This file as pdf here.
Reference: Greene, Brian: "The Elegant Universe, Superstrings,
Hidden Dimensions and the Quest for The Ultimate Theory",
Imprint: Jonathan Cape, London. (Swedish translation, 2003).
When the 5-dimensional model here was developed and the booklet
series behind this home page made publicly available in 2000,
this String Theory (ST) was unknown to me.
Yet, the theory seems to have several traits
in common with the so much more elementary model here, - at least
be possible to interpret as in accordance with it.
1. The level of analysis is optional:
The level or dimension degree (d-degree) of analysis is optional
according to our first postulates (see Presentation).
This means that an analysis of the physical world in d-degree
1 (of lines), in accordance with the string theory, should be
as adequate as in 2-3-4 d-degrees.
2. Dimensions as building stones:
The String Theory (ST) uses dimensions as building stones
as in he model here. ST sees the world through the only concepts
of Structure (in first place 1-dimensional) and patterns of Motion
Compare from the file Presentation:
Chain of Motions, d-degrees: 0/00-
1 --- 2 --- 3 --- 4 --- 5
Chain of Structures, d-degrees: 5
-- 4 --- 3 --- 2 --- 1 ---0/00
However, the definition of the concept Dimension differs:
In opposition to our model, ST seems to define
a dimension just as geometrical structure and ("independent")
direction of motion. Nothing more is said on that subject in the
book. One should perhaps see these views as two different definitions?
We could ask: Which direction of motion defines the first 1-dimensional
string? Or rather: which relation exists between the 1-dimensional
structure and Motion as such?
In our model a dimension is defined through
its outer poles, characterized by complementarity. (Polarities
of such kinds come into the String theory in much more muddled,
entangled ways, see below.)
And Motion in our model is defined as a polarization
of a 1-dimensional structure.
3. Problems with the Infinity as a background to ST:
Physicists got problems with infinities appearing in their equations
during the development of quantum physics, where they thought
they had to handle elementary particles as points, and especially
so when trying to unite the general relativity theory for gravitation
with quantum mechanics. This is said to be the background to the
String theory, the motivation to start with 1-dimensional strings
instead of particles as points.
Thus, the reason for ST is just to avoid something,
this infinity, which in our model cannot and shouldn't be avoided,
just redefined as anticenter.
Compare in our model d-degree step 1 →
Definition of infinity as anticenter demands of
course a center, a singularity (with physicists' term).
2 crossing lines or paths of motion define a
point, in direction inwards the point, zero, and after crossing
one another, in direction outwards, the "infinity".
Mathematically, we could think of inversions around
number 1 in a coordinate system. To reach the point from number
1 we need to write 10-00. Inverted we get the infinity
When physicists get infinities in their equations, such as a
probability higher than 1, (in ordinary mathematics impossible)
- we must presume that that there is something wrong, not with
the infinity but with the concept of probability in this Schrödinger
context. Perhaps the error could be found in the attempt to analyze
or find the electrons in two different d-degrees of appearance
at the same time, in the same equations?
Passing the border number 1 of probability might
represent a d-degree step ?
(As Greene touches upon, the difficulties may have raised through
assumptions, which the physicists themselves have invented.)
Here we suggest the more general view that these difficult infinities
just mean "on the other side of", that a term from the
complementary world has been involved in he equations.
We could eventually take the footprints of a walking person
as an elementary metaphor: the right foot on the ground, with
a definite position, the left one up in the "infinity",
unspecified, undetermined. (?)
Concerning the infinities appearing when physicists try to unite
with quantum mechanics: they seem very natural
according to our 5-dimensional model here: this force seen as
defined by direction inwards in d-degree 4 with "outer poles"
00 <=====> 0:
that is direction from anticenter (~ "infinity" ) towards
(Nothing is explicitly mentioned in Greene's
book about the opposite force (FA),
the vacuum energy, and outward direction.)
When physicists treat particles as points and are confronted
with infinities as problems, we could from our point of view conclude
that they have missed the 5th dimension degree as defined in our
model - or just haven't developed any mathematical way to handle
More about the 00-pole and the infinities further
In any case, irrespective of the infinity problems, an analysis
in d-degree 1 should be as well justified as in terms of 2-dimensional
shells or 3-dimensional bodies or vector fields.
4. Number of dimensions:
The String theory counts with 11 dimensions, the 4 usual ones
with 3 space dimensions plus 1 for Time, and 7 "undeveloped"
(Nothing is said in Greene's book about how
they count: the strings as structure seem to belong to the 7 "undeveloped".
Remain then 6 different motion directions for the vibration of
the strings ? But in another statement these 6 are said to be
divided in removals of the whole string (change of position),
and on the other hand the vibration patterns of the string
The latter would then be reduced to 5. ?
