Anti-Theory meets String Theory
This Document is dedicated to Lubos Motl for his willingness to communicate on the subject
(With everyone except us of course)
~ID dearlubos~ 2088
The current state of the theory of strings is presented quite understandably and lauded at Elegant Universe and criticized quite soundly by Peter Woit in his book "Not Even Wrong" (See the review by John Corwall )
If non-theory could be considered reasoning without the use of theoretical influence then anti-theory could be translated to against theory. Regardless of these conventions, this paper describes the use of anti-theory to answer difficult questions. Everyone is able to grasp this concept because it’s the way we actually live and think if we can divorce ourselves of scientific and theological postulations that presently dominate our investigation. The theory of DNA is a common one that has found many uses in our society, lately and would seem to be proven to a great extent but it has one very large flaw that no one has yet given an answer to. DNA is considered to be about 97% common to all primates and other animals and there is no evidence that this large portion nor the remaining 3% determines anything other than physical traits. The pattern of a cats hair color may well be represented by genetic coding but the pattern of it’s pre programmed brain is not represented at all. A cat or any other creature is born with Instinctive actions with regard to all of it’s abilities. These are not learned but are simply the default values of the cats brain pattern. A cat that is rescued as a kitten and bottle fed may have no learning influence from any parent but as it reaches a certain age will dig a recess in the sand, squat to relieve itself and then cover the area as all cats do. A dog, gorilla or any other animal will have it’s own habits ingrained to accomplish their toilet but these things must, according to modern theory be encoded someplace in the DNA and they just aren’t.
The Big Bang theory even leaves physicists with a bad feeling because any grade five student could rip it to shreds in a second. Whether it’s the "Big Bang Bounce theory" or the old "One Beginning of the Universe Big Bang", any youngster could ask "Where did this matter come from in the first place?" or "Where did this Big Bang take Place?" Science is stymied at that point. These questions have always been asked but there has never been any answer to them unless we consider theology as an answer. Anti-Theory has no problem at all coming up with answers to these difficult questions but acceptance of the things that anti-theory states may not be considered scientific, but rather philosophical by the science community.
That brings us to String Theory. This same scientific community is so far over it’s collective head with the concept of strings and branes that many consider the whole idea to be purely philosophical. If an atom was the size of the solar system a string would be about the size of a tree. Physicists do not envision being to be able to see one of these things in the near future, but then we have never seen an atom, molecule or even an electron so size isn’t the only problem. We think we have seen traces of electrons in colliders, atoms and molecule-like patterns with tunneling electron microscopes but have no clue as to how we would see something as incredibly small as a string, if in fact they do exist. In some ways anti-theory supports string theory but not in the conventional matter-borne way. Science has long supported the idea that matter and energy are convertible and the colliders were supposed to be the apparatus used to find the building blocks of matter and make the two separable. String theory, on the other hand, calls the string a tiny bit of energy and seems to leave the idea that matter must somehow be contained therein, (since strings compose everything) but the separation of matter and energy now becomes quite enigmatic.
If matter and energy are convertible (E=Mc2) then it follows that they must be separate entities and should be able to be divided from each other, but the colliders have not yet managed that task either. Pure energy has yet to be devised since even sunlight photons are said to contain particles of matter. If String theorists are ready to embrace the idea that matter and energy are not separable then there is hope for this way of thinking because it begins to run parallel to the findings of anti-theory. The membranes or "Branes" of string theory or M-theory could quite easily be the panorama of which anti-theory speaks but "sparticles" of supersymmetery are not embraced by anti-theory because they only represent the balance of matter and anti-matter that is so needed with the "belief" that separate matter requires. It has long been recognized that matter, if it exists, must have a balancing factor in anti-matter in order to allow it’s proliferation. Without it matter cannot be simply created out of whole cloth as the expression goes since it at least requires the hole that it came from. Anti-theory does not recognize anti-matter as it does not even recognize matter itself.
Much has been made of the elegance of string theory since together with m-theory it gives a somewhat reliable model of the universe including all the forces but it does make atomic theory and the standard model terribly out of date. Anti-theory can take string theory right up to the completion of "the theory of everything" but certainly not without a complete overhaul of perspectives. The idea of 10 or 11 dimensions is easily explained as is the concept of parallel universes which are just two of the child-philosophies that are derived from string or m-theory. As you can see these things are so theoretical that they cannot be considered pure science and must fall into the category of philosophy. The science of strings does not even have an opportunity to be examined by present day methods and little is expected from the new Superconducting Super Collider (SSCs) at CERN since scientists devised the machine with the old model of atomic science in mind, and the one at Waxahachie, Texas Budgeted at $11 billion, and designed to be 87km, it was canceled by Congress in 1993 when $2 billion had been spent and 22km of tunnel constructed.
