Warp wrote:
> This is a rather fair assumption
> to make because it's the result of a measurement 

Actually, I believe einstein hypothesized that because Maxwell's equations 
(amongst others) had it down as a constant.

>   Of course SR was lacking. It assumed inertial frames of reference and
> didn't take any stance on accelerating ones.
> 
>   If I have understood correctly, General Relativity starts from the
> assumption that the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all
> observers regardless of their state (ie. inertial or accelerating),
> and that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing,
> and that's about it. 

And that space is continuous and differentiable. Which is where it 
mathematically conflicts with QED.

>   However, which observation or measurement is string theory based on?

Yeah, I don't know either. :-)  I think it's basically an attempt to 
mathematically unify quantum mechanics (including QED, QCD, and etc) with 
GR. In other words, I think it's based on the same measurements as both GR 
and QED.  It's trying to come up with the same math for both.

The large number of extra dimensions apparently make sense if you understand 
why you need each additional one, but it's certainly over my head.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message