String Theory is a Postmodern Joke!!!!!!!! Even its textbooks say so!!!

[astro]

String Theory is a Postmodern Joke!!!!!!!! Even its textbooks say so!!!

Moving Dimensions Theory is the new paradigm!!

Rock out at http://physicsmathforums.com !!

"The great irony of string theory, however, is that the theory itself is not unified. To someone learning the theory for the first time, it is often a frustrating collection of folklore, rules of thumb, and intuition. (IN OTHER WORDS IT IS NOT PHYSICS!!!) At times, there seems to be no rhyme or reason for many of the conventions of the model. For a theory that makes the claim of providing a unifying framework for all physical laws, it is the supreme irony that the theory itself appears so disunited!!"
Chapter 1. Path Integrals and Point Particles: Why Strings?
“Introduction to Superstrings and M-Theory,” page 5. –Michio Kaku

“If Einstein were alive today, he would be horrified at this state of affairs. He would upbraid the profession for allowing this mess to develop and fly into a blind rage over the transformation of his beautiful creations into ideologies and the resulting proliferation of logical inconsistencies. Einstein was an artist and a scholar but above all he was a revolutionary. His approach to physics might be summarized as hypothesizing minimally. Never arguing with experiment, demanding total logical consistency, and mistrusting unsubstantiated beliefs. The unsubstantial belief of his day was ether, or more precisely the naïve version of ether that preceded relativity. The unsubstantiated belief of our day is relativity itself. It would be perfectly in character for him to reexamine the facts, toss them over in his mind, and conclude that his beloved principle of relativity was not fundamental at all but emergent—a collective property of the matter constituting space-time that becomes increasingly exact at long length scales but fails at short ones. This is a different idea from his original one but something fully compatible with it logically, and even more exciting and potentially important. It would mean that the fabric of space-time was not simply the stage on which life played out but an organizational phenomenon, and that there might be something beyond.” –A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down, Robert B. Laughlin, Winner of the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect.

“[String Theory] has no practical utility, however, other than to sustain the myth of the ultimate theory. There is no experimental evidence for the existence of strings in nature, nor does the special mathematics of string theory enable known experimental behavior to be calculated or predicted more easily. Moreover, the complex spectroscopic properties of space accessible with today’s mighty accelerators are accountable in only as “low-energy phenomenology”—a pejorative term for transcendent emergent properties of matter impossible to calculate from first principles. String theory is, in fact, a textbook case of Deceitful Turkey, a beautiful set of ideas that will always remain just barely out of reach. Far from a wonderful technological hope for a greater tomorrow, it is instead the tragic consequence of an obsolete belief system—in which emergence plays no role and dark law does not exist.”
–A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down, Robert B. Laughlin, Winner of the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect.

The master antitheory of the age is the idea that there is no fundamental thing left to discover, so that the world we inhabit is simply a swarm of detail that belongs to no one and thus can be legitimately handled by business tactics—resource management, competitive advertising, survival of the fittest, and so forth. A corollary is that there is no absolute truth, but only products, like shirts or hamburgers, that one throws away when their usefulness is exhausted. Antitheories are dangerous ideologies not only because they impede inquiry but because they lull one into ignoring threats that one’s opponents can exploit to their advantage.”
–A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down, Robert B. Laughlin, Winner of the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect.

[astro]

String theory is non-verified and non-mainstream work!

String Theory is non-verified and non-mainstream work!
String theory is non-verified and non-mainstream work!

Only 1,000 physicists use it: a tiny, tiny percentage of the human population. They use it to raise government grants, enslave students to meaningless careers, and pick the pocket of the tax-payer.

Billions use QM and SR every day, to communicate on phones and over the internet.

I propose that all posts pertaining to string theory be deleted.

That way all the hundreds of millions of dollars they consume can go to support real physics, based in logic, reason, and reality.

http://physicsmathforums.com

[astro]

String theory has never accomplished one thing.

It has not explained one single phenomena.

It has unified nothing.

It is one big joke.

I know the theory that will replace it, but I am forbidden from posting it here, until said theory is published in a peer-reviewed journal. And so the myth of string theory prevails in this tragic tautology that killed contemporary physics, and the careers of many young physicists--both those who accepted String Theory and those who railed agianst it.

Ten years ago I almost went into string theory, but it smelled like a hoax.

Too many glossy pictures in the NYT. Too many TV shows.

And not one experiment nor solid mathematical principle.

So I devoted my years to other ventures.

And now it's paying off.

Rock on to all the independent thinkers and true physicists, who live in logic, reason and reality!

Down with the arrogant postmodern hoaxers and jokesters!!

[astro]

The cost of String Thoery:

There are approximately 1,000 string theorists.

Their average salary, including benefits, office space, and overhead, is around $100,000 per year.

That means $100,000,000 goes towards string theory earch year.

Over a twenty year period, this is two billion dollars.

What private foundations have poured Two Billion dollars into string theory over the past twenty years?

And how shall we factor the cost of all the "real physicists" who have been dsiplaced by the theory? How shall we factor the cost of all the unemployed String Theorists at the tail-end of the Ponzi scheme?

They have little future, and their heads are filled with a mishmash of random mush. It says so in leading String Theory textbooks:

The great irony of string theory, however, is that the theory itself is not unified. To someone learning the theory for the first time, it is often a frustrating collection of folklore, rules of thumb, and intuition. (IN OTHER WORDS IT IS NOT PHYSICS!!!) At times, there seems to be no rhyme or reason for many of the conventions of the model. For a theory that makes the claim of providing a unifying framework for all physical laws, it is the supreme irony that the theory itself appears so disunited!!
Chapter 1. Path Integrals and Point Particles: Why Strings?
“Introduction to Superstrings and M-Theory,” page 5. –Michio Kaku

[astro]

Are New Ideas Important in Physics and Astronomy?

If so, then why are young scientists with new ideas based in logic, reason, and reality, so often castigated, impugned, and crucified while those who quietly, passively, and uncreatively accept the nonesensical mythologies of String Theory and M-Theory rewarded with vast salaries, health benefits, TV shows, book deals, and tenure?

I would very much like to discuss my new theory here, but I am forbidden from even mentioning its name, as the String Theorists and other fashionistas do not approve of it. And so their multi-billion dollar myth is perpetuated at the expense of logic, reason, and physics.

