G-string and dark energy

Philip Gibbs wrote an article “Naturally Unnatural” about his view on the multiverse issue. His key argument is about “The universe might not make sense… . The Nature is unnatural — that physical laws are just an arbitrary, messy outcome of random fluctuations in the fabric of space and time”. Yet, he and others think that “… that the standard model will fall out of string theory in a unique way” eventually. And, if this happens, we should accept that the string theory is correct.

I would like to make this view into a law.

Theory A (TA) has a set premises and predictions (PA) with consequences (CA), and there are a set of known physics facts (PF [including the topmost proved phenomenological theories]).

Law 1: If PA is beyond the reach by any gadget in a foreseeable future but CA is encompassing the PF, then TA is deemed to be correct.

With this law, string theory could be correct if it can “reproduce” the basic feature of the Standard Model which is proved phenomenological theory. Let’s start with a very small part of the SM to begin with. Can string theory reproduce the followings?

a. “Exactly” 48 elementary particles, 2 x (18 quarks + 6 leptons). It will be a bonus, if it predicts more. But, these 48 must be precisely derived.

b. Neff = 3 must be precisely derived in a subsystem. That is, Neff > 3 is allowed beyond that subsystem.

c. Quark color must be a theoretical consequence, not a phenomenological result.

Let’s make the above list simpler. If M-string theory can “clearly” identify a “particular” string which can be written as string x = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ) = red up quark, then M-string theory must be correct.

We should give M-string theory one more chance. There is a subset of PF {α (electron fine structure constant), Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, etc.}. If string theory can derive these “theoretically”, then it must be correct.

With Law 1, we should have law 2.

For TA, the gadget testing is exempt (waived), and it can roam complete “free theoretically”. That is, no “prediction” of any kind is needed from TA. The only task of TA is to “encompass” the proved topmost phenomenological theory, that is to produce it “directly”, such as string x = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ) = red up quark.

Law 2: If TA fails to accomplish the task above after it is worked over 20 years period by over 1,000 scholars, then, the premises of TA is inadequate, simply wrong.

After one thousand people roaming free theoretically (without any physical restraint) over 20 years, the chance that any Alice Wonderland which is still hidden (not discovered) is very small. Thus, the validity of the Law 2 is very much guaranteed.

Being given a complete freedom roaming “theoretically”, when a “pure theoretically construct” cannot making contact to some well-known and proved physics realities, it cannot have any physics value regardless of how wonderfully correct it is otherwise.

Thus, M-string theory must not be killed by lacking a testable prediction as the “testable” is 100% gadget dependent, and the capability of any gadget is limited by the human stupidity, nothing to do with the greatness of the Nature.

On the other hand, while M-string theory can have zillion strings and zillion untestable predictions, it must meet one criterion, making contact to the known physics. It must produce 48 strings (out of those zillions) as follow:

String 1 = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red up quark.
String 2 = {1st , red, -1/3 e, ½ ħ} = red down quark.
String 3 = {1st , blue, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = blue up quark.

String 7 = {1st, white (colorless), 1 e, ½ ħ} = e (electron).
String 8 = {1st, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = e-neutrino.
String 9 = {2nd , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red charm quark.

String 48 = – {3rd, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = anti-tau-neutrino.

Being given unlimited (infinite) theoretical reasoning power (without any hindrance of any gadget testing), if M-string theory cannot produce and identify those 48 strings (out of its zillion strings), then M-string theory is simple “Wrong” as a physics theory.

By all means, I do love string theory. With unlimited freedom on swinging the theoretical reasoning sword, no challenge of any kind can fail us, such as, the questions of “what is time?” or “where is the time coming from?” Yet, I would like to start with an easier challenge, producing 48 known elementary particles with strings. We only need to “engineer” two types of building blocks.

a. The “line-string” (not ring-string): it has two “ends” and a “segment” which connects the two “ends”. That is, this line-string has three parts and can be written as (a, b, c). Yet, when this line-string joins and forms a ring string, the difference among (a, b, c) disappears. That is, the (a, b, c) can be described with a color system. Thus, I will change (a, b, c) as (red, yellow, blue), as below.
Ling-string = (red, yellow, blue) = (r, y, b)
That is, the distinguishable parts of the ling-string are in fact following a color-rules.

Yet, I would like to “engineer” three different ling-strings, purely by engineering. And, each string carries a (½ ħ).
Ling-string (1) = (r, y, b 1)
Ling-string (2) = (r, y, b 2)
Ling-string (3) = (r, y, b 3)

b. I am using these three ling-strings to make a set of music chairs. That is, I need some players to play this music-chair game. I “engineer” two types of players, V and A.
V is transparent and carries 0 electric charges.
A is opaque and carries 1/3 electric charge.