Anti-theory retreats within the human mind to explain the universe and it’s cause. It relies on the simple fact that we know we exist otherwise we couldn’t ask these questions. Something like a "fact" that cannot be questioned is a very unusual thing in science and philosophy these days but it’s impossible to ask yourself if you exist or not, because you just know that you do. Old science taught in Universities for many years always stated that "There are no Absolutes" and that is certainly not the case with anti-theory. If you can question your existence then you have your thinking system all messed up with theoretical or theological dogma because the very act guarantees it. You do exist and so does the universe that you observe though the form that it is in, may surprise you. Anti-theory does not see the world as a globe that we are so commonly in agreement of. Neither is this a throw back to the "Flat Earth Society" but something quite different.
The theory that our earth is within a galaxy that we call "The Milky Way" and that this is but one of uncountable galaxies that make up our universe has a very major flaw. We do not have a location. Whether you think of the universe as being limitless and the space it is in likewise or the universe as finite and the space it is in, limitless there is still a problem of location. To be located we need space to have an edge and for that concept there is no real intuition. We are incapable of thinking of limitless space and the idea of limited space needs a vessel to contain it. These may seem to be terms that are just so large that it really isn’t necessary to consider them but anti-theory has a solution to the problem of how we are located in space, whereas m-theory does not. To have a location we must be relative so something recognizable and so far this has been considered, quite sufficiently, the other planets, stars and galaxies but the big picture still leaves us in intractable space.
Since you must accept the idea that you exist then look about yourself and see that you are not very obviously standing on a globe but rather within one. Space might be considered that which is beyond your ability to realize. Being within this bubble of reality it is as obvious as existence itself. You look into this reality and not away from it. Disregarding all previous theory you are part of this bubble and your back is at the very edge of it. It can consist of an enclosure such as a room or may also consist of the entire visible cosmos should you look up into the night sky. All these considerations may seem a bit personal and quite unrelated to what we have previously considered the real world but anti-theory is incapable of misleading the philosophy because is does not guess. We are locked within our minds and insulated by the senses. The dream state of the human mind gives us some clue that we are perfectly capable of generating the reality we live in and being convinced that it is quite real. Anti-theory states that there is no reason to consider the so called "Real World" to be there without us as observers. We must therefore create it collectively and likewise be convinced that it is in fact real. Unfortunately for Physicists, string theory is something that we are creating and if we continue to pursue this philosophy we will also create the proof.
Anti-theory could support supersymmetry in that both combine all the forces into proper relationships but there are no sparticles which are the predicted supersymmetry particles, said to be quite heavy, although, these could be characterized by the lost heavy particles of mass or matter that are no longer required by strings of energy alone. Mathematically anti-theory cannot use numbers, digits and symbols to explain itself as yet. The base formula or resultant equation would be 0=1 and that largely goes against mathematics itself but it would be interesting to see the eloquence of string math arrive at that point.
The M in M-Theory would well be referencing "Magic" as the author Ed Whitten, himself suggested because now we have lost the old real world of matter and enter the real realm of magical manifestation. What is magic other than the utter hallucination of reality and what can this realization lead to? The illusive tackyons that are theoretical particles capable of exceeding the speed of light could be supplied by anti-theory because the idea that the light left distant stars many aeons ago is now without merit. An observer would place the membrane of strings that we refer to as a star or galaxy in it’s place on the overall membrane of the cosmos, instantly. The speed of thought is far quicker than that of light, at least theoretically. Parallel universes are not ruled out by anti-theory since this one that we are involved in shows no sign of uniqueness or requirement that it be so, but no clue is given, as yet, to the communication with said places.
Some slight differences in nomenclature would be suggested by anti-theory. Strings are simply referred to as "Things" and a Brane would be more properly be spelled "Brain" but the term "Membrane" applies quite nicely to the surface of the bubble of reality that we seem to peer into or the panorama of the heavens as it unfolds in vision. The 10 or 11 dimensions that strings and m-theory seem to require are satisfied by the very necessary dimensions of the "Things" in anti-theory in that they all display these qualities or lack of them. Shape (containing length, width and height) color, sound, motion, taste, smell, tactility, genetics (life or sexuality), and deterioration (entropy) but time is not a dimension, rather a subsequent or previous rendering of the above in the form of an edition.
As stated anti-theory does not invite conjecture since it lacks theorizing but runs surprisingly parallel to string theory in it’s philosophical mode. Could this tremendous departure from the old atomic model of everything lead to partnering with anti-theory to explain the makeup of the Universe?