String theory (which is really a broad family of theories) suggests that it is possible to make sense of fundamental physics. But only if there are 11 dimensions in which to operate (or 10, or 26 depending on the version of the theory). Unfortunately it can’t tell us anything about how or where those other extra dimensions exist. Also problematic is that there are innumerably many solutions to the mathematics, and it has not been possible to identify a variant that corresponds to the world we inhabit. So the potential in string theory has never been realised. It is too abstract to provide working models or physical explanations. Physicists are divided about its usefulness: some love it, while others, like Lee Smolin and Peter Woit, are critical of string theory for its speculative nature, lack of testable predictions, and cognitive dominance over physics.
Consequently we have considered string theory generally irrelevant: at least for our purpose of seeking a physically meaningful explanation for physics. However some strange coincidences have caused us to question this position.
Do the Eleven variables for a cordus particule, correspond to the Eleven dimensions for string theory?
We notice that it requires 11 variables to define a cordus particule. These are all features of the geometry, such as the number and orientation of the discrete field elements (HEDs). Strangely, that’s the same number of dimensions in M-theory, one of the popular string theories. Another similarity that string theory predicts that the photon is an open string, and cordus also predicts a photon particule with two free ends.
Two coincidences don’t make a pattern. Nonetheless it raises an interesting possibility:
cordus and string theory might be describing the same thing from different perspectives
It may be that a cordus-type model, or some other model of hidden-internal-variables, is a physical representation of one of the string theories. That’s an interesting thought, because if it were even partly true then it would open up a whole new set of research possibilities.
So what we are suggesting here is that the ‘orthogonal spatial dimensions’ in string theory might correspond to ‘geometric independent-variables’ in a hidden-variable solution. That would also neatly explain where the extra string dimensions go: they simply represent small-scale geometric features at the sub-quantum level.
It is a radical thought, and of course the weak point in our argument is the assumption that dimensions = variables. Is that valid or not? Yes, from the general perspective of maths (and statistics, and engineering dimensional-analysis too), but string theory may have other constraints of which we are unaware. Something for a string theorist to look into? See here for details: http://vixra.org/abs/1204.0047
Seeing a possible connection between string theory and hidden-variable theories has, up to now, not been feasible. This is because hidden-variable theories have been under siege from Bell-type inequalities, and because of a lack of such theories. Having an operational concept like cordus makes the comparison possible.
Perhaps string theory might yet be a tool for the development of physically meaningful explanations for fundamental physics?
- String theory: A beginner’s guide (New Scientist)
- The Trouble With String Theory (io9.com)
- The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin
- Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law by Peter Woit
- Circumventing Bell’s theorem? (cordus.wordpress.com)
- String theory: The fightback (New Scientist)
- What string theory is really good for (New Scientist)