But time is on our side. And what is time? I am not allowed to say, as my theory is banned for the moment.

The current state of physics has several Prominent Physicsists and Great Thinkers spinning in their graves:

John Dewey
Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of the imagination.
— The Quest For Certainty

Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931) U. S. inventor.There ain't no rules around here! We're trying to accomplish something!


Albert Einstein
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.

Albert Einstein
If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.

Albert Einstein
The world we have made as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far creates problems we cannot solve at the same level of thinking at which we created them.

Albert Einstein
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen.

Albert Einstein
The mere formulation of a problem is far more often essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science.

Albert Einstein
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

Albert Einstein
Three rules of work
1. Out of clutter, find simplicity.
2. From discord, find harmony.
3. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity

Albert Einstein
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Albert Einstein
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious—it is the source of all true art and science.

<img> Goethe
Science and art belong to the whole world, and before them vanish the barriers of nationality.

Carl Sagan :
It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.

Julius Sextus Frontinus
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.
–Highly regarded engineer in Rome, 1st century A.D.

Albert Szent-Gyorgi
(Nobel-prize winning biochemist who discovered vitamin C)

And if everybody says that you are wrong, then you are one step ahead. Butthere is one situation which is better still, when everyone begins to laugh about you, then you know you are two steps ahead.


Heraclitus
One cannot step twice into the same river.

Willis Harman and Howard Rheingold
While the rational mind is important, we gain a new perspective when we learn how many of the greatest scientific insights, discoveries, and revolutionary inventions appeared first to their creators as fantasies, dreams, trances, lightening-flash insights, and other non-ordinary states of consciousness.

Kekule, famous for his dream-inspired scientific breakthrough—discovering the molecular structure of benzene, advised his fellow scientists: "Let us learn to dream, gentlemen."

Charles Franklin Kettering (1876-1958) U. S. engineer and inventor.
Whenever you look at a piece of work and you think the fellow was crazy, then you want to pay some attention to that. One of you is likely to be, and you had better find out which one it is. It makes an awful lot of difference.


Dr. Edwin Land
An essential aspect of creativity is not being afraid to fail.

Friedrich Nietzsche
All sciences are now under the obligation to prepare the ground for the future task of the philosopher, which is to solve the problem of value, to determine the true hierarchy of values.

Friedrich Nietzsche
I wish to be at any time hereafter only a yea-sayer!

Friedrich Nietzsche
We must be physicists in order to be creative since so far codes of values and ideals have been constructed in ignorance of physics or even in contradiction to physics.


Friedrich Nietzsche
A thinker sees his own actions as experiments and questions.. as attempts to find out something. Success and failure are for him answers above all.



Friedrich Nietzsche
There are no facts, only interpretations.



Isaac Newton
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, felt that the pioneer scientist must have " a vivid intuitive imagination, for new ideas are not generated by deduction, but by artistically creative imagination."

Max Planck
An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out.
In "Shorter Bartlett's Familiar Quotations," by John Bartlett, 1937, 1980, 1992.

Henri Poincaré, Mathematician
It is by intuition that we discover and by logic we prove.

Plotinus
Knowledge has three degrees—opinion, science, and illumination. The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second, dialectic; of the third, intuition. This last is absolute knowledge founded on the identity of the mind knowing with the object known.

Francis Marie Arouet de Voltaire (1694-1778) French writer, philosopher.
No problem can stand the assault of sustained thinking.

[astro]

With so many cranks, hypesters, and con-artists posing as peer-reviewers, why does PF allow string theory to be discussed, and why does it have its own forum?

It has never been experimentally verified, and the theory makes no sense. It has accomplished absolutely nothing. Why is it allowed to displace logic, reason, and physics?

Who's string theory's greatest con-artist? Kaku?

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/

Is String Theory About to Snap?

The August issue of Discover magazine is out, with a cover story entitled "Is String Theory About to Snap?". The editors of the magazine describe how they recently became aware of the controversy over string theory when they organized a celebration of Einstein in Aspen last summer. They quote Lawrence Krauss as telling them "String theory may be in a worse position now regarding being testable than it has been at any time in the past 20 years." To get a response to this, they asked Michio Kaku to write something for them. They refer to him as a "cofounder of string theory", which I suspect some people might object to. Presumably they meant to repeat what is in their profile of him, which calls him a "cofounder of string field theory."

Kaku's article is entitled Testing String Theory, and is a thoroughly intellectually dishonest piece of writing, designed to mislead anyone without expertise in what is at issue here. He succeeded in misleading whoever wrote the blurb for the article which goes: "No experiment has ever allowed us to test whether any of the assumptions of string theory are true. That is about to change." No it's not. None of the experiments Kaku mentions will "allow us to test whether any of the assumptions of string theory are true".

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/

Is Witten the greatest hypster of all time?

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/

Witten on CNN

Via David Goss and Lubos Motl, the news that CNN's Candy Crowley has a piece about Witten. Unlike Lee Smolin's Why No "New Einstein"? piece, CNN more or less identifies Witten as the new Einstein. Witten is quoted as giving the following rather defensive statement about string theory: "I just think too many nice things have happened in string theory for it to be all wrong... Humans do not understand it very well, but I just don't believe there is a big cosmic conspiracy that created this incredible thing that has nothing to do with the real world." He's kind of defending against a straw man, since virtually no one is saying string theory is "all wrong" or "has nothing to do with the real world".

Is Brian Greene the greatest scam artist?

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000211.html

I am astonished that the self-proclamed ultra-advanced NC string theory (a radical modification of usual string theory in fixed background/cosmologies) used, in the last decade, advanced math developed in other fields of science by Prigogine and the Brussels School in the 60s. The delay of the “ultra advanced” theory is of most than 30 years for a supposed "profound" theory that, in the words of Brian Greene, is providing us the most basic understanding of nature! This is, obviously, false, simply propaganda.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000211.html

[astro]

They've been in "the midst of a massive shift" for the past 30 years, with the same results--nada.

The only shift that has been going on is taxpayer and tuition dollars into their pockets. Think about all the poor students taking out burgeoning loans, going into debt, to support their pomo-professor's selfish indulgences. Why it just don't seem right.

Because string theory cannot be proven nor disproven, because it posits nothing, it is a perpetual motion machine, forever printing dollars for elite pseudo physicists and their useful idiots.

