Technology: Superstring Theory - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Science and Technology
  Technology: Superstring Theory

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Technology: Superstring Theory

The Thomas A Stobie posted 12-25-98 01:56 AM ET
This technology allow the construction of the Chaos Gun weapon (an 8 attack projectile weapon). It requires Nonlinear Mathematics and Cyberethics to develop and permits development of Monopole Magnets.
From the Help file:
One of the more contentious debates that ran through the physics community of 20th century Earth centered on the viability of {Superstring Theory}. This theory attempts to unify the theory of gravity and other fundamental forces, and posits that all characteristics exhibited by subatomic particles, such as protons and neutrons, may be described as vibrations of fundamental, one-dimensional �strings�. This concept had been abandoned as untestable, until the development of [Nonlinear Mathematics (C2)], which offers mathematical models supporting {Superstring Theory}.
******
Now let the discussions begin. What is this technology? How is it applied to make a weapon? What other uses are there for it?
SnowFire posted 12-25-98 02:05 PM ET
Sounds like a glorified GUT, or Grand Unified Theory, that combines gravity, electrostatics, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force into one general force.
Thue posted 12-25-98 04:17 PM ET
actually one of the leading reaserchers of this field (Holger Bech Nielsen) is at Copenhagen university(where I study). If we can cook up some quality questions it is my experience that reaserchers like him are happy to answer.
I have some interest in this subject myself and I read a book and attended some lectures on it.
Since mastering the superstring theory will mean we know the true (I know: what is "true" in physics) nature of all particels and wawes, including those responsible for interaction(i.e. gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear force) it doesn't seem unlikely this understanding will make manipulations possible, like the discovery of the nature of the atom did (atom bomb). A possibility for use is a way to manipulate these vibrations (maybe somewhat like you manipulate atoms in an atom bomb).
Yes, as Snowfire says it is a model for a GUT. The nature of the dimensions (the three we live in, I don't know enougth to say if I should include time here) are a part of the superstring theory. Actually most of these theories operate with more than 3 (some (as Holger Bech Nielsen) say 9, but I have also heard 11). The ekstra dimensoins are "packed up" somehow (don't ask, I don't know "where"). For the superstring theory to work somehting called "supersymmetri"(DEF symmetri: a manipulation can be applied to an objekt and the objekt is the same after the operation, DEF supersymmetri: Don't know, but you get the impression I hope).
By the way: I migth try to make an estimation of the parameters of unity's travel. Do anybody know what the "hard facts" are?
Thue posted 12-25-98 04:19 PM ET
actually one of the leading reaserchers of this field (Holger Bech Nielsen) is at Copenhagen university(where I study). If we can cook up some quality questions it is my experience that reaserchers like him are happy to answer.
I have some interest in this subject myself and I read a book and attended some lectures on it.
Since mastering the superstring theory will mean we know the true (I know: what is "true" in physics) nature of all particels and wawes, including those responsible for interaction(i.e. gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear force) it doesn't seem unlikely this understanding will make manipulations possible, like the discovery of the nature of the atom did (atom bomb). A possibility for use is a way to manipulate these vibrations (maybe somewhat like you manipulate atoms in an atom bomb).
Yes, as Snowfire says it is a model for a GUT. The nature of the dimensions (the three we live in, I don't know enougth to say if I should include time here) are a part of the superstring theory. Actually most of these theories operate with more than 3 (some (as Holger Bech Nielsen) say 9, but I have also heard 11). The ekstra dimensoins are "packed up" somehow (don't ask, I don't know "where"). For the superstring theory to work somehting called "supersymmetri"(DEF symmetri: a manipulation can be applied to an objekt and the objekt is the same after the operation, DEF supersymmetri: Don't know, but you get the impression I hope).
By the way: I migth try to make an estimation of the parameters of unity's travel. Do anybody know what the "hard facts" are?
Thue posted 12-25-98 04:21 PM ET
Sorry for the double thread
my modem just quit . and I had 16 MB's of the demo :
The Thomas A Stobie posted 12-25-98 07:15 PM ET
No, it is not unified field theory. That is another technology that requires monopole magnets which requires Superstring Theory as a pre-requisite.
So my guess is that this is just trying a basic understanding of strings without the tying to the other forms of fields.
