- Jun 23, 2006
- 13
- 1
- 39
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Not sure where to post this, so here it is. Mods, feel free to move it if somewhere else is more appropriate; please PM me if you do so.
What do you think about string theory? Any ideas as to the basic nature of matter?
I don't know if this is an official theory somewhere or has been officially debunked, but here's what I thought of:
One idea that came to my mind was thinking of string theory and what Einstein said about the "fabric" of space-time. What if the "energy" that is looped around itself according to string theory to create subatomic (or smaller) particles is nothing other than that space-time fabric itself? Matter would be nothing more than a twist or wrinkle in the space-time fabric.
Any given wrinkle would be constantly exchanging the fabric within itself with the surrounding fabric. Gravity would be different particles recycling the surrounding fabric through themselves, pulling on the fabric between themselves and other particles and thus causing a pull that tends to shorten the distance between the particles.
Magnetism would be the way that fabric is sorted through. I'm thinking on one pole there's an outwards force in the center and an inwards force around that central outwards force, and on the other pole there's an inwards force in the center and an outwards force around the central force. When the outwards forces coincide, they repel; when the outwards forces coincide with an inwards force, they attract. Between the two poles seems to be a small, magnetically neutral region, which both poles pull on to try and orient for opposite polar alignment. That last part about the neutral region came from me fiddling with a couple of those magnets that you can chuck in the air to make that annoying clacking sound.
I have a model for the magnetism thing, but it won't let me post images. Every other forum I've ever been to doesn't do that.
Bleh, whatever. Since they won't even let me post the PhotoBucket URL here without posting several more times, I'll just PM it to anyone who asks or maybe I'll just post it later if my count goes up enough.
Nonpolar, charged objects would have two identical poles. Objects lacking in magnetic charge would have less strictly defined ends, although they would still be cycling through the surrounding fabric.
The reason gravity has a greater range and weaker strength would be it's more general, nonspecific nature. Magnetism would have a shorter range and a stronger strength due to the field effect it creates, which dissipates over a range.
The speed of light limit would be due to the highest speed at which the fabric could be shifted through by any given wrinkle. Photons are almost barely existant when compared to protons, meaning that there's less to move, making moving them a hell of a lot easier.
So, any input, other than "take calculus/advanced physics college courses?" I've never taken calculus and the only college-level physics I've taken was PHYS1200, which was basically 7th/8th/9th grade physical science, more or less. Same with the CHEM1010 I took a couple years before that.
Yes, I do have too much time on my hands. Yes, it is 2:00 AM here as I post. I'm still posting this, just because it's something that's been on my mind.
So, whaddaya think?
What do you think about string theory? Any ideas as to the basic nature of matter?
I don't know if this is an official theory somewhere or has been officially debunked, but here's what I thought of:
One idea that came to my mind was thinking of string theory and what Einstein said about the "fabric" of space-time. What if the "energy" that is looped around itself according to string theory to create subatomic (or smaller) particles is nothing other than that space-time fabric itself? Matter would be nothing more than a twist or wrinkle in the space-time fabric.
Any given wrinkle would be constantly exchanging the fabric within itself with the surrounding fabric. Gravity would be different particles recycling the surrounding fabric through themselves, pulling on the fabric between themselves and other particles and thus causing a pull that tends to shorten the distance between the particles.
Magnetism would be the way that fabric is sorted through. I'm thinking on one pole there's an outwards force in the center and an inwards force around that central outwards force, and on the other pole there's an inwards force in the center and an outwards force around the central force. When the outwards forces coincide, they repel; when the outwards forces coincide with an inwards force, they attract. Between the two poles seems to be a small, magnetically neutral region, which both poles pull on to try and orient for opposite polar alignment. That last part about the neutral region came from me fiddling with a couple of those magnets that you can chuck in the air to make that annoying clacking sound.
I have a model for the magnetism thing, but it won't let me post images. Every other forum I've ever been to doesn't do that.
Bleh, whatever. Since they won't even let me post the PhotoBucket URL here without posting several more times, I'll just PM it to anyone who asks or maybe I'll just post it later if my count goes up enough.Nonpolar, charged objects would have two identical poles. Objects lacking in magnetic charge would have less strictly defined ends, although they would still be cycling through the surrounding fabric.
The reason gravity has a greater range and weaker strength would be it's more general, nonspecific nature. Magnetism would have a shorter range and a stronger strength due to the field effect it creates, which dissipates over a range.
The speed of light limit would be due to the highest speed at which the fabric could be shifted through by any given wrinkle. Photons are almost barely existant when compared to protons, meaning that there's less to move, making moving them a hell of a lot easier.
So, any input, other than "take calculus/advanced physics college courses?" I've never taken calculus and the only college-level physics I've taken was PHYS1200, which was basically 7th/8th/9th grade physical science, more or less. Same with the CHEM1010 I took a couple years before that.
Yes, I do have too much time on my hands. Yes, it is 2:00 AM here as I post. I'm still posting this, just because it's something that's been on my mind.
So, whaddaya think?