String theory has Einstein spinning in his grave so fast that it's gonna create a black hole. That's the end of the universe that String Theorists are now predicting--the longer, harder, and faster they theorize, the faster Einstein spins, and the faster all this will come to an end.

Is there anyone here that doesn't think String Theory is a complete and utter hoax?

[astro]

This morning I mastered seven of String Theory's ten dimensions, but I am having trouble with the last three.

Could someone please draw the intersection of a sphere in the dimensions 8-10 with a plane in the two dimensional plane defined by dimensions 8 and 9?

I almost have it, but these dimensions are curled up, so it is difficult.

Thanks in advance!

[Epsilon=One]

String Theory is a Postmodern Joke!!!!!!!! Even its textbooks say so!!!

“If Einstein were alive today, he would be horrified at this state of affairs. He would upbraid the profession for allowing this mess to develop and fly into a blind rage over the transformation of his beautiful creations into ideologies and the resulting proliferation of logical inconsistencies. Einstein was an artist and a scholar but above all he was a revolutionary. His approach to physics might be summarized as hypothesizing minimally. Never arguing with experiment, demanding total logical consistency, and mistrusting unsubstantiated beliefs.

Astros insight as above quoted has further relevance concerning string theory.

I believe Einstein, as Sir Hoyle, could not approve the Big Bang paradigm for much the same reasons as quoted above. Its general acceptance depended upon Einstein's death.

Conventional, academic, theoretical physics, which now seems to include string theory and its derivatives, can advance little in understanding the mechanisms of the Cosmos until another force opposite to gravity's apparent attraction is firmly established.

Such a force can easily be rationalized, without resorting to the metaphysics of current forces, if an analysis of the observed data of the Hubble Space Telescope is logically applied to the problem.

This data has been available for more than a decade; and yet, we still speak to the layman of the Big Bang (derisively named), which is incapable of imparting acceleration . . . as a certainty!

Another well known, by the insiders, hoax that is perpetrated upon the layman is that: massive black holes reside in the center of galaxies. Not only does this go against the dynamics of galaxies; but, black holes themselves are theoretical. Even Hawking has renounced his original theories concerning black holes.

The genesis of both these hoaxes lies in the errors of extending GR beyond its limited parameters, which Einstein well understood . . . but, others have chosen to ignore.

[astro]

In modern theoretical physics nothing can be known, and string thoerists
are better at not knowing anything than anyone else. Thus they get all
the government grants to not know more on a theoretical level than ever before.

[Epsilon=One]

In modern theoretical physics nothing can be known, and string thoerists
are better at not knowing anything than anyone else. Thus they get all
the government grants to not know more on a theoretical level than ever before.

Your insight is refreshing.

I contend that all modern theoretical physics is based upon metaphysics . . . that is the definition of the forces and mathematics is faith related (secular faith may be more devastating than religious faith).

The arguments for the fundamental concepts being metaphysical are:

1. Gravity: Feynman seems to have the last word on gravitational attraction being beyond definition (to paraphrase).

2. Light: Contradictorily described as either a particle or a wave; as dichotomous a definition as possible.

3. Ignored forces: Inertia is one, being ignored as a force by all but a few such as Sciama and Mach.

4. Strong and Weak: These forces are admittedly contrived.

5. Mathematics: Mathematics (a creation of nature that underlies structure) is often overlooked as a fundamental of physics. Math is without a fundamental underpinning until the acceptance of a proof of one that is a constant and not system dependent.

[Rogue Physicist]

But String Theory and SuperString Theory are two different theories.

All field theories are going in the direction of Gauge Theories.

This is probably a bad thing...

[Quantoken]

Einstein would not have agreed with the Big Bang Theory. He inheritantly hated any singularity and believed that singularity does not exist in nature, so any thing you get a singularity, there is something that needs modification in your theory.

Quantoken

[Epsilon=One]

Einstein would not have agreed with the Big Bang Theory. He inheritantly hated any singularity and believed that singularity does not exist in nature, so any thing you get a singularity, there is something that needs modification in your theory.

Quantoken

You are correct the singularity does not appear in Nature. As for your reference to "any singularity"; by definition, there can be only one singularity. And, in fact, it is the only provable; because, it cannot be proved.

If a singularity does not appear in Nature; it most be beyond the limit of reality; as is the duality of infinity, which is an unreachable limit. Ergo; infinity is the singularity.

Infinity can be neither divided nor added to, Such is a great source and explanation for "dark" energy being unobservable, omnipresent and not being able to "break loose": i.e. hyper-relativistically pulsating from every point as heuristically described by Taisoids (Tangent integer infinity spheroids; See: http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=63.)

[Epsilon=One]

Einstein would not have agreed with the Big Bang Theory. He inheritantly hated any singularity and believed that singularity does not exist in nature, so any thing you get a singularity, there is something that needs modification in your theory.

Quantoken

I absolutely agree!!!

The Big Bang is a myth within the minds of theoretical physicists. Sir Fred, Al and many fellow-travelers had/have it right.

Look for the whimper of coalescence until the phenomenon of mass; not to the bang of compression as with quasars and gamma-ray bursts.

There are four congeneric, cyclic Realms of Reality: Coalescence, Propagation, Compression, Dissipation . . . ad infinitum.

A singularity is the only absolute provable because it cannot be proven.

A singularity cannot be modified: i.e. added to or divided.

The infinite and the infinitesimal are defined by speed not size or distance.

The infinite and the infinitesimal are each a singularity, each being a limit beyond Reality.

By definition there can be only one singularity.

Thus, the infinite and infinitesimal, have congruent loci (They are the same place.) and are referred to as Infinity, the only singularity.

It is a singularity from which all phenomena find energy ("dark" energy); as there is conservation (nothing added nor divided); subsequently, cyclic motion (complex oscillation).

[Albers]

I have shown how an electron near-field can be singular yet finite and integrable. I have also shown how a photon wave packet stays that way.

[Epsilon=One]

I have shown how an electron near-field can be singular yet finite and integrable. I have also shown how a photon wave packet stays that way.I believe that both phenomena are closely related.

Have you shown this with higher mathematics that would raise my scepticism; or, geometry and arithmetic that would excite my intellect?

How do you define "near-field"?

One of the subtlest arguments is that the locus of UnReality (Infinity/singularity) and the locus of Reality (all that exists) are congruent.