Thue posted 12-25-98 07:47 PM ET
I was only talking about the phisics of it.
as you can read I haven't maneged to download the demo yet
Death to Tele Danmark
Thue
Telastyn posted 12-26-98 12:43 AM ET
the weapon i think is used to disrupt the energies or whatever forms the "strings" into basic matter, thus disintegrating (right word?) its target.
Also if the technology exists to disrupt such energies it may also be possible to use the energies to create certain forms of matter (as in monopolar magnets)
WCT posted 12-29-98 05:25 PM ET
Well, if this tech postulates that everything is vibrations of strings, then it should also postulate how to modify those vibrations, no? That being the case, just pluck the strings that correspond to the enemy tanks, and even if you don't understand *exactly* how the vibrations work (i.e., you only have a basic understanding), you still know that messing up their vibrations chaotically will do something, probably Very Bad, to them.
Talk about bad vibes.
DHE_X2 posted 12-29-98 06:22 PM ET
Ok, I don't know that much about physics, aren't all waves caused by vibrations? Modify the vibration of a string and you end up with photons, gravitons, etc. correct me if I'm wrong, please.
btw, we live in four dimensions.
Telastyn posted 12-30-98 07:06 AM ET
dhe: that is debatable. though the general concencous i think is that by interferring with the elemental structure of matter you cause very bad things to other stuff.
the modern day equivalent i think would be to make a gun which causes sponaneous combustion of enemy tanks,planes, buildings,etc...
Calculus posted 12-30-98 07:50 AM ET
Knowing more about the atom allowed us to make the A-Bomb. Now if we knew more about the Proton (with the super-string theory), we might be able to make something like a P-Bomb. I wouldn't go near a P-Bomb.
Spoe posted 12-30-98 08:03 PM ET
Yes. The string theories that are currently in vogue have many dimensions(usually 11, from what I've heard). The extras, those above 4, are tiny -- the entire universe is something like 10 ** -30 or 10 ** -40 m or so in these dimensions, so we never see them.
As far as speculating about how to apply string effects to weapons -- dunno. I think most string theory is still trying to fit it to phenomena that we already know about -- not looking deeply into other consequences.
Maybe we could also submit some good questions to the Rutgers string group. A guy I went to UKy with is doing his Ph.D. work with them.
fo posted 12-31-98 05:05 AM ET
String Theory operates in 36 dimensions.
Super String Theory operates in 10 dimensions.
sbj posted 01-01-99 03:35 AM ET
Superstring theory is a superset of GUT. The GUT symmetries fit inside the superstring symmetries. While some GUTs were formulated in 11 dimensions, superstring theory works in 26 dimensions with 16 "compactified" (leaving 10 curled up dimensions). What the difference between "curled up" and "compactified" is I have no idea.
DHE posits that waves are caused by vibrations. This is probably a good way of thinking of it. But then what is vibrating to propogate light waves through a vacuum? That's where you bring in higher dimension strings (but how different is this theory from ether?). But this (at least in my opinion) brings about a contradiction in superstring theory, which says these extra dimensions are unimaginably small.
To think of higher dimensions, think of a curved sheet. It is 2-D but is curved around a similarly sized 3-D shape. If you pour water over it, a flatlander will see the water moving in an odd (not straight) way. Similarly, we see light curving through space in gravitational fields, so it would seem space-time curves around a gravitational field (as shown by relativity). But these higher dimensions are supposed to be on the order of the planck length (10^-30 cm or so), so you shouldn't be able to see the curve (to see what I mean, try curving this sheet around a grain of sand).
The other problems with superstring theory (as previously mentioned) is that it can't be tested and hasn't been solved. It'll be a long time before we can test it, and if we can harness the energies necessary, the other techs in the game seem meaningless by comparison. If you can manipulate these energies, you can destroy the planet without even trying.
Calculus: The p-bomb you refer to is just the hydrogen bomb (at last that's what I think you're referring to).
Thue: If you could ask Dr. Nielsen about the curvature problem I mentioned, I'd appreciate it (probably some obvious explanation that I can't think of). By the way, relativity theory, which includes the dimension of time, comes out of superstring theory, so time is included.
Anyway, superstring theory is the ultimate grand unified theory. To understand it is to understand everything.
Thue posted 01-01-99 02:35 PM ET
Let me see if I get this rigth (for I am but a lowly first year student)
The idea of folding those dimentions away is that they don't interact with anything. Therefore there would be no reason to let forces interact ("curve") with them!? and therefor no problem.
