Geometry of String Theory and Dark Energy

a very interesting link.
I am taking the time to read the material.
thanks

I am trying to find a active link to his film Killing Time
www.frif.com...

the link at his web page for the film does not have an active source


any help in finding the film would be apprciated
thanks
meanwhile I google

I was looking for a clear interpretation of quantum teleportation and this seems to do the job well. I thought I would throw it in here for reference purposes.

reply to post by shrunkensimon


simon, if reality was an illusion, wouldn't we be able to experience like neo did in the matrix? We would be able overcome illusion, and be able to break the laws of physics. If we did, then we would be slapped across the same, illlusion becomes reality, then you would be dead. Considering, invibility is impossible, time travel is impossible, and everything else unknown is impossible to.

Originally posted by junglelord
This post is again an attempt to encourage everyone to study Geometry of folded dimensions ---

Stop.

Stop right there.


You don't start studying the Geometry of folded dimensions until Calc III, which means you have to have Calc I and II to understand differential and integral calculus. You better have a good handle on Trig and its theorems.

String theory is explained with Partial Differential Equations, which before you can study that, you have to do Ordinary Differential Equations.

There is so much crap to learn!!! You have to learn Fourier Transform, Laplace stuff, multiple-dimension wave functions...

Dude, that is such a pain - it takes three years at a university. I know, cause I've done it. And STILL if I looked at the String Theory equations, my head would explode. That is stuff you learn in a Mathematics PhD curriculum.

PASS.



And, no, nobody come back and say "oh its easy; look at this!"

I can cut and paste from Wikipedia, too!



Now, I do admire and encourage anyone and everyone to go out and better themselves and learn new and complex things, but String Theory is no weekend excursion. That takes dedication.

And then some! ;-p

Really understanding string theory is a very very hard. I'd say at least post-grad maths in needed to grasp the symmetry groups and such fully. Not worth it for a "theory" that's not really much of a theory... I strong recommend "not even wrong" by Peter Woit. Sums up the problem with string theory very nicely. I'd say don't waste you time. Quantum field theories explain 99% of the phenomena we meet in everyday life with astounding accuracy using simple, elegant equations. Learn QED first, then look at string theory if you're still sane... ;-p

reply to post by shrunkensimon


I more or less agree with this, but probably for different reasons. I believe that Halton Arp's argument that Quasars are closely associated with 'neighboring' galaxies puts a big bang into red shift theory. There has been some other work that demonstrates that if we were to accept redshift theory than the distribution of galaxies or their velocity vectors is not isotropic in some way. Unfortunately I can't find the original paper so I have to be a bit vague about it. At any rate once I saw it, I became convinced that red shift is a red herring. (Sorry for the puns). The result may be related to red shift quantization.

Of course I believe Halton Arps alternative hypothesis has also been disproved, but that doesn't taint his anomalous red shift data. We just don't have a good cosmological theory yet. Although perhaps the plasma physicists are on the right track, claiming that EM forces still dominate, even at cosmological scales.

Unfortunately the priesthood of science is so closed minded that they routinely throw out or ignore anomalous data. The powers that be are only too happy to go along since they have a vested interest in preventing scientific progress among the masses.

The end result of this is that dark matter probably doesn't exist. As for general relativity, well there are at least half a dozen theories of gravity that have similar predictive power. For example if you extend Weber's force law to gravitation you can accurately predict the precession of the perihelion of mercury with this theory.

Which theory is correct doesn't really matter. All the theories are wrong. That's a point that physicists refuse to accept. Physical laws are only approximations, good for a certain range of parameters. They tend to make the idea of the grand unifying description of everything some kind of religion.

[edit on 12-10-2007 by SevenThunders]

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Unfortunately the priesthood of science is so closed minded that they routinely throw out or ignore anomalous data. The powers that be are only too happy to go along since they have a vested interest in preventing scientific progress among the masses.

They change, albeit slowly. The priesthood take is a carryover from ancient history, and old habits are the hardest to break. I doubt if there is a concerted effort to dumb down the people, but rather one to save face in view of a greater quantity of unknowns.

The end result of this is that dark matter probably doesn't exist. As for general relativity, well there are at least half a dozen theories of gravity that have similar predictive power. For example if you extend Weber's force law to gravitation you can accurately predict the precession of the perihelion of mercury with this theory.

I concur on both counts. And as far as proving GR to the absolute degree, the jury is still out.

Which theory is correct doesn't really matter. All the theories are wrong. That's a point that physicists refuse to accept. Physical laws are only approximations, good for a certain range of parameters. They tend to make the idea of the grand unifying description of everything some kind of religion.

I also agree on not holding fast to any one method. I would also like to point out there are some theoretical physicists out here who do try to think outside the box, to borrow a worn cliche. It is not fair to lump them all together into an accusatory generalization. What you are describing is a kind of group think, or a click. It goes back to the face issue.

I will throw out a sample of this free thought.

If the Big Bang originated from a singularity, then does it not stand to reason whole sections of the universe can be entangled? It would just be a matter of finding the right frequency for the classical communication part. This would be a very chaotic map indeed!

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by shrunkensimon

 

Unfortunately the priesthood of science is so closed minded that they routinely throw out or ignore anomalous data. The powers that be are only too happy to go along since they have a vested interest in preventing scientific progress among the masses.

