Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Strings are not
tied, but they

Fig. 2

    1.0   The ends of  string are not tied, it floats freely in space, but it is under tension

    Another irrational description is that strings are taut for no reason:

    " In string theory, as in guitar playing, the string must be stretched under tension
      in order to become excited. However, the strings in string theory are floating in
      spacetime, they aren’t tied down to a guitar. Nonetheless, they have tension." [1]

    [So let’s just wave the magic wand and give tension to the strings through an Act of God!
     It is cynically ironic that, after years of studying Physics in college, this is the nonsense
     the mathematicians have come up with as an explanation for reality.]

    It makes you wonder what the word tension means in Mathematics. In Physics, a string would have tension if it is pulled
    from two ends:

    " Tension is a reaction force applied by a stretched string (rope or a similar object)
      on the objects which stretch it. The direction of the force of tension is parallel to
      the string, away from the object exerting the stretching force. So if an object hangs
      from a rope due to gravity, the gravitational force on the object points downward,
      and there is an equal tension force in the rope point upward, making the net force
      on the object equal to zero." [2]

    What does a string that floats alone in space (i.e., the graviton version) latch on to? Pursuant to Schwarz’s description, her
    floating strings couldn’t be more stress-free (Fig. 1). She just makes her strings tense and amenable to vibration with a swift
    movement of her wand.
3.3.4        The ends of a string are not tied, but it vibrates like a guitar cord
    2.0   The ends of a string are not tied, yet it vibrates like a guitar cord

    Yet another inconsistent description has it that a particle such as an electron is really a vibrating string:

    " the elementary particles we observe in particle accelerators could be thought of
      as the ‘musical notes’ or excitation modes of elementary strings." [3]

    " These strings have certain vibrational modes which can be characterized by
      various quantum numbers such as mass, spin, etc. The basic idea is that each
      mode carries a set of quantum numbers that correspond to a distinct type of
      fundamental particle. This is the ultimate unification: all the fundamental particles
      we know can be described by one object, a string! [A very loose analogy can be
      made with say, a violin string. The vibrational modes are like the harmonics or
      notes of the violin string, and each type of particle corresponds to one of these
      notes.]" [4]

    The theorists are saying that a string is the shortest entity yet it has the ability to vibrate.
    Something doesn’t jive! Mukhi reminds us once again that a string is made of infinite points each of which is smaller than the
    Planck-length string.

    " A string is like a collection of infinitely many point particles, constrained to fit
      together to form a continuous object. Thus it effectively has infinitely many
      degrees of freedom – always a dangerous thing!" [5]

    [Yeah. We run the risk of entering the realm of infinite idiocy.]

    So let’s see if we got this straight. A point particle such as an electron is really a vibrating Planck-length string which is in turn
    made of countless point-particles. Man, that’s deep!

    More to the point, if as the mathematicians say, a string is one dimensional (i.e., mathematical dimensions), a plucked string
    inevitably encroaches on another dimension (Fig. 2). When a string ‘vibrates’ it is no longer mathematically 1-D! The
    mathematician now needs an ordered pair (x, y) to specify a point on the shortest length! Again, the theorist has retroactively
    amended his assumptions.

Fig 1   Tensions are high: The supernatural string of String Theory
The string theorist begins the presentation by pointing to a 1-D string. He states that the
string is 1-D because there is no up/down or left/right on it. The string is 1-D because you
can only move back and forth along it. They are describing a concept and not an object.
There is no object that is 1-D. Suddenly, the string morphs from a concept to an object.
The string theorist tells us that the string is held at the ends for no reason and the center
begins to vibrate like a plucked guitar cord. Now the string is no longer mathematically
1-D. The string has suddenly encroached on a second mathematical dimension. In the
illustration, the 1-D string has converted into the 2-D string. Point B on the string could
initially be specified with the mathematical ‘coordinate’ (2). Now B is must be specified
with the ordered pair (2, 3). The mathematicians have in effect amended their assumptions
Like Newt's snake, a string is not tied, yet it has tension and wiggles, Bill!
I think I'm going to
give you two
swindlers and your
snake a good whack
with my scepter!
The string of String Theory is a magical entity that embodies every possible contradiction.
Theorists proclaim a string to be the tiniest length imaginable, but then the string stretches as
necessary to accommodate any theory. The string is purportedly under tension, but then, it is
a malleable entity that grows, bends, coils, and forms closed and opened loops to suit the
theorist’s wishes. According to the mathematicians, the string is one-dimensional: it seems to
have only width. But then it encroaches on other dimensions when it vibrates or loops around.
To top it off, string theorists claim that the vacuum that serves as a backdrop and gives shape
to the string is also made of strings. Oh. I almost forgot. String Theorists are asking anyone
with a generous heart to finance an experiment that would enable them to see a 1-D string
and thus prove their theory. [Sure! Why not? Here’s a nickel! Catch!]


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008