01.14.07
String theory challenger
The Triangular Universe
Instead of string theory, four-dimensional tetrahedrons
Imagine a landscape composed of microscopic triangular structures that constantly rearrange themselves into new patterns. Seen from afar, the landscape looks perfectly smooth, but up close it is a churning cauldron of strange geometries. This deceptively simple model is at the heart of a new theory called causal dynamical triangulation (CDT), which has emerged as a promising approach to solving the most vexing problem in physics–unifying the laws of gravity with those of quantum mechanics.
For more than 20 years, the leading contender in the quest for unification has been string theory, which posits that the fundamental particles and forces are actually minuscule strings of energy. But some scientists say this theory is misguided because it sets the strings against a fixed background; a better model, they argue, would generate not only particles and forces but also the spacetime they inhabit. In the 1980s and 1990s these researchers developed loop quantum gravity, which describes space as a network of tiny volumes only 10-33 centimeter across. Although this approach has achieved some notable successes, such as predicting the properties of black holes, it has yet to pass an essential test: showing that the jumble of volumes always comes together to form the familiar four-dimensional spacetime of our everyday world….
Stephen P. Smith said,
January 14, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Dynamical triangulation might be a little closer to “my” Trinity model which is based on a middle-term that is ignored from all equations. The singular equation does not capture all dynmaics, because the equation must be such that it is felt/measured and hence the middle-term that does this feeling cannot be part of the equation. The middle-term escapes the dynamics of the equation.
We are sometimes led to believe that laws determine the activities of all of nature, independent of our feelings. This is not entirely true. Laws carry their own beauty, their discovery is in their attraction. Laws are felt, that’s why we find them as equation in their stark beauty. It is a wonder that the universe is comprehensible. Einstein wondered too, but he missed a deeper connection as he implied that this realization was incomprehensible. Einstein was right to imply that the universe had no choice in being what it is, but it is also the case that universe had laws because the universe had feelings that came with the laws. This realization is not incomprenensible, but a little work might be needed to reconnect with our feelings.
Aristotle tried to exclude the middle term from logic and equations, but in his excluding the middle-term a felt tension was created. First the irritation was felt, then its resolution was felt as the middle-term is permitted its return to source. Popper tried also to exclude metaphysics from science, but in his exclusion an irritation was generated. What had been felt can only be the middle-term that keeps being excluded, and keeps finding its resolution with it returns to source.
The universe is so comprehensible precisely because it could be felt, it had no other choice. The laws and their feelings determine the behaviors of Nature. This would seem to imply that there is no freewill, but this is not entirely the case either. Enter karma: if we ignore our feelings we can depart from the laws momentarily. But why ignore our own feelings?