This is simply not true. If the anomolous data is reliable then scientists will jump on it - anomolous data is what makes new theories, and new theories are what scientists live for. Peolpe who say this kind of thing about scientists have clearly not met many... Every scientist I know would cream his jeans for data which disagree with an established theory.

Which theory is correct doesn't really matter. All the theories are wrong. That's a point that physicists refuse to accept. Physical laws are only approximations, good for a certain range of parameters. They tend to make the idea of the grand unifying description of everything some kind of religion.

Completely false. Scientists explicitly acknowledge that no theory is completely true. The whole point of modern science is that different theories work on different scales - look at renomormalization. Every scientist on the planet will agree with you that "physical laws are only approximations good for a certain range of parameters".

Originally posted by Matyas


I will throw out a sample of this free thought.

If the Big Bang originated from a singularity, then does it not stand to reason whole sections of the universe can be entangled? It would just be a matter of finding the right frequency for the classical communication part. This would be a very chaotic map indeed!

That's interesting. I never thought of that. I do agree that there are physicists who think outside the box. Don't get me wrong. It's just that such thinkers find it very hard to get published. Moreover this behavior is not peculiar to physicists either. It's really just human nature. People will defend their turf. In some cases if you receiving funding and have a life time of work that might be invalidated by a new result, just how much temptation is there to resist the new result? Scientists may be great people, but they are not all saints sorry to say.

Originally posted by jim_w

This is simply not true. If the anomolous data is reliable then scientists will jump on it - anomolous data is what makes new theories, and new theories are what scientists live for. Peolpe who say this kind of thing about scientists have clearly not met many... Every scientist I know would cream his jeans for data which disagree with an established theory.

We will have to agree to disagree here, and I have soooo many examples too. How well received was Copernicus or Galileo? Did you know that Scientific American published a piece debunking the Wright brothers heavier than air device even after it was flown in front of hundreds of witnesses?

There have been eyewitnesses who saw the Smithsonian dump tons of anomolous artifacts into the sea.

In more recent times we can look at how Podkletnov's gravity shielding experiment was suppressed or how MIT deliberately fudged their data to make cold fusion look bad so as not to threaten millions of dollars of hot fusion funding.

I have an acquaintance who developed a fairly conventional but commercially viable hydrogen conversion unit for automobiles. The hydrogen could be obtained from a solar cell setup he was also selling. The end result was that his equipment and manufacturing site was shut down by the government. They said it was 'bad for the economy'.

The history of energy device suppression in long and sordid.

Energy Suppression

Completely false. Scientists explicitly acknowledge that no theory is completely true. The whole point of modern science is that different theories work on different scales - look at renomormalization. Every scientist on the planet will agree with you that "physical laws are only approximations good for a certain range of parameters".

They may 'agree' in principle, but the behavior is quite a bit different depending on what field you care to examine. Again this really goes back to the original point. Once a theory becomes well accepted by the mainstream and there is a sufficient amount of work that depends on it, alternative theories will be fought against with religious fervor.

One of my favorite little examples is the status of Weber's force law. It fell into disuse because at first it was thought to be inconsistent with Maxwells equations. This is now known to be false, it is completely consistent. Nevertheless we are stuck with the Lorenz force law which fails to predict the internal force seen by a wire carrying a large current. Weber's law predicts this correctly. Interestingly if they had kept Weber's law, the classical proton/electron model does not break down. It even predicts an attractive force between like charges if they are brought close enough together. Perhaps quantum mechanics would have looked very different if not for a few early political decisions. There are many other examples like this in many other areas of science.



[edit on 17-10-2007 by SevenThunders]

Originally posted by SevenThunders
We will have to agree to disagree here, and I have soooo many examples too. How well received was Copernicus or Galileo? Did you know that Scientific American published a piece debunking the Wright brothers heavier than air device even after it was flown in front of hundreds of witnesses?

But what does the scientific establishment think of those ideas *now*? Of course there's resistance to new ideas - that's true in any field. But in time correct ideas are proved to be correct and they are accepted. The examples you give demostrate this nicely.

In more recent times we can look at how Podkletnov's gravity shielding experiment was suppressed or how MIT deliberately fudged their data to make cold fusion look bad so as not to threaten millions of dollars of hot fusion funding.

Neither of these effects have been reproduced, so scientists rightly dismiss them. Doing good experiments is very hard, so it's not surprising that some people come up with strange results which disappear when the experiment is repeated with better controls. Your claim appears to be that all scientists are part of some conspiracy not to investigate certain areas. If you have proof of this I'd love to see it.

I have an acquaintance who developed a fairly conventional but commercially viable hydrogen conversion unit for automobiles. The hydrogen could be obtained from a solar cell setup he was also selling. The end result was that his equipment and manufacturing site was shut down by the government. They said it was 'bad for the economy'.

I assume you have a copy of the letter from the gov't to prove this?

One of my favorite little examples is the status of Weber's force law.

Link?

Perhaps quantum mechanics would have looked very different if not for a few early political decisions. There are many other examples like this in many other areas of science.

If there's a classical theory that can explain quantum effects I'd be very interested in it, but I highly doubt it exists. Perhaps this Weber law can explain some facts which classical physics cannot, but QM is just too strange for any classical theory to explain it.