It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What is "quantum spacetime theory"? If you're talking about theories of quantized space-time such as loop quantum gravity...
The violations of Bell's inequalities, due to quantum entanglement, provide near definitive demonstrations of something that was already strongly suspected: that quantum physics cannot be represented by any version of the classical picture of physics. - Roger Penrose
[Leonard Susskind] has contributed a lot to science... True, string theory is not easy to verify and may never be, and I personally don't really buy into it, but it has still helped advanced many different aspects of science and there are many strong theoretical reasons to believe it could be true, or at least part of the solution
You just answered your own question. If an empty vacuum is equivalent to nothingness then it can easily explain why our universe appears to be infinite and flat according to all our observations and inferences. Nothingness has no start or end, it has no boundaries, it has no origin. I understand the fact it's hard to equate the vacuum to nothing when it has properties we can ascribe to it and mass can effect the curvature of the space-time fabric, it's why many scientists prefer to describe complete nothingness as something with no space or time. I'm just not convinced that logic is entirely accurate, an empty vacuum could very well be the most fundamental type of nothingness.
I would argue just this universe has a virtually inexhaustible supply of everything, but that doesn't mean those resources are easy to acquire, they're spread out across vast distances.
This logic is completely ridiculous as well because again you're assuming that some interaction in one universe will affect all others, and also you're assuming it's possible to destroy a universe with a bomb, which is a completely ridiculous premise to begin with.
originally posted by: Protector
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
I told him what you said about Bell's theorem. He wanted me to pass along his statement above and find out where his logic is incorrect.
Yes, it is quantized space-time. There is a video of TEDxBoulder in my previous post that talks about the specific theory.
I suppose my argument is more in regards to the hundreds of physicists who went on to get Ph.D.s in a field that might turn out to be false. Was following Susskind a good idea for the future of science?
Separately, I thought I'd include this video for the thread, as it describes vacuum fluctuations:
In physics, the parallel axis theorem, also known as Huygens–Steiner theorem, or just as Steiner's theorem,[1] after Christiaan Huygens and Jakob Steiner, can be used to determine the mass moment of inertia or the second moment of area of a rigid body about any axis, given the body's moment of inertia about a parallel axis through the object's center of gravity and the perpendicular distance between the axis.
At issue would be if in fact it is curved beyond our comprehension.
The exact shape is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, but experimental data from various, independent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG and Planck for example) confirm that the observable universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error.[3][4][5] Theorists have been trying to construct a formal mathematical model of the shape of the universe. In formal terms, this is a 3-manifold model corresponding to the spatial section (in comoving coordinates) of the 4-dimensional space-time of the universe. The model most theorists currently use is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. Arguments have been put forward that the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the global universe is infinite and flat,[6] but the data are also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space[7][8] and the Picard horn.[9]
Shape of the universe
Cosmologists normally work with a given space-like slice of spacetime called the comoving coordinates, the existence of a preferred set of which is possible and widely accepted in present-day physical cosmology.
The section of space-time that can be observed is the backward light cone (all points within the cosmic light horizon, given time to reach a given observer), while the related term Hubble volume can be used to describe either the past light cone or commoving space up to the surface of last scattering. To speak of "the shape of the universe (at a point in time)" is ontologically naïve from the point of view of special relativity alone: due to the relativity of simultaneity we cannot speak of different points in space as being "at the same point in time" nor, therefore, of "the shape of the universe at a point in time".
Much of the early work on five dimensional space was in an attempt to develop a theory that unifies the four fundamental forces in nature: strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetism. German mathematician Theodor Kaluza and Swedish physicist Oskar Klein independently developed the Kaluza–Klein theory in 1921, which used the fifth dimension to unify gravity with electromagnetic force. Although their approaches were later found to be at least partially inaccurate, the concept provided a basis for further research over the past century.[1]
To explain why this dimension would not be directly observable, Klein suggested that the fifth dimension would be rolled up into a tiny, compact loop on the order of 10-33 centimeters.[1] Under his reasoning, he envisioned light as a disturbance caused by rippling in the higher dimension just beyond human perception, similar to how fish in a pond can only see shadows of ripples across the surface of the water caused by raindrops.[2] While not detectable, it would indirectly imply a connection between seemingly unrelated forces. Kaluza-Klein theory experienced a revival in the 1970s due to the emergence of superstring theory and supergravity: the concept that reality is composed of vibrating strands of energy, a postulate only mathematically viable in ten dimensions or more. Superstring theory then evolved into a more generalized approach known as M-theory. M-theory suggested a potentially observable extra dimension in addition to the ten essential dimensions which would allow for the existence of superstrings. The other 10 dimensions are compacted, or "rolled up", to a size below the subatomic level.[1][2] Kaluza–Klein theory today is seen as essentially a gauge theory, with the gauge being the circle group.[citation needed
Although the importance of Bohr's correspondence principle is largely undisputed, there is far less agreement concerning how the correspondence principle should be defined. It is important to distinguish between Bohr's own understanding of this principle and what it came to mean for the larger physics community. Even if one restricts oneself to Bohr's writings, however, there is still a disagreement among Bohr scholars regarding precisely which of the several relations between classical and quantum mechanics that Bohr discovered should be designated as the correspondence principle. There are three primary candidate-definitions in the literature. First, there is the frequency interpretation, according to which the correspondence principle is a statistical asymptotic agreement between one component in the Fourier decomposition of the classical frequency and the quantum frequency in the limit of large quantum numbers. Second, there is the intensity interpretation according to which it is a statistical agreement in the limit of large quantum numbers between the quantum intensity, understood in terms of the probability of a quantum transition, and the classical intensity, understood as the square of the amplitude of one component of the classical motion. Finally, there is the selection rule interpretation, according to which the correspondence principle is the statement that each allowed quantum transition between stationary states corresponds to one harmonic component of the classical motion.