A Theory We're Incapable to Understand?

[Kevin_Axion]

Since the 1960s (the dawn of String Theory) Theoretical Physicists have been examining the complex structure of one of the most 'profound' theories to be developed by Mankind - String Theory. In 50 years the Theoretical Physicists working on this field have developed it further and have been able to understand the various perplexing ideas that underly this theory. As everyone would know in 1995 the theory was drastically redefined and a new spark of interest was ignited. It has been 15 years since the creation of M-theory and my questions are: Is M-Theory still in a state of obscurity? Do we understand how it relates to the physical world? Has there been any paradigm shift in how we see this theory? And finally, what dilemmas does this theory present that makes it so difficult to understand?

 

[member 11137]

The question you ask here reappers permanently on the forum. Perhaps you find some answer in "surfing" on equivalent pages... Otherwise -and it is only a very personal view- I cannot believe that specialists have worked 50 years long without being able to bring some progresses... even if only for mathematics.

 

[tom.stoer]

Kevin,

I agree that you may find other threads where these questions have already been discussed. And let me warn you that you will hardly find - neither here nor elsewhere - unbiased opinions regarding string- / M-theory ...

Do we understand how it relates to the physical world?

yes and no.

We know of certain mechanisms how physical structures like our world (4-dim., the standard model, ...) can emerge from M-theory; but there is neither a construction from which the standard model exactly follows, nor is there an idea why regarding its uniqueness - why it is not something totally different; so there is no idea why the world is at it is (except for the anthropic principle which is rather obscure).

An approach in the context of M-theory which comes rather closed to SM-like theories is F-theory.

Has there been any paradigm shift in how we see this theory?

yes

- the second superstring revolution (which you already mentioned)
- the landscape discussion

And finally, what dilemmas does this theory present that makes it so difficult to understand?

- it misses a fundamental guiding principles
- it misses a set of defining equations and calculational tools

In ordinary QFT there are some equations which define the theory; the calculational methods are used to solve it; my impression ist that in string theory the calculational methods are still used to construct the theory.

Perhaps the situation is comparable to the "old quantum mechanics" before the break through of Heisenberg, Schrödinger and Pauli.

 

[Fra]

Here is another biased post

- it misses a fundamental guiding principles
- it misses a set of defining equations and calculational tools
...
my impression ist that in string theory the calculational methods are still used to construct the theory.

This is my impression too, as I see it the "guiding principles" seems to have been (except for the really early idea that ST was a candidate for strong interaction, which then lost the battle to QCD) largely like what I consider like a simple almost "crap shot" kind of idea, namely that many problems with physics - QG and renormalization in particular - was that we consider POINT particles. Then what if the points particles are really some extended objects that are oscillating (namely STRINGS) that from our observational scale just looks like points, or is indistinguishable from point. There is also a postulated microstructure of the string that comes with an action. This as I see it the "idea" that started it.

As and idea, there is notthing wrong with exploring it.

The idea was then to keep all existing QFT methods and framework as is, except try to extend it to get strings in the picture. When that started, it was consistency requirements due to requiring that the extension of QFT methods must gold at all scales and all times that came up with various "predictions" of higher dimensions like "if string theory as postulated is to make sense, we need this or that dimensions". It was quickly noted that the idea of strings, made the divergences a lot better! But it was also found that these ideas, gave rise to several different string theories.

Then as time went on, further ideas along the lines that "if string theory is to make sense..." then then various versions of string theories, that seem related to dualities must be unified in a larger theory M-theory.

Also there has been the landscape problem all along, that got WORSE when going to M-theory. Which means there are undetermined choices that is needed to define the physical theory. They theory apparently makes no prediction on this.

As I see it, this is how the ideas has evolve and keeps evolving.

If something meaningful will come out of this remains to see, but I think if you look at it's development I agree with Tom that it's a strange and weak "motivating guidance".

