The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: A question for the String theorist ?  (Read 2268 times)

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
A question for the String theorist ?
« on: 27/09/2010 02:09:54 »
A question for the string theorist: could the mathematics of string theory which is conceptualized as applying to looped vibrating strings be applied to entwined, rotating, repetitive streams as well?

For example one hypothesis would be to conceive of a homogenized field of universal components in constant change; random probabilities within vector mathematics would lead to the occurrence of repetitive cycles that would perpetuate by lowering the deflection or conflict among its constituents below that of the chaotic ambient.   These system would quickly evolve into the closest configuration with the least amount of interference; most likely involving multiple cycles with the strongest stream of one passing through the axis of another.

These would influence the ambient by warping it into concentric paths and by generating continuing wave like disturbances.   Because each repetitive configuration exist in a mathematical relationship to the ambient these disturbances would become the means of interaction.   I am not thinking of this occurring within a mechanical like aether but a medium of propertyless components that give rise through their interactions to the illusions of properties; time, space, motion, mass, energy, etc..

Putting the previous hypothesis aside the original question of the application of string mathematics to circulatory patterns does not seem that far fetched.   Especially when one considers that T.R. Jones initiated the string concept based on the discovery that the algebraic invariants Lord Calvin used to categorize vortexes, advanced by Jones into knot polynomials, were identical to the formulas of quantum mechanics.   Even more relevant to this idea is the work by Ludwig Faddeeve of the Steklov Mathematical Institute in Saint Petersburg Russia and Niemi of Uppsala in Sweden that demonstrated that knot-like vortices provide stable, finite-energy solutions for the equations governing local three-dimensional langrangian field theory models.

The concept can be experimentally tested.   For example light photons that consisted of rotating streams spiraling forward at a constant rate relative to their ambient field and generating a broader field in the process would behave differently from the photons of current theory.   They would behave like the photons in the half dozen or so original experiments that I have posted on this site.

Anyway, I do not have near the mathematical ability to answer my own question but I am hoping that someone viewing this post does.


 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
A question for the String theorist ?
« Reply #1 on: 29/09/2010 15:39:31 »
I'm not sure what you mean. A photon is an idea of energy, nothing rotating as far as I know?

A wave-packet if you rather like to look at it that way is nicely described here: " It is true that one can construct a "localized" wavepacket out of single photon states. Because it is constructed of single photon states, it is an eigenstate of the number operator. However, it is not an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian so it doesn't represent a state of definite energy. Of course, the wavepacket can have a fairly well defined average momentum  and average position consistent with Heisenberg. You might be tempted to associate the variance of your packet with some kind of "photon size", but its clear this size has nothing particular to do with any kind of inherent "photon size" and is most properly associated with how you prepare the system. In particular, such a wavepacket isn't exactly what people usually mean when they say photon. Such wavepackets are nevertheless useful for instance when one is talking about the continuous mode theory where it is difficult to give a precise definition of the photon. "

And seen as a wave it's something 'immaterial' reminding us of waves in the ocean, having a lot of the same properties too. To me the photon only exist in the instant it 'dies'. It's first and foremost an 'interaction' between the observer and what's observed.

As for how string theory treat it? Well, I'm sure you already have looked at it but, if not, look here. for the definitions used. The explanations made have to become 'esoteric' as they use one dimension to create two, by using the idea of 'world sheets' and 'vibrations' aka motion to build 'dimensionalities'. What they do is not only to use a singular dimension, they also introduce 'motion/vibrations' on it and from that and some 'arrow of time' build the rest, what we call matter and 3D. Times arrow they already introduced as they expect a vibration.

A vector is a description of something having 'a direction and a speed' so when you write "random probabilities within vector mathematics would lead to the occurrence of repetitive cycles that would perpetuate by lowering the deflection or conflict among its constituents below that of the chaotic ambient." I'm not sure what you mean? How do you get repetitive cycles out of vectors?

