Flux Stablisation Of Compact Dimensions, My work

Seeing as so many cranks whine about "Where's your work then?!", such as here, I thought I'd actually give a short rundown of the area within which I work and what specifically I do. Click for a larger picture of my terrible hand writing :



The vast majority of details are left out, specifics can be found in Chapters 16-19 of Polchinski's 'String Theory', Chapters 9 and 10 of Schwarz's 'String Theory and M Theory' and Chapters 12 and 15 of Green, Schwarz and Witten's 'Superstring Theory'.

Specific papers and thesises which I've used in my work include :

Moduli fixing and SUSY-breaking in Type II String Theory with fluxes
Lectures on Nongeometric Flux Compactifications
Algorithmic Algebraic Geometry and Flux Vacua
A New Method for Finding Vacua in String Phenomenology
Lectures on Nongeometric Flux Compactifications
Moduli Stabilization in Type IIB Orientifolds (I)

And I'm currently collaberating with two people in Spain with enough work to put a paper together but we keep wanting to 'cross the t's and dot the i's' and end up expanding more and more. I've come up with a method which allows for a way of solving more complicated systems with more physical conditions. The more complicated the system, the better because extra moduli give better constraints.

Should anyone have any questions, I'm happy to explain anything or give mathematical derivations of particular results. I've got nothing to hide and I'm not scared about anyone's "OMG, string theory is disproven!!" delusional gibberish. And the maths on display in those pages is somewhat a tip of the iceberg compared to what I sometimes dabble in.

Do the cranks have nothing to say? Momentito demanded to know where my work was, I provided it, sent him 2 PMs and nothing. StevenA, you've got nothing to say? Precursor, you wondered if I knew anything about field theory. Sylwester questioned if I knew about theoretical physics. Ub claimed I'm a chat bot and didn't learn anything about relativity. Do none of you have anything to say?

Could it be you've seen the work I do, realised it's completely over your heads and that there's no way you can BS an understanding of it? That since I can provide evidence I have a working understanding of something completely over your heads you can't come up with even a quip to say?

Oh, and just this week I was thanked, by name, in a published paper by someone working in this area, for my assistance in helping them.

Alphanumeric, the mofm have me so distraught that i haven't bothered to check my personal messages. However i can personal message you my land-line phone number lol, Cant speak Russian but how good is you Polish? like to argue with a motormouth of 300 wpm ENGLISH and who has the with the loud temperament of Professor Fate from the 1965 Movie the Great Race. 93636119 i think you know and like my area.

I have just given alphanumeric a personal message, he should respond with a phonecall or forever hold his peace about my lack of response availability.

Congratulation for your collaborations,AN.
PLEASE,WHAT IS YOUR NAME ? YOUR NAME IS NOT PLABO,SURELY.
OTHER THING THE SPANISH PHYSICS ALWAYS WAS MUCH WEAK.
I AM COLLABORATING WITH DR.ALBERT EINSTEIN.

GREETINGS

BUT I GO READ WITH VERY CAREFULLY THE WORK OF PABLO>

Sorry, I don't make trans-global phone called to people who cannot put together coherent sentences. If I want to speak directly to gibberish spouting idiots I'll go find the drunk who was infront of me in my local shop this morning (he was smashed drunk at 11am on a Sunday).

If you cannot comment on my work here, what would you say? Besides, I wouldn't want you to have my phone number. You claim in your PM that there's some things which cannot be said on an 'international forum'.

Obviously whatever you want to say, it's not about physics.

What a moronic generalisation.

And no, I'm not called Pablo. I'm British with a fairly uncommon but none-the-less English name.

AlphaNumeric, your paper it is not scientific paper. Scientific paper should contain also abstract, initial conditions i.e. the postulates, summary, and outlook. When you add these paragraphs I will discuss with you. Do your calculations lead to at least one experimental result? Are there theoretical results not consistent with experimental data? What the string is built of? How it interacts with spacetime? What is internal structure of string and spacetime?

Good luck! I wish you the best i.e. I wish your paper to be the part of the ultimate theory.

I always enjoy your postings that keeps this forum scientifically legit. I was wondering what your thoughts are on Dr. Lee Smolin's book--The Trouble with Physics--that seems to indicate that we may be putting all of our eggs (grants, professor ships, science meetings, etc.) into one basket (string theory)?
Regards,
Doc

Where did I say it was a paper? I said it was a run down of my work. I know how to write a paper. I read them all the time. I linked to half a dozen of them. So much for you having basic comprehension skills. I would never write up a paper using my handwriting. I'd type it in LaTeX, which I've been doing with a lot of my work over the last 15 months. I also type short articles on various interesting sections of maths or physics using LaTeX.

