Tweet
THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE, Brian Greene, 1999, 2003
```(annotated and with added bold highlights by Epsilon=One)
```(annotated and with added bold highlights by Epsilon=One)
Chapter 6 - Nothing but Music: The Essentials of Superstring Theory
or 
As we mentioned at the outset of this chapter and as illustrated in Figure1.1, string theory claims that if the presumed point-particles of the standard model could be examined with a precision significantly beyond our present capacity, each would be seen to be made of a single, tiny, oscillating loop of string. (Epsilon=One: "Particles" are actually resonances referred to as Resoloids, which are within the "fields" of various complex oscillations such as swing, slide, vibration, et cetera.)
For reasons that will become clear, the length of a typical string loop is about the Planck length, about a hundred billion billion (10^20) times smaller than an atomic nucleus. (Epsilon=One: The Planck length is somewhat analogous to the Elliptical Constant (EC), which can be described as the difference between the lengths of various oscillating components of the Emergent Ellipsoid structure of the Pulsoid.) It is no wonder that our present-day experiments are unable to resolve the microscopic stringy nature of matter: strings are minute even on the scales set by subatomic particles. (Epsilon=One: Oscillating "strings" and their resultant "fields" are beyond quantitative observation; however, they can be "known" with the "tools" of Philogic.) We would need an accelerator to slam matter together with energies some million billion times more powerful than any previously constructed in order to reveal directly that a string is not a point-particle. (Epsilon=One: It is doubted that any amount of energy can directly reveal a "string." However, the same can be accomplished with Philogic's resolution of the enigmas and divisiveness of Science, Theology, and Philosophy (STP).)
We will describe shortly the stunning implications that follow from replacing point-particles by strings, but let's first address a more basic question: What are strings made of?
There are two possible answers to this question. First, strings are truly fundamental—they are "atoms," uncuttable constituents, in the truest sense of the ancient Greeks. As the absolute smallest constituents of anything and everything, they represent the end of the line—the last of the Russian matrioshka dolls—in the numerous layers of substructure in the microscopic world. (Epsilon=One: Speculation as to what "strings" are made of is not much different then speculating about the locus of the Universe (What is the "container" that the ludicrous Big Bang is within?) or the locus of equally ludicrous multi-versers. The answers to such questions goes to the crux of Philogic. The answer lies in an understanding of what there was, or is, before dimensions. Thus, Philogic! Where? and Why? did Pulsoids serendipitously form as the first essence of Reality ? The answer lies beyond the axiomatic sciences; but, can be easily understood by middle-schoolers.) From this perspective, even though strings have spatial extent, the question of their composition is without any content. Were strings to be made of something smaller they would not be fundamental. Instead, whatever strings were composed of would immediately displace them and lay claim to being an even more basic constituent of the universe. (Epsilon=One: Pulsoids, and their constiuents, are fundamental to all that exists within Reality as the Pulsoid serendipitously forms from chaotic motion that is "beyond" the congruent locus of the Universe and the duality of Infinity. The serendipitous creation of a Pulsoid from the motion of chaos/Infinity can be understood from Feynman's explanation of QED's "alignment" of infinite "motion.") Using our linguistic analogy, paragraphs are made of sentences, sentences are made of words, and words are made of letters. What makes up a letter? From a linguistic standpoint, that's the end of the line. Letters are letters—they are the fundamental building blocks of written language; there is no further substructure. Questioning their composition has no meaning. Similarly, a string is simply a string—as there is nothing more fundamental, it can't be described as being composed of any other substance. (Epsilon=One: This is a ludicrous answer. Something like physicists depending upon axioms and not being concerned about a first postulate. Such reasoning of scientists concerned with the quantitative opens up more enigmas than it resolves. Scientists must understand Philosophy, Philogic, to resolve the enigmas that they continuously create from their axiomatic dependence that lacks a first postulate.)
That's the first answer. The second answer is based on the simple fact that as yet we do not know if string theory is a correct or final theory of nature. If string theory is truly off the mark, then, well, we can forget strings and the irrelevant question of their composition. Although this is a possibility, research since the mid-1980s overwhelmingly points toward its being extremely unlikely. But history surely has taught us that every time our understanding of the universe deepens, we find yet smaller microscopic ingredients constituting a finer level of matter. And so another possibility, should strings fail to be the final theory, is that they are one more layer in the cosmic onion, a layer that becomes visible at the Planck length, although not the final layer. In this case, strings could be made up of yet-smaller structures. String theorists have raised and continue to pursue this possibility. To date there are intriguing hints in theoretical studies that strings may have further substructure, but there is as yet no definitive evidence. Only time and intense research will supply the final word on this question. (Epsilon=One: The basic explanations that apply to the "final word" have been known since 1955. Unfortunately, in that day, only Einstein because of his years of searching would probably recognize the solution. Theoretical Physicists since Feynman have been too absorbed with the ludicrousness of Standard Model assumptions and calculus rather than seeking the simplicity of geometry and algebra to solve the "natural" source of numbers.)
