• Flash the RoadRunner

The String Theory Rabbit Hole

Updated: 3 days ago



It was while thinking about Roger Penrose and some of his interesting patterns, polynomial reflective properties, inter-dimensional frequencies and parallel Universe existence in a six dimension cylinder construct in groups of ten that it struck me that Super-string theory was a complete waste of time other than opening of a window into pan-dimensional parallel Universes.


It became crystal clear to me while dwelling on it a bit too much that we have been thinking about multi-dimensional constructs in completely the wrong way.


All of the science and math theory ends up contradicting the other and no sooner does a proof come along than another branch of science makes a total mockery of it.


A calculation proof in the reverse should also apply and if it does not you are simply barking up the wrong tree kind of thinking seems to cloud our knowledge aspirations.


This works well in the same domain, but the minute we try and rationalize Quantum realms with pure mathematics we run into problems. Big problems....


A math formula in reverse to check the proof and thinking is sound is great but when you try and make celestial mechanics work with choice components and pieces and leave out others, you will have a few issues.


Quantum mechanics in this instance is the proverbial spanner in the works.


The conventional thinking is that Quantum mechanics should be a mirror of celestial mechanics but it clearly does not mirror such in any way.


I have been looking into what led us to believe that it is or should be.


If you think about it, expecting solar systems and galaxies to behave the same way as atoms and their components do is a trifle over-simplistic.


The thing that does not follow logic for me there is we all know the charge and electrical properties of protons and neutrons etc. factor in but for planets and suns suddenly its not relevant?


Why they then break with this thinking and just take gravity into account and ignore the electrical and magnetic properties of celestial bodies is baffling to my sole surviving synapse.


Nobody worries about gravity in calculations involving protons and neutrons. They do worry about the electrical charge properties though.


Why is the electrical and magnetic properties of a planet ignored when working out its movements? What is the relationship between gravity, electrical charge and magnetic flux?


Academia at large should have paid more attention to Nicola and what some of his electric motors were doing with the magnetic field side of the equation.


Even today this stuff is mostly overlooked and ignored.


One can look at a simple triangle and postulate and determine all sorts of proofs mathematically about it in 2D and 3D and tie it all up very neatly in a bow and everything is wonderful with trigonometry and our thinking about basic shapes et al.


We can even expand the math theory into ten dimensions with no problem.


When you start introducing frequency and multi-dimensional constructs with theoretical math and start introducing gravitons and electro-gravitic theory into the trigonometric picture, things start to fall apart very quickly.


The conclusion I have come to looking and attempting to understand all of this is that our fundamental understanding of the structure of matter, the macrouniverse-cosmology and the macrouniverse-Quantum view with the microscopic views is based on the theory we supposedly understand them intimately and that they follow the same laws and principles.


Clearly, we do not understand this well enough and there are clearly different laws that bind each domain.


My conclusion is that our expectation that one set of laws apply to everything in the micro and Quantum Realm as well as the cosmological realm is where the train hurtles off the track in a spectacular fashion.


If you examine gravity and space time for example without taking gravity into the equation Einstein's theory of relativity pops out and all that math makes perfect sense.


In the reverse if you apply string theory math to quantum mechanics and discount gravity string theory neatly morphs into quantum theory.


The problem is string theory offers no evidence from measured data, experiments or observations to support it in any way.


Mathematics only evidence has in fact driven many a physicist completely insane and in truth to get deep into this stuff you need to be a little insane yourself.


I dream math equations and that is centered around polynomials and the math of reflections in particular which builds up to Penrose Patterns in a sort of super-trigonometric fashion.


I cannot explain why I do it, I just do. It has eye popping possibilities in the field of chemistry.


There is something rather fundamental and beautiful about the symmetry of polynomials that I feel is the key to unlocking the door that is standing between us and understanding how it all works.


I sometimes wake up from this polynomial dreamscape feeling I perceived the entire Universe with breathtaking simplicity.


Dragging the clarity back from the dreamscape into our real-world reality has proven most elusive though.


Sometimes it does happen but with things not related at all to what I am trying to puzzle out.


This was how I fell into Chess and AI actually.


I often play entire tournaments spanning hundreds of hours in a single dream session and kind of lie there in a semi-REM state while doing it.


Not awake and not asleep.


I once did this for three days and spent the next three days executing proper sleep to recover from it.


That kind of sleep is very exhausting indeed!


However, the pattern I came up with doing this got me to winning my first few Chess tournaments.


This also happened at the same time I left ePlus and went to Accelstor in 2018.


It was probably my most creative period ever.


Obliquely enough I have found the current turmoil in political matters has led me to dreamscapes that focus on my Quantum correlations I have been attempting to understand as an amateur dabbling in a new field for these past 22 years.