I've found a couple of string vacua which have good models of dark energy and e fold values for the expansion of the universe.

You never understood field theory did you...

In the same way all objects interact with space-time, it feels the curvature of space-time. You can see this directly by considering the Polyakov action for the string, it shows the interaction between the string worldsheet and the curvature of space-time.

Of course, this is just on the level of first quantisation. Second quantisation (which for strings currently is beyond us) would have space-time being the result of strings themselves appearing and disappearing rather than the effective theory we currently use which considers the first quantised string in a background field. Still manages to predict the Einstein Field Equations though.

As you can see Sylwester, I am capable of doing high level maths and physics. Even if you don't consider string theory 'physics', I'm competant in QED, electroweak theory and to a lesser extent QCD. And ironically, my best courses during my masters were relativity and black holes. But I prefer string stuff because what I do involves a lot of geometry anyway.

I haven't read it but it's one I do want to read. I don't think we are putting all our eggs in one basket, though most attempts to quantise gravity do involve string theory. With the advent of AdS/CFT correspondence huge leaps and bounds have occured. It's given us ways to describe meson behaviour. it makes a lot of good predictions about the RHIC collisions and the quark-gluon plasma, though Sylwester denies all of this. A collegue of mine can predict about 30 meson masses from just 3 input masses, to an average error of about 5% (he might have got it down to 2%, I forget) using the AdS/CFT concept.

This post has been edited by AlphaNumeric on Jan 13 2008, 05:24 PM

You are right. I appreciate it. But in my opinion you and other good theoretical physicists very frequently ignore physical meaning of the mathematical equations and mathematical transformations. You and others very often neglect the fundamental principle that only not numerous mathematical transformations have physical meaning i.e. only not numerous can be realized by nature. Many mathematical transformations applied in physics do not describe POSSIBLE SPONTANEOUS PHYSICAL PHENOMENA. Of course we can add new parameters in the mathematical transformations to fit theoretical results to the experimental data but theories containing such mechanisms never will a part of the ultimate theory. If you have intuition in physics then you should notice that nature IS VERY SIMPLE because there are many symmetries, because there is only a few possible types of interactions (so also a few possible phase transitions), because there is not in existence simpler interaction than the based on kinetic viscosity, and so on. It means that in physics there is not place for infinite number of mathematical transformations and many equations. It means that maybe 99 % or more of the scientific papers (mathematically correct) they are not a part of the ultimate theory of nature. They are the physical fiction. Can you see that there is not formulated a logical program describing how to formulate the ultimate theory? In my opinion such program should be based on following frame:
- Definition of internal structure of spacetime and the basic symmetries resulting from such structure
- Possible phase transitions of such spacetime and associated with them possible types of interactions
- Transition from the classical gravity (fruitful quantum gravity never will be formulated) to the quantum mechanics

Today in particle physics and cosmology is total chaos what causes that there are produced more and more complicated mathematical descriptions of nature whereas nature is constantly very simple physically and mathematically. In my opinion the string/M theory does not describe nature because this theory is mathematically too complicated. I write it not to persuade you of correctness of my very simple ultimate theory. I try to show you that nature never can be such complicated as it results from the string/M theory i.e. I try to show you that ‘stringers’ (and you) waste their time. The string/M theory never will be a part of the ultimate theory, also the QCD. Can you see that there is no progress in string theory since 1968 (40 years)? In other words: Probability that there will be formulated string/M theory leading only to the experimental data is equal to 0%. Can you also see that no one particle predicted by the supergravity is detected? Maybe I should not write that I think that my intuition in physics is very, very high but it is true and I know that the other –inos and s-particles never will be detected.

AlphaNumeric I wish you the best – you should reject the string/M theory and concentrate on the three points listed above as the frame of the ultimate theory. Only then in future you win a victory as physicist.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that you don't understand any of the stuff in AlphaNumeric's first post. You're probably one of these slightly dense internet-pseudo-physics-wannabes, who would prefer to dismiss all physics that isn't immediately accessible to someone with the intellect of the average farmyard animal.

