String Theory

[Ian]

If String Theory is supposed to describe things on the microscopic scale then the theory should describe it because whatever is on a smaller scale can make up collectively what's on a larger scale. For instance, atoms are what makes everything up and combinations of atoms make things up in the macroscopic scale and the same should be true of string theory and strings if they really exist.

 

[BillyJoe]

The extra dimensions are supposed to be physical. However, their geometry is different than the three macroscopic spatial dimensions. They are "wrapped up" into a very small configuration.

Yes, they are spacial dimensions wrapped up into distances less than the planck length (I think). Greene gives the analogy of a clothes line. Seen from a distance, it seems to consist of a single dimension. Close up, however, you find that there is a second dimension "wrapped-up" within the first dimension. This "wrapped-up" dimension is the circular bit that goes around the clothes line.

BillyJoe
(ditto)

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Yes, they are spacial dimensions wrapped up into distances less than the planck length (I think).
BillyJoe
(ditto)

This I think is the weak point of the approach. The concept from the point of reduction of quanta holds a symmetry throughout the universe. The constitution of the larger object reduced to it's constituent parts is demonstrable in nature and so it expresses a consistency at most scales (This particular phenom).

The fact that there are elements that compose quarks presents a case then that is observed at most scales.

The divergence tho expresses itself when you see that a special case ( 11 dimensions ) is required to have the model function properly. Actually there are multiple models that can accommodate string theory but some give anomalies.

The model most successful is the 11 dimensional construct this is not the case because the model expresses itself as the best or dominant schema that gives rise to reality but rather because the model was contrived and made to fit the data. The fact that the theory cannot be demonstrated (as was stated in the program ) anywhere but on a chalk board is also testament to its loose foundation.I.E even though we cannot accelerate 1 atom to the speed of light or beyond, the basis for the theorem expresses itself at lower levels. I am by no stretch even conversant in the mathematics of 11 dimensional topography, but the larger sense of the model doesn't pass the smell test. There is no symmetry , no beauty that gives rise to this extra dimensional construct ( altho I am pissing around with an idea of 1 extra dimension that seems to fit ( at least intellectually ) with an accommodation of the failure to join G with the other forces)..The String model reads like pre-Copernican attempt at planetary movement explanations by the "authorities" to square a false idea with reality.

Special cases spook me. I can understand the counter-intuitive nature of some phenomenon, but for the most part they seem to have a connection to the causal-expressive nature of most anything.
WTF I don't know but that's my read of the issue ( which I have held since early 90's)