It seems a distraction of X is leading me to solve problem Y so to speak.


I awoke the other morning after a similar semi-REM session all night around the correlation of relativity, Quantum realms and Roger Penrose merged with string theory but I was focused on freedom of speech and other political expression challenges of the current era we find ourselves in as I lay there pondering it all and drifted into polynomial math-sleep.


This led me to understand, in my tiny mind at any rate, that the whole string theory thing is a giant rabbit hole and a thorough waste of time.


A Segway to insanity in fact.


Each avenue and realm has its own laws that do not flow into everything else.


The macroverse-Universes and the micro-Quantum Universes do not operate on the same laws and why we think they do is where we have been going wrong.


We need to focus on what gravity is and what electro-magnetics really are and understand they are the missing forces we have been searching for to explain a good few things in physics and math.


We have been trying to run in the Olympics and we cannot even crawl yet.


A classic case of ambition and hope clouding reality via assumption.


Making assumptions seems to cost us a lot of time in fact. Especially when almost every time they prove wrong.


I was mulling over some of Feynman's lectures on Tensor Calculus in curved spacetime when thinking of the Universe as a large torus the other day and realized that the geometry of each event and the interval between events completely determines the geometry everywhere.


In curved space, the dot product of two 4-vectors Aμ and Bμ is:


Aμ Bμ = Aμ Bμ = gμσ Aμ Bσ = gμσ Aσ Bμ =


   + gtt At Bt + gtx At Bx + gty At By + gtz At Bz

   +gxt Ax Bt +gxx Ax Bx +gxy Ax By +gxz Ax Bz

   +gyt Ay Bt +gyx Ay Bx +gyy Ay By +gyz Ay Bz

   +gzt Az Bt + gzx Az Bx +gzy Az By +gzz Az Bz


If dsµ is the separation 4-vector between two nearby events, the invariant interval ds2 between those points is:


dsµ = (cdt, dx, dy, dz)

ds2 = dsμ dsμ = dsμ dsμ = gμσ dsμ dsσ


Here, ds2 is an invariant scalar - it measures the separation between nearby events, and has the same value in any coordinate system.


In Feynman’s sign convention, ds2 equals c2dτ2 where τ is proper time, the time measured by an ideal clock moving between these nearby events.


In 4-D curved spacetime, we only sum repeated free indices if one is covariant and the other is contra-variant.


The difference between the two is demonstrated by the covariant and contra-variant position 4-vectors (in Feynman’s sign convention).


xα = (ct, –x, –y, –z) is contra-variant

xα = (ct, x, y, z) is covariant


The metric in flat spacetime, in Feynman’s sign convention, is:


In polar coordinates, the metric near a black hole in Feynman’s sign convention is:



Here, the gθθ and gϕϕ components are the normal polar coordinate factors, which are unaffected by gravity.


Gravity dilates time and stretches space through the factor Ω=1–2GM/c2r, where G is Newton’s gravitational constant, M is the black hole’s mass, and r is the distance from its center.


Note that odd things happens when Ω=0 at r=2GM/c2, the location of the black hole’s event horizon.


One interesting effect is that the event horizon is timeless — the passage of time has no effect whatsoever on the event horizon, because gtt is zero at that radius.


In the most common modern notation, the metric gμσ has a minus sign on the time component and plus signs on the three spatial components, the opposite of Feynman’s convention.


The Lorentz transformation tensor is:



Here, β = v/c and γ = 1/√(1–β2).


Some typical index operations are:

  1. Lowering an Index: xµ = gµσ xσ

  2. Raising an Index: xµ = gµσ xσ

  3. Lorentz Transform: Xσ = Λβσ xβ

Like other square matrices, the metric tensor for most geometries can be diagonalized, meaning all non-diagonal components can be made zero with suitable transformations.


The invariant interval is then reduced to 4 terms, and the inverse metric is simply gαα = 1/gαα.


Diagonalizing the metric tensor can mix the coordinates in surprising ways.


For example, the time coordinate t and radial distance coordinate r might be replaced by the coordinates u=ct+r and w=ct–r, leaving nothing that represents pure time.


Since the tensor calculus of general relativity works in any coordinate system, such mixing is mathematically valid; it can simplify our calculations even when it defies our intuition.


When one becomes comfortable with tensor notation, it is possible to drop the indices altogether, as we do in vector algebra. We can then write equation (3) as:


X = Λ x


Ramanujan did this simplification quite a lot with much of his work and it is interesting reading books on his proofs on much in math he was not aware already existed.


Actually I think one of the greatest setbacks in human history was the premature death of Ramanujan at the age of 32, some 100 years ago.


NASA uses a shocking amount of his math in various projects these days.


The biggest contribution old one beer (Einstein) made to mankind was not:



It was in fact:


G = 8π T


Here, G represents the geometry of spacetime, and T represents all forms of energy, including mass and momentum.


G is now called the Einstein tensor, and T is called the mass-energy-stress tensor.


Both are symmetric, rank 2 tensors.


We say equations, the plural, because G=8πT represents 16 component equations: 4 describe the conservation of energy and momentum; 6 relate energy density to spacetime curvature; and the remaining 6 are redundant. John Archibald Wheeler said the meaning of G = 8πT is:


“The geometry of spacetime tells mass and energy how to move, while mass and energy tell space how to curve.”


I have been thinking about this quite a bit these past weeks and I am calling BS on it.


The reason why is in the case of a binary star, the theory says they should curve spacetime the same amount each, but we do not see this.


The first aspect of Einstein’s theory of Relativity I will deal with is that space is curved around a massive object. 


Therefore, a body in curved space is moving in the direction of that curve. 


It feels no force. 


But as pointed out by many, there is a fatal flaw described above by Mathis, who elsewhere writes: “The first logical critique I made of curved space was in my article on tides.  I showed that tidal theory relied completely on Newtonian forces at a distance [and not on curved Einsteinian space].  This theory is wholly dependent on Newtonian force at a distance . . . An orbiter traveling in curved space would not logically be expected to feel the same tidal forces as an orbiter traveling in a  Newtonian  orbit . . . “. . .


Once you introduce a second body, say the Moon, it is also warping the space around it [as does the Earth].  The warp around the moon is convex, like the warp around the Earth.


The problem is that the tidal influence is going both ways. 


The Moon is supposed to be causing tides on the Earth at the same time that the Earth is causing tides on the Moon. 


So is the space between the Earth and the Moon convex or concave?  It must be one or the other. 


Space cannot curve two different ways at the same time?  Maybe it does....


Nor can it be a vector addition of the curvatures. 


If two bodies flatten out the curves of the other, they also must flatten out the tidal effects. 


The curvature according to Einstein is both mathematical and physical. 


If the curve is flattened, the tide is gone. 


In General Relativity, the space is the field. 


They are the same thing. 


Unless Einstein meant to propose that we have an infinite number of gravitational fields interpenetrating each other with no collisions or effects, his postulate [that two bodies such as the Earth and Moon warp space to cause tides on both bodies] is a non-starter. 


And if this is the case, there is really no way to assign any or all of these fields to space.


As one can clearly see, the Earth and Moon cannot both curve space to create tides on both bodies at the same time in the same direction. 


This, in terms of general relativity, is impossible and illogical. 


I want to drive home the point Mathis makes. 


To do this, let us examine the orbits of identical twin stars. 


These are binary stars that have the same mass.  According to Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin, “Identical twins [binary stars] span the entire main sequence . . . almost all have perfectly circular orbits.”


The concept that bodies orbit one another in warped / curved space must also be explicable here, but it is in fact contradicted here. 


Each of the identical twin binary stars are warping / curving space identically around them. 


At the midpoint between their orbits, this warping / curving will be cancelled out because they have the same mass. 


Neither of these partners should be revolving around the other in the warped / curved space of the other. 


Equal and opposite curves cannot reach from one partner to that of the other.  So why are they orbiting each other in non-warped / curved space in almost perfectly circular orbits? 


There is no curved space enveloping both binaries to allow this to happen. 


The stars cannot orbit in their own self-same individual warp / curves. 


A single star in space does not and cannot be in such an orbit, according to Einstein, because its own warped / curved space leads nowhere. 


Based on this concept of Einstein’s, identical twin-stars should not be orbiting one another.


The theory breaks down based on its own premises and on the basis of these observations conclusively negate it. 


Einsteinians can’t have it both ways. 


More evidence the whole of reality as we know it is just an elaborate hologram.


They can’t have two equal and opposite warp / curves affect the orbits of these stars, and at the same time to have these self-same stars orbiting one another as if both were in the warped / curved space.


Brian Greene describes Einstein’s field equations as the choreography of the cosmic ballet of the universe.


It is a duet in which both parties lead one another.


Now if old One Beer, Roger Penrose and his pal Immanuel Velikovsky had spent a bit more time looking at Nicola Tesla and Brown's work on Gravity, electric fields and magnetism.......


If we go back to One Beer's famous calculation I think the M (mass) part needs some work to include Gravity, Electrical charge and magnetic flux as just M is far too simple of a generalization to make Universal reality sense.....


But us amoebas don't know much, now do we?? My brother Ian excluded....😂










©2018 by sequrux.com. Proudly created with Wix.com