I can't ask about something I don't understand
I hope that made some sence (at least a reasonable mistake )
Thue
sbj posted 01-02-99 04:18 PM ET
What I was asking is how you can curve space-time over a dimension that's supposedly so small. If you were to curve a piece of paper (a 2-D object) over a 3-D surface, you have no difficulty. But if you curved it around a point as opposed to a surface, you'd end up with a singularity (right?). So if space-time is curved, and we can see this curvature experimentally (ie, it's not a singularity), what exactly is space-time curving around?
Thue posted 01-02-99 05:33 PM ET
Why do you think the space-time curves around the ekstra dimentions? Does space-time need something to curve around at all (other than objects inside space-time).
I'll ask someone when I get the chance. most professors must know the answer.
DanS posted 03-23-99 01:35 PM ET
Bringing this sci&tech thread to the top.
Hunterseeker posted 03-24-99 01:49 PM ET
The last thing, I've read is something about
this "super membrane theory". Because so far
there exist four versions of the super string
theory. The super membrane theory's basic
element is a membrane, when "rolled" thus creating a string. It seems that this theory
includes all four types of the super string
theory as special cases of the membrane theo-
ry. It also explains that when the membranes get rolled, some of the dimensions curve inside the string and become vanishingly small.
Alphagene posted 03-25-99 11:31 PM ET
Actually, I taught myself a bit of string theory when someone in my lab asked me what it was. There's a whole website that teaches it in an introductory manner.
To understand how 10 dimensions can be "wrapped up", they give this illustration. A stretched out garden hose from a long way away looks one-dimensional (a line), moving closer you see it actually has a width giving it the appearance of a 2-dimensional object (a long rectangle.) An even closer look reveals that the "rectangle" has circular bands around wrapping around it. This makes it look 3-dimensional (a cylinder). If we had the technology to look reaaally close at those hose (at the "Planck length", something like 10E-34 cm) we could see those other dimensions wrapped up, according to some string theories.
Do a yahoo search under "string theory", you'll get some good sites.
Alphagene
GaryD posted 03-26-99 08:25 AM ET
Someone you says
[QUOTE]There's a whole website that teaches it in an introductory manner.[/QUOTE]
(that won't work)
and doesn't give the URL ?
Shame on you !
McGeorge posted 03-26-99 11:57 AM ET
Don't know any web-sites, but my folks got me a book about string theory, which I'm reading now. It's "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. It seems pretty accessible. The early parts about special relativity and QM, which I already knew, sometimes seemed a little simplified, but that's probably because I did know them. It's pretty balanced; the author is a string theory proponent, but he doesn't act like it's proven or obvious. Before starting to read it my attitude was sort of "yeah, right" and now it's moved to more "hmm, maybe."
Alphagene posted 03-26-99 04:13 PM ET
Sorry, GaryD... my posting was done on an old crappy lab computer. Opening a new browser to find the page again while posting would have been a risky maneuver. Besides, I told you that doing a search of "string theory" at Yahoo! would give you several good ones. So ppppppt. But here are the sites I'd recommend:
The sites I looked at were
http://superstringtheory.com
and
http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/GraduateAdmissions/greene/greene.html
And by introductory, I meant that they attempt (rather well, IMHO) to walk you through the development of the theories. I actually had to reread some of the pages several times to get a grip on the heavy theories. But check em out. Impress your friends with your knowledge of the universe! Woo hoo!
Alphagene
GaryD posted 05-04-99 09:29 AM ET
Hey actually found this thread again !
Thanks Alphagene. I took your advice and performed a search, and I did stumble across your recommended site. Agree it is a good one.
The greene one is new to me (just brought it up in another window. So I'll hit that one.)
Meanwhile, wondering what happens when you reply to a thread on a forum with major worries !!!
icosahedron posted 05-04-99 03:37 PM ET
Even if one were to understand in terms of vibrating strings, there is still the technical problem of focusing energy to effect a disruption of distant pattern-integrities (as the chaos gun presumably does).
And a Unified Field theory would presumably be simpler and more global than string theory, perhaps yielding a more direct way of "twanging" the distant field-locale with more of a leverage effect.
BTW, someone mentioned that we live in a 4-D world, and the term space-time has been bandied -- has anyone taken the time to consider this meme-structure, or is it just me that finds the conflation of space and time ad hoc?
