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.

 

A Scientist Takes On Gravity

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity


Besides, all entropy-maximizing vector fields are Lorentz-invariant when a proper gauge expansion is applied. However, when one takes into account the isospin symmetry, the solution becomes degenerate, leading to divergence of the propagator. Thus, we have a singularity in the equation describing baryon spectra.


O.k. I have to bite on this one…

Firstly, you do not have to attempt to use terms that people who are not versed in vector math will not understand. Please try and relate what you are trying to say in a way that easier to be understood.


...and this comes from a person who quoted:

We show that a class of background independent models of quantum spacetime have local excitations that can be mapped to the first generation fermions of the standard model of particle physics. These states propagate coherently as they can be shown to be noiseless subsystems of the microscopic quantum dynamics. These are identified in terms of certain patterns of braiding of graphs, thus giving a quantum gravitational foundation for the topological preon model proposed. These results apply to a large class of theories in which the Hilbert space has a basis of states given by ribbon graphs embedded in a three-dimensional manifold up to iffeomorphisms


Really? I call hypocrisy on that requirement of your that we need to use "easier to understand language". Iffeomorphism, anyone?

About the paragraph I created:
GOTCHA to both of you, you and beebs. It's a completely meaningless passage. I made it up to illustrate that neither you or beebs are capable of understanding sources you sometimes like to quote.

There is no shortcut to knowledge, and impostors should be ashamed.




posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Beebs and the Synth,

I still want to say that I rather talk about "quantum foam" than about monster trucks or WWE. Kudos to you for being curious minds.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Korg Trinity


Besides, all entropy-maximizing vector fields are Lorentz-invariant when a proper gauge expansion is applied. However, when one takes into account the isospin symmetry, the solution becomes degenerate, leading to divergence of the propagator. Thus, we have a singularity in the equation describing baryon spectra.


O.k. I have to bite on this one…

Firstly, you do not have to attempt to use terms that people who are not versed in vector math will not understand. Please try and relate what you are trying to say in a way that easier to be understood.


About the paragraph I created:
GOTCHA to both of you, you and beebs. It's a completely meaningless passage. I made it up to illustrate that neither you or beebs are capable of understanding sources you sometimes like to quote.



Please re-read my comments about your paragraph...(I've bolded them for you)... I think I made it very clear that you should re-phrase for the very fact that it was not possible to understand...

Though the phrases you used within your so called meaningless passage were direct references to General and Special relativity and the propagation of the forces, and your reference to Lorentz and singularity could be directly related to my earlier equations for demonstrating a chaotic system.

So I say a double bluff is afoot here. You see I do know what i'm on about and I do happen to have a firm understanding of the history of physics... I won't go into it more than that, other than to say that sometimes you have to go through the rough to get to the smooth.


There is no shortcut to knowledge, and impostors should be ashamed.


If you feel I am indeed an imposter, please point to exactly where I claim to be something which you obviously feel I am not.

I might also add that theoretical physics is more often exactly that, a shortcut to knowledge. The math which comes after the thought is a way to confirm or deny the validy of the conjecture.

This is at the very heart of physics and for that matter all sciences, it is the thought the mind the intelligent consiousness that is at the heart of all things that creates the will to reach for self awareness and enlightenment.

Korg.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


With all due respect, Prof., you are a disingenuous ass.

I had considered that you made up that paragraph, because the only other option was that you were truly ignorant of what you were writing because it didn't make a lick of sense.

I did, however, reword my statements to be nice and give you a chance to clarify your own garbage in case my gut feeling was wrong.

My gut feeling was right.
----

More bizarre wording... "Foam"?


Yeah, foam. Wiki: Quantum Foam


As to "potential", the overwhelming usage in physics is different from "possibility" and relates to "potential energy".


You wanna talk semantics? I'll talk semantics...

Did I say potential energy?? NO. I said potential, and meant it.

Potential outcomes.


Without "semantics", in science, all there is left is a pile of garbage such is left here on ATS by throngs of armchair "philosophers" who like to speculate about "quantum foam" and feel important because it sounds damn cool.