Maybe you are thinking of it out of gravity, a straight line bent to space?
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
A question for the String theorist ?
« Reply #2 on: 29/09/2010 16:04:29 »
...Because each repetitive configuration exist in a mathematical relationship to the ambient these disturbances would become the means of interaction. I am not thinking of this occurring within a mechanical like aether but a medium of propertyless components that give rise through their interactions to the illusions of properties; time, space, motion, mass, energy, etc....
This sounds like topological quantum field theory, sciconoclast. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_quantum_field_theory

Putting the previous hypothesis aside the original question of the application of string mathematics to circulatory patterns does not seem that far fetched.   Especially when one considers that T.R. Jones initiated the string concept based on the discovery that the algebraic invariants Lord Calvin used to categorize vortexes, advanced by Jones into knot polynomials, were identical to the formulas of quantum mechanics.
Definitily topological quantum field theory. Have a look at this month's PhysicsWorld magazine. And look up Atiyah and K-theory. There's quite a few "electron model" papers that describe the electron as something akin to a moebius strip:



Even more relevant to this idea is the work by Ludwig Faddeeve of the Steklov Mathematical Institute in Saint Petersburg Russia and Niemi of Uppsala in Sweden that demonstrated that knot-like vortices provide stable, finite-energy solutions for the equations governing local three-dimensional langrangian field theory models.
I haven't heard of them. And seeing as he's got a Dirac medal I should have, but there you go. I learn something new every day. Here, take a look at this trefoil knot. Go round it anticlockwise and call out the crossing-over directions:



Up, down up. Imagine it's made of rubber and pull at the loops. Remind you of anything? Like the bag model? Now smash this thing and the loops are broken. Hence no free quarks. But for the life of me I don't know why people don't seem to know about this TQFT stuff.

The concept can be experimentally tested.   For example light photons that consisted of rotating streams spiraling forward at a constant rate relative to their ambient field and generating a broader field in the process would behave differently from the photons of current theory. They would behave like the photons in the half dozen or so original experiments that I have posted on this site.
I talk to various people about this sort of thing. For myself, I don't think the photon actually rotates. Take a look at circular polarization at hyperphysics and it's two out-of-phase fields. The electric vector rotates, but the photon itself doesn't. It's something like an arrow with one pair of flights set behind the other, rather than a spinning arrow. But I imagine you'r the expert on this, not me. Anyhow, check out http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604169 and have a good look at displacement current. That was in the latest Physicsworld too. A passing electromagnetic wave exhibits a field variation, so there has to be some kind of current, but thereís no charged particle present, so it isnít conduction current. It's displacement current. Conduction current is what you get when you wrap up the displacement current then move it. Of course the photon/light wave exhibits a sinusoidal electromagnetic field variation, so the displacement current is alternating. We call resistance to alternating current impedance, hence vacuum impedance applies. Electromagnetic potential A is at a maximum midway along the sinusoidal waveform where the E and M fields are zero, this being the peak displacement of the photon pulse, see http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596.
« Last Edit: 29/09/2010 16:13:27 by Farsight »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
A question for the String theorist ?
« Reply #3 on: 29/09/2010 17:18:25 »
TQFT?

Or did you mean Quantum Field Theory Farsight?
==

Ah ok, I see what you mean.

Topological Quantum Field Theory.

Can't seem to reach the wiki you linked though?
« Last Edit: 29/09/2010 17:21:45 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
A question for the String theorist ?
« Reply #4 on: 29/09/2010 18:39:35 »
Ok, knots huh :)

So now I remeber about TQFT

Long time no see, I think I read about that one in physorg though.
But string theory have no basis in TQFT, as far as I know?

TQFT is a proposition about geometries only, building on on both QFT and string theory.
Due to the its geometrical nature its not seen as rigorous in the mathematical sense, building partially on the 'intuition' of those laboring with it according to 'physics and geometry'?

It's interesting Farsight :)
Physics and Geometry
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
A question for the String theorist ?
« Reply #5 on: 29/09/2010 22:36:29 »
To answer the original question

quote
could the mathematics of string theory which is conceptualized as applying to looped vibrating strings be applied to entwined, rotating, repetitive streams as well?

My understanding of string theory says that it already does and that is why there are so many alternative theories.  Up to 10 exp 500 is quoted in many texts.  It is working through all the possible knots and shapes that makes it so complex. 

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

A question for the String theorist ?
« Reply #5 on: 29/09/2010 22:36:29 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length