String theories and others

9 String and superstring theories

String theories, of which there are many, are a consequence of the same reasoning, in which the existentiality of elementary particles is placed too high, and as a consequence the concept of string is born, followed by more complex string-like creations. A string which vibrates with energy is in itself a fairly complicated concept, and it should not serve to explain simpler concepts. This string is ‘something like a toy’. Why the universe should be constructed from beings of such a toy-shape ?  There is no rationale for it. The string (or membrane and so one) is a very  very contingent being (without a general sense) and it can not be treated like a being of fundamental importance and meaning in the history of universe. Energy (APU60) is not a very good concept (not so low ‘non-being content’), and we should not start from it. The matter is similar with the quantities which would describe such string, like amplitude or frequency. The assumption of a large number of rolled up dimensions, so characteristic of string theories, seems to be a manipulation. The number of dimensions in our space is three, because that is what results from human cognition of matter, and humans perform cognition of space in ‘first projection’, its copy, and its complement (three in total). Then the reason that space is three-dimensional is of philosophical nature. Matter ‘lives’ its life and cannot conform to humans by assuming such number of its existential ‘dimensions’ as they see fit e.g. in order to obtain coherence with assumptions. Rolling up of dimensions seems a bad concept, and its APU  must  have  high  ‘non-being content’. Dimensions do not exist in matter in a proper sense, it is just an APU. There is no rationale in matter for a dimension construed in that way to be hidden. Meeting the criteria resulting from mathematical beings is a very weak one. If we can say that we have a fairly good ‘base’ for four dimensions of ordinary space-time, even if only because of its applicability in practice and thus not a very ‘bad’ APU, there is no such ‘base’ for subsequent dimensions introduced in string theories, which result in APUs with high ‘non-being content’.

String and superstring theories cannot to lead to the theory of everything because:

a)  of an unsubstantiated assumption of beings-strings that feature capabilities which have no rationale, and which lead ‘in advance’ to laws ‘desired’ by humans. The assumption that the universe is constructed from elements being similar to a part of toy or musical instrument is absurdal. Why the concept of this part would be so highly placed between fundamental concepts ? There is no reason,
b)  they do not have any philosophical substantiation; they seem to not take into account that the world of elementary (simplest) material beings is also something good, and that it may add something good only as a result of quasi freedom and quasi rationality, which is to say in the course of individually non-repeatable ‘events’ which do not follow any scheme or algorithm. Searching for a set of rules governing that scheme or algorithm is pointless, because there is no such set (this set would produce ‘a slave reality’ and so ‘worse reality’), and that is where the failure of string theories comes from,
c)  the transferring of the macroscopic concept of string into the microscopic world of particles is troublemaking.

In general string and superstring theories are absurdal. The world of strings does not exist.

9.1 The holographic principle

According to it the 3-dimesional reality can be treated as an projection of this reality on the 2-dimensional surface encompassing it. In this TOE this principle is reasonable but is not clearly visible. Humans perform cognition of space in ‘first projection’, its copy, and its complement (three in total). The third element in this cognition seems to be of ‘minimal importance’. So we can obtain a quite good ‘hologram’ only on the basis of two dimensions.  The extending of this cognition to space-time produces complications in this TOE. Stricly speaking it seems that the holographic principle is not true in an absolute manner because this additional dimension (third) cannot be reduced to non-being. If we extend this principle to n-dimensional reality we may say the same. 

10 M-theory and its derivatives

It is a consequence of ‘string’ thinking, and an unsatisfactory theory with a large number of redundant beings. It may not be confirmed in any way. Creating these beings results from ceaseless ‘indulging’ mathematical beings that are only intentional. Existence of a large number of worlds is assumed, and that is an absurd, because theology dictates that only one material world was created. Naturally, it has many ‘parts’. Only in that sense may we seek any correctness in the M-theory. Many new concepts are assumed by this theory, because otherwise there is no way it would be possible to achieve a satisfactory conformity with the mathematical ‘elegance’ sought for. This theory postulates e.g. 0-branes, 1-branes (strings), 2-branes (membranes), super 0-branes, super 1-branes, or super 2-branes, and many dimensions of space-time. It is said that the M-theory includes five different string theories (generalizing them), which shows exactly how far physics is from the real world, and to what extent it tries to ‘indulge’ mathematical beings. The number of dimensions was increased for its purposes from 10 in string theories to 11 for the M-theory.

The M-theory cannot be the theory of everything because, among other things:

a)  it seems to artificially introduce the concept of ‘singularity’, without an existential reason, so without rationale,
b)  it seems to artificially introduce the concept of expansion of this singularity ‘with enormous speed’, which is inacceptable, because there is no rationale for this expansion, and besides, the concept of speed is ‘strongly secondary’ and makes sense only in deliberations concerning fairly well established macroscopic matter,
c)  it seems to artificially introduce new dimensions without an existential reason, so without rationale,
d)  it seems to artificially introduce a thesis on a great accumulation of energy in the ‘singularity’, without an existential reason, so without rationale, because the concept of energy is ‘strongly secondary’ and it makes sense only in deliberations concerning fairly well established macroscopic matter,
e)  it seems to not take into account the reducibility of cognition of matter to sensual perceptions,
f)  it introduces a lot of new beings, e.g. quantities or parameters which do not literally exist in matter,
g)  APUs of the abundant new beings must have exceptionally high ‘non-being content’,
h)  it continues ‘string thinking’ taking its errors further, primarily by using the concept of a string vibrating with energy, or an n-dimensional brane, which is absurd on philosophical ground,
i)  non-existent symmetries (strictly speaking supersymmetries), which are theoretical attempts to force onto matter a ‘desired elegance, ignoring actually inelegant life of BEM matter’, are extended to cover other beings which are even less likely to exist,
j)  it continues works on describing the world in geometric categories (although, as we know, it was postulated by Einstein himself, but without success apart from gravity) by using spinor geometry which is ‘tempting’, but even worse than classic geometry, because it ‘forgets’ about the reduction of dimensions of a given space to human cognitive perceptions,
k)  it ‘enforces’ using noncumulative geometry which is even further from cognitive reality of humans,
l)  it seems to be not clearly ready to use the holographic principle,
m)  it has no bigger success in the unification of physics.

For analogical reasons, theories increasing the number of dimensions ever more, i.e. the F-theory and the S-theory, cannot be the theory of everything.

The M- theory seems to include some content ‘compatible’ with this TOE, because:

a)  it claims that such ‘things’ as time or space did not exist in so-called singularity, and emerged later (this TOE speaks only about cognitive, not existential emergence),
b)  it claims that ‘things’ like gravity, or electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions did not exist in so-called singularity, and emerged later (this TOE speaks only about cognitive, not existential emergence).

11 Other theories

11.1 SUSY theory

This theory, called also supersymmetry, is not true. It fails. Why? Because it is ‘indulging’ mathematical beings. Every mathematical being is only an abstracted essence from reality [1]. Only this. The concept of  spin is the very bad concept (high ‘non- being content’) and so the supersymmetry, which treates this concept very seriously (assumption of mutual changing of fermions and bosons) must fail. This ‘indulging’  produces many theoretical beings. So we may for example pairs: lepton – slepton, electron – selectron, quark – squark, boson – bosino, foton – fotino, graviton – gravitino. According to this TOE all the matter consists only from BEMs conglomerates. Reasuming we may say that the SUSY theory cannot be the theory of everything.

11.2 E8 theory

The situation is similar. This theory is too simple and it also creates new beings (particles) during this process of ‘indulging’ mathematical beings concerning the famous group E8. According to this TOE all the matter consists only from BEMs conglomerates. Reasuming we may say that the E8 theory cannot be the theory of everything

2 thoughts on “String theories and others

  1. This is remarkable and powerful attempt to rethink and order all basic physical notions under metaphysical conception of Unity, and especially Love as a living principal of Universe. I am agree with many considerations here about nonsense and discrepancies in contemporary physics. But I don’t believe that metaphysics is so reliable source to deduce physics. We have and could have many different metaphysical systems. Unity is good for our reason, but there is no guaranty that the world itself is One. I see world as a phenomenal unity due to our human living body with specific senses and knowledge capacities.

  2. Thank You very much for comment. I would like to say that according to the Bible only one world (universe) was created. Only this world has existence and other worlds have not. It means that these worlds do not exist.

Leave a Reply to Stanisław Mizerski Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 − two =