Somehow string theory avoids all the deeper question, such as foundations and nature of QM, law, problem of time etc. The idea to keep all the structure of QFT and just add the idea that points are to be replaced by fundamental oscillating strings seems conceptually too simple to solve the problems.

It would have been nice if it was a quick and dirty temporary fix for renormalizabilty, but as now decades has passed, it seems it was not so easy after all. Make that's a hint towards the "if string theory is to make sense..." ;)

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

I was reading a paper last year where they discussed how to define 3- and 4-loops in ST. That means they do not have an expression for the n-loop amplitude in superspace; how shall they then prove its finiteness? not to speak about the convergence of the series? => if ST should make sense then only non-perturbatively.

I am not sure if ST must ask the "deep questions" regarding quantum theory. If you look at other approaches towards quantum gravity this questions seems not to be necesary.

There is one idea which bothers me for for months: many ideas, dualities etc. in ST are based on large-N relations. What if ST is a large-N approximation to some underlying field theory?

 

[Fra]

I am not sure if ST must ask the "deep questions" regarding quantum theory. If you look at other approaches towards quantum gravity this questions seems not to be necesary.

This is also a matter of bias I guess. It's true that many other approaches, LQG for example do NOT ask deeper questions, but then again, they are not satisfactory either.

Maybe I just happen to a bit more radical due to the way I see things. For me neither LQG nor ST ask the right questions, but I still can find interesting ingredients in both.

I believe more firmly that the information theoretic, inference and evolution based approaches are more rational. This is so much more immature though, that it's not possible to compare with somewhat "older" disciplines like ST or LQG. It's like comparing apples to seeds.

/Fredrik

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Thanks, I've been on this website frequently for the past six months and I've been constantly reading this part of the forum. I've looked at all of the threads and none of the answers seemed satisfying so I guess I didn't look throughly, much appreciated for you 'guys' to take the time to answer though.

 

[tom.stoer]

I've looked at all of the threads and none of the answers seemed satisfying

You will not find many answer from insiders here - mostly outsiders; so perhaps you should ask the same questions to string theorists.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

To: tom.stoer
Yea, I live fairly close to the Perimeter Institue - approximately fourty-five minutes away, Stephen Hawking is actually arriving today I believe. I'm only sixteen so it was just a strain of curiosity, my understanding is extremely pre-mature and I know I have a long way to go in my level of knowledge. This is something I wish to pursue (well theoretical High Energy Physics) and I enjoy learning so I thought I would ask some questions I have had. So thanks, and if I see a String Theorist I will have my questions prepared.

 

[tom.stoer]

good luck!

 

[ensabah6]

You will not find many answer from insiders here - mostly outsiders; so perhaps you should ask the same questions to string theorists.

So your professional interests are in LQG research?

 

[Kevin_Axion]

I'm quite certain he stated that he doesn't believe any theory as of now is a plausible candidate for a theory of everything which includes LQG and String Theory. I think he works in Condensed Matter because I thought I saw him mention this in another thread.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Sorry, I have one more question.
On Wikipedia it states under the section of M-Theory that in late 2007 an equation was developed specifically, the Bagger-Lambert-Gustavsson action. If you have any knowledge of how this provides a "long-sought microscopic description of M-Theory" can you explain to me how? If it's far too technical to explain in simplistic terminology then just ignore me because my knowledge is too primitive to understand the mechanics.

 

[tom.stoer]

So your professional interests are in LQG research?

I think he works in Condensed Matter because I thought I saw him mention this in another thread.

Neither.

I was aktive in quantum field theory topics: topological methods and canonical quantization in QCD. Ashtekar's formulation came out one our two years before we started to work on something very similar in QCD, but we were not aware of his approach. Then I had the idea to do something similar in quantum gravity (which I knew from a talk about the Wheeler-deWitt equation). But then I found a book in which Ashtekar described his approach. So everything I had in mind had already been done.

As canonical quantization in LQG is formally very closed to gauge theory I was always studying their papers and I had contact to some people in the field.

