Is Everyone Declaring their Position Clearly?

"Most string theorists are very arrogant," says Seiberg with a smile. "If there is something [beyond string theory], we will call it string theory."

I am going to comment on Peter Woit's reference to the article called String Fellows he has highlight from the Guardian.

Here's what Nathan Seiberg mentions and points to the difficulty of finding the means to describe the microstates of quantum geometry. I wanted to place his statement, in context of a poem earlier written. So I'll post his comment, and then link to the appropriate source for consideration. It's getting a little worn out already, without us constantly being reminded:)

Nathan Seiberg, a colleague of Witten's at the IAS, uses the analogy of blind men examining an elephant to explain the course of string theory until 1995. "One describes touching a leg, one describes touching a trunk, another describes the ears," he says. "They come up with different descriptions but they don't see the big picture. There is only one elephant and they describe different parts of it."The Guardian

Now I most definitely see there is a great wish to eliminate any familiarity with dimensional anaylsis in regards to Peter Woit, that I find many others now, all of a sudden clarfying for us the model distinctions that are being used, and I think Peter Woit understands this?

Model Building

I am not like the kind of people who would like to eliminate (and often they DO eliminate) every piece of data that is inconvenient to them. And moreover I think that John Ellis is an interesting person with inspiring ideas, and I have absolutely no reason to try to verbally eliminate him from some group---Posted by Luboš Motl at January 20, 2005 08:32 AM

.

In delving into the issue of dimenisons it has become pretty clear there are intelligent people who have paved the roads for us to count to the fourth dimension for sure and we have also heard, there is no such things as dimensions? So what the heck does this mean.

Maybe a expanded version of dimension is needed? But if you do this, you might go beyond string theory?:) Which of course brings me to the issue, that if dimension is to be used to the fourth, then anything that goes beyond the fourth if not a dimension has to be something else? Of course giving room to grow being expounded here, tells us what is beyond string theory, to have said, we are going beyond the standard model?


THOMAS BANCHOFF has been a professor of mathematics at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, since 1967. He has written two books and fifty articles on geometric topics, frequently incorporating interactive computer graphics techniques in the study of phenomena in the fourth and higher dimensions

With John Ellis' reference to what took place at Cern in 2003 brings to a head the idea of dimension, as it has been expounded by Thomas in regards to computer screens?

Today, however, we do have the opportunity not only to observe phenomena in four and higher dimensions, but we can also interact with them. The medium for such interaction is computer graphics. Computer graphic devices produce images on two-dimensional screens. Each point on the screen has two real numbers as coordinates, and the computer stores the locations of points and lists of pairs of points which are to be connected by line segments or more complicated curves. In this way a diagram of great complexity can be developed on the screen and saved for later viewing or further manipulation

As a reality greatly expanded from what the internet used to be, refering to the Cern Article. If you accept the conceptualization of higher dimension then indeed the work that Thomas moved into, was mind expanding and thought provoking in regards to the animations and reality in front of you with this two dimensional screen?

So has this computer screen okayed the analogy to the fifth dimension?

So What is this Dimenisonal Archetecture Built On?

3-d: no hidden dimensions 1/R2 in F = G(m1 x m2)(1/R2)
4-d: one “ “ 1/R3 replaces 1/R2
5-d: two “ “ 1/R4 “
6-d: three “ “ 1/R5 “

and so on.

The rule is that for n hidden dimensions the gravitational force falls off with the inverse (n + 2 ) power of the distance R. This implies that as we look at smaller and smaller distances (by banging protons together in particle accelerators) the force of gravity should look stronger and stronger. How much stronger depends on the number of hidden dimensions (and how big they are). There may be enough hidden dimensions to unify the all the forces (including gravity) at an energy level of around 1 TeV (1012 eV), corresponding to around 10-19 meters. This would be a solution to the hierarchy problem of the vast difference in energy scale between the three standard gauge forces and gravity. This is already partly solved by supersymmetry (as mentioned previously); but this new idea would be a more definitive solution--if it were the right solution!