String Theory, M Theory, Gravity etc?

Question

Could it be that everything is just the warping of spacetime.

I mean, instead of having strings, and creating a frame work around it to explain everything and joining gravity with the other 3 forces, could it be that he smallest thing, be it a quark or what ever, is just a small warp of space time.

Electrons and protons etc are just a collection of warped spaces.

Their forces are a result of how much their space is warped.

Any comments, or am i just barking mad.

BW, we all know and understand what your saying here, but i am offering a different suggestion.

The smallest thing is a warped space.

i.e. if quarks are the smallest thing, then they are warped spaces, the gravity of which creates its mass etc etc etc.
If quarks are not the smallest thing, then the smallest thing is a warped space.

Answer 1

No, that wouldn't explain quantum behavior. You would still need, for example, to explain why quantum processes appear to be fundamentally stochastic (random).

You're not nuts for trying to figure it all out. Plenty of great minds have tried to put everything together under a single model. But these problems don't go away easily.

Answer 2

The only thing that can warp the space is gravity. There are massless particles, such as photons, that do not warp space, yet they are elementary particles (bosons).

Your theory does not hold.

Besides, you need a mathematical framework to show that this, in fact, works and explain not only particle physics phenomena, but also models of the acceleration of the universe, among other physical consequences, and it must be self-consistent. Further, you need to make useful experimental (testable) predictions to find out if your theory is correct or not.

String theory didn't come about because people said: "hey, what if everything is made of tiny strings?". It was created because the mathematics of the dynamics of strings can be applied to particle physics and it worked out quite beautifully (however, string theory has STILL failed to provide a useful testable prediction).

(Mark G - what you said is incorrect)

Answer 3

The fact is that we really don't know. The best we can do is guess and have those guesses proved by experiment. Even then, whatever construct we guess at (strings or whatever) remains no better than a guess because we have no way to prove things by anything other than consistency with predicted behaviour. It is like having a black box where you have no idea of the contents, you just know that if you put a certain set of things into it you get a certain other set of things out. You can theorise as much as you like as to the functions within the box and come up with elaborate and accurate ways to predict the output but you can never actually open it and look inside.

Because we have no really satisfactory physical model to imagine atomic scale phenomena in terms of our everyday experience it is always mathematics that we must use to explain these things. The language of mathematics leaves us no tangible or 'reality' to grasp hold of to understand them. That is why we invent ideas like 'strings' and 'supergravity' to give our mathematical concepts some handle that our imagination can get hold of. In all of this, the main objective is to find a set of equations that predict the set of laws we have elucidated for quantum physics, and by extrapolation the macroscopic 'real world' that we inhabit.

So far, m-theory is the closest we have come to a model that explains and joins together all that we know, but there is no guarantee that tomorrow a new and even more refined theory will appear and make it obsolete.

Answer 4

Protons are known to be made up of small particles (quarks). Quantum mechanics is pretty good at predicting these particles and explaining things such as proton decay and they have been observed in particle collisions. Thus, protons are not just a collection of warped spaces. They consist of three quarks - each with their own mass, spin, and charge. The question then comes up whether quarks are make of even smaller particles.

Relativity predicts that the warp in space time affects all particles -- including massless ones. Time would affect everything. However, there are several reasons why we know that this is not true with other forces. Key is that the electomagnetic force is known to only affect particles with charge. Particles without charge -- neutrons and certain quarks -- are known to be completely unaffected by the electromagnetic force. Any warp in space-time should affect all particles.

In modern atomic theory, most forces are now considered to be the exchange of massless virtual particles. Gravity is though to be an exchange of virtual gravitons which all particles with mass exchange. The electromagnetic force is thought to be an exchange of virtual photons between particles with charge. Since we are finding other particles predicted in atomic theory, we are reasonably sure that this is the mechanism for forces.

The space-time warp of general relativity does not say why the presence of mass warps-space time. With virtual gravitons, the mechanism for this is explained. i.e. particle are attracted to mass because mass sends out virtual gravitons which affect the particle. Thinking of it as a warp in space time is no longer necessary.

String theory tries to explain these quarks and virtual particles by (instead of finding smaller and smaller particles), thinking of a single string of energy such that all its properties -- spin, color, mass, charge, etc. -- can be explained by how the string vibrates and bends. If you give the universe enough small dimensions, they hope that when seen from a four dimensional perspective that it looks like a single point particle with say mass, spin, color, charge. So far, not much luck. Math is insanely complex and most physists are looking at Occam's razor arguments against it -- i.e. there must be a simplier explaination.

Answer 5

Yes, it could be. Perhaps a warping of spacetime is as good a definition of a string as any other. But this, like string theory, will be considered potentially useful when it has descriptive or predictive value.

So far, gravity seems sufficiently unlike the other known forces that your theory is also unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely.

Answer 6

A problem with that theory is that mass is needed to warp space, (or the space-time continuum).

11 dimensional string theory, (and 26 dimensional M theory), has not produced anything.

It is possible that the extra 7 dimensions of space in string theory, (that are not perceived), are mathematical deception that first appeared with 5 dimensional Kaluza-Klein Theory.

String theory is possibly deception involving adding dimensions of space to the already existing 3 dimensions of space one dimension at a time at 90 degree angles to the previous dimension.

That string theory is possibly invalid is stated at the end of the wikipedia article on string theory.

Answer 7

Woof Grrr Whine Whine Woof Woof!

Answer 8

No because it isn't matter that bends space it's energy. Matter is very dense energy which is why it bends space so much better, but even a photon bends space although not by much.