Today I am no longer active in physics but working in process automation / SW development. I try to keep up with certain subjects (QFT, QCD, LQG) even if it's rather hard if you are no longer an insider. From time to time I try to listen to Thiemann's talks (he is teaching at Erlangen, Germany which is quite close my home).

 

[tom.stoer]

I'm quite certain he stated that he doesn't believe any theory as of now is a plausible candidate for a theory of everything which includes LQG and String Theory.

LQG as of now is no candidate for a ToE by construction. The LQG approach is restricted to quantum gravity. It is compatible with matter interaction, the mathamtical formulation (gauge theory) is rather close in a certain sense. But there are no direct attempts to unify gravity with matter.

There are some ideas how particles could emergy from "braided" or "twisted" spin networks, but that seems to be highly speculative. If you like I can give you some references.

There is the idea to harmonize non-commutative geometry with the LQG approach which could lead to standad model matter emerging in the LQG framework; again this is an idea, not a fully developed research program. You can get references if you like.

ST is certainly the candidate for unification. But as I said I do not believe in it.

 

[Fra]

Today I am no longer active in physics but working in process automation / SW development. I try to keep up with certain subjects (QFT, QCD, LQG) even if it's rather hard if you are no longer an insider. From time to time I try to listen to Thiemann's talks (he is teaching at Erlangen, Germany which is quite close my home).

Sounds like a nice part of Germany to be in. I like bavaria alot, and if I had to move to germany bavaria would probably be my choice. We are cooperating with plenty of companies in the munich aread so I've been to munich numerous times the last few years. One them are also industrial automation companies (can, profibus and opc technology). Along with belgium, bavaria has the best beer in the world so it's not a bad place to be :)

/Fredrik

 

[Demystifier]

Roughly, our current understanding of M-theory is like understanding of electrodynamics at the level of Faraday, before the Maxwell equations have been discovered.

 

[ensabah6]

ST is certainly the candidate for unification. But as I said I do not believe in it.

Why is that? Are you skeptical of GUT's, higher dimensions, or SUSY?

 

[Fra]

There is one idea which bothers me for for months: many ideas, dualities etc. in ST are based on large-N relations. What if ST is a large-N approximation to some underlying field theory?

There are a lot of papers on this, both fomr many string theorists and even connecting back to 't Hooft papers from the 70's on strong interactions.Usually when these questions are phrased in a framework that is part of what I think is the problem, so I don't have any comments on this in the original context as I probably wouldn't be asking the question like that at all.

But like I've mentioned before, my one possible optimistic view of ST is based on a possible connection to the view I have, and it's rouglhy that the continuum string is a pretty much associated with the simplest continuum object that emerges as one reconstructs discrete measures on discrete index spaces.

Very simply put, a 1D string embedded in a 2D space, can be associated to a probability distribution. Where the event index, is the string index, and the mass per unit index corresponds to the probability density, or "evidence count per index".

I also associate this "discrete string" to be like the prototype of a simple observer.

In this sense one can also infer a rational action of this simple observer = string that is in line with a kind of entropic dynamics = no need to "postulate" string action from classical mechanics analogies of strings - there would be a deeper informaiton theoretic understaning of string action based on information divergence of encoded in the string.

Now as one consider this in a context of evolving observers, this simple case is complicated, and more complex structure than just "sequences of counts" emerges. It's in this context, I can make sense of the "consistency constraints" that suggests that maximum fitness takes place in special dimensions.

Clearly information wise, a string in the above sense, can be transformed into different structures, that could in the continuum limit be interpreted as either 1D strings in higher dimensions, OR p-D "branes" in some dimensions, or somehow systems thereof. This is really complex though and I'm still struggling with this.

In this view, then also one would get a better understanding of the "embedded space" of the string. In this view, this embedding would not be real, two observers can disagree about the embedding space, and objectivity is only in the _relation_ between observers, and this is evolving as observers do.

So thinking about a string embedded in an higher dimension, is an exernal picture that really isn't right. In the intrinsic picture the embedding is just an expectation of the string itself, that corresponds to a maximally informative and fit representation.