[Albers]

In the photon I assume there is an exponentially localized packet falling off in some large number of wave oscillation lenghts akin to 10^3. I simply interrogate the expression, asking "What phased-array antenna, or diffuse waveguide do you carry with you to remain non-dispersive?" Assuming it is there, I solve for it. This could, as a model, be useful for a photon developed "many wavelengths" away from its source. Atomic sources are smaller than visible light lengths, but one can see them as phased dipole array emitters. This is exactly what you are looking at in the dipole matrix components of QM: the dipole exitation which emits. This squared yields a transition probability. Clearly I am not dealing with this situation, but rather a simple approachable model............................................. .................................................. ........In electrons I note that a charge distribution going as (r^-1)(e^-r) gives an asymptotic value of charge density at r=0, but a quite calm volume integral. In fact, any near-field quantity varying as r^-2 or higher order, integrates just fine. There is implied here a length scale on 'r', which one puts in at the end. Here, radius about 'one' marks the range where the nearfield becomes the rule.

[Albers]

I have few clues as to what the vacuum fields are but believe I see reason to question our theory here. This I can only do with your help at the moment because I have spent my recent years working at this project rather than educating myself further in QM. I figured that's just not my job. It seems clear to me that insofar as there exist wave packets such as I describe then there has to be 'very small scale response'. That is simply what we assumed! I am only the mathematician, please don't shoot! If the response is available locally then packets can be any magnitude. The other big point here is that charge is not necessarily quantized either. It is as if the background is a neutral plasma waiting to be split by a penetrating magnetic vector potential. Could this be accomplished by 'virtual particles'? I think not; QM of particles seems reasonable in the appropriate regimes, namely where there is that much energy involved. I need help here to understand! In my dark energy presentation I argue that letting go of the mistaken assumption of the 'default' ground state of 1/2 eliminates the outrageous discussion produced otherwise. This I call the 'fiscally responsible vacuum', namely one that obeys thermodynamic statistics. Quantization is meaningless until nature defines a length. Here, the length of interest is the characteristic of the bound state, the electron. It, too, depends on the vacuum availability. I AM FASCINATED by your statement about Pauli (PEP)determining gravitation. Carry on, please.

[Albers]

If we say we have a field of r^-2, then it has zero divergence EVERYWHERE. EVEN AT THE ORIGIN. Go ahead and evaluate this as 'r' goes to zero. The divergenceless field is available to the theoretician to balance something 'poking in there and causing it'. I model charge as mentioned, implying electric field as -(r^-2 + r^-1) e^-r . Having gotten this from integrating the divergence operator, I AM FREE MATHEMATICALLY TO ADD A HOMOGENEOUS TERM. Now we can ask, what the ..? If we say, this might be phenomenologically dipole stuff, then we end up with dipole shuffleboard. Is there a hidden result at the origin? I say they cancel out with our embarassing delta functions, and there is a dipole 'insult' pointing inward, creating a tuck in the fabric resulting in the r^-2. I don't have to, as a mathematician, explain further. You tell me what this stuff is!!!!!!!!! Further words: neutral massless plasma of equal species

[Albers]

As it is I am stymied in pursuing Lagrangian analysis, which we might hope to help us deal with the transition, nonequilibrium disturbances of the field. The reason is clear: to this point we have dealt with vector potential 'A' and its first two time derivatives. Present now is a response characterizable as P if you believe in polarization. I think the usefulness of this idea is limited but here good. We can envision current as time-derivative of 'P'. This is what we introduce on the RHS of the current eq; we figure energetically a term of P-dot-E belongs in the L'gr'ian, but we do not have that, we have the time derivative of P. To get what we need we must integrate, but this introduces a third order of time derivative into our La'g'n process and invalidates it. Hmm. Fundamentally, string theorists say that also. My problem here is that I have introduced PHYSICS without fully accounting for it. CAN WE?

[Epsilon=One]

Quantization is meaningless until nature defines a length.Exactly!!!

And, also, without this "length" there can be no fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT); or a solution to Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html) which is needed to prove arithmetic and all logic.

Your perception of fundamental principles is truly amazing.

I AM FASCINATED by your statement about Pauli (PEP)determining gravitation. Carry on, please.Ah ha, that didn't get by you. For fifty years no one has picked up on this . . . or much else that I say.

Much more later in the day as time allows. I think that we can help each other.

[Albers]

Pick at ice and you won't find water, unless you know that its molecules arrange in very different phase states at different T and P. So also we see here light wrapped around with precession cancelling helicity, giving frozen phase. In slightly different meaning , THIS IS A DIFFERENT PHASE STATE OF THE ENERGY. It is that state in which light manifests a circle of no variation. ..............................NEWS FLASH:::::::ANGELS DANCE ON POINT OF PIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Albers]

I know Pauli exclusion shows that fundamentally the fields of electrons cannot be superposed. They are a resonance that succeeds only at that level. I'm not sure yet what to say about spin 1/2 except to hazard a general observation that it is the characteristic of particle states which have singular centers. I will reread Dirac's paper from 1979. This is a watershed statement where he detailed history of the wave equations and trashed QED while staring in R. Feynman's face!!! I am sure R.F. wanted to wring his neck, and we witness two historic giants stuck at the point of either/or. On one hand Dirac was unyielding in judging 'success' in eleven-decimal accuracy. On the other, I completely agree that we can and must go further with beautiful mathematics beyond what we yet see. Orbits are characterized by unit momentum and are ring structures with an open center in some sense. Thus the two basic geometries of fermion/boson. In my electron paper I show the almost arbitrarily high energy density levels as radius goes to zero, so this is not 'just some E&M fields'. PEP controls the physics of condensed matter in the white dwarf state of stars, and further to the neutron star. In an even more massive scenario gravity wins completely and overwhelms even this ultimate last stand of structure. So certainly 'the butler' who could have done it is present. How is this a root of it, though? It is the root of mass structure, clearly; can we say it is the characteristic of any closed, bound, space-like state? I will be looking through your material.

[Epsilon=One]

I know Pauli exclusion shows that fundamentally the fields of electrons cannot be superposed. They are a resonance that succeeds only at that level. I'm not sure yet what to say about spin 1/2 except to hazard a general observation that it is the characteristic of particle states which have singular centers.1/2 spin, as I see it, has a different spin characteristic that I like to think of as more “intense”/”tighter” (some might say less tangled) than that of bosons; both Light (there are 4 distinct states) and particles are observable as spinning resonances that are sustained by different hyper-relativistic “envelopes” of oscillations.

