Theory of Everything

I'm not sure why Pro is confused by the one-dimensionality of strings. Under the particle-point conception of physics (which I assume my opponent adheres to), particles have neither length width or height. Point particles are thus dimensionless: you can't be at different points on a point-particle. Strings go one dimension higher; they have length but nothing else. So if Pro finds one-dimensional strings perplexing, he must take great issue with dimensionless points. However, string theory is the only alternative to point-particles, so Pro has to accept one or the other. For what it"s worth, I don"t think Pro should have issue with either solely on the basis of their number of dimensions. The answer to why strings vibrate is simple: energy. The energy storage of the string is related to the string oscillation pattern. The string has kinetic and potential energy. It's analogous to a swinging pendulum, only a string has essentially an infinite range of possible configurations. The harmonic motion of the string is caused by the inability of these two energy states to balance each other. Kinetic energy is translated into potential energy and potential energy back into kinetic energy. They never really reach equilibrium. It's a never ending circular motion. Remember, energy is a conserved quantity. It does not diminish or increase. It only changes form. I"m not sure Pro understood me correctly since string theory does indeed provide an explanation for why forces are as they are. Put another way, it explains why forces have the properties that they do. Physicists conceive the four forces--the strong force, electromagnetism, the weak force, and gravity--as all acting through force carriers. These are: photons (electromagnetic", W and Z bosons (weak force), gluons (strong force), and gravitons (gravity). String theory does embrace these forces, as I pointed out last round [1][2]. Please note, however, that saying the properties of particles are determined by the different vibrations of strings is simply an analogous way of saying that the quantum states of strings determine the properties of particles. Furthermore, the fundamental constituents of reality are not made of any more basic composite components. So strings, as understood, are the most basic you can get. Trying to peer further is impossible. A theory of everything necessarily presumes that our field of inquiry must reach an impenetrable foundational level; otherwise we"d have infinite regress, which is not compatible with a theory that aims to explain everything. We can say that atoms are made of protons, electrons, and neutrons, which are made of quarks. But once you have a component that makes up all of matter, you"ve reached something fundamental. Pro"s initial statement immediately brings up a red flag. He talks of space as if it"s some cosmic container within which rest the ingredients of the universe. This is false. Space is a property of the gravitational field, so space cannot exist apart from it, and therefore, not apart from matter and energy [4]. Pro furthermore talks of time as an independent dimension. However, we know from Einstein that space and time are not independent; hence spacetime. I would also like to note that string theory does incorporate space. That"s because it incorporates Einstein"s relativity. Pro opposes Einstein apparently, so string theory actually does a better job in this regard. Pro accounts for particles as the fundamental building blocks up the universe. I'm mostly not at odds with Pro on what he says of matter. However, it's all very simple to say the physics of the very large conforms to the physics of the very small. But it's not so easy to reconcile them mathematically and theoretically. Specifically, Pro's given us no means for reconciling quantum physics with general relativity. I clearly outlined the importance of such a feat for any possible theory of everything, but Pro doesn't make an effort. String theory, as explained, passes with flying colors, which on it"s own elevates it above other theories that fail to do so. "The fundamental force of balance" seems to be the most dubious part of Pro"s theory, but he has yet to elaborate on it. The problem with Pro"s theory of everything is that it"s not a theory of everything. It"s not really even much of a physical theory ("theory" in the loose sense of the term). A scientific theory must make a generalized explanation of how nature works. It must make predictions capable--in principle--of direct or inferred verification. It must encompass observations and explain a diverse set of phenomena; not just saying "this is what the universe is made of" but making predictions and providing mathematical analysis to mimic what happens in reality. It has to be accurate and specific, not sweepingly broad. A grand unified theory must incorporate all the essential pillars of modern physics. Pro's theory lacks a quantum model of the universe. It doesn't provide a framework of the quantum realm which allows it to relate directly to classical physics. Sources [1]http://www.smithsonianmag.com... [2] http://www.pbs.org... [3] http://sciencepark.etacude.com... [4] https://einstein.stanford.edu...