Structures that fail do realize this, will loose their confidence and mass to it's environment, in a darwinian style.

Also this view, could give new views on the landscape problem. The landscape problem is just the problem of single out a preferred observer, and this can be done of course, and this is why the question should be posed differently, and instead of inflating an imaginary non-real landscape leaving us with a choices that are undecidable one should reconstruct the very framework of asking questions.

This is what to me, the discrete reconstruction of the inference is about. It shares view view Ariel Caticha, but it rejects the objectivity of the statistical manifold. My point would be, that each observer really does SEE a difference manifold!

The only managable starting point I see is the unified perspective. This is why my starting point is unification of forces, and I try to understand how the diversity of symmetries emerge as the complexity ALLOWS SO (as we go down the energy scale from unification).

To me, the unification energy scale corresponds not at this point to some definite Joule number, it rather corresponds in my view far as "zero complexity".

/Fredrik

 

[member 11137]

Here is another biased post

As and idea, there is notthing wrong with exploring it.


/Fredrik

I am not a specialist; so I shall ask more than I can give answers. Was the guiding principle of ST not the following: "A 3D microscopic sphere traveling through time is a kind of string?"

 

[Fra]

To me, the unification energy scale corresponds not at this point to some definite Joule number, it rather corresponds in my view far as "zero complexity".

This corresponds that there are two views of unification, the external view and the internal view.

I argue that the external view, can never make sense, because each observer has a natural complexity cut-off, which is the complexity of the observer itself, so the theoretical "infinite-energy" limit is non-realisable.

The "external view" usually mathematically imagines an infinite information-sink that can contain an infinite amount of information. But it should be clear that such a picture can never be maximally fit relative to a finite computing device.

But unfortunately, and this is my main critique towards ST is that to understand this better we need to go deeper than a string. I don't think strings are elementary (if we have tno talk about "strings" at all, which I think we don't). Because if you ask in the unification picture. how does the simplest possible observer (the STRING in string theory) infer the laws of nature? then that depends on how the string is embedded, and I think to understand this you need to understand why there is a string there in the first place.

The only preferred role of "STRINGS" i see is that they are as far as I can see, the SIMPLEST continuum object! But, they are by no means the simplest object if you don't start with the continuum!

/Fredrik

 

[member 11137]

This corresponds that there are two views of unification, the external view and the internal view.

I argue that the external view, can never make sense, because each observer has a natural complexity cut-off, which is the complexity of the observer itself, so the theoretical "infinite-energy" limit is non-realisable.

The "external view" usually mathematically imagines an infinite information-sink that can contain an infinite amount of information. But it should be clear that such a picture can never be maximally fit relative to a finite computing device.

But unfortunately, and this is my main critique towards ST is that to understand this better we need to go deeper than a string. I don't think strings are elementary (if we have tno talk about "strings" at all, which I think we don't). Because if you ask in the unification picture. how does the simplest possible observer (the STRING in string theory) infer the laws of nature? then that depends on how the string is embedded, and I think to understand this you need to understand why there is a string there in the first place.

The only preferred role of "STRINGS" i see is that they are as far as I can see, the SIMPLEST continuum object! But, they are by no means the simplest object if you don't start with the continuum!

/Fredrik

Coming back to a trivial reality: one usually thinks strings as oscillating objects (oscillation between two fixed points) but one never envisages the elastic elongating strings. Why?

 

[tom.stoer]

Why is that? Are you skeptical of GUT's, higher dimensions, or SUSY?

Ordinary GUTs w/o SUSY have been rules out by experiment.

Breaking SUSY spoils the original elegance of SUSY completely. You always need fancy copies of SUSY and many Higgses in order to achieve that. One introduces something rather simple and elegant, and then work for decades in order to hide it, to break it etc. It doesn't look right.