The above is all I need. With them, there are some rules (theorem) for this music –chair game.
1. (V, V, V) = (r, y, b) = white = colorless, as V is transparent.
2. (A, A, A) = colorless = white, as A is opaque.
3. (V, A, A) = (r, A, A) = red, (A, V, A) = yellow, (A, A, V) = blue
4, (V, V, A) = (r, y, A) = blue (complement of r + Y)

With the above, we can reproduce all 48 known elementary particles, as below,

String 1 = (V, A, A 1) = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red up quark.
String 2 = (-A, V, V 1) = {1st , red, -1/3 e, ½ ħ} = red down quark.
String 3 = (A, A, V 1) = {1st , blue, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = blue up quark.

String 7 = (A, A, A 1) = {1st, white (colorless), 1 e, ½ ħ} = e (electron).
String 8 = (V, V, V 1) = {1st, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = e-neutrino.
String 9 = (V, A, A 2) {2nd , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red charm quark.

String 48 = -(V, V, V 3) – {3rd, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = anti-tau-neutrino.

We have produced (engineered) all the known elementary particles by engineering two building material and one game (music-chair) rule. That is, the above strings have internal structure, the result of the music-chair game. These 48 strings are all different.

Of course, this string theory is significantly different from all other string-theories (the M-theory, the F-theory, etc.). I call it the string theory “G”, the G-theory.

The G-string was presented as only an engineering designed music –chair game. It is not the same as the M-theory string which is a strip-down string (without any internal structure) doing the sweeping to form some branes or making a suicide dive into a black hole in order to change its entropy. The G-string has an internal structure (with bells and whistles, [V and A]) and plays only the music-chair game. Yet, this game has many interesting properties and consequences. I will discuss the simplest five below.

A. For one Line-string (a, b, c), it can produce “8” distinguishable music-chairs, {3 up-quark-like, 3 “anti”-down-quark-like, one electron-like, one e-neutrino-like}. Thus, if we want to produce a proton-like string (a ring-string), we need “8” more “anti”-music-chairs. Now, we have two very important consequences.

i. The matter-like/anti-matter-like chairs are not divided by a “mirror”. That is, the matter/anti-matter symmetry is broken intrinsically.

ii. In order to form a proton-like string, we need “16” music-chairs as the “domain”. That is, one Line string (a, b, c) must produce “16” music-chairs (with matter-like/anti-matter-like). In fact, the matter and anti-matter are entangled in this design.

B. When we push this music-chair game to its limit (infinite number of tiers deep), all the rules of the game is confined (locked) by a dimensionless pure number, Beta.

Beta = 64 ( 1 + first order mixing + sum of the higher order mixing)
= 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …)
= 137.0359 …

A(2) is the Weinberg angle, A(2) = 28.743 degrees

The sum of the higher order mixing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + …+(1/n)(1/64)^n +…]
= .00065737 + …

How to derive this number Beta is available online, and I thus will not repeat it here. But, we can get two very important consequences from the Beta equation. It contains two simple numbers {64, 48} which are the numbers for the music-chair counts.

C. The “64” is the maximum number of music-chair allowed in the game. But, only “48” chairs are available for the players (V and A). Why? They are the results of the game rules and are a bit deep, and thus, I will not go into them here. But, from here, we do know the scope of the game.

One type (team) of Line-string covers “16” chairs. Thus, the entire field allows only “3” teams to play, as 48/16 = 3. That is, the Neff of this game is “3”.

D. There are “16” music-chair not reachable by the players. They are the dark-energy of the game.

E. While the game is only played by “team one” (visible masses) currently, the other music-chairs do carry weights (the dark-mass), see (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/08/dark-matter-mystery-no-more-part-2.html ).

The five above roughly outline the scope of this music-chair game. If anyone asks, “Is G-string theory correct?” It will be the stupidest question, as this G-string is only a designed music-chair game, having nothing to do with the gadget testing or gadget data. The only question that I will ask is whether the “Nature” plagiarized this G-string design when it created this physical universe.

This comment was originally posted at (http://blog.vixra.org/2013/05/16/why-i-still-like-string-theory/ ).

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “G-string and dark energy

  1. Pingback: The era of hope or total bullcrap | The Great Vindications
  2. Pingback: Quantum Gravity: From here to Eternity | The Great Vindications
  3. Pingback: Nature’s manifesto on physics | The Great Vindications

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s