there was a universal ball of string, but my cat shredded it

If everythign cna eb converted to energy, isn't it all the same thing anyways? I love strign theory. It tickles my fancy. Makes science so much more sane sounding.

3+1=?

I guess we'll have to wait a bit until Cern in 2007 is ready to restart it's large particle collider to reach the still higher energy levels that may give a better insight into that time after the Big Bang when gravity was still in close proximity to the nuclear forces. Maybe they'll even get to a level of energy where the four forces (3 + 1) become unified again. (Some fantasies will have it that the whole world may be swallowed up by the black hole than created at Cern.) Anyhow, when our physicists and mathematicians get some further 'hard evidence' it may be decided what mathematics will best fit the data, in order to further strengthen our handle on reality. * Some food for your imagination: I wonder, if a future science will ever be able to fully incorporate consciousness into the equation? Or would that cause an ultimate paradox, upon which the universe collapses into the void, to than somehow start again even more puzzling? Some have it that this has already happened.

A lot of physicists disapprove of string theory. In fact, the entire movement seems to be dying out entirely.

I must confess to an emberassingly uneducated background when it comes to this matter, but the whole concept intrigues me.

The thing that always gets me about any theory that tries to describe the smallest "thing", the "fabric of the universe", is the question, ok, but what makes up that? What I mean to say is, what constitutes the strings? If they make up everything then that means that they must occupy space to some degree, and if they do then there is always the possibility that some other particle or energy will be smaller. Do you see what I am getting at here? There is no way to prove that the "strings" even if they do exist are "it". Yes they theoretically are one dimensional but that would mean that they do not exist if you follow the logic of any dimensions.

If you do not follow this logic than you can accept my view that the strings are further made up of non-mattered "lenses". I propose that the entire universe is made up of infinitely small back to back convex curvatures that are the result of the passage of time. The string theory says that the string has only one dimension. When one puts two completely similar convex lenses back to back the optical affect of either is neutralized by the other. Since we are not following the logic of dimensions then the following example can also hold true. Every child has held his two index fingers together to provide the optical illusion of a "small two way finger". Well since these lenses do not consist of matter and take up no dimesions at all they are able to likewise "cross" and create the ultimate "layer" that the universe consists of.

What are these lenses a result of one might ask, if they do not consist of anything? Remember that "time" is a man-made concept that can be ignored if you simply don't look at a clock. But the concept of happenings is not man made. We all know that events have happened that we cannot revisit. We say that they have happened in the past, but all we really need to say is that they have happened. Likewise my lense theory can more aptly be called the ripple theory. To explain, imagine a stone hitting a calm surface of water. The outward expanding ripples are just waves of energy being expelled from the point of contact. When one is dealing with the smallest of smalls, matter is non existant any more. All that exists is energy. When an event takes place or "happens" it forever alters the way concurring events will proceed. It forever sends "ripples". It forever sends infinitely small convex lenses that come into contact with other convex lenses coming back from events that have not yet happened. Thus the universe exists.

Okay sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo this guys a dumbo. But the reality is that I am just as right as Einstein or Heisenburg or any other phycist who lacks the physical proof that his theory is the right one. Remember that even if you prove that your theory seems to be the most logical, that is all you are proving. Even then it only seems logical because it is fitting in with all the other theories. There is no instrument that can show me string theory. There is no instrument that can show me the ripple lense theory. I am not saying this is all a waste of time, after all I did say it intrigues me. Just remember no one is right until he is right.

Einstein's general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics each failed to avoid absurd math infinities in their calculations at either the very small or very large level of the universe respectively, it has been written. String theory and M-Theory have worked to move the infinities into other dimensions, creating more realms to put math paradigms to explain the problematical. Is that valid?

Scientific theories of course function beyond a realm of pure logic and is united with testable hypothesis and their verification in the 'real' world. Unfortunately that means that reason will always perhaps be partnered with the unreasonable and inanimate matter/energy/monads of the given 'material' universe of which human beings are a part in that 'unified' field continuum. Some scientists are even moving away from field theories, and Einstein is reported to have said on the last day of his life that he would not be surprised if the entire field theory approach to cosmology was incorrect (or perhaps superficial in the way that Newton's Theory was 'superficial' in relation to the general theory.

Plans do exist to test elements of string and extra 4 dimensional theories, specifically with a search for gravity working in an extra dimension at near or less than the Planck length, in which it would diminish at the cube root instead of the square root at short distance, and would be more powerful...that or perhaps a universe with fewer dimensions (just 2 of space and one of time) could account for inconsistencies with the arrangement of mass and energy in space. It is believed that with Higgs Field inflation the early universe expanded at superluminal speed (faster than light) for 10-35 second expanding orders of magnitude. That law violation is needed to make the math add up too.

One will always have difficulty in making a valid cosmology theory get beyond Cantor's set postulate that a universal set cannot include itself in the set and be valid. One must rely on the Spirit instead, and trust God no matter what way time was set to run, or to become put together as an aggregate reflected in the present appearance of the cosmos.

The 'absurd' math anomalies of the infinites are not anomalies! String theory, as well as theories incorporating infinite multiverses, such as stacked micro and macro dimensions, would have to include infinites that could not be accounted for, until we assign them a value! Einstein had to include the gravitational constant in regard to his equations to counteract the universe not imploding, but who's to say that it isn't, on a really slow scale, or that we're not in the middle of a black hole, right now? His vision of space-time was a fourth-dimensional solid, which would have had to include an infinite variable (the G-constant) to counteract 'gravity not making everything implode over TIME'. Time is without bounds. His gravitational constant was in direct correlation to the relative speed of time in pertaining to it's effect upon space. I could spend a lifetime worrying about the implications, too, but I think I'm just gonna let people without social lives do that.

I wish i knew more about physics to offer a more intriguing view. But I could imagine if strings really do exist they could indeed be beneficial to unlocking te secret of the universe's origin or, perhaps, if we discover a way to manipulate their fequency perhaps we can build replicators, like on star trek. :-P

"Tea, Earl Grey... hot!"

string theory is out of date now.. and no this isnt the "unified" theory.