Wait... but even with your semantics, all we got was garbage...:

Besides, all entropy-maximizing vector fields are Lorentz-invariant when a proper gauge expansion is applied. However, when one takes into account the isospin symmetry, the solution becomes degenerate, leading to divergence of the propagator. Thus, we have a singularity in the equation describing baryon spectra.


Again... you do not provide ANYTHING substantial. Only a wild goose chase to stroke your know-it-all Ego.

Have some introspect for once in your life. Reflect on what you accomplish in these threads.

Gotcha my ass.

You, sir, are an impostor.

There is a shortcut - its called intuition and a rational, open mind.

If you deceive and limit others, then you will be deceived and limited.

If you help alleviate suffering, your suffering will be alleviated.

Now there I go again, getting agitated by some armchair know-it-all(yes, you are at a computer too)...

...deep breath...

Namaste



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
With all due respect, Prof., you are a disingenuous ass.


I love you too. Carry on. Beautiful semantics as usual. Highlights your considerable talent.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Though the phrases you used within your so called meaningless passage were direct references to General and Special relativity and the propagation of the forces, and your reference to Lorentz and singularity could be directly related to my earlier equations for demonstrating a chaotic system.


That's about as lame an excuse as I've ever seen! When you can interpret a deliberate hodge-podge of physics terms as having applicability to the discussion at hand, that just shows that your critical thinking is somewhere below the boiling temperature of liquid helium, quod erat demonstrandum.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by beebs
With all due respect, Prof., you are a disingenuous ass.


I love you too. Carry on. Beautiful semantics as usual. Highlights your considerable talent.


Love is a mutual thing. You show no love towards anything but your preconceived ideas of reality.

And if you responded the way you do on the internet in a real life discussion, I would say the same thing. It just isn't professional the way you 'discuss'.

You know, I would love to have more conversations with you. The only problem I have is that you don't try.

You don't think it is worth your time to educate us, because you already know we're wrong.

But yet you take the time to categorically discredit anything we post by focusing on the most minute details instead of discussing the larger scope of things.

You never admit when you were perhaps not as knowledgeable in these things as you'd like it to appear to folks.

For instance, have you honestly never heard of the term 'quantum foam'?

I want to know. Its important because you are claiming to have some serious credentials.

I honestly want to know.

Thats just one of the many things you have neglected to address in discussions here on ATS. More often than not, you will cherry pick one tiny aspect of a post(or several posts) and blow it up and exploit it to discredit the author of the post.

When you do that, you not only insult OUR intelligence(purposefully) - but you insult your own intelligence.

I know you are smarter than this.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



That's about as lame an excuse as I've ever seen! When you can interpret a deliberate hodge-podge of physics terms as having applicability to the discussion at hand, that just shows that your critical thinking is somewhere below the boiling temperature of liquid helium, quod erat demonstrandum.


Again with the personal attack... tisk tisk.

And please, when you use that insult, KNOW that you are referring to a phenomenon that you continue to IGNORE for the most part in all of these discussions.

I quote what I said on page 23 in the other thread:


Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



Physics in shambles? How would you know, your knowledge of physics expressed as a number between 0 and 273 is approximately same as absolute temperature of liquid helium


How very fitting that you should use this metaphor as an insult. And yet you shy away from addressing Zero Point Energy. Why is that?

Heike Kamerlingh Onnes

From 1882 to 1923 Kamerlingh Onnes served as professor of experimental physics at the University of Leiden. In 1904 he founded a very large cryogenics laboratory and invited other researchers to the location, which made him highly regarded in the scientific community. In 1908, he was the first physicist to liquify helium, using the Hampson-Linde cycle and cryostats. Using the Joule-Thomson effect, he lowered the temperature to less than one degree above absolute zero, reaching 0.9 K. At the time this was the coldest temperature achieved on earth.


I assume you know that Zero Point energy was thought to exist because of Helium...