Aside from a few speculations in Chapter 12 and Chapter 15, for our discussion here we approach strings in the manner proposed in the first answer—that is, we will take strings to be nature's most fundamental ingredient. or
The Greeks' Atoms, Again?
or For reasons that will become clear, the length of a typical string loop is about the Planck length, about a hundred billion billion (10^20) times smaller than an atomic nucleus. (Epsilon=One: The Planck length is somewhat analogous to the Elliptical Constant (EC), which can be described as the difference between the lengths of various oscillating components of the Emergent Ellipsoid structure of the Pulsoid.) It is no wonder that our present-day experiments are unable to resolve the microscopic stringy nature of matter: strings are minute even on the scales set by subatomic particles. (Epsilon=One: Oscillating "strings" and their resultant "fields" are beyond quantitative observation; however, they can be "known" with the "tools" of Philogic.) We would need an accelerator to slam matter together with energies some million billion times more powerful than any previously constructed in order to reveal directly that a string is not a point-particle. (Epsilon=One: It is doubted that any amount of energy can directly reveal a "string." However, the same can be accomplished with Philogic's resolution of the enigmas and divisiveness of Science, Theology, and Philosophy (STP).)
We will describe shortly the stunning implications that follow from replacing point-particles by strings, but let's first address a more basic question: What are strings made of?
There are two possible answers to this question. First, strings are truly fundamental—they are "atoms," uncuttable constituents, in the truest sense of the ancient Greeks. As the absolute smallest constituents of anything and everything, they represent the end of the line—the last of the Russian matrioshka dolls—in the numerous layers of substructure in the microscopic world. (Epsilon=One: Speculation as to what "strings" are made of is not much different then speculating about the locus of the Universe (What is the "container" that the ludicrous Big Bang is within?) or the locus of equally ludicrous multi-versers. The answers to such questions goes to the crux of Philogic. The answer lies in an understanding of what there was, or is, before dimensions. Thus, Philogic! Where? and Why? did Pulsoids serendipitously form as the first essence of Reality ? The answer lies beyond the axiomatic sciences; but, can be easily understood by middle-schoolers.) From this perspective, even though strings have spatial extent, the question of their composition is without any content. Were strings to be made of something smaller they would not be fundamental. Instead, whatever strings were composed of would immediately displace them and lay claim to being an even more basic constituent of the universe. (Epsilon=One: Pulsoids, and their constiuents, are fundamental to all that exists within Reality as the Pulsoid serendipitously forms from chaotic motion that is "beyond" the congruent locus of the Universe and the duality of Infinity. The serendipitous creation of a Pulsoid from the motion of chaos/Infinity can be understood from Feynman's explanation of QED's "alignment" of infinite "motion.") Using our linguistic analogy, paragraphs are made of sentences, sentences are made of words, and words are made of letters. What makes up a letter? From a linguistic standpoint, that's the end of the line. Letters are letters—they are the fundamental building blocks of written language; there is no further substructure. Questioning their composition has no meaning. Similarly, a string is simply a string—as there is nothing more fundamental, it can't be described as being composed of any other substance. (Epsilon=One: This is a ludicrous answer. Something like physicists depending upon axioms and not being concerned about a first postulate. Such reasoning of scientists concerned with the quantitative opens up more enigmas than it resolves. Scientists must understand Philosophy, Philogic, to resolve the enigmas that they continuously create from their axiomatic dependence that lacks a first postulate.)
That's the first answer. The second answer is based on the simple fact that as yet we do not know if string theory is a correct or final theory of nature. If string theory is truly off the mark, then, well, we can forget strings and the irrelevant question of their composition. Although this is a possibility, research since the mid-1980s overwhelmingly points toward its being extremely unlikely. But history surely has taught us that every time our understanding of the universe deepens, we find yet smaller microscopic ingredients constituting a finer level of matter. And so another possibility, should strings fail to be the final theory, is that they are one more layer in the cosmic onion, a layer that becomes visible at the Planck length, although not the final layer. In this case, strings could be made up of yet-smaller structures. String theorists have raised and continue to pursue this possibility. To date there are intriguing hints in theoretical studies that strings may have further substructure, but there is as yet no definitive evidence. Only time and intense research will supply the final word on this question. (Epsilon=One: The basic explanations that apply to the "final word" have been known since 1955. Unfortunately, in that day, only Einstein because of his years of searching would probably recognize the solution. Theoretical Physicists since Feynman have been too absorbed with the ludicrousness of Standard Model assumptions and calculus rather than seeking the simplicity of geometry and algebra to solve the "natural" source of numbers.)
Aside from a few speculations in Chapter 12 and Chapter 15, for our discussion here we approach strings in the manner proposed in the first answer—that is, we will take strings to be nature's most fundamental ingredient.
or