The “envelope” of bosons is ellipsoidal; the “envelope” of fermions is spherical.

The spherical “envelope” (Taisoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=102)) is an evolution of the ellipsoidal “envelope” (Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98)).

Note: Tini Circle Group (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=159) geometry. All inscribed spaces for any starting integer diameter can be filled with tangent circles of integer diameters. Think of the circles as pulsing, oscillating, resonance and standing waves.

Note the last/bottom Tini Circle Group (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=159) on the page.

Of course everything depends on defining “one.” I am working on a simple reply to your prior post as time allows. Please keep asking questions even if it takes me a while to answer them.

…Dirac's paper from 1979. This is a watershed statement where he detailed history of the wave equations and trashed QED while staring in R. Feynman's face!!! I am sure R.F. wanted to wring his neck, and we witness two historic giants stuck at the point of either/or. On one hand Dirac was unyielding in judging 'success' in eleven-decimal accuracy.I am too much a realist for QM. I do credit QM for Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (HUP); otherwise, despite its successes, I believe it is incomplete and has deleteriously impressed too many minds. HUP is one of the characteristics that must be intrinsic to the idealized, quantum of Nature (IQ). (I believe Feynman had a high tolerance for irreverance.)

On the other, I completely agree that we can and must go further with beautiful mathematics beyond what we yet see.Yes, I too agree. The first step is to establish the origin of numbers, and arithmetic manipulation, in the IQ.

Orbits are characterized by unit momentum and are ring structures with an open center in some sense.Yes, I agree when you add “in some sense”; Look at a Tini Circle Group (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=159) and visualize the “open center” with unending tangent circles to the infinitesimal. (More realistically spheroids to the infintesimal)

In my electron paper I show the almost arbitrarily high energy density levels as radius goes to zero, so this is not 'just some E&M fields'.The smaller the circle the greater the “energy density.”

PEP controls the physics of condensed matter in the white dwarf state of stars, and further to the neutron star. In an even more massive scenario gravity wins completely and overwhelms even this ultimate last stand of structure.Yes, but probably not as you imagine. Cosmic Inertia (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=139) (gravity’s opposite reaction) slowly replaces the pressure of gravity’s compression (not attraction) as the neutron star’s galactic recession accelerates until all mass becomes calm waves, which then coalesce, propagate, compress, and again dissipate.

I will be looking through your material.Pay attention to the geometry. See: Elliptical Constant (http://www.go2data.com/EC/pdf/ec.pdf) and Proof of One (http://www.go2data.com/PoO.pdf) Manuscripts; and, ask questions because there is very little depth in these ad hoc posts beyond heuristic interpretations.

[Albers]

Field densities of second-order quantites like energy and angular momentum go rapidly upward as k^4. This is a striking scene and I need to hear about high energy photon physics. I would think (possibly because I deal with piano strings of finite thickness) there is a region where no more can be realized by the medium and saturation of inihomogeneous availability is seen. Something I read inferred the opposite, so I welcome information here.

[Epsilon=One]

Field densities of second-order quantites like energy and angular momentum go rapidly upward as k^4. This is a striking scene and I need to hear about high energy photon physics.I consider the photon effect a consequence of resonance created by complex oscillation. I can geometrically understand the oscillation “density” decreasing exponentially with time; however, I cannot imagine the resonance (photon) angular momentum changing to any discernable amount . . . until mass evolves.

Does this concept fit any of your mathematics?

I would think (possibly because I deal with piano strings of finite thickness) there is a region where no more can be realized by the medium and saturation of inhomogeneous availability is seen.Because of “your strings” I suspect you understand more than pomo theoretical physicists . . . including ST theorists. The oscillation that I infer is that of energy waves behaving as strings without “thickness” within a reference frame (pulsing, quantum "envelope" of oscillation).

[Albers]

I thought they needed an experienced wave mechanic around here. I'm not sure what you mean by photon effect. I see a conformal shrinking of the whole packet with higher energy but expect this to fail. How does it? Generally I figure that if things are conformal, then three dimensions of space envelope make for higher density and also A-nought goes as 'k' in such a model giving the fourth power. Otherwise viewed, electric field is the time-deriv. of 'A', so if A-nought already goes as 'k', then field strength goes as the square and energy density as the fourth. Regarding seeking understanding of orbits, specifically they are radially dipolar (opp.charge at center) in their own larger sense, with a bound state (I hate saying particle) at the center.

[Epsilon=One]

I AM FASCINATED by your statement about Pauli (PEP)determining gravitation. Carry on, please.See: Relative, Hierarchic Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=124).

"Dark" matter (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=155) can be thought of as an atom before the electron (and other resonant energy) is ejected from from the nucleus at Critical Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=205).

It is "dark" matter (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=155) as a direct, compressive force acting on "visible" matter that gives the illusion of gravitational attraction. Cosmic Inertia (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=139) is the reactive force. Ask questions.

[Epsilon=One]

I thought they needed an experienced wave mechanic around here.I sure do. Welcome aboard!!!

…not sure what you mean by photon effect.I don’t like to use the word “photon” because for many persons it connotes a particle, albeit without mass. By “photon effect” I’m referring to the effect that is registered by a photon detector.

I rationalize this effect as wave pulses that are created by the wave energy transferring back and forth to resonance spheres (Resoloids) at hyper-relativistic speeds. The Resoloids poke along at the speed of light.

As the Resoloids move along their diameters increase by one “unit” per wave pulse, which is minuscule compared to the wave length. After only a few hundred pulses the Resoloids are practically identical in diameters.

It is this “unit” (geometrically the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107)) that creates the resonance when all the salient internal, structural forces are multiples (integers) of the “unit” (one). It is the resonance (escapement) which stops the motion; thus, creating a pulse; thus, fundamental, intrinsic time FIT).

The pulse reestablishes at the end points and stops when the ellipsoid next resonates.

The“unit” increment of the Resoloid diameter accounts for red-shift.

See below for the simplified, heuristic geometry. Each circle has an integer diameter and is inscribed within a right triangle formed by the hypotenuse, radius, and wave of sequential Brunardot Ellipses (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=104).