Higher dimensions are nice provided that somebody can explain why the world we see is four-dimensional. But they can't neither tell us why it's four-dim. nor why the SM is at it is. So again one introduces a rather elegant structure (bosonic and fermionic ST is really nice!) and and then invests decades in order to break all these nice features. It doesn't look promising after all.

I will change my mind as soon as somebody presents a simple and clear picture instead of his patchwork.

 

[tom.stoer]

Coming back to a trivial reality: one usually thinks strings as oscillating objects (oscillation between two fixed points) but one never envisages the elastic elongating strings. Why?

One does something like this, but this "longitudinal mode" is constraint by a symmetry and eliminated via gauge fixing. This is similar to a longitudinal photon which is also eliminated by gauge symmetry.

 

[ensabah6]

Ordinary GUTs w/o SUSY have been rules out by experiment.

Breaking SUSY spoils the original elegance of SUSY completely. You always need fancy copies of SUSY and many Higgses in order to achieve that. One introduces something rather simple and elegant, and then work for decades in order to hide it, to break it etc. It doesn't look right.

Higher dimensions are nice provided that somebody can explain why the world we see is four-dimensional. But they can't neither tell us why it's four-dim. nor why the SM is at it is. So again one introduces a rather elegant structure (bosonic and fermionic ST is really nice!) and and then invests decades in order to break all these nice features. It doesn't look promising after all.

I will change my mind as soon as somebody presents a simple and clear picture instead of his patchwork.

I'd change my mind if LHC (or other observations) finds compelling evidence for these :)

 

[tom.stoer]

What do you mean by that? Do you think GUT and/or SUSY is correct and the LHC will disprove it? (this is impossible; you can't disprove these theories, you can only shift their domain to higher energies) Or do you think they are wrong but perhaps the LHC will find some evidence?

 

[ensabah6]

What do you mean by that? Do you think GUT and/or SUSY is correct and the LHC will disprove it? (this is impossible; you can't disprove these theories, you can only shift their domain to higher energies) Or do you think they are wrong but perhaps the LHC will find some evidence?

You stated "
I will change my mind as soon as somebody presents a simple and clear picture instead of his patchwork."

What if somebody "presents a simple and clear picture instead of his patchwork" but neither LHC nor dark matter searches nor other lines of evidence are forth coming?

Of course, maybe LHC or other lines of research provides empirical evidence but no body is able ""presents a simple and clear picture instead of his patchwork"

The best case scenario is that both LHC and dark matter searches provides evidence of SUSY-partners, and theorists ""presents a simple and clear picture instead of his patchwork" (

The least favorable scenario is that neither LHC/DM searches provide evidence of neutralinos, (and the parameter space of both rules out SUSY) and theorists remain unable ""presents a simple and clear picture instead of his patchwork".i.e

http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/susy-more-unlikely-by-the-new-cdms-ii-results/

SUSY more unlikely by the new CDMS II results

"What I state above is the main reason for my dislike of Supersymmetry, an otherwise quite cunning theory – maybe the only really neat idea produced in the last thirty-five years on how to extend the Standard Model to mend its shortcomings. I really hate it when I have to buy something without being able to look inside the package, but worse still is the feeling of being cheated when you are purposely prevented from doing so -the exact sensation that the mechanism of SUSY mass breaking gives me."
"As I said right at the start, the parameter space of these models is so wide that a chunk always remains untouched. But, for those of us who did not believe in SUSY in the first place, this is just a nice confirmation."
http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/1005.0761

SUSY dark matter in light of CDMS II results: a comparative study for different models
Authors: Junjie Cao, Ken-ichi Hikasa, Wenyu Wang, Jin Min Yang, Li-Xin Yu
(Submitted on 5 May 2010)

Abstract: We perform a comparative study of the neutralino dark matter scattering on nucleon in three popular supersymmetric models: the minimal (MSSM), the next-to-minimal (NMSSM) and the nearly minimal (nMSSM). First, we give the predictions of the elastic cross section by scanning over the parameter space allowed by various direct and indirect constraints, which are from the measurement of the cosmic dark matter relic density, the collider search for Higgs boson and sparticles, the precision electroweak measurements and the muon anomalous magnetic moment. Then we demonstrate the property of the allowed parameter space with/without the new limits from CDMS II. We obtain the following observations: (i) For each model the new CDMS limits can exclude a large part of the parameter space allowed by current collider constraints; (ii) The property of the allowed parameter space is similar for MSSM and NMSSM, but quite different for nMSSM; (iii) The future SuperCDMS can cover most part of the allowed parameter space for each model.

