Well, I coined the term back when string theory had hardly been articulated. For one.

For another, I don't know that strings are envisioned as doing what I conceive spacions are/do. The idea behind string theory is that the constituents of reality are strings of extremely small size (possibly of the order of the Planck length, about 10−35 m) which vibrate at specific resonant frequencies.[7] Thus, any particle should be thought of as a tiny vibrating object, rather than as a point. This object can vibrate in different modes (just as a guitar string can produce different notes), with every mode appearing as a different particle (electron, photon, etc.).

But the relationship between these strings and space itself is not well defined. The strings are postulated to oscillate in space due to contraction (when left to themselves) and expansion (due to conserrvation of energy).

But it looks to me that the theorists in this field are, as we all do, falling in to the ready-made illusion of spatiality -- about which we know so little. We know it is sensitive to mass. We know it effects viewpoints, because it provides them a sense of dimensionality, and if their tolerance of space is exceeded they get most queasy (if too much) or claustrophobic (if too little). Most particles I have ever heard of are dumbly coimpliant with space, just as mass is with gravity, which may be nothing more than wrapped space.

The point is that we are fish wondering if there is such a thing as water. We are hardly suited for the kind of knowing -- let alone measuring -- that we would need to be able to separate it out from the instant concomitant of being at all. If we COULD, some remrkable things might become possible, such as the penetration of "hyperspace" in some manner. But we really have no notion, of any useful sort, of what the stuff is, let alone what "hyper" really means.


Well, at least that I am familiar with, which is only a very small fraction of things.

:D


A