string theory - complete nonsense?

Hi everybody out there,

The string theory is too complicated to be true. The universe is like turbulence running in 3D-spiral swirls as it can be seen from this link www.eugenesavov.com

It is the scale of the swirls that creates what we see as space, time and everything.

If you would like see a common sense picture of the universe try Eugene Savov’s theory of interaction.

I first heard about this theory on two documentaries on TV. At first it sounded quite nice I mean, Who wouldent whana have a explation to IT ALL. But as the show went on they satrted to look into the problems with it, for example the need of 11 dimensions. And it looked to me and almost absurb hunt for them took place, "they are realy small and round and lets throw in another 5 of them and we are ready to go!". Another thing that I saw as impossible is the Tachyon, a particle that can move trough time. Myself got exremely high faith in science and I belive that in time we will be able to do anything but NOT travel in time. the paradoxes that would appear would just bee to great.
what if we in year 4004 found out how to travel in time and then go back to our time, giving us all the technology of that time including time travel, that leading to a discovery of the timemachine not in 4004 but in 2004.
The string theory also explains gravity as a particle which are hidden together with the extra dimensions.

Now Im not rejecting this theory at sight. I will actually find some joy in seeing how it all comes out. I just need some more facts before I take this seriusly.

The underlying ideas of string theorie (theories) is not difficult but the mathematical way to express it, is.

And what is a curled dimension in the underlying informal theory?

It's always easier to talk about a matter in the informal picture of the theory. So a question stays, what is a curled dimension informally. That is more easy for me.

I am only a poor mathematician.

But from mathematics I know mathematically has been proved - no mathematical consistent theory is complete. And even I could prove that.

Ed van der Meulen

I find the string theory very attractive but the main problem is none of the predictions suggested by it have ever been proved, as where particle physics has been confirmed by multiple pridictions.

I think you are right "curled up" is nonsense. However, there is another, quite logical though difficult, interpretation of string theory. I'll take it in steps:

1. We and everything we observe exists in four dimensions.

2. We and everything we observe is defined by the rules of the universe that we call the electromagnetic, grivatational, and nuclear forces.

3. These rules are logical rules and produce a set of information. This set of information is everything we observe, including our four dimensions

4. This information is produced by a larger encompassing set of information where the mechanisms of the forces of nature exist and function

5. The space-time of string theory describes the 4 dimensions of our information plus the dimensions of the larger encompassing set

I have taken this idea and developed a hypothesis called the Multiple Natures Hypothesis. It aims to replace the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as well as General Relativity, though it is consistent with both QM and GR.

It is very interesting to note that I have recently learned that the postulates I have developed for such a bold hypothesis to unite all of physics were originally proposed by Leibniz at the time of Newton!

Here are the details:

www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm

mhelland@techmocracy.net

I just tried to access the link posted above and got "page cannot be accessed" message.