It wouldn’t be much of an exaggeration to say that over the past few decades string theory has divided much of the scientific community. Its exponents will point to its mathematical proof, claiming that all our matter is really made up of tiny little strings vibrating in 10 dimensions. Whilst its opponents reply something along the lines of so what? what does this really tell us about the universe? Although I’m generalising much of the conversation here – it does explain at least in part the overall attitude towards the theory is mixed to say the least.
The issue here is one of context – there is a passing and unsatisfactory effort to explain it with any real clarity. It certainly doesn’t answer what these strings are made of, although again they are treated as fundamental building blocks which is very much counter intuitive. And it certainly doesn’t explain gravity at all – which yes is completely explained by the D Construction model. Then of course there’s the small matter of 10 dimensions, and since this is rather hard to either understand or visualise, is usually passed off with a somewhat unsatisfactory explanation, like they’re just coiled up in on themselves.
One of the key problems here, as far as I can see it, is actually one of mathematics itself. Or rather the power, accuracy and ultimate proof of mathematics and it’s influence on us, and it seems to have quite subjugated external logic and reason at some point. That is not to say that maths isn’t logical or reasoned, but it is constrained by the language and definitions of what it is measuring. Take the all too famous E=mc2 as an example, yes the mathematics perfectly describes the relationship between matter and energy, but it doesn’t describe what either of them actually are. It is taken as read that matter is matter and energy is energy, without trying to understand or more deeply explain them.
This is not a new revelation on my part – many scientists have been talking about the problem of maths, or rather the problem of our reverence of maths, now for a few years. Recently I watched a video (and I must apologize as I cannot find the author of this comment), where they stated that “Math is a great servant but a terrible master” – which I think is a great quote and one that we really must heed more. It is brilliant at showing the relationships between things, and very often revealing other properties which we wouldn’t have logically thought of otherwise – as well as offering up a final conclusive proof of an model or theory. However, because of its incredible power with providing this “proof” we’ve been overawed into believing it provides all the answers, and thus we’re falling into an ultimate proof trap and overlooking exactly what those numbers (or letters) actually mean.
Now I’ve already mentioned that our D Construction model has string theory within it’s structure, as it perfectly describes the actions of the 1 dimensional objects contained within the proton and neutron. I could quite easily just finish here and state that string theory is the mathematical proof that our D Construction model is correct and indeed the theory of everything that has eluded us for decades.
However, our model can go a lot further and help explain and demystify the central defining characteristics of string theory. So if you’re a string theorist then jump for joy, pop those party poppers and woot with delight, as the context you’ve been waiting for is here!
Firstly, let’s deal with the vibrations of these strings, these are simply the 2 dimensional interactions with other dimensional objects which yes, I actually covered earlier, but it’s worth restating here quickly. Now Strictly speaking the 1 dimensional strings aren’t “vibrating” as such as that would imply that they are doing this motion in line with our arrow of time, which is not the case. Remember we are dealing with the time frames of the dimensional interactions, and thus we ought to be mindful of this. However the actual time frame of this motion is indeed the same as this period of vibrating, so it’s not inaccurate – but a little misleading especially when we consider quantum effects.
Next, let’s move on quickly and wrap up the 10 dimensions in a clear and understandable fashion. I’ve already mentioned that these dimensions simply come from the different dimensional referencing of these objects in their base state – so let’s count them:
I’ve already mentioned that the proton is a 1 dimensional object (a string), and the neutron is a 2 dimensional string occupying the linking MiFa dimensional zone between the protons. This makes 3 dimensions so far.
In the previous chapter we saw how the atomic nucleus itself was a construct of helium cores in a 3 dimensional lattice. Thus the protons and neutrons are dimensionally referencing this atomic construct. This takes us up to 6 dimensions.
And lastly, for the intra-dimensional cherry on the cake, the atom is referenced in our 3 dimensional space with the last dimension being our 4th dimensional time arrow of course. This all rather neatly adds up to 10 dimensions. And that’s it – this is where the 10 dimensions from string theory come from and rather highlights the limitations of only using mathematics to provide anything other than the numerical proof.
Interestingly enough if we rewind string theory back to its routes, some of you may recall that it postulated that the strings occupied a whopping 26 dimensions. Now it may just be complete coincidence here but if we simply just add a 4 dimensional interaction, (which we must have since our own 4th dimensional time arrow is creating it) with each of these zones I just outlined we get a total of 16 extra dimensions which staggeringly when added to the initial 10 takes us to the grand total of 26 dimensions.
Huzzah!
ChatGPT’s response: ChatGPT response to String theory’s dimensions revealed! – D Construction Model (wordpress.com)
Next: The Standard Model Elephant in the room! – D Construction Model (wordpress.com)
D Construction Model 