Mind being mainly a timeless virtual MWI Block Space.
> But your question really is "what does a physical particle look like?"
> My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
> strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics. Of course,
> point particles are there as well.
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:37 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
> <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> > Belief . . . from history of physics.
> > =.
> > Many years Max Planck was attracted with the
> > absolutely black body problem.
> > If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls in the area of
> > absolutely black body and does not radiate back, then “ terminal
> > dead “ will come. In order to save the quantum of light from ‘death ‘
> > Planck decided that it is possible that quantum of light
> > will radiate back with quantum unit (h ), (h=Et )
> > This unit does not come on formulas or equations.
> > Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling.
> > Sorry. Sorry.
> > Scientists say: Planck introduced this unit intuitively.
> > They say: Planck introduced unit (h) phenomenologically
> > ===..
> > Phenomenology.
> > 1.
> > the movement founded by Husserl that concentrates on the
> > detailed description of conscious experience, without recourse
> > to explanation, metaphysical assumptions, and traditional
> > philosophical questions
> > ===…
> > So. Planck discovered the quantum of energy / action
> > ‘without recourse to explanation, metaphysical assumptions,
> > and traditional philosophical questions’.
> > Many years Planck tried to find rational explanation for his unit
> > but without success.
> > We can read that unit (h) is an ’inner’ impulse (spin) of particle.
> > But what ’inner impulse’ means? We have no answer.
> > ==.
> > There are 1000 books and millions articles about
> > ‘philosophy of science’ but how can I believe them
> > if they didn’t explain me ‘what quantum particle is’.
> > Our today’s belief in science is similar to the past belief
> > in religion: ‘ I believe because it is absurd.’
> > / Tertullian. (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) /
> > ( in science – big bang,
> > in religion - God create woman from Adam’s rib.)
> > ==..
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at