I am happy to hold my hands up and say that I understand very little of what AlphaNumeric has written here. But that's not surprise, because he's spent a lot of time and effort building his knowledge and understanding so he can discuss modern theoretical physics. However, just because I don't understand a lot of it doesn't for a second mean I'd dismiss it. Here are a few examples:

1) I don't speak Japanese, but this doesn't mean I'd dismiss the language as a viable means to communicate.
2) I don't know the rules of American football, but that doesn't mean I think it's a crap sport.

What you, and countless other idiots do, is dismiss anything you don't understand. It's far easier to come on internet forums such as this and sound off about pseudo-physics, than it is to put the effort in and go through all the prerequisites that are necessary to study theoretical physics.

Repeatedly I've asked you to prove you can do mainstream physics. Not once have you done so. Hence, when I read you say such things, I cannot help but think "Hypocrite" because never have you demonstrated you know any kind of equations found in mainstream physics.

Infact, you adamently deny they are worth learning because you deny the validity of anything based on continuums. Since all of mainstream physics is built upon the notion of manifolds, fields, continuous variables etc, you give that as your reason why you don't know any of it.

Symmetries are an essential thing in any mainstream physics. It's symmetries and consistency requirements which lead through to the short list of possible terms in quantum field theory Lagrangians. If you knew anything about renormalisation field theory, you'd know how powerful the requirements of Lorentz symmetry, gauge invariance and renormalisability are.

Infact, string theory is so symmetric that it has no free parameters at all. All of it's variables are dynamically constrained. For instance, the string coupling strength, which determines how strings interact, is found by solving certain equations of motion. In usual QFT no such equations exist.

I don't think many physicists think their work will end up being in 'the theory of everything', but that doesn't mean they cannot contribute to our slow work towards such an end result.

You missed out the word 'uninformed'.

Actually the number of postulates and notions is actually shrinking. We're explaining more with few assumptions all the time. String theory has very few assumptions and gives implications it can explain so very much. The problem is it's structure is so rich it's hard to solve. That doesn't mean it's 'in total chaos'. A solution can be elegant and simple but that doesn't mean it's obvious and immediate to see.

But as your comments about QCD demonstrate, you make such claims about theories you simply do not understand.

How much string theory do you actually know? For instance, where in the hand written pages I've posted is there a mistake?

That is obviously a lie.

String theory is the only theory to predict gauge fields, the number of space-time dimensions and gravity. Other theories all have to have such things put in by hand. String theory simply doesn't work without them.

AdS/CFT correspondence also allows for excellent description of the quark-gluon plasma and meson physics. As I commented in the other thread, a collegue of mine has used the duality to predict the masses of more than 2 dozen mesons to within only 2~5% errpr with only 2 or 3 inputs. That counts doubly against you, because it describes quarks and it's done in the language of strings. The duality is also able to give a very good explaination for the underlying physics of the transition from nuclear state to plasma state.

It also gives a statistical mechanics explaination for the temperature of a black hole, giving the same result as Hawking did in relativity.

What crappy logic. Just because we haven't seen something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

By your logic we've seen everything in the universe we're ever going to see.

Besides, super gravity equations give an excellent way of linking particle content in the universe and inflation in the early universe. I should know, my work involves it.

As I said in a previous post, I've found string vacua which lead to viable dark energy and CMB spectra.

No, you shouldn't write it because it's not true.

Then you're an idiot. Do you think we'll never see any new particles ever? Do you think we've seen all there is to see in the universe?

I have
1) A very small amount of understanding of relativity SR (mostly from this forum)
2) A very small amount of understanding of QM (mostly from this forum)
3) Very (very!) limited maths from an engineering background.

So no claims to great understanding from me. What I think would be nice (helpful) would be a dash through some levels of knowledge and an indication of the reasons (experimental evidence) why, having reached each 'level', you have to go back to school and start again as soon as you think you might have got somewhere.

On quite a few occasions members of this forum have made amazing efforts to try to help me learn. What I find difficult to understand is not so much that I am not very clever but that on every occasion I seemed to be the only one interested:- as such I found it difficult to justify taking up the time of the people who were giving their time so generously. Maybe if the need was spelled out clearly there'd be a few more.

Thanks to .. quite a few..

-C2.

Edit 1 removed.
Edit2 - Looking at AN's last post - he seems to be doing EXACTLY what I have requested. Please could you start a bit lower down the scale?