 

[Fra]

Coming back to a trivial reality: one usually thinks strings as oscillating objects (oscillation between two fixed points) but one never envisages the elastic elongating strings. Why?

If this was addressed to me I'm just going to supply my highly personal view. not the standard ST view.

Usually the string tension is assumed to be constant, and longitutal oscillations imply non-uniform string tension, and generally also oscillating tension. Then somehow the strings would not be as "fundamental" anymore. I THINK this would be the "standard answer", even though it is not much of an answer.

In the way I see it, where the string index, could be viewed as a the continuum limit of the value space of reconstructed probabiltiy [0,1], the question of asking about longitutadal oscillations is to ask why the [0,1] state space doesn't "stretch". It doesn't as it's one somehow what sets the scale, what can happen however, is that the density of states oscillates - this would correspond to pure tension oscillations with the string size kept fixed. The interpretations of this in the view I have, there tension changes correspond of changes in the equiprobability measure.

This is why in my view, the fundamental thing isn't "strings" - it's what I call sysstems of microstructures (which are always having a finite total complexity), in which a "string" can be almost special case, in a special limit. This is my only route to connect to strings - the simplest possible continuum-like measure complex, is something like a string. This can be further "provocated" or "excited" but sufficient excitation will transform it into more general things (in my view that is).

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

As I said above, longitudinal oscillations are "gauge".

The reason is that (looking at the string action) all what matters is the world sheet; but longitudinal oscillations do not change its shape, therefore this is reparameterization along the string.

This is most easily seen in the light-cone gauge.

 

[Fra]

Thanks Tom, for some reason I totally missed the post with that response!

/Fredrik

 

[member 11137]

If this was addressed to me I'm just going to supply my highly personal view. not the standard ST view.

Usually the string tension is assumed to be constant, and longitutal oscillations imply non-uniform string tension, and generally also oscillating tension. Then somehow the strings would not be as "fundamental" anymore. I THINK this would be the "standard answer", even though it is not much of an answer.

In the way I see it, where the string index, could be viewed as a the continuum limit of the value space of reconstructed probabiltiy [0,1], the question of asking about longitutadal oscillations is to ask why the [0,1] state space doesn't "stretch". It doesn't as it's one somehow what sets the scale, what can happen however, is that the density of states oscillates - this would correspond to pure tension oscillations with the string size kept fixed. The interpretations of this in the view I have, there tension changes correspond of changes in the equiprobability measure.

This is why in my view, the fundamental thing isn't "strings" - it's what I call sysstems of microstructures (which are always having a finite total complexity), in which a "string" can be almost special case, in a special limit. This is my only route to connect to strings - the simplest possible continuum-like measure complex, is something like a string. This can be further "provocated" or "excited" but sufficient excitation will transform it into more general things (in my view that is).

/Fredrik

If the purpose of ST is to find an analogy between one given particle and a string, then -in a first approach- one is not obliged to think about the wave representation of that particle but one can adopt the very classical point of view of the 3D microscopic sphere moving along the time and ask in which way its behavior can be compared with those of a string. The answer migh be the following: (a) in absence of gravitation (or of any other force; in extenso: the particle moves with constant speed) the trajectory is a line; (b) in presence of gravitation: the trajectory will be deformed and thus -perhaps what you call the external view of the situation- give the sensation of a curved string. Since any particle is supposed to travel at a speed smaller than c (speed of ligth in vacuum) the extremity of the string (the trajectory) is always moving at a speed between [0, 1] in an ad hoc frame. In general relativity, of course spacetime is stretching... Could it not be the starting point for a simple and clear representation?
Thanks for the answers about longitudinal oscillations. I think I did not give a precize enougth description of what I meant; that's now done. This was also a personal view -sorry.

 

[Fra]

Could it not be the starting point for a simple and clear
representation?

Assuming we're discussing possible motivation or "possible" first principles of ST, I'm sorry but I don't understand your proposal.

Do you think of instead of replacing points with strings, replace it with probability distributions in 3D space? (like a fuzzed out point) If I'm not mistaken sometime along the history of ST some people considered that (like oscillating blobs), but for me that doesn't adress all questions of the microstructure of an inference system which is my focus.

My only proposal into possible make sense of "strings" appear in the process of describing inference starting from sets of flucutating bits, and histories of the same, as a close resemblance to a continuum index (probability distribution). This is long before notion of space and time is defined.

So in a sense, to understand my first proposal it might help to note that it's not physics. I'm trying to just abstract the mathematical properties that you need to ascribed to an inference system. It has things that are naturally associated to inertia. Inference as per entropic evolution also contains a natural notion of action, and defines a flow. This in the abstracted sense does not yet connect to physics.

My conjecture is that there is one though, and it's what fascinates and drives me in this.

/Fredrik

 

[member 11137]

Assuming we're discussing possible motivation or "possible" first principles of ST, I'm sorry but I don't understand your proposal.

Do you think of instead of replacing points with strings, replace it with probability distributions in 3D space? (like a fuzzed out point) If I'm not mistaken sometime along the history of ST some people considered that (like oscillating blobs), but for me that doesn't adress all questions of the microstructure of an inference system which is my focus.

My only proposal into possible make sense of "strings" appear in the process of describing inference starting from sets of flucutating bits, and histories of the same, as a close resemblance to a continuum index (probability distribution). This is long before notion of space and time is defined.

So in a sense, to understand my first proposal it might help to note that it's not physics. I'm trying to just abstract the mathematical properties that you need to ascribed to an inference system. It has things that are naturally associated to inertia. Inference as per entropic evolution also contains a natural notion of action, and defines a flow. This in the abstracted sense does not yet connect to physics.

My conjecture is that there is one though, and it's what fascinates and drives me in this.

/Fredrik

Not exactly. Any classical particle has a birthday and a death. The trajectory in between is the string of its history. The elasticity of such string is represented by the many possible pathes it could have taken (Feynman's pathes). As long as the particle exists, it is situated at the living extremity of its string. It is possible to think that local circonstances are determinating the "longitudinal" tension and so are explaining the soon coming future of this string.

 

[member 11137]

Not exactly. Any classical particle has a birthday and a death. The trajectory in between is the string of its history. The elasticity of such string is represented by the many possible pathes it could have taken (Feynman's pathes). As long as the particle exists, it is situated at the living extremity of its string. It is possible to think that local circonstances are determinating the "longitudinal" tension and so are explaining the soon coming future of this string.

As I said at the begining: this is only the very classical view. You can now inverse the glove and consider a very thin cylinder (a piece of string with a very small cross section) placed in vacuum and connecting the two extremities of universe. Since the latter is expanding and since the tube is certainly "feeling" some gravity we can consider that each infinitesimal part of this tube is in someway behaving like a classical string. if we do so and make some ad hoc caculations, you find the wellknown equation "pressure + density of energy = 0". This was my idea and proposal. (Blackforest)

 

[member 11137]

As I said at the begining: this is only the very classical view. You can now inverse the glove and consider a very thin cylinder (a piece of string with a very small cross section) placed in vacuum and connecting the two extremities of universe. Since the latter is expanding and since the tube is certainly "feeling" some gravity we can consider that each infinitesimal part of this tube is in someway behaving like a classical string. if we do so and make some ad hoc caculations, you find the wellknown equation "pressure + density of energy = 0". This was my idea and proposal. (Blackforest)

The proof.