 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / January 2006smallest measurable length scale implies cutoff, so why do we still believe string theory?
Hello- As more particle physicists are begining to believe that GR itself causes the universe to not allow measurments at scales smaller than the Plank length (see, for instance MINIMUM LENGTH FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES, hep-th/0505144), it is becoming clearer that an inherent energy cutoff exists in the universe. Any inherent cutoff fixes previously divergent integrals when a spin 2 boson is put in the standard model, solving the main problem that string theory fixes. Why should we seriously consider string theory as a description of reality then? This isn't a flame, I am really confused about the answer and would be interested in serious answers. see you -Inquirydog Plank -> Planck flame, I -> flame; I The theory is to say what makes all the particles. Thanks for the grammar check. The theory only exists today because all integrals diverged when gravity is added to the standard model. But if there is a smallest length scale, then there is no divergence anymore, so we don't need the theory and its 11 dimensions anymore, no? There are many smallest lengths for each combination of forces, so that doesn't preclude 11 or whitsever dimensions. The extra dimensions are to explain milestones they didn't foresee. There is only one smallest length postulated in the literature (ie- it is near the planck length), not one for each force. A smallest length scale does not preclude extra dimensions at all, but solves the very problems that led physics to require extra dimensions in the first place. Why consider extra dimensions when there is no experimental evidence of them and no theoretical need for them. I am not the only one with this idea, loop gravity, for instance, is one particular implementation. My question here is why I should take string theory at all seriously when such a simple alternative exists. thanks -Inquirydog because you misrepresented everything and are wrong? Ok, now it is clear to me you are a troll.... I will no longer (after this message) respond to you. I posed a reasonable question, and would still be interested in a reasonable answer from those people who enjoy scientific discussion. thanks -Inquirydog > Ok, now it is clear to me you are a troll.... I will no longer (after > this message) respond to you. I posed a reasonable question, and would > still be interested in a reasonable answer from those people who enjoy > scientific discussion. It's clear to me that you don't know what a troll is, and call those who correct you a troll out of your own uncouthness. The smallest possible length of what? I'm still bogged down in David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order! $$ Empty SPACE objects to VARiOUS vacu with NO STRiNGs attached. $$ Note the smallest possible OBjECTiVE length, of STRiNG: Any SPACE where MATTER, BULK or STRiNG is, isN'T empty. Because a SPACE where an OBjECT is CLEARLY isN'T empty. Also, any SPACE where ENERGY or a MASS is, isN'T empty. $$ Gr WAS a WORLD-point at an END of it's SPACE-time WORLD-line. Having DECLARED, "NO PRiOR geometry" ..NOW has NO WORLD-line. ```Brian. gileadx3@yahoo.com wrote: > > The smallest possible length of what? -=- [Nomen Clature] insert ..see TOP of page. > -=- I'm still bogged down > in David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order! Re: smallest measurable length scale implies cutoff, so why do we still believe string theory?. Re: Empty SPACE objects to VARiOUS vacu ..NO STRiNGs attached. it's -> its, illiterate shithead Space is not empty because it has fields everywhere, and field, æther, and matter are the same. As particles are hollow, only one particle has an emptiness within. > it's -> its, illiterate shithead > > Space is not empty because it has fields everywhere, and field, æther, > and matter are the same. As particles are hollow, only one particle > has an emptiness within. oh god... another xposting crank...  SignatureDirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org > oh god... another xposting crank... No god, and crank means someone cranky, as in grumpy, so you would be a crank as well. And I replied to brian stuckless who crossposted. > it's -> its, illiterate shithead > > Space is not empty because it has fields everywhere, and field, æther, > and matter are the same. As particles are hollow, only one particle > has an emptiness within. Hello crackpot. >> it's -> its, illiterate shithead >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Hello crackpot. .. and goodbye :) Bruce ---------------------------------------- I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides. Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups (if there were any) > $$ Empty SPACE objects to VARiOUS vacu with NO STRiNGs attached. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Re: smallest measurable length scale implies cutoff, so why > do we still believe string theory?. Because strings were invented to supply an endless playground for The Relavitity religous who worship the God of Symmetry, rather to explain anything about the phyiscal world. particles, measurement, or gravity. So strings are quasi-equivalent to Cantor's Proof and are used to pound out proofs of Equivalence Prinicipals, rather than logic. . > Re: Empty SPACE objects to VARiOUS vacu ..NO STRiNGs attached. $$ Empty SPACE objects to VARiOUS vacu with NO STRiNGs attached. $$ Note the smallest possible OBjECTiVE length, of STRiNG: Any SPACE where MATTER, BULK or STRiNG is, isN'T empty. Because a SPACE where an OBjECT is CLEARLY isN'T empty. Also, any SPACE where ENERGY or a MASS is, isN'T empty. $$ Gr WAS a WORLD-point at an END of it's SPACE-time WORLD-line. Having DECLARED, "NO PRiOR geometry" ..NOW has NO WORLD-line. ```Brian. gileadx3@yahoo.com wrote: > > The smallest possible length of what? -=- [Nomen Clature] insert ..see TOP of page. > -=- I'm still bogged down > in David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order! Re: smallest measurable length scale implies cutoff, so why do we still believe string theory?. Re: Empty SPACE objects to VARiOUS vacu ..NO STRiNGs attached. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.