The continuation of measurements on paramagnetism at helium temper-
atures, which has been in course of preparation for some time, is also impor-
tant in connection with the theory of zero-point energy. The fact is that at-
tempts have been made to explain deviations from the Curie law without
assuming a negative field. This was on the part of Oosterhuis, in that he
introduces into the Langevin theory of rotational energy, which Langevin
puts as proportional to the temperature, the expression of Einstein and Stern
which contains zero-point energy. If the unchanged theory of Langevin is
right, however, this would be shown very clearly at helium temperatures.
Also the influence of the external field on the susceptibility, which is accord-
ing to the Langevin theory inversely proportional to temperature, would be-
come clearly visible at helium temperatures in attainable fields, whilst at hy-
drogen temperatures it cannot be expected to the same extent until fields are
reached which are ten times greater and thus far exceeding what it is possible
to expect.

Onnes Nobel Prize


And you have nothing to say about Tesla, or aether physics and the easily seen connections the aether model has with the WPD and wave functions?

Nothing on color electric fields?

[edit on 2-7-2010 by beebs]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by beebs]


And I don't believe you ever acknowledged this post, among many in that thread.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
But yet you take the time to categorically discredit anything we post by focusing on the most minute details instead of discussing the larger scope of things.


This is a huge, huge stretch, to call systematic failure of critical thinking a "minute detail". Haramein and his minions can post utter and absolute bull yet you are happily swallowing this crap line, hook and sinker.


You never admit when you were perhaps not as knowledgeable in these things as you'd like it to appear to folks.


I'm more knowledgeable than 95% of posters here and when I meet a member of the other 5% I tip my hat to them and read their posts carefully. I never made a secret of the fact that my background is in experimental physics hence I never did theory professionally. However, I've had enough of it to tell interesting stuff from speculative masturbation w/o comprehension of basics, to which some members of ATS are prone (as they are to using definitive arguments like "ass" in their exposition of theory).


For instance, have you honestly never heard of the term 'quantum
foam'?


I did, but that doesn't mean such complicated concepts need to be used by ignorami to add shiny sprinkles to a cake made of turd.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Naw man, I'm done.

Lurking on this thread from now on.

Maybe be back if Korg has more to say.

This has gone too far, sorry to OP.

Agree to disagree.

See you next time.

PEACE.




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That's about as lame an excuse as I've ever seen! When you can interpret a deliberate hodge-podge of physics terms as having applicability to the discussion at hand, that just shows that your critical thinking is somewhere below the boiling temperature of liquid helium, quod erat demonstrandum.


You say a Hodge Podge of physics terms?? Actually you stated several terms that are in direct reference to information I presented within this thread. I was presented with two choices, either say you talk bull sir, or ask politely to rephrase so I could gain a better grasp of what you were trying to say. I chose the latter, because although you have done your best to anger me, all you have achieved is to anger yourself.

I might also add that so far you have not added a single logical argument against anything that has been presented here.

If you don't agree with the equations of Schrödinger, or what Einstein was working on just prior to passing, or Lee Smolin or Michio Kaku or any other eminent researchers within the field of Quantum physics, please state your actual arguments against.

Just stating I don't believe you are right just because is just not good enough. You loose the debate because everything you say is just empty, devoid of content.

My assessment of your behaviour within this thread is that you feel you are somehow better than those that present real information, and feel the need to put down anyone who has a shred of intelligence.

I might ask you to refer to the definition of superiority complex I posted earlier...

Do you think I made up LQG? or maybe you think I have no understanding of LQG or how it came to be... Or for that matter any aspect of Quantum Mechanics...

Please test me... I dare you.

I thought I might also add this partial list of physicists that have been involved in the research into Loop Quantum Gravity... I take it that you question the validity of these Scientists credentials and believe they must have a severe lack of basic physics understanding???


This is a partial list of researchers in the physics field of loop quantum gravity.

* Emanuele Alesci, University of Erlangen, Germany
* Mohammad Ansari, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
* Abhay Ashtekar, Pennsylvania State University, USA
* John Baez, University of California, Riverside, USA`
* Fernando Barbero, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
* Benjamin Bahr, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein Institute), Germany
* Aristide Baratin, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein-Institute), Germany
* Aurelien Barreau, University of Grenoble, France
* John W. Barrett, University of Nottingham, UK
* Eugenio Bianchi, Centre de Physique Theorique, Marseille, France
* Sundance Bilson-Thompson, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
* Valentin Bonzom, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
* Martin Bojowald, Pennsylvania State University, USA * Luca Bombelli, University of Mississippi, USA
* Johannes Brunnemann, University of Hamburg, Germany
* Steve Carlip, University of California, Davis, USA
* Dan Christensen, University of Western Ontario and Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
* Alejandro Corichi, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico
* Daniele Colosi, Instituto de Matemáticas - UNAM, Mexico
* Louis Crane, Kansas State University, USA
* Andrew DeBenedictis, Pacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Canada
* You Ding, Centre de Physique Théorique, Luminy, Marseille, France * Olaf Dreyer, MIT, USA
* Bianca Dittrich, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein-Institute), Germany
* Jonathan Engle, Florida Atlantic University, USA
* Winston Fairbairn, University of Nottingham, UK * Christian Fleischhack, University of Paderborn, Germany
* Laurent Freidel, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada * Rodolfo Gambini, Montevideo University, Uruguay
* Florian Girelli, European Science Foundation, France * Kristina Giesel, Louisiana State University, USA
* Muxin Han, [Centre de Physique Théorique]], Luminy, Marseille, France * Adam Henderson, Pennsylvania State University, USA
* Matthew Hogan, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, USA
* Viqar Husain, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
* Giorgio Immirzi, Universita' di Perugia & INFN Perugia, Italy
* Christopher Isham, Imperial College London, UK
* Jerzy Jurkiewicz, Jagiellonian University, Poland
* Gaurav Khanna, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, USA
* Kirill Krasnov, University of Nottingham, UK
* Jerzy Lewandowski, Warsaw University, Poland
* Etera Livine, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France
* Renate Loll, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
* Elena Magliaro, Pennsylvania State University, USA
* Gerald Mahan, Pennsylvania State University, USA
* Seth Major, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY, USA
* Antonino Marcianò, Haverford College, Philadelphia, USA
* Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
* Donald Marolf, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
* Guillermo Mena Marugán, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
* Aleksandar Mikovic, Lusofona University and GFMUL, Portugal
* Leonardo Modesto, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
* Merced Montesinos, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico
* Hugo Morales-Tecotl, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana Iztapalapa, Mexico
* Karim Noui, Universite Francois-Rabelais-Tours, France
* Robert Oeckl, Instituto de Matemáticas, UNAM, Mexico
* Daniele Oriti, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein-Institute), Germany
* Alejandro Perez, Centre de Physique Theorique, Marseille, USA
* Claudio Perini, Pennsylvania State University, USA
* Tomasz Pawlowski, Pennsylvania State University, USA
* Jorge Pullin, Louisiana State University, USA
* Martin Reuter, University of Mainz, Germany
* Andrew Randono, Pennsylvania State University, USA
* Michael Reisenberger, Montevideo University, Uruguay
* Carlo Rovelli, Centre de Physique Theorique, Marseille, France
* Hanno Sahlmann, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University, Netherlands
* Parampreet Singh, Louisiana State University, USA
* David Sloan, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
* Matteo Smerlak, Centre de Physique Théorique, Luminy, Marseille, France
* Lee Smolin, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
* Simone Speziale, Centre de Physique Théorique, Luminy, Marseille, France
* Daniel Sudarsky, Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, UNAM, Mexico
* Victor Taveras, Louisiana State University, USA
* Thomas Thiemann, University of Erlangen, Germany
* Francesca Vidotto, Centre de Physique Théorique, Luminy, Marseille, France
* Yidun Wan, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
* Ruth Williams, Cambridge, UK
* Edward Wilson-Ewing, Pennsylvania State University, USA
* Oliver Winkler, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein-Institute), Germany
* José A. Zapata, Instituto de Matemáticas, UNAM, Mexico


source: - List_of_loop_quantum_gravity_researchers

I am waiting a serious response from you buddhasystems, if you can muster it.

Korg.


[edit on 21-7-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Byrd
The main problem I see with this is that they're still hammering on String Theory -- which, in spite of numerous experiments has not ever produced a result saying that "yes this is correct" and the predictions made by it have not (to date) turned out to be right, either.
I know it will sound a little superficial but... There is a possibility that certain phenomena could be found in LHC experiment. I agree we don't know that, but if we did, what would be the point of experimentation?
The point of experimentation would be to prove a hypothesis or theory true or false. Your point is well taken that we can't possibly know the outcome of the experiment in advance if it's a new experiment. However in order for string theory to enter the realm of science, it seems that at some point it must make some predictions that can be tested in some experiment, and I was hoping such would be the case with the LHC but I'm not aware of any such experiments.

I think my view on string theory is very similar to that of Byrd. So far it hasn't proven to be a very useful science if it can't make any testable predictions. In fact maybe it should be a branch of mathematics and not physics:

“So what will you do if string theory is wrong?”


In a new preprint of an article entitled “So what will you do if string theory is wrong?”, to appear in the American Journal of Physics, string theorist Moataz Emam gives a striking answer to the question of the title...

This kind of argument may convince physics departments that string theorists don’t belong there, while at the same time not convincing university administrations to start a separate string theory department. Already this spring the news from the Theoretical Particle Physics Rumor Mill is pretty grim for string theorists, with virtually all tenure-track positions going to phenomenologists.

I have some sympathy for the argument that there are mathematically interesting aspects of string theory (these don’t include the string theory landscape), but the way for people to pursue such topics is to get some serious mathematical training and go to work in a math department.

The argument Emam is making reflects in somewhat extreme form a prevalent opinion among string theorists, that the failure of hopes for the theory, even if real, is not something that requires them to change what they are doing. This attitude is all too likely to lead to disaster.

Update: Over at Dmitry Podolsky’s blog, in the context of a discussion of how Lubos’s blog makes much more sense than this one, Jacques Distler explains what it’s like for string theorists these days trying to recruit students:


Unfortunately, I’ve seen a number of prospective graduate students, who spent their undergraduate days as avid readers of Woit’s blog, and whose perspective on high energy physics is now so hopelessly divorced from reality that the best one can do is smile and nod one’s head pleasantly and say, “I hear the condensed matter group has openings.”


I'm not sure how bright the future of string theory is if graduate students are now shying away from it. But at least I'm not the only one questioning how divorced from reality the theory might be, or even if it's exactly right but it can't make any useful or testable predictions, it really doesn't seem to qualify as science, but as something else, like maybe math.

I'm sure that certain things will be observed in LHC experiments, and probably some of the experimental observations will be unexpected. But it's getting harder and harder to pin any hopes that such results will reinforce the validity if string theory if string theory can't make some testable predictions. But if your point is there may still be some hope for string theory, I suppose so, but the more time passes with no apparent connection of the theory to reality in any testable or predictable fashion, the more those hopes fade.


Originally posted by beebs
Do you have your own opinions or insights into the paper?

Please refrain from commenting on the man himself, and focus on his paper.
Please reread my post, the article linked to the OP says the author of the paper describes his own paper as somewhat vague. So while that comment is from the author, the comment is about his paper, as you suggested. And who would know the paper better than the author? Certainly not you (or me).



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
One of my favorite theories on gravity is that it is a combination of effects; the material the planet or celestial body is made up of combined with magnetism (also having to do with what the planet or celestial body is made of) and centrifugal force (not just the centrifugal force of the object spinning itself but the other objects that spin with it as well as what it spins around).

The centrifugal force aspect takes in to count such things that the sun itself is spinning and moving, Each planet is caught in the sun’s centrifugal force and is also spinning causing it’s own centrifugal force, which effects the other planets and meteors and such. Each planet that has a moon is caught in it’s place by the centrifugal force of it’s planet, and some have their own spin, even our moon although to us it looks static is rotating. The Material the planet made of also aids in how strong the centrifugal force is which also can cause some of its material to have magnetic properties as well. With all of these things in motion, gravity is created.

The above is not my theory, and unfortunately I don’t remember the source and because of this it is not a direct quote so I may be misrepresenting some of it, but I think you can ascertain the idea.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Byrd
The main problem I see with this is that they're still hammering on String Theory -- which, in spite of numerous experiments has not ever produced a result saying that "yes this is correct" and the predictions made by it have not (to date) turned out to be right, either.
I know it will sound a little superficial but... There is a possibility that certain phenomena could be found in LHC experiment. I agree we don't know that, but if we did, what would be the point of experimentation?
The point of experimentation would be to prove a hypothesis or theory true or false. Your point is well taken that we can't possibly know the outcome of the experiment in advance if it's a new experiment. However in order for string theory to enter the realm of science, it seems that at some point it must make some predictions that can be tested in some experiment, and I was hoping such would be the case with the LHC but I'm not aware of any such experiments.


Let me just state that I don't care much for string theory on any kind of ideological grounds, and frankly I don't know much of it to pass a judgment of any sort. It is remarkable, however, that many string theories do give rise to supersymmetric phenomena. And when and if supersymmetry is found, then I guess various signatures in the experimental data will allow us to conclude whether it's compatible with what you expect from strings or not.

You don't hear words "string theory" very often, at CERN these days. So fair is fair.


I think my view on string theory is very similar to that of Byrd. So far it hasn't proven to be a very useful science if it can't make any testable predictions. In fact maybe it should be a branch of mathematics and not physics


Not unlikely.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I think my view on string theory is very similar to that of Byrd. So far it hasn't proven to be a very useful science if it can't make any testable predictions. In fact maybe it should be a branch of mathematics and not physics:


String theory itself has had to evolve to solve its own mathematical issues.

String theory was a half description, it states that the fundamental particles are not point particles but are in fact strings of vibrational energy...

Now it did not describe how these strings came into existence or how these loops form the world as we observe. This is why in reality String Theory was not a complete theory more a slice or level of reality. A bit like a 2D person trying to describe a 3d world.

Loop Quantum Gravity Explains why these strings exist, where they come from, and ultimately how they form the reality we observe.

This is why LQG is so important. It takes the calculations that work at the level of String Theory and place them in a grander unifying theory. A theory that describes how we get from nothing to this reality we experience and observe.

To give an analogy, String Theory is like looking at a component of your computer, understanding what it does and how it works but not understanding how it relates to computation.... LQG is like the whole computer, being able to understand how the components fit together and give rise to computation.

There is no question in my mind at all that we do have a grand unifying theory in LQG... But far from giving us the answer to existence it does and will lead to further questions.

I can see the end of Physics study as we know it, within 25 year. A new field of study will emerge that will be more about understanding the implications of the discovery than experimental science... Something more akin to philosophy.

Do you follow?

Korg.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You don't hear words "string theory" very often, at CERN these days. So fair is fair.
Well that might help explain why I'm having difficulty finding any information about LHC experiments that will either prove or disprove string theory.

Whatever happens at the LHC, at least it will be happening in the real world and we'll have real observations.

To me 10 weeks of this kind of science is more valuable than 10 years of a science with no apparent connection to reality via observable experiments.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
To give an analogy, String Theory is like looking at a component of your computer, understanding what it does and how it works but not understanding how it relates to computation.... LQG is like the whole computer, being able to understand how the components fit together and give rise to computation.
I'm not completely convinced that string theory is an essential component of quantum gravity theory:

Why is string theory on the verge of collapse?


To me string theory is important, because even if it eventually turns out to be wrong for our universe, it has given pointers to what the correct theory of quantum gravity is - Strominger and Vafa's derivation of black hole entropy from microscopic degrees of freedom, and Maldacena's AdS/CFT is the best understood version of holography at the moment - both came from string theory, but perhaps neither needs it in general, and this will perhaps lead us toward an understandimng of general properties of quantum gravity, stringy and not.

"One of the deepest discoveries in modern theoretical physics is that of holographic dualities, which relate a quantum theory of gravity to a quantum field theory without gravity in fewer dimensions. These dualities become especially powerful when combined with string theory [1]. It is an occasional misconception, however, that the existence of holographic dualities is contingent on the validity of string theory. This is not the case."
arxiv.org...


So while we may see some string theory discussed in relation to quantum gravity theory, it seems to me like it's not an essential component and quantum gravity theory could be right even if string theory is wrong. But I admit this is not my area of expertise. Much of what I've learned about LQG I've learned here:

Introduction To Loop Quantum Gravity


Now how is space constructed in LQG ? Well, the above mentioned minimal space-regions are denoted by spheres called the nodes. Nodes are connected to each other by lines called the links.
Well, at least the lines connecting the nodes are called the links instead of strings! Is this to avoid confusion with string theory?

The reason I like that source is the author is trying to dumb it down for people like me who aren't an expert in the topic, but unfortunately sometimes in the process of dumbing it down, some accuracy may be lost versus reading the source papers, but at this point that is a risk I'm taking since I don't have time to read all the source papers.

These loop gravity papers are coming out so fast I think even the professionals may be having a hard time keeping up with them. In this thread, #928 was on July 21 2009 and now it's up to 1226, so that's almost 300 papers or almost 1 a day:

Intuitive content of Loop Gravity



[edit on 21-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Whatever happens at the LHC, at least it will be happening in the real world and we'll have real observations.

To me 10 weeks of this kind of science is more valuable than 10 years of a science with no apparent connection to reality via observable experiments.


Here is an interesting thought for you.

The premise of Loop Quantum Gravity is that all matter is made of twisted space-time. there are lots of different Braids of space-time to describe the various particles we observe in particle physics.

Now in a nutshell Gravity is formed by the total surface area that has taken to create the braiding of space time.

So a simple braid has less gravity than a complex larger braid...

This is the very basis of Quantum Gravity...

Now....

Why do you suppose the LHC scientists are not likely to allow many String theory related and LQG experiments??

The reason is that should LQG prove to be correct then the LHC and for that matter the whole pursuit of Particle Physics will be redundant.

You see Particle Physics and equipment like the LHC or for that matter any particle accelerator is attempting to probe matter to find the fundamental particle. But if LQG is correct there is no fundamental particle.

It would also mean that the pursuit of the Higgs is folly…

Actually the results of any particle collision validate LQG, when the collision occurs what you see is very fleeting exotic configurations of matter. This matter is so unstable that it decays nanoseconds.

Now, this is exactly what LQG predicts, when you consider that the particles are in fact just twisted braids of space-time. When the collision occurs what you are doing is unravelling the braid and creating other braids.

Though these braids will not be stable and will collapse back into space-time. This explains why

1. The total mass of the two particles is maintained throughout the experiment as mass = space-time surface area… regardless of how many configurations of braids are made in the collision

2. High energy is detected; this is caused by the conversation of the braid back into chaotic space-time, which is why energy and matter are interchangeable.

So Particle physics will when LQG is accepted across the community as the TOE, become the science of ultimate 3D printing… To create matter at will… to write into existence configurations of matter directly from the ether.
This will lead to true replicators and transporters for those of you who like Star-trek.

The Energies involved in being able to do this however are quite high and although many may think we are many many many years away from being able to harness such power… LQG also paves the way for true Zero Point energy. To obtain Energy directly from the ether…

Sounds a bit way out there but to quote Cern…


“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

These were the words of the famous physicist Albert Einstein, who went on to say that "Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

If you venture into the subatomic world in an attempt to unveil its inner workings, possession of all the knowledge in the world is not enough.

Instead, invite your imagination to serve as a guide, because many rules as we know them no longer apply. Just like the story of Alice In Wonderland, this new world may look familiar but it is not fully comprehensible. Scales shift and matter transforms. Transitory twins appear and extra dimensions hide.

Nature has the ability to throw us the biggest surprises, so expect dramatic twists and unexpected turns; many before you have dreamed up mind–blowing theories and crazy concepts. Some of these have prevailed against the tests of time and armies of knowledgeable critics – thus far.
Someone, sometime, somewhere, may succeed in completing these unfinished mysteries, or even rewrite the chapters entirely.

The book is by no means finished.


Hope this is as exciting for you as it is for me.

Korg.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Why do you suppose the LHC scientists are not likely to allow many String theory related and LQG experiments??


...because a question formulated like this doesn't make sense. It's like asking "why don't they sell caviar at Walmart?" or "why don't they serve Spam at Petrossyan's?".

There are theories that are both hard to use for definitive quantitative predictions. What the LHC is looking for is the discovery of new objects in a pretty wide spectrum of masses. By studying these new particles in detail, we'll provide grounds for theorists, to come up with hopefully an explanation and verifiable predictions, so that we can end up with a consistent theory.


You see Particle Physics and equipment like the LHC or for that matter any particle accelerator is attempting to probe matter to find the fundamental particle.


Once again, you post nonsense. The LHC does not attempt to discover "the fundamental particle". That's probably the level of discourse they use in third grade, perhaps.


Actually the results of any particle collision validate LQG, when the collision occurs what you see is very fleeting exotic configurations of matter. This matter is so unstable that it decays nanoseconds.


In particle physics, if a particle lives in the range of nanoseconds, that's considered fairly stable and such a particle can be traced in most detectors. On the other hand, there are "resonances" with lifetimes many orders of magnitude less than that -- because the mechanisms of their decay is different.

I could have said that "Actually the results of any particle collision validate miniature spaghetti monsters". Same degree of logic. Note that I'm not bashing LQG here but your inane style.


Now, this is exactly what LQG predicts, when you consider that the particles are in fact just twisted braids of space-time. When the collision occurs what you are doing is unravelling the braid and creating other braids.


Zero substance in this paragraph as well. As I said, lifetimes of particles differ by 14 orders of magnitude (or more), so a generic statement "it's short" doesn't tell you jack.


Nature has the ability to throw us the biggest surprises, so expect dramatic twists and unexpected turns; many before you have dreamed up mind–blowing theories and crazy concepts. Some of these have prevailed against the tests of time and armies of knowledgeable critics – thus far.
Someone, sometime, somewhere, may succeed in completing these unfinished mysteries, or even rewrite the chapters entirely.

The book is by no means finished.


Yes, generic feel-good grand pronouncements are a dime a dozen. Mind-blowing. What insight!



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
You see Particle Physics and equipment like the LHC or for that matter any particle accelerator is attempting to probe matter to find the fundamental particle.


That sounds like something Nassim Haramein said, but I've read about the six LHC experiments and they have a variety pf purposes so I'm not sure how that misconception that's all the LHC is trying to do came about.

The LHC experiments


The two large experiments, ATLAS and CMS, are based on general-purpose detectors to analyse the myriad of particles produced by the collisions in the accelerator. They are designed to investigate the largest range of physics possible. Having two independently designed detectors is vital for cross-confirmation of any new discoveries made.

Two medium-size experiments, ALICE and LHCb, have specialised detectors for analysing the LHC collisions in relation to specific phenomena.

Two experiments, TOTEM and LHCf, are much smaller in size. They are designed to focus on ‘forward particles’ (protons or heavy ions). These are particles that just brush past each other as the beams collide, rather than meeting head-on



But if LQG is correct there is no fundamental particle. It would also mean that the pursuit of the Higgs is folly…
Well, you said "if LQG is correct", and that means we aren't sure, so of course the pursuit of the Higgs isn't folly. A negative result is a negative result, and evidence of absence may be evidence of absence, at least at the energies tested and with the type of detectors used. I don't consider a pursuing an experiment which gets a negative result to be folly, because after the experiment you still know something you didn't know before the experiment: That the experiment as designed did not produce a "positive" result. This is still adding to our knowledge and is not folly.


Sounds a bit way out there but to quote Cern…


“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

These were the words of the famous physicist Albert Einstein, who went on to say that "Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
While I won't disagree about imagination being important, Einstein demonstrated through his actions that he knew imagination wasn't enough, and tried desperately to provide proof of his general theory of relativity paper before it got published, resulting in his friend getting arrested in Russia as a result.

And in contrast, I see no lack of imagination amongst string theorists. What I do see is a lack of experiments and observations to link the imagination part to the real world. So while imagination is great, people quoting Einstein should also follow his example and provide some linkage back to the real world just as he did with his request for eclipse observations. repeatable experiments and observations are the foundation of science, and without those, we have no way of knowing whether someone's imaginative idea is an insightful genius's view into reality, or a complete fantasy disconnected from reality. At the end of the day we need to know which it is, and there are so many conflicting imaginative ideas out there, they can't all be right.

If course it's exciting to peel back truth's protective layers.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join