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Jan 14 2008, 11:12 PM

Aw, man! And then I would have days more time away from Wolfram and Wikipedia. I figure I spend three to four times as much time researching what the hll AN's talking about than reading what he's written. And then I get headaches from trying to stuff too much in at once...

AlphaNumeric and Euler

I waste my time to teach you the good physics.
I will try once more to show you how stupid you are.
See:
www.universetoday.com/2005/08/01/quark-gluon-plasma/?182005
There is:
“…..Quark-gluon plasma was expected to behave like a gas, but the data shows a more liquid-like substance…..”

This sentence proves that the QCD is totally wrong. And it is not my sentence, it wrote very good educated physicist ON BASE OF THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA. You should have a grudge against nature (not against me) that nature does not behave accordingly with the totally wrong/stupid QCD (the QCD is such stupid as you).

To what conclusion leads my theory? My theory leads to conclusion that there is lower limit for volume of the colliding ions – the 13 % of the volume of free ions. My theory leads also to conclusion that in very energetic collisions of ions we should observe liquid-like substance composed of the stable cores of baryons – volume of one core is about 13 % of volume of free baryon (precisely, about 13 % of the area of strong interactions). My theory leads to conclusion that asymptotic freedom is only partially correct and predictions resulting from it should not be consistent with experimental data for high energies – and it is (see the cited sentence). What is the explanation? Below you have the recapitulation from some my post.
The uncertainty principle is incomplete because it does not take into account the influence of the possible collisions on the range of interactions. But we see that the correction is very, very small. It means that massless gluons indeed violate the uncertainty principle. It suggests that massless gluons having very short range it is science fiction.
Authors of the QCD also assume that the point quarks interact weaker and weaker when distance between them decreases. Whole nature contradicts such behavior of point masses. Of course such effect may be observed when internal structure of interacting particles is very complex. Such interaction is not described by the asymptotic freedom – the asymptotic freedom is only partially correct and the experimental data confirm that I am right. In my theory the modified asymptotic freedom results from fact that for high energies the area the Titius-Bode law for strong interactions is obligatory, is only PARTIALLY destroyed. Such is the reason why the mainstream formula describing the asymptotic freedom is incorrect for high energies. I should add that relativistic mass of neutral pion on first orbit above the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions is 175.7 MeV. I write it because AlphaNumeric wrote about such energy.

Recapitulation
Even very stupid man should notice that MY PREDICTIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA – see the cited sentence. Predictions on base of the asymptotic freedom are inconsistent with the experimental data for high energies.
Maybe you and other should read my theory? I write once more: My predictions are correct whereas the predictions within the QCD are incorrect. So maybe whole the MSSM is incorrect because the QCD it is a part of this theory?

My theory leads to following predictions – I am sure that they will be confirmed in the new experiments BECAUSE MY THEORY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW EXPERIMENTAL DATA:
I wrote ‘…and I know that the other –inos and s-particles never will be detected.’
Then AlphaNumeric wrote:

It means that you are ‘tremendous’ idiot. Why? You do not understand my simple sentence. There are other particles than the new –inos and s-particles (for example the resonances). It means that we’ll see new particles but NOT NEW –INOS AND S-PARTICLES. It results from my theory which is consistent with all known experimental data. And till today I am right. You know, the supergravity was formulated a few decades ago, you know, we have many accelerators, you know, with time probability that supergravity is correct is lower and lower – my theory suggests that this theory is totally wrong and till today I am right.
My theory also leads to conclusion that we never directly will see following particles:
-gravitons and gravitational waves (there are only wrong INTERPRETATIONS that they are in existence) – it is because origin of gravity is different (see my theory)
-Higgs boson – it is because particles acquire their masses in different way (see my theory)
-axions – it is because axions=neutrinos=PHOTINOS
But also:
-protogalaxies composed of biggest neutron stars/black-holes were created before the big bang.

And we must wait for new experimental data and observational facts – they will show whether my theory is correct.

No! There is my theory. My strings lead to the best theoretical results and leads only to the experimental data. They do not lead astray as the string/M theory.

‘…excellent description of the quark-gluon plasma…’? You are joking. Is it consistent with the new experimental data? Is it behaving as liquid-like substance in high energies?

I say once more: The string/M theory and the MSSM do not describe nature. They are the science fiction. No one prediction within these theories for high energy experiments will be consistent with new experimental data because:
“…..Quark-gluon plasma was expected to behave like a gas, but the data shows a more liquid-like substance…..”