Reply
Fri 19 Mar, 2010 07:14 pm
I was thinking that maybe instead of strings being the smallest things, leading up to atoms and molecules and whatnot, I thought, maybe the strings are the biggest thing in the universe.
Ok, it is true that strings create the universe and allow the atoms to exist right? But then again, that would mean that strings are creating things larger than themselves, which kinda doesnt make sense.
I believe what the strings are really doing is projecting. Think about a projector as all the strings, the projector maybe is small, but it can project on a huge screen, way bigger that its original size. And the projections that come out are light, and, the strings projections are atoms. Light is the speed of information I believe.
So in reality, its kinda like we are being played back. The strings are the stage or the projectors, that shoot us into existence. Which means that strings are bigger than us, and we think they are actually smaller. If you were being played back on a projector, and you learned that the projector was the smallest thing that was creating you, you would think it truly is the smallest thing, but in reality, its bigger than you because you are only a projection, you dont really exist unlike the projector.
Which means that are entire life is either a movie or a game, and we can prove that by time, seeing as how time allows rules to exists, and rules are only found in a game pretty much.
So yeah, to sum it up, we are projections of strings, therefore, strings are our creators, and that means, that strings are actually bigger than us(think of it as more real than us if you cant think of it as being bigger), and they are most likely also a projection of another universe that is larger and grander than ours. For example a universe out of time and speed limits.
@dave2770,
did people see no potential in this thread? 80 views and not one single response that says either yes or no
@dave2770,
There are people with PhDs in science who can't understand string theory. As for me, I am an Arts graduate and can make virtually no sense of string theory. Quantum mechanics and Eastern philosophy - no probs. A layman's understanding of Einstein - check. But string theory is so intrinsically anti-intuitive that I have never been able to imagine it. 11 dimensions? I'm sorry.
A couple of thoughts - I have read of a book called
The Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin which questions whether string theory has a future.
Roger Penrose - also a mathematical physicist - says
Quote: he has no time for strings. "My main objection is all those extra dimensions, which don't make any sense," he says. ...String theorists are not facing up to their problems. "I don't see string theory converging on anything. In fact, it's diverging: it has got wilder and wilder."
So there are two things that I have read recently about string theory.
As far as your depiction of String Theory goes: the first few questions I apply to any such idea is: is it possible to verify or falsify it? Second, the 'so what' test - 'so what' if it is true. Does it have any actual consequences for explaining what we see, or for understanding the nature of reality.
And as for life being a movie or a game - I imagine a lot of people are starting to think like that. And it is true in a way - life is like a movie, but the pain is real. It adds a dimension they just can't put on the screen.
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;141460 wrote:There are people with PhDs in science who can't understand string theory. As for me, I am an Arts graduate and can make virtually no sense of string theory. Quantum mechanics and Eastern philosophy - no probs. A layman's understanding of Einstein - check. But string theory is so intrinsically anti-intuitive that I have never been able to imagine it. 11 dimensions? I'm sorry.
A couple of thoughts - I have read of a book called
The Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin which questions whether string theory has a future.
Roger Penrose - also a mathematical physicist - says So there are two things that I have read recently about string theory.
As far as your depiction of String Theory goes: the first few questions I apply to any such idea is: is it possible to verify or falsify it? Second, the 'so what' test - 'so what' if it is true. Does it have any actual consequences for explaining what we see, or for understanding the nature of reality.
And as for life being a movie or a game - I imagine a lot of people are starting to think like that. And it is true in a way - life is like a movie, but the pain is real. It adds a dimension they just can't put on the screen.
Pain and feelings are just as real as sight and smell. Also, I really wanted someone to comment on my idea of what strings are. If no one can understand what it is, then I believe I just found out what strings are.
It is selfish to assume that only our universe exists, there must be another universe that is way superior to ours, and it seems as if we are the bad universe in a bubble of another grander universe. The strings are just projecting us.
I dont know how anyone can be interested in Quantom Physics and not believe that someone or something created everything. People see the universe so universally, as in they see it as if it is really real, but how can we truly convince ourselves that atoms are matter and not dream particles in someones dream? Or a projectors light playing back a movie? People will say "But how come I am making a choice and doing this and that all with me choosing? "It cant be that we are just a movie or game, its just too real" but thats what time is here for, its here to give us a cause and effect.
I think just describing the universe and life in general probably will take a book that is as large as the world. The only way people can possibly understand is with a thousand examples, and even then, Human Denial kicks in to save them from their oncoming pain and sorrow. If you dont know what I mean by that, check my Human denial thread in general.
@prothero,
prothero;141664 wrote:I am not sure how to make an entry into your notion here.
For me, string theory should cause us to reconsider a couple of fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality.
One- the point particle theory of matter and of atomic theory in general is wrong. Classical Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's general theory of relativity both assume a fundamental point particle theory of reality. Quantum mechanics does not. Of the four fundamental forces, three have been described in compatible quantum mathematical descriptions. Only gravity does yet have a quantum description.
Two-the idea that ultimate reality is inert and an insensate point particle is also wrong. If strings are the ultimate constituent of reality, than strings are always vibrating and always in mathematical harmonic ratios. The ability to express the laws of nature in mathematical forms begins to make more sense. The fact that nature is more like a harmonic interrelated symphony than independent inert objects makes more sense.
Three- string theory implies that the notion of continuous space time is also wrong. Space and time may well be discrete, discontinuous and quantified, not the continuous infinitely divisible medium of classical mechanics. So theories that reality is composed of events (process philosophy) not of objects can be more seriously considered.
The various main presentations of string theory have now been show to be special cases of a more fundamental theory M-theory in which the universe is more like a fluctuating vibrating membrane. So in that sense the universe could be seen as one large membrane (not a large string the way you propose but similar enough to be considered).
So are you saying that it is not projecting? To me, it seems exactly like a projector.
@dave2770,
It is possible that what you are seeing or having an intuition of, has actually nothing whatever to do with string theory. This is not to say that your intuition has no truth to it. But I don't think that 'string theory' has anything to do with it. Unless you are a mathematical physicist - you may well be, for all I know - I very much doubt that you have any understanding of string theory at all.
It might interest you to know, however, that Indian philosophy has a very similar idea to yours, whereby the individual mind projects the whole drama of existence out of its ignorance of its actual nature. It may be that idea that you are actually thinking of.
@dave2770,
@ dave2770
That would demand a double existance? ..think it's a bad anology.
With bricks, I can make a house, an object larger than themselfs, why the heck would there be another greater object projecting itself to the bricks?
Imo I think these super strings consister of even minor objects, that will allign themselfs after being divided.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace