View Single Post
Old 10-17-2011, 09:27 PM   #487
cowmoo32
drunken science
 
cowmoo32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 5,533
My Ride: Trek 1.5
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_ween View Post
I have felt this way for a long time. It just is not at all intuitive. For some reason, I feel like the explanation for the beginning will also be intuitively sound. This is in the same line of reasoning as to why I LIKE string theory. It makes more sense for the smallest unit to be made of something, as opposed to point-particle physics that says the smallest unit is a point with no mass. It could be a string as the smallest unit. It could be that a string is the best analogy available to us. It's just that that unit be made of something, not nothing.
But saying that strings are 'it' as far as we're concerned is ok with you? I know that according to Planck, anything smaller "doesn't make physical sense" but intuitively when I see something or read about something it's rational to think that increasingly smaller pieces are responsible. Hell, even the fact that an electron or photon can only be described by a purely mathematical wavefunction sits better with me than saying that a string, a physical entity, is as small as it gets and is comprised of nothing but itself. I think I would feel better about strings if I thought about them as points of vibration giving rise to particles/forces rather than an actual "thing", per se.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DylloS View Post
Because you touch yourself at night. And because I made a thread for that video
__________________

flickher

What's this about a brownie in motion?
cowmoo32 is offline   Reply With Quote