(If no image appears below, "Click" your browser "Refresh" icon.)
http://www.CQthus.info/PT/Ellipses/Resoloids650.gif

I see a conformal shrinking of the whole packet with higher energy but expect this to fail. How does it?I don’t see it as conformal. I see three distinct types of oscillation, that as energy density decreases, shape spinning spheres. My theory is that it fails because the energy is transferred back and forth in a pulsing manner from an ellipsoidal wave to resonating spheres.

[Albers]

What do we know of the different characteristics of high energy photons?

[Epsilon=One]

What do we know of the different characteristics of high energy photons?All "photons" are intrinsically tetra-spherical resonances (Resoloids) of hyper-relativistic energy. The expanding ellipsoidal "envelope," which is the wave that "carries" the "photons" (Resoloids) behind its foci, moves in accordance with SR.

The energy of expansion fluctuates between the ellipsoidal wave and the Resoloids. It is this fluctuation which accounts for the non-locality (frequency) of the wave and its timing establishes the “unit” of time.

The expansion energy “density” decreases with time; thus the wave increases (Inverse Square Law). As the wave increases exponentially with each “interruption” the spherical resonances increase one “unit,” which is comparatively minuscule compared to the number of cycles at the anthropic scale; but, this increase is enough to account for “red-shift” over distances well beyond the anthropic scale. It also accounts for an almost imperceptible decrease in angular momentum ("time" dilation).

I understand that this jabbering leaves much to the imagination. It is intended as heuristic and I would expect that it leads to more questions than any answers that it may provide. Also, questions may allow a bit more thoughtfulness to the subject . . .

The “unit” is a function of constant motion and the geometry of a triquametric concept (simultaneous motion to and from three points). Incidentally, said motion establishes the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP).

[Epsilon=One]

Sooner or later, I will tie these posts back to the original String Theory topic. Can you find the "strings" of three types of oscillation in the ellipsoid of Triquametric motion???

[Albers]

All your introductions are helpful. I am not afraid to wade into something I cannot at first comprehend. I have learned to immerse myself, jump around in a new book, and just let it all soak in. I do need to get clear on your use of the word non-locality.

[Epsilon=One]

All your introductions are helpful. I am not afraid to wade into something I cannot at first comprehend. I have learned to immerse myself, jump around in a new book, and just let it all soak in. I do need to get clear on your use of the word non-locality.Your right! They are introductions . . . teasers to provoke questions.

As for non-locality: I rationalize that there is nowhere that there is not energy (I suppose many would call it emergent or "dark"). Where that energy is hyper-relativistic it appears from an anthropic perception as non-local. Elsewhere energy is always harmonic and appears where it resonates in various manifestations.

I believe this is more your field than mine.

Though, I don't believe you really tune too many pianos.

PS. I find if I immerse myself in what I don't understand; and, don't push too hard, the subconscious will eventually come up with a rationalization. Some times days . . . other times years.

[Albers]

I have learned to trust this subconscious process completely. Someone in Alan Guth's book (or was it Brian Greene?) wrote of having a 'takeout window ' in his mind. ORDER UP!

[Epsilon=One]

Below hydrogen atom orbitals are an example of tetra-spheroid, complex pulses. Light is somewhat the same concept along the major diameter behind the foci with the spheroids "stacking" in the form of a tetrahedron.

(If no image appears below, "Click" your browser "Refresh" icon.)
http://www.CQthus.info/PT/Images/Tetra-spheroids.gif

[TheAconcept]

The relationship between rotational and orbital motion of and within different objects:
From the smallest to the largest:
In atoms the electrons orbit the nucleus in electronic shells. Large amounts of atoms then come together to form large rotating objects such as moons, planets, suns and massive stars. Moons orbit planets; the rotating planets and their moons in turn orbit a sun. The moons, planets and suns, which are in motion then come together to form solar systems within a galaxy. Then within galaxies at their centers are large rotating bodies formed from the explosion and partial destruction of the massive stars during the creation of these galaxies. In each galaxy these large body at the center would have a special energy relation to every other object within the galaxy due to the fact that both the large body and all the solar systems within the galaxy were all apart of the large energy releasing massive star which the galaxy came from. The large number of solar systems within a particular galaxy would all be in orbit around the center of the galaxy, thus completing the orbital motion within a galaxy. And the motion of orbit even extend beyond single galaxies, in our region of the universe several galaxies tend to move in a synchronized manner, which would indicate that they are moving towards or are in orbital motion in accordance to a certain location in space, our galaxy being one of those galaxies.

The universe would now an endless or infinite vacuum in every direction, filled with an infinite amount of energy particles of all sizes and energy filled expanding galaxies moving in all directions, moving in synchronized and in random ways.

With the galaxies within the universe expanding and moving they will not remain organized forever and galaxies will start to collide. And again the universe had no beginning and it has no end. Its age is thus infinite. The universe with its endless vacuum and the energy within it was always here but some time in different forms.

One reason why the universe is considered infinite in terms of its age is because in term of an atom; the amount of times an atom and the particles making it up can be broken down or split up to get smaller particles or fractions, the amount of fractions would be infinite. That is because, say you have a molecule, you can split that molecule in to several atoms, then each of those atom can be split into electrons, protons and neutrons. Then each of those electrons, protons and neutrons can further be split in to even smaller particles, then those particles can be can be broken down to even smaller particles, then those small one to even smaller, then those smaller one can be broken down to the A, B and C particles that were mentioned earlier in this paper and those smaller and simple A, B and C particles can be broken down to even smaller particles and those can be split up or broken down to even smaller particles and soon and soon, and you could continue for ever and never stop and the particles you get could still be broken down further.

The bases or principles of the above statements are that if something exist then it must be made of something or it must contain some type of particle or it must contain some smaller thing working together. For example we all know protons exist therefore they must be made up of smaller particles working or coming together, we therefore know that those smaller particles inside proton exist therefore those smaller particles must be made up of even smaller particles. And each of those small particles had to be constructed or made at some point by the universe from even smaller energy particles. In simple terms an atom consist of an infinite amount of different size energy particles and the smaller a particle the smaller its energy level, and each energy particle in the atom was constructed at some point in time by the universe. Even if string theory (M theory) is correct and every atom and other energy particles or energy wave in the universe are made of vibrating strings, the fact would still remain that the strings would have a physical energy structure and they would also have to have some force or form of energy within them or some force or form of energy which had originally acted on them to cause or is still causing them to vibrate and the string would have to have a way of relaying messages between each other, which would mean that strings are made of smaller energy particles working together. And the fact that those smaller particles making up strings exist mean that those smaller particles within the strings must also be made of even smaller energy particles coming together or working together.

Another reason why the universe is considered infinite in terms of its age is because, some theories state that a big bang occur at some point in the past. Well I will ask the questions, where did the matter and energy in the big bang come from or where was this matter and energy located before if came here? Before the big bang what was in this location or region where we now call the universe? Their theories state that there was nothing here and nothingness normally means or represent the vacuum of space. Then I will ask the question, how long was this nothingness here before the big bang, or how old was the vacuum or nothingness and is the vacuum infinite in terms of its age and size? I would also ask the question was this enormous vacuum created or was it always here and can it be destroyed? And if it is destroyed what would take is place in the region where it was located? And if the vacuum was created what created the thing that created the vacuum?

One reason why I think the universe is infinite in terms of its size is because if the universe is not infinite in size then it must have a boundary or border around it. So I will ask the questions, if it has a border what would this border be made of? Would this boundary only enclose the matter and energy in the universe or would it also enclose the vacuum or void of space in the universe? Could this boundary be broken through? Would these boundary be visible in terms of would it be able to emit, reflect and absorb electromagnetic wave of all wavelengths? And if this boundary is made of matter or subatomic particle and other forms of energy particles could it have forces acting in it such as gravity and electromagnetism, etc? And what shape would this boundary form around the universe? That is would the universe have a spherical shape, cylindrical shape or would it have a irregular shape.

[Epsilon=One]

The universe would now an endless or infinite vacuum in every direction, filled with an infinite amount of energy particles of all sizes and energy filled expanding galaxies moving in all directions, moving in synchronized and in random ways.In general, I agree with your major concepts. There's a bit in the detail that is confused. Probably, only because of what is still not clear that I deduce from all the questions that you ask.

You are asking the right questions. And, your mind seems to be open to thought that is alternative to the Standard Models (SM).

There are too many questions to tackle all of them; and, some require lengthly answers that may not be entirely required.

Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PT) (Overview (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/OV)) would seem to answer all your questions. Take a look at it; then ask your questions one at a time in the order that most interests you.

Your writing indicates that you have acquired the most important concepts that are required to rationalize Nature's environment.

[Cerveny]

The universe would now an endless or infinite vacuum in every direction, filled with an infinite

In the reality there is not any infinity. The “infinity”is a mathematics (dummy) term only. It differs mathematics from physics. Mathematics is “physics” of the idea (and physics is “mathematics” of the reality).

[Epsilon=One]

In the reality there is not any infinity. The “infinity”is a mathematics (dummy) term only. It differs mathematics from physics. Mathematics is “physics” of the idea (and physics is “mathematics” of the reality).You could not possibly be more mistaken.

Every statement you have made is false. Think about them.

If you still don't understand; ask me to explain.

[astro]

Ed Witten Seen Reading Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics": NSF Quadruples LQG's Funding, Slashes ST's Funding, and Every University Gets Three LQG Theorists To Talk Amongst Themselves & Give One Another Tenure!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THE PHYSICS TIMES
Princeton, NJ

Ed Witten was seen reading Lee Smolin's THE TORUBLE WITH PHYSICS while simultaneuosly walking down Nassau Street in an inertial frame, followed by his 137 postdocs, who were chanting in unison.

Some towards the front of the line started crying first, as they realized it was the end of a free ride for blind obedience, and that for health benefits and summers off, they were going to have to hurt themselves by thinking on their own.

The news spread far and wide. Up in Cambridge Lubos Motl changed his snarky two star amazon review for THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS to a laudatory five star review, so as to secure future NSF funding. And Michio Kaku added Smolin as a friend at his myspace page, after a call from his media team.

"I've seen darker days than this," Brian Greene smiled. "I already got my two string theory coffee table books out and am set. I know that I have secured the Nobel--in literature."

Witten said, "It is time to make peace. The most important thing that we ST, LQGers, and Not Even Wrongers must do is continue to oppose physical theories, which unify disparate physical phenomena in the same physical framework. Otherwise mathematical masturbation will fall out of favor, and we will have to join the proletariat in working for a living and taking what they're giving."

I wish Woit would have talked more about his views on the future of physics.

String Theory was the only game in town, and now there are two--ST & deconstructing ST.

But there is another that actually unifies QM & SR & GR with a physical model: MDT--it's physics!

Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all experimental tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity. MDT is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted by quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The genius and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model which shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics derive from the same fundamental physical reality.

Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source, nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe which troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox.

Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies formerly disparate phenomena within a simple context.

THE GENERAL POSTULATE
OF DYNAMIC DIMENSIONS THEORY
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.
-Albert Einstein

But after thirty years of the absurdity of String Theory, millions of dollars from the NSF, and billions of complementary dollars from tax and tuition and endowments spent on killing physics and indie physicists, perhaps it's time for something that makes sense-for a physical theory that actually accounts for a deeper reality from which both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, from which time, entanglement, gravity, entropy, interference, the constant speed of light, relativistic time dilation, length contraction, and the equivalence of mass and energy emerge. It's time for Moving Dimensions Theory-MDT.
-The Physicist with No Name

I know what you're thinking. Did he say there were thirty-six dimensions or only thirty-five? Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .45 Revolver-the most powerful hand gun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question--Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk!? -Clint Eastwood

I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice. -Clint Eastwood

Go ahead. Make my day. -Clint Eastwood

MDT IN BRIEF
Without further adieu, allow me to present the beauty and elegance of MDT by showing both its simplicity and far-reaching ability to account for and answer fundamental questions. All of the below will be elaborated on throughout the book.

Questions Addressed by MDT:

Why does light have a maximum, constant speed independent of the source? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. A photon is momenergy that exists orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions. It is carried along by the expanding fourth dimension. So no matter how fast the source is moving when the photon is emitted, the photon travels at the rate with which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Thus c is always independent of the movement of the source.

Why are light and energy quantized? The fourth dimension is expanding in a quantized manner relative to the three spatial dimensions. Light and energy are matter rotated completely into the fourth expanding dimension, and as it expands in a quantized manner, light and energy are thus quantized.

Why is the velocity of light constant in all frames? Time is an emergent phenomena that arises because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The flow of time is inextricably wed to the emission and propagation of photons. In all biological, mechanical, and electronic clocks, the emission and propagation of photons is what determines time. The velocity of light is always measured with respect to time, which is inextricably linked to the velocity of light. This tautology ensures that the velocity of light, measured relative to the velocity of light, will always be the same.

