Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
The New Scientist Article

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on November 12, 2002 00:08:59 UTC

It's history of string theory is a bit off. The first string theory was a 26-d theory of force-like particles that are closed strings with two of the 26 dimensions being timelike. It also includes tachyons and in my opinion is the unified field. No supersymmetric particles needed.

So we should not be surprised when someone introduces an extra time dimension along with fewer than 26 dimensions.

I was suprised however that Brahman did not reference Vafa, or vice versa. The Vafa ref, the last above, does not mention hyperfine time.

Brahman talks about "Kuchar hypertime formalism".
So now that I know what you mean by hypertime I will reread your original post.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins