Strings and No_Sense?

Well for me, if theorists have mathematically created a vision of things, how is it possible not to have generalized their views on what they had learnt about the theories they talk about?

"Shut up and Calculate" would definitely appeal to a lot math minded there at the forefront of Cosmic Variance. But really, how are you going to distance yourself from such generalizations? It seeps out of your pores :)

So, no_sense could capture it? Now, Now, if this were the case then such analogies would not have been shared by the more briiliant. Non? Thank you, Michio Kaku.

As to "first principle," what are these building blocks called that make up the reality we so cherish. Robert Laughlin has something to say about this, and I am sure condense matter physicists would also say, it don't matter, if you use bricks or sergeant majors.

You arrive at some "point of view" where all agree that the Physicist's walking across the room, will have in tow, their students? Okay a bad comparison, but all branches form a wonderful view of the insurgency theorists attack, using a method to recognition of that "emergent property" will speak too, and so kindly of.

So we are to the point of the model? Bring it on, Clifford. Do you really want me to sumarize this point?

I can but it would take time and I would have to explain why high energy valutions had run into limitations. Now if it had been a experiemental setup that one could incorporate in space, and we do, don't get me wrong here. John Ellis helped to make this clear in our recognition of the Pierre Auger experiments and Steinberg's recognition of microstate blackholes that would quickly dissipate.

But in a tighter control recognition of particle reductionism, a " extra enormous energy valution" is inherently needed? NOn? They progressively/reductionistically move to this point, through the trial and errors, of their ways.

Ah heck! Clifford, I got ahead of myself here. So I'll think I'll stop, so you can fill us in from a more expert opinion.