Is String Theory the End of Science

Dean L. Sinclair's image for:
"Is String Theory the End of Science"
Image by: 

If string theory is the ultimate, we are stuck with a number of unknowns in ten dimensions. This writer is of the opinion that we can develop a simpler, easier to understand model by the use of a little logic.
Step one. Find an alternative to "strings," as a basic structure. By realizing that the speed of light, a basic constant of the universe, is best considered as the velocity of an information carrier wave, and that all other "ICW's" involve some sort of particle to particle contact, we can postulate the exixtence of a 3-D point matrix, with each point having a ground-state vibrational energy and the matrix having a spacing such as to sustain a carrier wave of the "speed of light."
We now have our basic structure. (Implicit to it is the reason that electromagnetic radiation would be considered a "mass-less particle.")
Step two. Let us define mass and energy in terms of step one. To do this we note that the one constant of our universe seems to be motion. Mass and energy are known to inter-convert. All motion can be defined by a combination of two kinds of motion, point-centered motion, and motion along a vector. Mass can always be defined with relation to a point, energy always is a vector. Hence we can define mass as a manifestation of point-centric motion, and energy as what is observed with motion along a line.
Steps three and beyond. Define other essential ideas in terms of the above. Electron and anti-proton, anti-electron and proton, can be defined as pairs of stable spin/tumble vorices in the matrix with huge, less-dense being considered an "exploded" version of the much smaller, denser "partner." (A possible explanation for the absence of anti-electrons under "normal" circumstances in our universe as we know it.) The neutron can be considered as a proton-electron combination with the electron moving within the proton....
The reader can see that this discussion could continue to book length and would take a considerable amount of inspection of known data and possibly experimental testing to determine the validity of the ideas. Developing of any theory needs the cooperation of many for it to be useful.
The writer intends to continue with working along these lines; but, as he has neither the time nor resources to do the job alone, if others don't pick up on the ideas, the Matrix-Motion Theory will probably "die aborning."
What do you think? Can we look at the world in a different way and, perhaps, come up with explanations for things that otherwise are total mysteries that we have to take for granted? We probably will never solve the mystery of existence, but, maybe we can come up with simpler explanations than the current, virtually incomprehensibly large hodge-podge of "fundamental particles" and mathematical models.

More about this author: Dean L. Sinclair

From Around the Web