How can photons display both wave and particle properties? The fundamental photon propagates as a spherical wave-front, surfing the fourth expanding dimension. This is because the fourth expanding dimension appears as a spherical wavefront as it expands through the three spatial dimensions. The act of measurement localizes the photon's momenergy, taking it out of the expanding fourth dimension and trapping it in the three stationary spatial dimensions, and it appears as a localized particle, trapped by electrons as it blackens a grain on a photographic plate.

How can matter display both wave and particle properties? The fundamental electron is abuzz with photons. Photons are continually being emitted into the fourth expanding dimension and reabsorbed by the electron. The continual dance with these photons gives the electron its wave properties. Nothing moves without photons which up the net probability that the combine momenergy will be in the expanding fourth dimension. The more photons one adds to an object, the greater the chance it has of existing in the expanding fourth dimension, and thus it moves.

Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That means that what begins as a point in the fourth dimension is a sphere with a 186,000 mile radius one second later. So it is that the entire spherical wavefront of the photon exists in the exact same place in time. Hence the non-locality observed in double slit experiments, the EPR effect, and quantum entanglement. Take two interacting spin ½ photons and let them propagate at the speed of c in opposite directions. They are yet at the exact same place in time! And too, they are yet in the exact same place of the fourth expanding dimension.

Why does time stop at the speed of light?
Time depends on the emission and propagation of photons. If no photons are emitted, time does not occur. This holds true whether the clock is an unwinding copper spring, a biological system such as a heart, or an oscillating quartz crystal. No photom emission=no time! As an object approaches the speed of light, its ability to emit photons without reabsorbing them diminishes. An object traveling at the speed of light cannot emit a photon.

How come a photon does not age?
A photon represents momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth expanding dimension. A photon stays the exact same place in the fourth dimension, no matter how far it travels. A photon stays the exact same place in time, no matter how far it travels. Again, time is not the fourth dimension, but in inherits properties of the fourth dimension.

Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing?

Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction?
Movement is always accompanied by a shortening in length. This is because the only way for a body to move is for it to undergo a rotation into the forth dimension, which is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The more energy an electron has, the more photons it possesses, and the higher probability it exists in the expanding fourth dimension. Hence its length appears contracted as perceived from the three spatial dimensions.

Why are mass and energy equivalent?
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That means that a baseball sitting on a lab table stationary in our three-dimensional inertial reference frame, is yet moving at a fantastic velocity relative to the fourth dimension. Hence every seemingly stationary mass has a vast energy, as given by E=mc2. In a nuclear reaction matter is rotated into the expanding fourth dimension, appearing as high-enegry photons (gamma rays) propagating at the same velocity of the fourth expanding dimension-c.

Why does time's arrow point in the direction it points in? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Hence every photon naturally expands in a spherically symmetric manner. Hence every electron, or piece of matter that interacts with photons, is naturally carried outward from a central point in a spherically symmetric manner. Hence the particles in a drop of dye in a swimming pool dissipate in a spherically symmetric manner, and are never reunited. Hence time's arrow and entropy.

Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling at a velocity c? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. Hence photons, which are tiny packets of momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth dimension, appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts propagating at the velocity c.

Why is there a minus sign in the following metric?
x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. Hence the only way to stay still in the space-time continuum, and to achieve a 0 interval, is to move with the velocity of light.

What deeper reality underlies Einstein's postulates of relativity?
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. This single postulate assures that the speed of light is constant for all observers and that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

What deeper reality underlies Newton's laws?
Newton's laws are an approximation of relativity and quantum mechanics, and as MDT underlies QM & relativity, it underlies Newton's laws.

Why is an increase in velocity always accompanied by a decrease in length as measured by an external observer? All increases in velocity are accompanied by rotations into the fourth dimension. All particles can be represented by momenergy 4-vectors. The greater the momenrgy component in the expanding fourth dimension, the greater the velocity and speed of the particle. Rest mass is the invariant here. It never changes. It prefers the three spatial dimensions. In order for it to move, one must gain energy in the form of photons. These photons prefer the fourth expanding dimension. The more photons one adds, the greater the component of the momenergy 4-vector that appears in the fourth expanding dimension, the more energy the particle has, the shorter it appears, and the faster it moves.

How MDT Is Aiding Fellow Physicists

"The conclusions from Bell's theorem are philosophically startling; either one must totally abandon the realistic philosophy of most working scientists or dramatically revise our concept of space-time." -Abner Shimony and John Clauser

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this new concept of space-time. The vast ambitions of most tenure-track physicists, including string theorists and LQG hypers, causes them to focus on irrelevant, minute questions, and thus, though funded by millions for over thirty years, have not yet been able to string the bow. Deeper, true physicists, such as Abner Shimony and John Clauser are alert to the fact that physics need news ideas.
The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

"For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal. The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

"Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

"For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal. The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

"Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

http://physicsmathforums.com

[ste]

How COULD there exist an infinity within reality? Logic tells us that infinity is that which can be approached, but never reached. So even if it did exist, it could never be "attained", "seen" or "perceived". When thinking of this as a value, size, or speed, our minds cannot comprehend something of this magnitude. Therefore, we use the word to represent the limit in our capabilities as humanity. I see no flaw in logic with Cerveny's interpretation.

[Epsilon=One]

How COULD there exist an infinity within reality?The argument is a subtle one. Basically your understanding of Infinity is quite good.

Some of the subtleties are that Infinities (this is a rare use of the plural that can be argued semantically) can be within Infinites. For instance, a sub-atomic particle within a cell within your body is oscilating to and from Infinity as is a sub-atomic particle in my body; thus, they are congruent at Infinity; this is referred to as Confluent Congruence (www.CQthus.com/PT/CC). Cerveny stated that: "In the reality there is not any infinity." At every point within Reality there can be said to be a congruence with Infinity. It is also true that Infinity is a limit that cannot be reached from Reality. Remember, Infinity is not attained by distance or size, but by speed.

I've probably only confused you more. The concept of Infinity is quite real though it must be approached from several directions mostly because of the limitations of our words. Some day the connotations for Infinity will embrace the entire concept. Just like the connotations for the word "cup" has many differing concepts depending upon each persons' experience.