Post by: talanum1 on 14/05/2021 11:03:38
Post by: The Spoon on 14/05/2021 12:23:16
String theory says particles are strings. This does not rhyme with particles made of different quarks since strings are alike.You realise that this is not a poetry forum? Quark rhymes with pork and cork, but that has no bearing on string theory.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/05/2021 16:37:15
String theory says particles are strings. This does not rhyme with particles made of different quarks since strings are alike.
Different particles are modeled as strings with different vibrational modes.
Post by: talanum1 on 15/05/2021 12:35:20
Vibrating in inverse ways is in any case not a logically satisfying specification for quarks and antiquarks.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/05/2021 13:51:39
Vibrating in inverse waysThat phrase you invented doesn't seem to mean anything.
Why do you keep doing that?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/05/2021 17:44:42
Particles are made of quark-antiquark pairs.
Only mesons are.
If there is no time reference then there is no way for two strings to vibrate in inverse ways.
What does that even mean?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/05/2021 18:01:36
String theory says particles are strings. This does not rhyme with particles made of different quarks since strings are alike.is that he doesn't understand it, so it must be wrong.
That's a deeply unscientific attitude, if not actual trolling.
Post by: talanum1 on 18/05/2021 09:46:47
Particles are made of quark-antiquark pairs. If there is no time reference then there is no way for two strings to vibrate in inverse ways. Therefore at least a time reference is to be encoded into particles. Then there is the problem of how to encode mass, charge, color charge and isospin into the vibration.
Vibrating in inverse ways means the following: when one string is in state:
Inverse Wave.png (1.51 kB . 410x187 - viewed 2219 times)the other is in state:
Wave.png (1.55 kB . 429x193 - viewed 2128 times)and so on for the wave to evolve.
We see in any case the two strings are the same at the zero points.
Post by: talanum1 on 18/05/2021 09:53:56
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2021 10:42:13
I stated a reason for it to be wrong: not that I don't understand it:ThanksParticles are made of quark-antiquark pairs. If there is no time reference then there is no way for two strings to vibrate in inverse ways. Therefore at least a time reference is to be encoded into particles. Then there is the problem of how to encode mass, charge, color charge and isospin into the vibration.
Vibrating in inverse ways means the following: when one string is in state:
the other is in state:
and so on for the wave to evolve.
We see in any case the two strings are the same at the zero points.
That removes all doubt regarding your understanding.
Post by: puppypower on 18/05/2021 12:14:01
For example, diamonds in a pure science; geological POV, are assumed to take millions of years to form at high temp and pressures. In applied science, we can make diamonds in the lab in a fraction of the time with hot presses and catalysts. The applied science approach leads to similar results, but the steps are different from pure science. Then again, no pure science diamonds have even been made in the lab, since they take so long to make that way. That makes the pure theory more like semi-pure and semi-applied.
Another example is dark matter and dark energy. These two things have never to be seen in the lab to know they are real. This makes this theory closer to an applied science addendum to a semi-pure theory. It has practical value that allows us to bookkeep the newest observations, that go beyond the original standard model, without overhauling the standard model.
Pure science can be right or wrong depending on what the data says. Applied science is less about right or wrong, but is often judged on its usefulness, which is some cases can extend the range of the pure and natural, For example, nature does not make genetically modified corn. This is applied science that accelerates evolution. String theory appears to be applied science, The goal was to unify physics in a new way that had practical value. If it had done this and it was better, it may have been deemed pure, even if it was applied.
An interesting case of applied science/math being deemed pure is statistics. This is an applied mathematical model, with many applications, especially for man made objects in factories. It is used to make widgets and vaccines, neither of which are found in nature. It has been so widely used that its original applied nature was subjectivity enhanced and deemed pure. The realization that it is applied, often shocks people you lived by its philosophy.
Cards and dice follow the principles of statistics. Cards, for example, do not differ by any type of objective pure science potential or parameter. All the cards in a deck have the same mass and charge, but differ by subjective facades defined by man. The same is true of all the casino games, that use this applied science and math. This is not how reality is in pure terms. This was manufactured.
Atoms in the periodical table do not differ by only subjective facades, but rather they differ by objective pure science measures, such as mass and charge. Therefore they will not shuffle the same way as a deck of cards. We do not get the same molecules appear as often as heads or tails. Forming water from hydrogen and oxygen is a sure thing, and would get one kicked out of casinos, if this was a part of a bet; card counting.
Widgets on the factory floor, on the other hand, come from applied science, so these do not have to be purely natural, but can be subjectively enhanced for marketing value. A scratch on a widget can deem it not sale able. Applied models like statistics can be useful in factories and casinos where mass production is needed. Mass production, itself, is manmade and connected to applied science.
In terms of string theory, it was a complicated applied science model. It was challenging even for the geniuses of physics. However, it got too complicated to be of wide scale practical value. Simplicity is always better. If you cannot explain it to the layman, market share will remain small. May only be found in the specialty applied science boutiques.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2021 13:27:59
There is a difference between pure and applied science.And the OP's work fits into neither category.
However stuff like this
For example, diamonds in a pure science; geological POV, are assumed to take millions of years to form at high temp and pressures. In applied science, we can make diamonds in the lab in a fraction of the time with hot presses and catalysts.shows us that you don't understand the terms anyway.