________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/12/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008

    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