Perhaps space is just the memory of relative changes in rates and directions of experential perceptions? That is, space is a mind-trick; time and angle are the primitive ingredients.
For what it's worth.
Icosahedron
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Technology: Superstring Theory
The Thomas A Stobie	posted 12-25-98 01:56 AM ET This technology allow the construction of the Chaos Gun weapon (an 8 attack projectile weapon). It requires Nonlinear Mathematics and Cyberethics to develop and permits development of Monopole Magnets. From the Help file: One of the more contentious debates that ran through the physics community of 20th century Earth centered on the viability of {Superstring Theory}. This theory attempts to unify the theory of gravity and other fundamental forces, and posits that all characteristics exhibited by subatomic particles, such as protons and neutrons, may be described as vibrations of fundamental, one-dimensional �strings�. This concept had been abandoned as untestable, until the development of [Nonlinear Mathematics (C2)], which offers mathematical models supporting {Superstring Theory}. ****** Now let the discussions begin. What is this technology? How is it applied to make a weapon? What other uses are there for it?
SnowFire	posted 12-25-98 02:05 PM ET Sounds like a glorified GUT, or Grand Unified Theory, that combines gravity, electrostatics, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force into one general force.
Thue	posted 12-25-98 04:17 PM ET actually one of the leading reaserchers of this field (Holger Bech Nielsen) is at Copenhagen university(where I study). If we can cook up some quality questions it is my experience that reaserchers like him are happy to answer. I have some interest in this subject myself and I read a book and attended some lectures on it. Since mastering the superstring theory will mean we know the true (I know: what is "true" in physics) nature of all particels and wawes, including those responsible for interaction(i.e. gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear force) it doesn't seem unlikely this understanding will make manipulations possible, like the discovery of the nature of the atom did (atom bomb). A possibility for use is a way to manipulate these vibrations (maybe somewhat like you manipulate atoms in an atom bomb). Yes, as Snowfire says it is a model for a GUT. The nature of the dimensions (the three we live in, I don't know enougth to say if I should include time here) are a part of the superstring theory. Actually most of these theories operate with more than 3 (some (as Holger Bech Nielsen) say 9, but I have also heard 11). The ekstra dimensoins are "packed up" somehow (don't ask, I don't know "where"). For the superstring theory to work somehting called "supersymmetri"(DEF symmetri: a manipulation can be applied to an objekt and the objekt is the same after the operation, DEF supersymmetri: Don't know, but you get the impression I hope). By the way: I migth try to make an estimation of the parameters of unity's travel. Do anybody know what the "hard facts" are?
Thue	posted 12-25-98 04:19 PM ET actually one of the leading reaserchers of this field (Holger Bech Nielsen) is at Copenhagen university(where I study). If we can cook up some quality questions it is my experience that reaserchers like him are happy to answer. I have some interest in this subject myself and I read a book and attended some lectures on it. Since mastering the superstring theory will mean we know the true (I know: what is "true" in physics) nature of all particels and wawes, including those responsible for interaction(i.e. gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear force) it doesn't seem unlikely this understanding will make manipulations possible, like the discovery of the nature of the atom did (atom bomb). A possibility for use is a way to manipulate these vibrations (maybe somewhat like you manipulate atoms in an atom bomb). Yes, as Snowfire says it is a model for a GUT. The nature of the dimensions (the three we live in, I don't know enougth to say if I should include time here) are a part of the superstring theory. Actually most of these theories operate with more than 3 (some (as Holger Bech Nielsen) say 9, but I have also heard 11). The ekstra dimensoins are "packed up" somehow (don't ask, I don't know "where"). For the superstring theory to work somehting called "supersymmetri"(DEF symmetri: a manipulation can be applied to an objekt and the objekt is the same after the operation, DEF supersymmetri: Don't know, but you get the impression I hope). By the way: I migth try to make an estimation of the parameters of unity's travel. Do anybody know what the "hard facts" are?
Thue	posted 12-25-98 04:21 PM ET Sorry for the double thread my modem just quit . and I had 16 MB's of the demo :
The Thomas A Stobie	posted 12-25-98 07:15 PM ET No, it is not unified field theory. That is another technology that requires monopole magnets which requires Superstring Theory as a pre-requisite. So my guess is that this is just trying a basic understanding of strings without the tying to the other forms of fields.