In our 5-dimensional model we could imagine the 11 dimensions
derived in different ways:
a) 10 dimensions (without Time) in some way expressions for the
sum of "outer poles" in d-degree 4 (re-identified as
Direction), what we have called the "E-number".
D-degree 0/00 of Motions as base for the Time
concept in the standard model; motions as transformations of d-degree
Sum of poles:
The number 10 then transformed to 4 + 3 + 2 + 1
through d-degree steps, values of the half axes; the other branch
of half axes then ignored, connected with E = -mc2
b) An addition in a cumulative way ?:
With the view of debranched d-degrees in first steps,
we get 10 → 8 + 2, →
6 + 4 in sums of poles.
In our model we have assumed the
external motions to be just 4-dimensional
in d-degree 1. But this refers to another concept or definition
of dimensions than in the String theory.
We have suggested vibration as the motion of
d-degree 1 in d-degree 4, seen as a linear motion in structure,
but without any notes on its direction.
Since each d-degree of structure in our model principally is
possible to analyze in pure motions, according to our postulates,
it seems quite compatible with the reference to the "E-numbers"
here, the sums of poles in different d-degrees - and with the
general view in the String theory.
In ST, properties as Mass
are identified as different vibration patterns. (Unfortunately
hardly anything more is said about that subject in the reference.)
We can point out too, the talk about "directions"
of the vibrations in ST, representing dimensions, which seems
consistent with the designation of d-degree 4 as Direction in
our the 5-dimensional model here.
5. "Undeveloped" dimensions ?
The ST physicists are looking inwards in the sense inwards towards
Microcosm. As they in several respects, from our point of view,
seem to study our dimension chain from 0/00 inwards *. We could
identify their dimensions as characterized by direction inwards,
but only in this sense.
Does that mean that the 7 dimensions they refer
to are undeveloped, only 4 developed? Hardly a good term. (The
vibrations of their strings must occur in something of an "external"
world, however small.)
They talk about both open and closed strings.
Compare in our model the suggested polarity radial versus circular
structures of d-degree 3, derived from directions outwards-inwards.
The used scale cannot justify the word undeveloped.
The brains of ST-physicists are very small in relation to Universe,
* About the division 4 - 7 and outwards - inwards: Compare
the "mad" idea about "quark-numbers"
in our model in connection with amino
acids: a number + 2 times the mirrored number, sum
divided by 3 etc., the same operation repeated, give chains
of numbers as loops, sometimes "point loops":
A dimension chain as numbers for steps:
54 - 43 - 32 - 21 - 10, backwards 45 - 34 etc. Last steps
10 - 01:
(10 + 2 x 01) / 3 = 4 from
step 10 outwards
(01 + 2 x 10) / 3 = 7 from step 01 inwards
6. Number 5 in ST:
There is not only the 10 room dimensions (Time uncounted): 2
There were also 5 different versions of the
String theory, which have showed up to be different aspects on
the same things, the M-theory as a uniting one. And there are
polarities, as for example inversions, among the versions. In
these aspects and others it sounds as if the String theory could
be developing as a relative to our 5-dimensional model here.
Associations go to the 5 versions of "histones"
among amino acids, types of proteins on which the DNA spiral
is rolled up.
7. Structural aspects mentioned in the reference:
All outstretched objects, which the String theory generates,
are called "brans" (membranes): 1-brans
are 1-dimensional strings, 2-brans are surfaces, 3-brans is outstretched
in 3 dimensions etc.
There is a hint too that there could exist "0-brans".
In such general terms this seems quite compatible
with our model here as a development inward towards higher degrees
(and/or lower in step 1→0/00.
Note that one talks about objects here, not
only motional patterns: strings united to higher degrees of structure.
But in our model (as in ST ?) there is no clear difference, when
motions are seen as polarizations of d-degree 1 and could unite
to strings again.
If we could believe the illustrations in a TV-program, some open
strings are attached in both ends to a surface. Which surface
if we only had strings? It must be 2-dimensional membranes (2-brans)
- formed by united strings? Compare in our model d-degree 1 with
2a 1 2b
D-degree 1 created by the polarization of d-degree
2, but in our model between complementary poles. (Nothing explicitly
or clearly mentioned in the book about such a kind of polarity.)
The 6 extra ("undeveloped") room dimensions
that the String theory demands and generates have to fulfill form
conditions which the so-called 6-dimensional Calabi-Yau-rooms
From the book referred to. Original
imprint: Jonathan Cape, London.
They look like very intricate balls with many inner surfaces
and with holes. Thus, it looks like a combination of complementary
realities, "matter" as structure and "antimatter"
- and in the number 6 of dimensions it
reminds of the sum of poles 3a and 3b in our 5-dimensional
model. Inner surfaces as a result of the combination.
