As a last resort, the theorist may attempt to trivialize my argument by alleging in retrospect that a string is merely a useful
    concept necessary to explain a theory of gravitation.

    Unfortunately, this disclaimer won’t cut it either. It’s too little, too late. Theorists have unambiguously ushered the string into
    the physical world. They are stating without reservations that the string is a building block of matter. Everything – matter,
    space, you, and me – is made of strings:

    “ Dr. Greene suggests the very fabric of space-time is made of strings even in the
       vacuum of deep space.” [1]

    “ Strings create everything, including space and time and even us.” [2]

    “ The theory yields a definite physical picture of quantum spacetime.” (p. 53) [3]

    Obviously, the mathematicians are going out of their way to present and describe the string as a physical object. They are
    saying that the very tapestry, the manifold, the canvas of space-time – including energy and light – is stitched together with
    strings. Would it now make any sense to say that you are really made of an abstract mathematical concept? Are you made
    of love or stitched together with justice? All concepts were invented by Man! Hopefully, space which was there before we
    came along, is not made of something that Man invented!

    Nevertheless, if a string is described as a heavy, 1D tube of finite length, it is difficult to believe that this spaghetti, potentially
    visible through telescopes, suddenly qualifies as an abstraction, especially if the mathematicians later move it around and
    use it as a building block for space, time, and matter. The only reason a string theorist would try to amend his hypothesis in
    retrospect this late in the game would be to win the debate at all costs and not to offer you an insight into the actual workings
    of the Universe.

    We can also apply genuine adjectives only to genuine nouns (i.e., shape). For instance, in ordinary speech we can get away
    with saying that the day was ‘lengthy’. The context is not really size, but the amount of time that transpired. We are alluding
    to the number of frames of the Universal Movie that went by. In Physics, only a physical entity may be ‘lengthy’, have size,
    or shape. If, as string theorists allege, the string is 1 Planck length long (i.e., it has size), the theorist cannot claim as an
    afterthought that he was merely referring to an abstract mathematical concept. What length does beauty or anger have?
    Therefore, it is understandable that the mathematicians would attempt to disclaim everything and allege that they were
    merely talking metaphorically or referring to abstract concepts in order to save their theory.

    In fact, just to rub it in, several websites and books shamelessly illustrate the entities the string mathematicians have in
    mind, all of which, of course, are 2-D projections of 3-D objects. Certainly, not one of them is 1-D or zero-thick as advertised
    by string theorists! The mathematician incongruously illustrates a 2-D projection of a 3-D object, labels it 1-D, and wants
    you to think of it as a concept.

    For that matter, I can also turn string theorists’ argument on its head and say that, if they assume that a string is an abstract
    concept, they cannot later use it as a building block of matter. We don’t build chairs with concepts such as justice or
    direction. A theory is a movie. In order to view it, there must be a shape on the screen. As soon as we see something, it is
    because the 'thing' in question has a contour. It may be an abstract object, but never an abstract concept. This argument
    shows the importance of defining the words object and concept in Science. These definitions precede any theory. Before
    the prosecutor can use either of these strategic words it is necessary to define them unambiguously so that the jury does
    not confuse one with the other.

    The source of the misconceptions held by the mathematical physicists is that they love paradoxes and never resolve them.
    It is the infamous object-concept duality – so convenient to a mathematician – that enables him to explain everything. It turns
    out that what is handy usually has nothing to do with reality. In Science, ‘convenience’ is usually a symptom of laziness. It
    means that the prosecutor did not do his homework. He didn’t spend time developing his hypothesis. If the string has so
    many supernatural powers it is because this surrealistic ‘object-concept’ is just a bit too handy.
Well, no! The leprechaun
doesn't really exist. He's
just a concept. I just used
him to explain how the
gold got here.
A string is really
just a concept!
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
    a useful concept

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008