Thue	posted 12-25-98 07:47 PM ET I was only talking about the phisics of it. as you can read I haven't maneged to download the demo yet Death to Tele Danmark Thue
Telastyn	posted 12-26-98 12:43 AM ET the weapon i think is used to disrupt the energies or whatever forms the "strings" into basic matter, thus disintegrating (right word?) its target. Also if the technology exists to disrupt such energies it may also be possible to use the energies to create certain forms of matter (as in monopolar magnets)
WCT	posted 12-29-98 05:25 PM ET Well, if this tech postulates that everything is vibrations of strings, then it should also postulate how to modify those vibrations, no? That being the case, just pluck the strings that correspond to the enemy tanks, and even if you don't understand exactly how the vibrations work (i.e., you only have a basic understanding), you still know that messing up their vibrations chaotically will do something, probably Very Bad, to them. Talk about bad vibes.
DHE_X2	posted 12-29-98 06:22 PM ET Ok, I don't know that much about physics, aren't all waves caused by vibrations? Modify the vibration of a string and you end up with photons, gravitons, etc. correct me if I'm wrong, please. btw, we live in four dimensions.
Telastyn	posted 12-30-98 07:06 AM ET dhe: that is debatable. though the general concencous i think is that by interferring with the elemental structure of matter you cause very bad things to other stuff. the modern day equivalent i think would be to make a gun which causes sponaneous combustion of enemy tanks,planes, buildings,etc...
Calculus	posted 12-30-98 07:50 AM ET Knowing more about the atom allowed us to make the A-Bomb. Now if we knew more about the Proton (with the super-string theory), we might be able to make something like a P-Bomb. I wouldn't go near a P-Bomb.
Spoe	posted 12-30-98 08:03 PM ET Yes. The string theories that are currently in vogue have many dimensions(usually 11, from what I've heard). The extras, those above 4, are tiny -- the entire universe is something like 10 -30 or 10 -40 m or so in these dimensions, so we never see them. As far as speculating about how to apply string effects to weapons -- dunno. I think most string theory is still trying to fit it to phenomena that we already know about -- not looking deeply into other consequences. Maybe we could also submit some good questions to the Rutgers string group. A guy I went to UKy with is doing his Ph.D. work with them.
fo	posted 12-31-98 05:05 AM ET String Theory operates in 36 dimensions. Super String Theory operates in 10 dimensions.
sbj	posted 01-01-99 03:35 AM ET Superstring theory is a superset of GUT. The GUT symmetries fit inside the superstring symmetries. While some GUTs were formulated in 11 dimensions, superstring theory works in 26 dimensions with 16 "compactified" (leaving 10 curled up dimensions). What the difference between "curled up" and "compactified" is I have no idea. DHE posits that waves are caused by vibrations. This is probably a good way of thinking of it. But then what is vibrating to propogate light waves through a vacuum? That's where you bring in higher dimension strings (but how different is this theory from ether?). But this (at least in my opinion) brings about a contradiction in superstring theory, which says these extra dimensions are unimaginably small. To think of higher dimensions, think of a curved sheet. It is 2-D but is curved around a similarly sized 3-D shape. If you pour water over it, a flatlander will see the water moving in an odd (not straight) way. Similarly, we see light curving through space in gravitational fields, so it would seem space-time curves around a gravitational field (as shown by relativity). But these higher dimensions are supposed to be on the order of the planck length (10^-30 cm or so), so you shouldn't be able to see the curve (to see what I mean, try curving this sheet around a grain of sand). The other problems with superstring theory (as previously mentioned) is that it can't be tested and hasn't been solved. It'll be a long time before we can test it, and if we can harness the energies necessary, the other techs in the game seem meaningless by comparison. If you can manipulate these energies, you can destroy the planet without even trying. Calculus: The p-bomb you refer to is just the hydrogen bomb (at last that's what I think you're referring to). Thue: If you could ask Dr. Nielsen about the curvature problem I mentioned, I'd appreciate it (probably some obvious explanation that I can't think of). By the way, relativity theory, which includes the dimension of time, comes out of superstring theory, so time is included. Anyway, superstring theory is the ultimate grand unified theory. To understand it is to understand everything.
Thue	posted 01-01-99 02:35 PM ET Let me see if I get this rigth (for I am but a lowly first year student) The idea of folding those dimentions away is that they don't interact with anything. Therefore there would be no reason to let forces interact ("curve") with them!? and therefor no problem. I can't ask about something I don't understand I hope that made some sence (at least a reasonable mistake ) Thue
sbj	posted 01-02-99 04:18 PM ET What I was asking is how you can curve space-time over a dimension that's supposedly so small. If you were to curve a piece of paper (a 2-D object) over a 3-D surface, you have no difficulty. But if you curved it around a point as opposed to a surface, you'd end up with a singularity (right?). So if space-time is curved, and we can see this curvature experimentally (ie, it's not a singularity), what exactly is space-time curving around?
Thue	posted 01-02-99 05:33 PM ET Why do you think the space-time curves around the ekstra dimentions? Does space-time need something to curve around at all (other than objects inside space-time). I'll ask someone when I get the chance. most professors must know the answer.
DanS	posted 03-23-99 01:35 PM ET Bringing this sci&tech thread to the top.
Hunterseeker	posted 03-24-99 01:49 PM ET The last thing, I've read is something about this "super membrane theory". Because so far there exist four versions of the super string theory. The super membrane theory's basic element is a membrane, when "rolled" thus creating a string. It seems that this theory includes all four types of the super string theory as special cases of the membrane theo- ry. It also explains that when the membranes get rolled, some of the dimensions curve inside the string and become vanishingly small.
Alphagene	posted 03-25-99 11:31 PM ET Actually, I taught myself a bit of string theory when someone in my lab asked me what it was. There's a whole website that teaches it in an introductory manner. To understand how 10 dimensions can be "wrapped up", they give this illustration. A stretched out garden hose from a long way away looks one-dimensional (a line), moving closer you see it actually has a width giving it the appearance of a 2-dimensional object (a long rectangle.) An even closer look reveals that the "rectangle" has circular bands around wrapping around it. This makes it look 3-dimensional (a cylinder). If we had the technology to look reaaally close at those hose (at the "Planck length", something like 10E-34 cm) we could see those other dimensions wrapped up, according to some string theories. Do a yahoo search under "string theory", you'll get some good sites. Alphagene
GaryD	posted 03-26-99 08:25 AM ET Someone you says [QUOTE]There's a whole website that teaches it in an introductory manner.[/QUOTE] (that won't work) and doesn't give the URL ? Shame on you !
McGeorge	posted 03-26-99 11:57 AM ET Don't know any web-sites, but my folks got me a book about string theory, which I'm reading now. It's "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. It seems pretty accessible. The early parts about special relativity and QM, which I already knew, sometimes seemed a little simplified, but that's probably because I did know them. It's pretty balanced; the author is a string theory proponent, but he doesn't act like it's proven or obvious. Before starting to read it my attitude was sort of "yeah, right" and now it's moved to more "hmm, maybe."
Alphagene	posted 03-26-99 04:13 PM ET Sorry, GaryD... my posting was done on an old crappy lab computer. Opening a new browser to find the page again while posting would have been a risky maneuver. Besides, I told you that doing a search of "string theory" at Yahoo! would give you several good ones. So ppppppt. But here are the sites I'd recommend: The sites I looked at were http://superstringtheory.com and http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/GraduateAdmissions/greene/greene.html And by introductory, I meant that they attempt (rather well, IMHO) to walk you through the development of the theories. I actually had to reread some of the pages several times to get a grip on the heavy theories. But check em out. Impress your friends with your knowledge of the universe! Woo hoo! Alphagene
GaryD	posted 05-04-99 09:29 AM ET Hey actually found this thread again ! Thanks Alphagene. I took your advice and performed a search, and I did stumble across your recommended site. Agree it is a good one. The greene one is new to me (just brought it up in another window. So I'll hit that one.) Meanwhile, wondering what happens when you reply to a thread on a forum with major worries !!!
icosahedron	posted 05-04-99 03:37 PM ET Even if one were to understand in terms of vibrating strings, there is still the technical problem of focusing energy to effect a disruption of distant pattern-integrities (as the chaos gun presumably does). And a Unified Field theory would presumably be simpler and more global than string theory, perhaps yielding a more direct way of "twanging" the distant field-locale with more of a leverage effect. BTW, someone mentioned that we live in a 4-D world, and the term space-time has been bandied -- has anyone taken the time to consider this meme-structure, or is it just me that finds the conflation of space and time ad hoc? Perhaps space is just the memory of relative changes in rates and directions of experential perceptions? That is, space is a mind-trick; time and angle are the primitive ingredients. For what it's worth. Icosahedron