Fig Step 1-2-3
We have suggested "radial" versus "circular"
structure as first very simple geometrical
descriptions of poles 3b---3a. First criticism of this
own model included the question how it could be possible to imagine
this relation geometrically define surfaces of the 2nd d-degree!
Forms as Calabi-Yau-rooms seem much more convincing in this respect.
Without knowing anything about the intricate mathematics behind
them, we just put a question here if they can be connected with
the opposition radial / circular in the purely geometrical sense?
Besides such eventual polarities in the structure, we have the
one between structure and holes, a polarity as an underlying =
built-in polarity of next higher d-degree, if interpreted in terms
of our model: "Radial" as connected with diverging Space
(and negative curvature), circular connected with mass (and positive
curvature), an opposition related to
E = -mc2 and E = +mc2 .
Here (again) we could get vague associations
to the gastrulation process in embryology:
how many dimensions or so-called "independent"
directions of growth do we have there:
Another vague association goes to our suggested interpretation
of spin 1/2.
About 6 dimensions, "undeveloped":
We could perhaps, in a very simple way, imagine an ordinary 3-dimensional
coordinate system with 3 axes but with 6 poles, 3 in positive
direction, 3 in the negative one. This simple coordinate system
folded together into something like a ball, a Calabi-Yau-room.
Seemingly without any connection with this complicated form
(?), in the external, "developed" world, Einstein
mentioned the relation between two 3-dimensional celestial
bodies as a 6-dimensional system.
Calabi-Yau-rooms or the like are thought to exist in every crossing
point of the space-time web. Thus, they remind of what we have
said about "complex poles" in the original booklet behind
of 5th d-degree, 0 and 00, may get increasingly more complex
character towards superposed levels. That which on one level
has the role of a 0-pole, may under its surface, on underlying
levels, be constructed by combined 0- and 00-poles, in their
turn on a still deeper level being combinations of opposite
Fig Complex pole
And increasingly more directions will be defined.
If we should look at Calabi-Yau-rooms as such
complex 0-poles, it implies a development of the crossing points
in the web. If one accepts the assumption in our model about level
development that each d-degree step of a fundamental dimension
chain can develop into new whole dimension chains, such forms
as Calabi-Yau-rooms could be developed in step 1 0/00:
a purely mathematical development by the String physicists - ?
- or eventually realities.
A last question mark about 6-dimensional Calabi-Yau-rooms:
Where is the th"undeveloped" dimension if there are
11, 4 of them developed?
See below about the "String coupling
constant" and the 10th room dimension.
8. Polarities - Dualities in the String theory ?
There are several such dualities in ST but, as it seems, without
any ordering scheme. We have to pick them out from sentences in
different contexts and chapters of the book:
Structures ----------------- Vibration motions
Structures ----------------- Holes, as in the Calabi-Yau-rooms
Open strings -------------- Closed strings
Unlinked strings ----------Linked strings (winds themselves up
Strings -------------------- Anti-strings (as virtual pairs)
Right ---------------------- Left type, "mirror symmetry"
Actual vibrations -------- Uniform "vibrations" of the
Bosons ------------------- Fermions, appearing as pairs in the
Odd d-degrees -----------Even d-degrees of holes (in "conifold
Pairs of forms Before ---After "conifold" or "flop"
Inversions: R ------------1/R ( inversions around the Planck length
the different ST versions)
"Strong -------------------Weak" coupling
Some of these "polarities" are the same as in our 5-dimensional
model or easy to identify as such:
Motions versus structure, in our model
as chains in opposite direction,
Chain of Motions, d-degrees: 0/00- 1 --- 2 --- 3 --- 4 --- 5
Chain of Structures, d-degrees: 5 --4 --- 3 --- 2 --- 1 ---0/00
and Structure versus Holes, as corresponding to mass
vacant space or E = +/- mc2, from polarization of d-degree
4, giving the poles in d-degree 3. This one is of the complementary
type for poles in the same d-degree as we have suggested.
So too is the polarity "strings - anti-strings",
said to be virtual, occasionally split strings which then join
again. We could interpret them as result of the polarization of
d-degree 1 → 0/00, from lines to
the d-degree of motions,
with the "poles" we have called "motions to one
another, from one another".
as virtual strings
The windings these string - anti-string pairs in ST can form,
as loops, seems to illustrate and agree with our naming of those
(If we compare these virtual strings with steps of a walking
person, the steps cannot be example of the mirror symmetry mentioned
in ST? There is half a step of displacement between them.)
In other respects, many of the polarities listed above seems sooner
to represent the "polarities" between different d-degrees
in our model:
First the structural oppositions open/closed and "unlinked
- linked" strings:
We could associate these forms with d-degree
step 2 1 in our model: strings as defining 1-dimensional
lines, closed strings as defining a surface:
The author is in his book mostly occupied with
closed strings, the linked ones, winding themselves around another
dimension seen as a kind of tube. (Or in very odd, inconceivable
TV-illustrations climbing around as rings on the surface of these
It sounds as if closed strings
could be the ST forms of relations between d-degree 1 and
one of its "outer poles" 2a or 2b (as inside-outside
or similar complementarity), expressed in terms of our
Fig Step 212 marked
Compare strings at the borders between holes and structures inside
Eventually the both types of strings could be
seen as just smaller versions of the "radial and circular"
poles of d-degree 3 in our model, but they don't seem coupled at
all in ST (?).
Some open strings were TV-illustrated as bound
in both its ends to a surface. No polarity in this surface. Just
a bad illustration?
But what about the free, unlinked open strings?
They seem to be only small, independent pieces of a line? What gives
the tension for vibration?
Such seemingly independent, freestyle swimming
strings in an empty Universe are certainly not in agreement with
our model. Looking as something between d-degree 1 and 0/00, the
d-degree of motions. In our model nothing is "independent".
We can connect this opposition in our interpretation of d-degree
steps, 2 - 1 and 1 - 0/00 respectively, with what is said in the
reference about mass:
Linked strings have a minimum mass of the structure,
depending on the size of the radius and number of turns it is
winded around the other dimension. The vibration gives a contribution.
In our model Mass
as a property is defined as through inward direction, 4a, to circular
pole of d-degree 3.
Unlinked strings have only the mass given by
vibrations, without any contribution from the structure. It sounds
like 1 d-degree transformed to motion in our model. (Mass of the
open string structure and quantum mechanical effects cancel each
other out.) About fluctuations and quantum physics,
In ST there is also a more gradual transformation than in our
model between structure and motion: linked strings with big radii
have big "link energies" and small vibration energies,
while those with small radii has small link energies and big vibration
What to say about the d-degree
of motions in our model suggested representing
the debranched d-degree in each step towards lower d-degrees,
vibration, rotation and translation?
Except the vibration directions, there is the
uniform displacements (called vibrations too) of the whole strings,
comparable with a 1-dimensional translation or pathway. Then there
is the winding up on another dimension, comparable with a 2-dimensional
rotation. (If many turns around, could they form 3-dimensional
spirals - ? - as the planets spiral motions around the orbit of
the sun?) And then we have the vibration motions, in one aspect
a linear form; in another it could have the form of pumping outwards
- inwards of a 3-dimensional structure?
In ST, the directions of these vibrations are
added as concept for more dimensions, (at least as it sounds in
the vague descriptions).
Bosons and Fermions:
One obvious example of "dualities" in ST, corresponding
to different d-degrees in our model, is the assumption that quanta
of forces and of material particles (bosons and
fermions) should show up in pairs, this according
to the so-called super symmetry theory. The pairs should have
1/2 difference in spin. Such vibration patterns for boson-fermion
pairs are said to appear in all 5 versions of the String theory.
But no such pairs have been found among known
particles! Yet, the prediction that these pairs exist is said
to be a general property of ST.
It seems as if there is something wrong with
the idea of "super symmetry"? In our 5-dimensional model,
with a view from inside outwards, from higher d-degrees towards
lower, asymmetry is an essential aspect, deeply rooted
in the first polarity: center - anticenter.
In our model we have assumed that each d-degree (of structure)
is a binding force in relation to next lower d-degree, a lower
d-degree a polarizing force in relation to next higher one. This
means that forces versus material things is a question of relations.
(Protons and electrons appear as forces too,
on the level of chemistry, H+ and e-.)
With these assumptions as postulates one should
rather found "triplets", two "forces" and
a more or less material structure upheld by them. We can refer
to the picture from the file about forces, under the headline
Perhaps the ST physicists have missed to identify something as
the other "force", the energy of "empty space"
or the like??)
Should we perhaps find fermions constructed
by two forces - 2 bosons? (2 "one-turn" spins added
to a 2-turn = spin "½")?
Yet, there is a duality in our model too in the view on complementarity
where each d-degree is secondarily characterized by first poles
0 and 00.
We have also the perpendicular aspect on the dimension chain
with lower d-degrees representing 00 in relation to higher as
0, (as geometrically there is an infinity of lines in a surface,
of surfaces in volumes
Could eventually such an aspect be involved
in the talk about bosons and fermions as pairs?)
Two kinds of spheres in Calabi-Yau-rooms:
This is another kind of mix between different d-degrees. Two kinds
of spheres are said to be imbedded in such complicated 6-dimensional
rooms: one has the form of a "beach ball", (which indicates
it is empty). The other one has the form of a tire.
We can identify the "beach ball" as
a 2-dimensional surface, enclosing a 3-dimensional volume, a form
connected with d-degree step 3 - 2.
The tire is the form that has been used to illustrate
a 4-dimensional ball, interpretable as a 3-dimensional form enclosing
a 4th dimension as structure of rotational motion. This indicates
that the form is interpretable as connected with and enclosing
d-degree step 4 - 3.
Hence, we have a good bit of our dimension chain:
4 - 3 - 2; forms where higher d-degrees are built-in or "underlying"
the lower ones, as "binding forces" in our own terminology.
D-degree steps as a process in ST:
There are traces too of the concept "d-degree steps"
of our model in ST, but we have to dig them out from stray remarks
in the most difficult chapters of the book, from descriptions
and illustrations most difficult to follow and swallow.
It concerns the so-called conifold transitions
and flop transitions.
These are described as mathematical operations
where different points on a form are united after special rules
so that new forms are created.
For example: When a 3-dimensional form is pinched
together and splits (or ruptures), it gets replaced by a 2-dimensional
one, and the massless vibration patterns increases with exactly
Besides the way of operating the forms, such
a formulation seems to completely agree with the central concept
of d-degree steps in our model. The new form looses 1 d-degree
in structure, wins one d-degree of motion.
In another context, about the string coupling
constant, the opposite direction, towards higher d-degrees,
seems to be the case, eventually: When this constant is increased,
in one of its versions, the structure is changing to a 2-dimensional
membrane, "but this is not a structure that the string can
vibrate in", "since it is locked to the structures of
the strings themselves". It sounds as an increase with 1
degree in structure implies a vibration moment lost as built-in
into it, expressed in terms of our model.
It's said too that such (or similar?) transitions between forms
imply that the number of holes of odd d-degrees in one
of the forms are the same as the number of holes of even d-degrees
in the other. This too seems to indicate some complicated version
of d-degree steps.
The author talks about "our conception of drastic typology
transitions where the room raptures". In spite of ST being
a so much more mathematically intricate and elaborated, scientific
version of a model, couldn't we associate these "points where
the space-time web raptures" with the d-degree 0/00, the
0- and 00-poles: first points (0), then the 00-pole which we have
assumed as the first polarizing force in our model? The 00-pole,
which as anticenter and "infinity" represents a non-structure
and a phase "before" the space-time "web"
is developed or the "non-structure" in the holes of
In connections with the M-theory, uniting the 5 different versions
of the earlier theories, these are mentioned with the word "phases".
This could indeed be still another sign that
the String theory is on the track backwards in our 5-dimensional
(Compare starting from 0, from Zero, and starting from the anticenter,
The A-base of DNA in the genetic code appears
structured spontaneously in an appropriate solution, but in living
organisms the way of construction of the A-base is very complicated,
as taking it "the other way around".
About the mirror duality in ST, it's said that
one part of those pairs gives extremely difficult calculations,
the other one much easier ones.)
9. Fluctuations and Quantum mechanics
There is a lot of talk about furious, violent fluctuations in
such things as energies and velocities, even in gravitation, in
the microscopic world, within the area of Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle and Planck's lengths. The "fluctuations" seem
to be only a mathematical conclusion (necessary or not?) from
this undetermined or indefinite area of quantum mechanics.
These fluctuations could in our simple model be
interpreted as the motions out of the polarized borderline between
+E and - E or 0 ----00:
(Dirac, for example, says velocities can vary
+/- c in this area.)
In some experiments of quantum physics there is a similar relation
between Yes and No answers, particle or no particle, as if the
measurement happened to occur when the fluctuating something was
in the "-E"-area when the answer is no and vice versa.
The String theory "smears" such fluctuations
out to a line, and there is talk about strings that "wraps"
a surface. Then we should be able to see 2-brans as "smearing
out" strings, shouldn't we, in terms of our model as combinations
of the poles 2a 2b, defining d-degree 1 and lines.
Three aspects on this:
a) The formulations, "smear out", "wrap a surface",
seem to include the concept of superpositions from
quantum mechanics, yet this word is not mentioned.
A superposition, including two possible but
opposite answers at a measurement (as particle - no particle),
was discussed in our file about Quantum
physics as a d-degree step from higher to lower d-degree.
(If in a 2-dimensional coordinate system the y-axis "collapses"
to zero, it can be viewed as "smeared" out on the x-axis,
implying either of its complementary poles, as yes or now. A 2-dimensional
surface or membrane in the String theory should be possible to
interpret as a superposition to the strings?
The formulations in ST about strings "wrapping
a surface" seem more like the simple views in our model but
in opposite direction: a surface, possible to analyze in terms
of pure motions, can be created by an 1-dimensional line plus
its motions (as "locked" or built-in)? We can refer
to the notes on this in the file about Einstein
b) Another association to the violent fluctuations concerns our
early suggestions that the properties Mass
and Charge could be
interpretable in some terms of "negative" acceleration
and velocity "inwards," that is inwards towards a center,
a zero point. As crashing cars get new forms along new coordinate
axes in relation to their velocity direction.
When physicists introduced the concept of particles as wave packets,
they illustrate something of a similar idea, growing "fluctuations"
- in our suggested interpretation the result of inward direction
(towards a detector screen or the like).
c) The "String-coupling constant":
If rightly understood, the wild fluctuations in the area of indefiniteness
should be connected with the appearance of virtual string
- anti-string pairs, as polarizations of 1-dimensional
lines in terms of our model.
In ST there is assumed a number, the "String
coupling constant", which should express the probability
that the polarization occurs and that the virtual pairs join again.
From our point of view it sounds rather odd
that there should be the same constant in polarizing direction
("outwards") and in depolarizing direction of synthesis,
in depolarization. Why? A structure of a certain d-degree (not
only d-degree 1 of strings) is in our model upheld by a certain
relation between the binding force of higher degree and the polarizing
force of lower degree, the structure as a playing field between
Perhaps the ST-physicists are right, perhaps
all energy in structures could be "lost" as pure kinetic
energy if not the constant was the same?
But they haven't found this number. Changing
the constant transforms the 5 versions or "phases" of
ST into one another.
(Perhaps the number could be 0,2, the inversion of 5 in the
last step 1 →0/00 !? Or 0/00
~5': 53/2 = 11,18. 11 dimensions + 0,18.?!)
What is indeed the difference between the "string coupling
constant" and the relation between an inward gravitational
force and outward accelerating force?
10. The Mathematics of ST - and "11-dimensional supergravitation":
Not much is mentioned in the book about the mathematics, and
the whole String theory is still just a mathematical one.
Yet, so much is said:
1) It started with a 1-dimensional string and calculations with
equations that already Newton could have written.
2) Then Quantum mechanics were introduced in these equations,
with quantifications, probabilities, the uncertainty principle,
It sounds as if we could associate this approach with d-degree
4 and 1 in our model, then step 1 →
Newton's gravitation with a big G as inward direction from the
00-pole in d-degree 4, to d-degree 1, the string,
- and quantum mechanical aspects explored in d-degree step 1→0/00.
Then the elaboration of the theory inwards our dimension chain,
towards 2- and 3-dimensional membranes and holes, meeting the
4th dimension as built into the Calabi-Yau-type rooms
From one viewpoint it seems rather natural that they take the
step from d-degree 4 to 1, since one d-degree is debranched in
5 → 4, according to our model.
(But they avoid step 4→ 3 outwards
(Compare the definition of dimensions in ST as independent
"directions of vibrations": "Direction"
as our name for d-degree 4, and Motion out of step 1 →0/00. "Vibration" as a 1-dimensional motion
structure in d-degree 4.)
We have to repeat that the ST-physicists' occupation with Gravitation
reasonably should have touched on the complementary FA-force,
related to Vacant Space, but such a force isn't mentioned. (Compare
G-A and M-E in the figure above, see MEGA-fields.)
In their occupation with strings and d-degree
step 1→ 0/00 (as we have interpreted
it here), they should reasonably have much to say too about the
force, with the aspects on this force we have in our model.
(Perhaps its involvement is taken for granted in the "Standard
model" formulation of it.)
Here some more versions of figures from earlier
files to help visualize these notes:
The 00-pole and 11-dimensional Supergravitation:
In our model the 00-pole of d-degree 4 are meeting the complementary
0-pole in last "d-degree of Motion", 0/00. The
00-pole as an inward directed vector field, identified as
a gravitational force, is redefined through "motions
from each other" in the end of the dimension chain.
Fig To 0-00
An 11-dimensional supergravitation?
This supergravitation is said to show up if one increases the
string coupling constant to a number much bigger than 1 in one
of the 5 versions of ST. It's said that no one knows what this
"supergravitation" should be!
We have described the d-degree 0/00 as the transformation of
d-degree 5; also as 5' a starting point for new dimension chains.
(Compare poles 1b 1a, defined in our model as "motions
to and from each other":
1+1 = 11, to quote some rather unknown poet
in the 60th !
Motions from each other (pole 1b) define a distance, ~ a line:
101 = 10. (Room dimensions.) Motions to each other
(pole 1a) define a point: 100 = 1. (Time dimension)
"Time" or "Space-Time"
= "Supergravitation" ? !
Or perhaps this theoretical 11-dimensional supergravitation implies
that the ST-physicists, via the degree of Motions, arrive directly
to d-degree 4 with poles of the 5th d-degree, "E-number"
sum 10 (+ Time = 11)?
If rightly understood this "supergravitation"
is connected with "super symmetry? If so, we could state
that in our model we have a very simple symmetry in d-degree 4,
where no secondary directions are defined yet but the inward -
|In our model the
00-pole as anticenter can be found in every d-degree of structure.
There is always a surrounding to a "unit", defined
as such by an enclosed center, the surrounding by an excluded
We can think of the 0-pole developing stepwise
through the chain and in combination with the 00-pole from
outside forming structures of different d-degrees
We have also the view on a dimension chain as "haploid
gametes", then written:
It seems a bit curious that the appearance of a 2-dimensional
form should be connected with these calculations, leading
to "supergravitation". The condition for this in our
model should be that the calculations were on the way 4 →
3 of d-degree steps, polarization of gravitation and acceleration
outwards (FG and FA),
and a second d-degree debranched in that step, meeting "the
other way around".
Note that this 2-dimensional "bran"
seems to be viewed as implying the 7th "undeveloped"
room dimension we asked for above about numbers of dimensions.
(4+3 = 7 !)
How to unite the double aspects in our model on the 00-pole
being first fundamental polarizing pole but also in next step
an aggregating one as gravitation? (The 0-pole binding, integrating
- and polarized.)
Motions "from each other" defines an anticenter, a
(new) 00-pole, a polarization, which should be responsible for
the separation of poles 2a and 2b of d-degree 1, of the "strings",
the tension in these. Upholding them as linear structures. But
the structure of the diverging motions is an inheritance from
the 0-pole of the outward directed vector fields in d-degree 4.
Motions "to each other" defines a
(new) center, a 0-pole, which could appear as the contraction
force in the strings. The motional structure, however, is an inheritance
from the converging gravitational force or vector fields in d-degree
4. This is the "pole exchange" from d-degree 4 to 0/00,
vector fields to motions. All according to our model.
With this duality (and a little piece of Time
between, as "one way direction"?), we get the windings
of the ST-physicists' strings.
(But how do "motions from each other" ever meet again!?)
So the question about "super gravitation" could be
if it is the divergent 1b-pole, creating a 00-pole, in the d-degree
of Motion, that points back to the vector field of pre-material
Gravitation in d-degree 4 and its "field lines" ? Back,
or forward to Gravitation in a new chain.
The R - 1/R duality could perhaps
fit into this context. It implies that when the circular size
of a linked string shrinks down to 1 (as the Planck length), Universe
decreases, but on the other side, shrunk still more, it begins
growing again. The ST-physicists gets the same Universe on both
sides of 1, an inverse relation. (0/00, the "d-degree of
Motion", equivalent to 5 or 5'.)
11) The efforts to unite Gravitation with Quantum mechanics:
The difficulty to unite the general relativity theory of gravitation
with quantum mechanics was the cause for the string theory. Operating
with particles as points (0-dimensional) gave "absurd"
infinities of possibilities. These infinities, redefined as anticenters,
are quite natural and necessary in our model. Gravitation is identified
as the vector result of that "infinity", for direction
inwards. There are two statements here worth to note about why
the difficulties arose:
1) The physicists tried to quantify the gravitation,
in gravitons, the assumed quanta.
2) The physicists felt obliged to treat
particles as points in order to retain the possibility
to find them somewhere within Schrödinger's type of wave
1) Suppose that Gravitation from the 00-pole represents continuum,
the 0-pole the quantified scale in this opposite pair of duality.
Suppose then the graviton, not found yet, is not a quanta
of the same kind as the quanta of later steps in the dimension
Compare the calculated spin: With Hawking's
description spin numbers
says how much we have to turn a quantum for it looking the same
again. We could translate it to a degree of complexity: Spin 2
of the "graviton" means 1/2 a turn, spin 1 means 1 turn,
360°, the circle around, spin 1/2 means 2 turns, 720°.
Why should such a structure of just half a turn
(hardly any rotational moment) appear as a quantum with something
of an enclosed center ? 180°: it sounds as if the concept
"field lines" should be a more appropriate association.
Nor have magnetic monopoles been found, quanta
of the magnetic fields. It could be the same story with them -
? - with our view that M-fields
are characterized by the 00-pole in next step, as a son of Gravitation.
(Mother the FA-force.)
2) About wave functions and squared amplitudes as possibilities
to find a point particle:
Suppose there is no particle in the waves, suppose
the assumed "particle" just is in its wave "phase",
(perhaps fluctuating between inside/outside the wave surface?),
the energy spread as in the amplitudes okay, but only becoming
a "particle" when the wave breaks, meeting resistance
as through a measurement ?
It seems to be something wrong with the "probability
concept" when it comes to finding a point inside a wave,
before it breaks? Of course there is an infinity of "points"
in the mathematical sense in something spread out as a wave. (!?)
(Where do we find the words when human beings
talk, before they reach the brain of a listening receiver?)
12) Mass and Charge properties:
As said above there isn't much mentioned about these concepts,
besides that they are defined by different vibration patterns
and the note about mass division between structure and vibration
patterns in linked strings.
One statement seems in very general terms to
agree with our simple identifications of mass and volume as poles
in d-degree 3: It's said that the mass of a "3-bran"
is proportional to the volume it encloses.
In another context we have the statement that
Mass is inversely proportional to the string-coupling constant
for objects of higher than d-degree 1. The smaller this number
is made, the bigger the Mass becomes. Here it sounds as if this
constant could represent only the possibility for polarizations
of one d-degree, not the opposite?
Inversely, however: when this constant was made
much bigger than 1, the super gravitation raised, which is stated
in another context.
Can we in these opposite operations find an
evidence for the inverse relations Gravitation - Mass which we
have seen as a probability in our model, step 4 →3
as an inversion ?
Compare: Radius of stars on the main series
is directly proportional to the cubic root of their masses, while
the radius of white dwarfs is inversely proportional to the cubic
root of their masses ?
Charge is connected
with EM-fields in usual physics. A main suggestion in our model
is that this property is a 2-dimensional one, if interpreted in
relation to Mass as a 3-dimensional one. Nothing is said in the
book about Charge, which we could compare with this suggestion,
and it seems that the author sometimes uses the concept of "charge"
in a wider sense.
It's mentioned that charge can be divided in
much smaller fragments of 1 than +/-2/3 and +/- 1/3 of the quarks,
for example 1/13 or 1/53 (!), if a linked string winds itself
up on another dimension in more and more turns. Nothing about
the background idea if any.
From our point of view and interpretations of
and Charge main questions
a) if it's possible to derive Charge as property from the Mass
property (as 2-brans were derived from 3-brans through conifold
transitions in ST, and
b) if Kaluza's derivation of EM-equations from Einsteins's Gravitational
ones may lead to a recognized derivation of EM-fields from "G/A"-fields,
according to the suggestions in our model here, and
c) if the polarization of 2-dimensional membranes (as into inside
- outside, convex - concave, (surfaces of holes / membranes) can
give rise to strings ?
13) Why the enormous smallness of strings?
Strings of ST is thought of as about 10-35 m, that
is hundred million trillions smaller than protons in atom nuclei.
Is it really necessary? Why not blow up the scale?
In our model we have taken as a postulate
that the same patterns of structures show up on superposed levels,
and very much points towards that. Why not in the String theory
if it has a justification? What about "field lines"
in relation to celestial bodies in Macrocosm, what about processes
in biology - and protein structures in biochemistry?
In our model, as said before, there is a chapter
about level development (not yet as a web file). The assumption
there is that each step in a fundamental dimension chain can develop
to whole new chains, as new loops of energy are created in the
modern world. A somewhat related idea in ST is mentioned, of possible
new bubbles in each point
But why should that lead to other
Universa? Why not see them realized in this world!
14) The 7th "undeveloped" room dimensions and fatty
With 11 dimensions, one for time, there is the usual 3 "developed"
ones, + 6 in Calabi-Yau rooms, which gives 9. The 7th "undeveloped"
space dimension seems to develop during certain operations with
the "string coupling constant"?
Compare the files about Fatty
1/7, a curious
(or "mad"?) idea that the periodic number eventually
could be a mathematical principle behind the synthesis of fatty
acids - and collagen? This periodic number has certain number
relations to fatty acids which are building up cell membranes,
"2-dimensional" on a higher level. A couple of them
It's possible, as showed above, to find several similarities
between the String theory and our model here, but only through
searching for them in many disparate contexts and separate sentences
in this reference. The set of concepts used by the theory seems
also to be one of its own to an essential extent.
The whole theory seems still entangled in some
complex form of "Calabi-Yau-rooms" and the Universe
presented is everything but "elegant".
But "Universe" in Latin means a unit
inverted, so beginning with the inverted form seems justified.
However, one popularized version of the String
theory seems to be one with an infinity of loose, individualized,
independent, free-swimming, vibrating strings in an empty something,
which is certainly not the case and totally contradictory to our
model where everything is related and relations.