3 Dimensional String Theory by George Rajna

WoW! Submitted on Aug 29 and already (80 ratings)!!! I wish I had so many friends and relatives interested in 3D strings. Way to go George!

I guess congrats on your next award are in order :)

How do you know the community rating, Ms. Vasilyeva? I thought there is no access to this information.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Oops, my question was silly - I did not understand your statement. Sorry.

Best regards, Pentcho

Thanking you Mr Witten :)

Hello George,

I like your way of thinking. Nice short and to the point. Geometrically seen you take only the direction as measureable phenomenon. Then there is no need for a particle while only the value of volume/density/exchange of n measureable forces interworking upon n measurable forces occupying a certain space during a given time defines the working upon and the forming of thereof arising complex forms. By which every limit of a form is a sphere of exchange und by its complexity immeasurable into definite numbers. Only approximation. Uncertainty. Like a beautiful cocktail.

A way to bypass this is partly to read in chapter 4 of my essay in this contest: http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Hoebe_The_I_as_ObserverObse_1.pdf

I propose there a certain geometry by which form arises according to specific laws. These forms can only be thus and that. The basic form is 3-simplex. An important law is the law of harmony. Its gives way to beauty and that what fit well.

Taken your idea and mine together one could show the geometrical movement of phenomena all according to their volume/density/exchange of force and as force. These forces will be tetrahedral under pressure or low temperature and bi-tetrahedral when having enough space to expand in and as, and by a high value of exchangeability.

This way dark-matter could be seen as the sphere of exchange und by its complexity immeasurable into definite numbers, and its complexity is then merely the immeasurability of their sphere and size of interaction and its almost nothing-ness in density and every-ness in volume and exchange. Like you can feel yourself, but cannot pinpoint it in a location or now. Only the value of being does.

Interested?

All the best,

Jos Hoebe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpinski_triangle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex

Hello

The higgs are not really intresting because each sphere is unique.So the fractal of bosons is complex considering the volumes of spheres. The higgs in this line of reasoning must insert the fact that the smallest spheres are unique. The volumes of these informations are keys.The mass polarizes this light. The spherical volumes are more complex than these higgs in fact.

ibm.....intersting point of vue isn't it ?VOLUMES OF SPHERES AND ROTATIONS AND UNIVERSAL RELATIVISTIC PROPORTIONS.

Regards

indeed each planet or moon are unique like the stars also and the BH.....and our central main sphere also..the uniqueness is the answer Mr Witten and friends.

ps eureka :)

Regards

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

What wrong assumptions do you refer to? How do these wrong assumptions relate to 3D string theory?

Since English is not my mother tongue, I do not understand "... , but how remember it his ... ability ...".

Thanks for the opportunity to make clear this point. Our basic assumption that there is a strong interaction, very different from the electromagnetic, based on the color force. The essay explains that the diffraction patterns of the electromagnetic oscillators can give the base of the strong interactions, where the color is simple the 3 geometric dimensions of the space. The string theory is also based on oscillating things, but needs more than 3 dimensions to explain the physical forces, while my explanation places these things back into the natural 3 dimensional world.

You offered a theory instead of answering the topical question; or do you consider string theory a basic assumption on which the current physics with all its enigmas and paradoxes is based?

Doesn't string theory assume a block universe? I am questioning this assumption.

Eckard

I would like to answer your question with another question. Don't you think that the aim of the topical question is to propose some new point of view to improve our understanding of the physical world?

The original idea of the String Theory is that we are very familiar with the electromagnetic oscillations, and the electron - positron annihilation to photons gives a simple example to the energy - matter equivalence of Einstein. My essay shows that the stabile asymmetrical physical configurations can be explained by the electromagnetic oscillations, based on the Planck Distribution Law.

George

The challenge here is to create new and insightful QUESTIONS or analysis about basic, often tacit, ASSUMPTIONS that can be questioned but often are not.

My answer to your question is no, not as the first step, and for a good reason: More mere speculation added on speculations like string theory will presumably not resolve enigmas and paradoxes that are to be ascribed to unseen flaws possibly affecting our assumptions.

Eckard

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

IS IT NOT QUITE AN IRONY THAT THE ESSAY THAT IS UNBEATABLY ESTABLISHED AS NO.1 (WITH 361 RATINGS AND ACVERAGE SCORE 8.7)IN PUBLIC RATINGS IS ALSO THE VERY LAST IN THE COMMUNITY RATINGS?

1 central sphere.....serie of spherical volumes decreasing....correlation primes.

perfect contact=the lattices disappear....EUREKA !!!

THE COMMUNITY RATING IS THE RATING OF THE COMPETITORS!