| String Theory Discussion Forum |
| [ String Theory Home ] [ Forum Index ] |
Planck Scale?Posted by sol on September 15, 2002 at 21:04:06: In Reply to: Re: Background and no background? posted by DickT on September 15, 2002 at 09:52:31: Dickt, Remember Sol's Law?:)It was a attempt to describe a line as well as a photon in expression, and in a vacuum, how straight is it without meetng the matters to which it will bend? I have a problem with discreteness, once the points between states, become points within a field, that sort of contradicts discreteness, in favor of a continuous motion. Why I asked about points in a line and motion across a table, and how discreteness can be separated from the time, of a greater continous motion? Understandng this history is very important I think, and and going to planck's constant, speed of light in special relativity, and the gravitational constant, becomes integrated into string theory, and speaks to the energy in continous motion. I find the idea of geometry abtract, discreteness in world events as troubling, in terms of what is counted, and without a link to causality, we have lost something that belongs to the observer? So between numbers, set of events that are held in context of a greater universe( dimensional significance to energy values), as describing topological movement, and I am seeing the elasticity of matter, not just in substance, but in the movement of fields. So I say a point has dimensions (No mysticism here:). It comes back to a picture I drew a long time ago that I talked about. This point immersing into a line( strange I never thought about the line expanding into a cylinder?:), and this line, immersing into a solid plane. At that point, three planes, made me realize I could describe any point in space, but through learning strings here, it is quite different now, because that point includes many things. A sphere now, that represents the standard model and the radius from a center, spreadout and we see the evolution of that standard model. So when I say vision, going into the heart of the matters , it is not unlike our evolution of science to have been developed, to show this standard model, and all its reductionistic structuring, contained in that sphere(point) At this level, it is all energy is it not? Motion then is continous, and the matters become second, to what is continous. Why probabilistics possibilites follow action, and how would we tell what that might be? Well, if something always existed as the graviton did at the beginning, it was embedded in the energy. Then would we not say, to have energy follow the curvature it does, and all is seen from this perspective, instead of energy following the matters? There are troubles I see with using numbers in a line. We may mathematically describe these numbers, and all the time be describing elements within the line? Unfortunately I don't have Mathman's education, so I see it from what I have learnt, and you know I cannot follow scholastic school here at ths point in my life, as much as I wish I could, the books must suffice. So bullying a mathman and I confront him, and what does poor Sol know? Answers seem to come in correction, yet I have failed to see how you two actually answered my predicament. Smolin saids the continous motion is the illusion, and in full light of discreteness I can understand why. Not if one understands the nature of the string though? Any numbers or geometry, speaks to the nature of the matters, and not the energy? What comes first? I hope you see what I am saying? Thanks for responding. Any corrections.
Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)
|