[Marxism] Fwd: Why String Theory Still Offers Hope We Can Unify Physics | Science | Smithsonian

Les Schaffer schaffer at optonline.net
Wed Dec 24 09:39:53 MST 2014


On 12/24/2014 09:27 AM, Shane Mage via Marxism wrote:
> If you "understand" this gibberish, please explain it:
> "...String theory’s equations require that the universe has extra
> dimensions beyond the three of everyday experience—left/right,
> back/forth and up/down..." Here "everyday experience" is grossly
> falsified--we (ie., every sentient being) experience the universe in
> FOUR, not three, dimensions: left/right, back/forth, up/down,
> BEFORE/AFTER.  Marxists (and Keynesians, and other realistic
> approaches to economics) ridicule neoclassical economics for leaving
> time out of its equations. How much less intelligible is a
> "theoretical physics" in which time is not an absolutely fundamental
> dimension of the experienced universe?

i never thought i would say something like this on marxism radio, but if
Shane thinks string theory is not a spacetime theory, he isn’t watching
enough TV.


>
> "String theorists pounced on an idea first developed in the early
> years of the 20th century. Back then, theorists realized that there
> might be two kinds of spatial dimensions: those that are large and
> extended, which we directly experience, and others that are tiny and
> tightly wound, too small for even our most refined equipment to
> reveal."             And here language is twisted in a way that makes
> itself into absolutely incomprehensible gibberish: dimensions are
> nothing but the metric of extensive measurement--we estimate up/down
> along one axis of our measurement matrix, before/after along another,
> etc.  To speak of a "dimension" as being "large" or "tiny," let alone
> "extended" or "twisted" presupposes yet other dimensions transcending
> all possible experience in terms of which those "larger" and "tiny"
> dimensions have been "measured." Compared to this it makes perfect
> sense that "God is both One and Three."

its possible to say something interesting about a dimension without the
existence of a higher dimensional embedding space. watch this: walking a
thousand feet east, or a thousand feet north seems very different from
climbing a thousand feet up stairs. for the life of me i can't figure
out why.

>
> And then what could make less sense than to say "dimensions which we
> directly experience" when nobody--no sentient being--has ever
> "directly experienced" a dimension? What is experienced, what alone
> can be experienced, is a process of constantly changing things
> presented to us as a complex that our perceptual apparatus organizes,
> as guide to living practice, within that four-dimensional structure of
> experienced reality.
>
 
in other words, we don't "directly experience" time, space, mass, much
less dimensions,

some serious commentary:  
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6806

and just for fun: http://www.inner.org/string/string.htm


Les






More information about the Marxism mailing list