Does light have mass?, Pondering the thought of "heavy light"

Hi Nick and NidStyles,

He he he!... the Universe is full of blank spaces... where would you like me to start. The fact that I "can put anything on it" as you say, also means that it is a "Tool of the Gods" especially if it works. I see that you seem to be afraid that it may bear fruit otherwise what is the harm if it does not produce practical results.

I respond better to a well thought out questions than to common insult. You still seem to be listening though. I really think that the work of any single individual (even over a lifetime) would not begin to address the breadth of what you need to know (or require) to begin to think about this topic. I do not compel anyone to accept my ideas but I would like to point out that I would say that String Theory will match the practical results that have been obtained elsewhere for no other reason than there are so many dimensions available to fill in your "blanks".

I thought that I had put up a "reasonable" position considering that I am "unresourced". The work I presented was the work of others... in some cases very respected names in the field like Lykken. When you disregard my idea as "garbage" you are also casting disrespect on those others who have names in the field of theoretical research... Their work is not garbage. I will assume you have read those points and have not come to that conclusion.

So it is only my "tilt" on String Theory that you are unhappy with not the substance of scholarly research? Or do you think that Science itself is at fault to pursue this course of knowledge? All I am really saying is there is a low energy path to "Strings" and it is the realm of Quantum Electrodynamics since this must also be the province of Strings as well. The other revolutionary point is that strings are not confined to below the Planck Length as Lykken has stated for case of weak scale superstrings

If the objections about the scale are valid I can think of no restriction on extending that scale to even larger scales. Some theoretical objections do exist but they are not base on experiment (naturally). One of the biggest objections is to finding the supersymmetric duals of our regular particles.... the "sparticles". You already understand why I think they are hard to find using HEP. The other is the requirement to "fit" the Higgs Boson into the pattern. To do this the graviton needs to be a "free range" particle that is not confined to the manifold. This sounds a bit unrealistic so I have dropped the idea simply because I don't like it. I also do not like "real strings" below the Planck Length... this would naturally also not be on the manifold. I don't like that either. I don't like the "quantum frothiness" at that scale either. The strings are supposed to be inside those bubbles.

That reference above on "Relativistic Physics in Arbitrary Reference Frames" is also highly interesting. It shows mechanisms to generate gravitational and electromagnetic forces "naturally" from a rotating frame of reference. Considering how large the Universe is (possibly 15 Billion Light Years or more) how rapidly do you think the Universe needs to spin such that the "extremity" or "edge" is travelling at close to the speed of light? I doubt if it is possible to measure such a small number and it can only be seen as an effect when we view the structures of things inside our bubble Universe.

I agree with NidStyles... progress is very slow and I admit impatience. But I think it is time to look very carefully at the area of experiment that available to Physics. Sure... high-energy physics may solve the problem but there is also a good chance this is a path that will not yield results. It could be a very expensive exercise too.

Cheers

I think this discussion on string theory has just about come to an end. There are really no new ideas coming to the table anymore, just people repeating themsevles (Good Elf extremely long windedly I might add hehe). I am of the opinion that, I think there is value in people researching string theory, but lets hold the 'convincing' of people until experimental evidence can do that. No amount of 'beauty', 'elegance', or promise will convince me until I see some experimental evidence. With that, lets try to discuss something new?? Please! haha

Sorry Good Elf, I DID mean discussion. I actually thought about that after I left work last week and knew I should have said discussion. I said the word "argument" with a very loose meaning. It is a silly habit of mine to call a discussion or debate an "argument". Blame Monty Python... I know it is confusing to people who don't know me personally, need to proof before I post I guess! Sarcasm just doesn't work for me here...

Thanks for all the info though!

Hi 'THEY" and Steveo,

No worry there, it is hard to determine "intent" in these threads, I could see Nick possibly taking it wrongly. No sarcasm intended either. Don't need to worry about all that. With Steveo I doubt that the discussion will ever end as long as there are questions. I have just provided an example of one way to explain the dark force. Naturally I use the higher dimensions of string theory to provide an extra coriolis force in the Universe to "push stuff" apart. This can only occur "isotropically" if we spin in higher dimensions. This also has a knock on effect on the "external" size of the Universe. all strictly "Special Theory" (plus dimensions).
The Space Stretch
Until there were an extra six dimensions I do not know how I lived without them... he he he!
Still unless there is a question I hardly ever respond Steveo. I could explain lots of things using this paradigm and I need a counter argument (Ur.. discussion) to show it is wrong. After all this is the "New Theories" section and not the "Old Theories" section.

Cheers

All in good spirit GoodElf!

I have made my points and hope for more
opportunities to do so again.

Cheers.

Don't you mean this is the "speculative theories" section, rather than the leading theories section? String theory, as you have even said, is still in its speculative stage.

Ok, you can 'explain' things using string theory, but can you calculate things with string theory? Since your promoting a new theory, and I am promoting current theories it is not my job to show that your wrong, but it is your job to show me why string theory is better than all of our current theories (GR, the Standard Model, etc...), which, as of now has yet to be done. Like I have said, it looks like there are lots of exciting avenues that String theory shows promise, but thats all it is now. A conceptual explanation is not nearly as convincing as some solid mathematical and numerical predictions that agree with experiment.

Word after Word like Dog????. Etc (Iam "Speedy Beanie Being", but only Iam a Plastic Surgeon in México City).
"No worry there, it is hard to determine "intent" in these threads, I could see Nick possibly taking it wrongly"
Also is almost my way of thinking: I respond better to a well thought out questions than to common insult. You still seem to be listening though. I really think that the work of any single individual (even over a lifetime) would not begin to address the breadth of what you need to know (or require) to begin to think about this topic. Iam according with : The other revolutionary point is that strings are not confined to below the Planck Length as Lykken has stated for case of weak scale superstrings, but the light constant is a cookie cutter in the point of creation or reaction of the photoelectric phenomena, and the wave is only the statistical interpretation of this particle recreation maybe, or not?, because the Calab Yau compatification in this Universe of Reference, like a spinning doodle with the graviton interaction with a "brane or X force"
PD Excuse my poor english please. Thanks