# Thread: String theory idea and nothingness is impossible ??

1. Hi I was thinking about string theory in a lecture I was taking, the class I was sitting was describing how there is no such thing as nothing, and that there are quarks bursting in an out of existence, making nothingness implausible. Then I remembered that string theory says that we must have 11 dimensions to make it possible, I was thinking that maybe we are just seeing quarks zip from one dimension to another dimension and as they "zip" over from one to another it looks like there bursting in and out of existence, so that when they enter the dimension we can no longer see them but while there zipping across we can measure there energy untill they enter the next dimension there zipping across to, what do you think ?

2.

3. "Dimension" in physics doesn't mean what it does in science fiction, or even popular understanding: it's not something that is "entered" or "zipped across to".
Therefore it's unlikely that your idea is correct.

4. I am well aware of that. But if a sub atomic particle really could travel into another dimension which there is no fact saying that it cant, then therefore it makes perfect sense that this is what we are measuring/observing as it "passes from one dimension to another "

5. Originally Posted by ryanofthescience
I am well aware of that. But if a sub atomic particle really could travel into another dimension which there is no fact saying that it cant, then therefore it makes perfect sense that this is what we are measuring/observing as it "passes from one dimension to another "
Of course there's "no fact saying that it cant", because it's a meaningless phrase.
One more time: a dimension is not something you "travel into".
Nor do things "pass from one to another" dimension.

6. Not true, infact it is theorised that the Gravition does exactly that, which is why a Gravition has not yet been observed, so if anything that add testament to the theory that particals can infact travel through dimensions, also the neutrinos in Italy travel'd " faster than light " OR they left our dimension to re enter it, which does not break a single law of physics and is still well with in general relativity of " nothing travels faster than light "

7. Originally Posted by ryanofthescience
Not true, infact it is theorised that the Gravition does exactly that, which is why a Gravition has not yet been observed, so if anything that add testament to the theory that particals can infact travel through dimensions, also the neutrinos in Italy travel'd " faster than light " OR they left our dimension to re enter it, which does not break a single law of physics and is still well with in general relativity of " nothing travels faster than light "

[citation needed]

8. Originally Posted by ryanofthescience
Not true, infact it is theorised that the Gravition does exactly that
I assume you mean graviton?
Citation needed.

so if anything that add testament to the theory that particals can infact travel through dimensions
Unsupported bullshit.

also the neutrinos in Italy travel'd " faster than light "
And this.

OR they left our dimension to re enter it
And this.

which does not break a single law of physics
Crap.
There's nothing in physics about "leaving dimensions".

9. You need to do your research, you saying that facts are bullshit, If you are really saying that there is nothing is quantum physics about leaving dimensions then I really do suggest that you find something else to study because saying that there is nothing in quantum pyhsics about leaving dimensions is like saying the wheel is not round. so what you are saying is how you put "CRAP"

10. Also here is a source for you, to prove I am correct and you are not.
"Gravitons can move between dimensions because like light they are mass-less, but unlike light they move infinitely faster. Just as x-rays travel faster than light in space, as its wavelength is different, so does the graviton because its wavelength is different from that of the photon. This is why the gravitational force points from true to true while light points from retarded to true. The only difference between visible light and x-rays is the vibrational frequency and wavelength. By the same hypothesis, the only difference between a photon and a graviton would be the gravitons vibrational frequency and its wavelength, enabling it to exceed the speed of c just as an x-ray does."

And here is another source :
Graviton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

11. Originally Posted by ryanofthescience
saying that there is nothing in quantum pyhsics about leaving dimensions is like saying the wheel is not round. so what you are saying is how you put "CRAP"
Citation needed.

12. Originally Posted by ryanofthescience
Also here is a source for you, to prove I am correct and you are not.
"Gravitons can move between dimensions because like light they are mass-less, but unlike light they move infinitely faster. Just as x-rays travel faster than light in space, as its wavelength is different, so does the graviton because its wavelength is different from that of the photon. This is why the gravitational force points from true to true while light points from retarded to true. The only difference between visible light and x-rays is the vibrational frequency and wavelength. By the same hypothesis, the only difference between a photon and a graviton would be the gravitons vibrational frequency and its wavelength, enabling it to exceed the speed of c just as an x-ray does."

And here is another source :
Graviton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where does the first quote come from because it looks like bullshit to me. (PS when you give a citation a source is nice not an unattributed quote). The wikipedia link contains nothing that supports your claim, try again.

PPS This sounds a lot like Ninja Pancakes, the level of arrogant cluelessness is similar -- possible sockpuppet hypothesised.

13. Originally Posted by ryanofthescience
You need to do your research, you saying that facts are bullshit
Nope, I'm saying your "facts" aren't actually facts.

If you are really saying that there is nothing is quantum physics about leaving dimensions then I really do suggest that you find something else to study because saying that there is nothing in quantum pyhsics about leaving dimensions is like saying the wheel is not round.
Bullshit.

Originally Posted by ryanofthescience
Also here is a source for you, to prove I am correct and you are not.
"Gravitons can move between dimensions because like light they are mass-less, but unlike light they move infinitely faster. Just as x-rays travel faster than light in space, as its wavelength is different, so does the graviton because its wavelength is different from that of the photon. This is why the gravitational force points from true to true while light points from retarded to true. The only difference between visible light and x-rays is the vibrational frequency and wavelength. By the same hypothesis, the only difference between a photon and a graviton would be the gravitons vibrational frequency and its wavelength, enabling it to exceed the speed of c just as an x-ray does."

Oh good.
I'm now thoroughly convinced.
An unattributed piece of nonsense.

And here is another source :
And that says gravitons (or other particles) "move between dimensions" where?

14. Im new to this forum so I assumed that what it ment.
Here is my source ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BRhjntvGoE

s
kip to 4.25 it explains the gravition as a closed loop that can pass through dimensions.

15. Yootube is not a valid source. any crank can post a youtube video and you appear to have fallen for one of them. Peer-reviewed literature references are preferred.

16. You mean 6:12.
So you're using a speculative theory to support other speculation.

Still waiting for a link to the bullshit quote you gave.
You still haven't posted any facts.

17. the video posting is an actual programme by BBC backed up by CERN, Of corse its a speculative theory, string theory its self is a speculative theory as well as my theory, nothing is concrete, all I am merely stating is that it is speculatively possible. I posted this on two other websites and other people said its a good idea but its impossible to prove unless string theory is proved, which is fair enough. Tomorrow I will gather all the links I can master to prove it.

18. Believe it or not just because it is on the BBC doesn't make it true, they are a media outlet not scientists. Backed up by CERN, well, they may have given some interviews but I'm willing to bet they had no say in what was broadcast, that would be down to a producer/editor at the BBC who probably knows as much physics as my sisters cat (I actually know some TV people who drink in my local pub, they are only interested in ratings, content is often a very secondary concern). What people on other websites think is not really relevant, I mean will you go back to those websites and report that we disagree with you? Thought not. Please don't spam a load of speculative yootube nonsense, if they are papers that contain actual physics fair enough but if not...

19. Originally Posted by ryanofthescience
Of corse its a speculative theory, string theory its self is a speculative theory as well as my theory, nothing is concrete, all I am merely stating is that it is speculatively possible.
Hmm:
Originally Posted by ryanofthescience
You need to do your research, you saying that facts are bullshit
Originally Posted by ryanofthescience
Also here is a source for you, to prove I am correct and you are not.
Tomorrow I will gather all the links I can master to prove it.
You can't prove it because your claims are bullshit.

20. PHdemon you are so stupid its unreal infact both of you are, where in your tiny minds do you not understand the angle of which I am coming from, let me put it in ABC for you because its to difficult for you to grasp, I am saying, if it is possible for a particle to travel to another dimension, ( im not saying that it is possible nor am I saying that it is not ) then my theory could be a reasonable explanation for what it is going on, I'm not spamming I'm brainstorming, please go and learn the difference.

21. Wow, What a compelling argument

You're talking nonsense (literally), not science, moving between dimensions as you propose makes no sense, please go and learn what a dimension is. What is more stupid, sticking to logic, rationality and reality or making stuff up? (Clue, it's what you do.) You don't have a theory, please go and learn what a scientific theory is, what you have is unsupported bullshit, please go and learn the difference, in fact just please go and stop posting drivel here.

22. Also, though I am sceptical myself but here is a theory where neutrinos "dimension hop"
Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to cheat light speed - physics-math - 23 September 2011 - New Scientist

23. You really need to keep up with the literature in science, that was debunked in the same publication a matter of months later:

Faster-than-light neutrinos dealt another blow - physics-math - 04 January 2012 - New Scientist

for other sources debunking the claim see here:

Physics News :: Once Again, Physicists Debunk Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos

24. That's fair enough, as I already said I was sceptical about it do begin with I knew it had something to do with a mechanical fault, but before it was debunked it caused a lot of debate that it might just MIGHT be possible, not impossible, which is my point exactly.

25. Originally Posted by ryanofthescience
PHdemon you are so stupid its unreal infact both of you are, where in your tiny minds do you not understand the angle of which I am coming from,
Moderator Warning: Cease the personal attacks and focus on the facts.

Moderator Comment: You may get further along in your discussion if you explain how you can move between dimensions. For example how does a particle move from length to breadth? Or from height to time? Or from dimension 7 to dimension 11? It is the apparent illogic of this claim that others are objecting to. You need either to acknowledge you are mistaken or provide serious evidence in support of the assertion. A BBC documentary (much as I revere the BBC) will not suffice.

Personal advice. In a brainstorming session make it clear from the outset what you are doing, else you will be misidentified as a crank.

26. Fine, yes I was a little out of line but it irritates me when people can not grasp what it is I am trying to say and calling something that is not bullshit infact bullshit. I am merely brainstorming.

27. I find it irritating when people make unsupported assertions against mainstream science and expect to be taken seriously. :shrug:

28. Originally Posted by ryanofthescience
I am merely brainstorming.
Then why did you state that you were posting facts?

Fine, yes I was a little out of line but it irritates me when people can not grasp what it is I am trying to say and calling something that is not bullshit infact bullshit.
Not in fact bullshit?
Yet to be shown.
You haven't supported any of your claims so far.

29. bump

30. Instead of posting "bump" why not try and support your claims?

31. Originally Posted by ryanofthescience
bump

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement