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.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ImaFungi
What are those tenants? What observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was wrong?
A simple procedure can be used to determine whether or not a hypothesis or conjecture is scientific and falsifiable. What would be an example of something that, if observed, would contradict the hypothesis? If this question cannot be answered, then the conjecture is not scientific. In addition, a good test of a theory is that it is able to make predictions about some future event. For example, Einstein's ideas about relativity predicted specific things that would be observed during a total solar eclipse. When the eclipse came, the predictions were confirmed, something which strongly supported his theory.
rationalwiki.org...
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ImaFungi
Fair enough if you don't know enough about EU (although I'm not quite so sure why you're defending it if that's the case) so perhaps one of the more learned EU proponents can chime in and answer this fundamentally important question instead.
originally posted by: dragonridr
You do realize birkeland currents are caused by the solar wind hitting the magnetosphere neither condition applies to the sun since it is the source of the solar wind come on now think.
Dr. Donald Scott described his investigation of the inherent properties of Birkeland currents and subsequent discovery that they produce unexpectedly far-reaching magnetic fields in cosmic space. These fields collect matter and compress it into concentric hollow cylinders. They also produce a long-range attractive force on other such currents. Without involving mathematics, Scott describes the results of his analysis of the magnetic structures that are produced by, and that surround, Birkeland Currents. This work and its results gives new insight into the understanding of the electrical properties of space.
So quantum field theory works because it's renormalizable. A quantum version of General Relativity isn't renormalizable, or at least nobody has figured out how to do it.
Quantum field theory depends on particle fields embedded in the flat space-time of special relativity. General relativity models gravity as a curvature within space-time that changes as a gravitational mass moves. Historically, the most obvious way of combining the two (such as treating gravity as simply another particle field) ran quickly into what is known as the renormalization problem. In the old-fashioned understanding of renormalization, gravity particles would attract each other and adding together all of the interactions results in many infinite values which cannot easily be cancelled out mathematically to yield sensible, finite results. This is in contrast with quantum electrodynamics where, while the series still do not converge, the interactions sometimes evaluate to infinite results, but those are few enough in number to be removable via renormalization.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
The problem can be summarized in one word: nonrenormalizable.
But if that still leaves you puzzled, here's more detail:
Quantum Gravity
So quantum field theory works because it's renormalizable. A quantum version of General Relativity isn't renormalizable, or at least nobody has figured out how to do it.
Quantum field theory depends on particle fields embedded in the flat space-time of special relativity. General relativity models gravity as a curvature within space-time that changes as a gravitational mass moves. Historically, the most obvious way of combining the two (such as treating gravity as simply another particle field) ran quickly into what is known as the renormalization problem. In the old-fashioned understanding of renormalization, gravity particles would attract each other and adding together all of the interactions results in many infinite values which cannot easily be cancelled out mathematically to yield sensible, finite results. This is in contrast with quantum electrodynamics where, while the series still do not converge, the interactions sometimes evaluate to infinite results, but those are few enough in number to be removable via renormalization.
Absolutely. Unsolved doesn't mean unsolvable. We will probably figure it out, but this aspect of nature has us outsmarted at the moment.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
The most frustrating thing is; There is truth! The universe works! There is a reason it works! It must be knowable! By observation, experiment, and logical deduction/inference, and imagination.
I get bored writing 100 zeroes after a 1 and I can't even comprehend that number (a Googol), so of course 520 zeroes after a 1 is far beyond my comprehension but with that many choices I'd expect one of them will say whatever you want it to say, but whether it's right or not is another issue which we haven't figured out how to test as far as I know.
The vacuum structure of the theory, called the string theory landscape (or the anthropic portion of string theory vacua), is not well understood. String theory contains an infinite number of distinct meta-stable vacua, and perhaps 10^520 of these or more correspond to a universe roughly similar to ours—with four dimensions, a high planck scale, gauge groups, and chiral fermions. Each of these corresponds to a different possible universe, with a different collection of particles and forces. What principle, if any, can be used to select among these vacua is an open issue.
Even if someone comes up with a viable model, testing it could prove challenging.
It is widely believed that any theory of quantum gravity would require extremely high energies to probe directly, higher by orders of magnitude than those that current experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider can attain. This is because strings themselves are expected to be only slightly larger than the Planck length, which is twenty orders of magnitude smaller than the radius of a proton, and high energies are required to probe small length scales. Generally speaking, quantum gravity is difficult to test because gravity is much weaker than the other forces, and because quantum effects are controlled by Planck's constant h, a very small quantity. As a result, the effects of quantum gravity are extremely weak.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I dont know why you love that guy so much, im guessing its his happy go lucky attitude and sense of humor, because in small doses thats about all he has offered the realm of human knowledge.
When I asked about gravity, the nature of space, the incompatibility of standard model and theories of gravity, I was not interested in how many particle accelerators need to be made and at what increasing sizes, I was interested in hearing a theoretical theory, a description, as to what space may be, and how it may relate to mass to create the phenomenon of gravity.
I dont care about probing or testing (as of now, as of the, I want to understand a basic and general analogous essential theory of just the bare minimum description.
You said renormalization cant work because the quantum equations, are equal, and when you put gravity equations into them the equations get messed up with infinities and stuff. Is there any theory on how to fix this outlook? Have tens of thousands of scientists who went to school and dedicated their lives to not even solving, but making some theoretically progress on these problems, just been banging their heads on their desks non stop every day for the past 50 years?
I dont get how guess and check and trial and error cannot make the equations compatible. All the equations of quantum mechanics have values that check out, I assume, that is to say, the equations are equal to themselves, and at least thought to be equal to reality. But if gravity is an aspect of reality, the equations of quantum mechanics cannot be right, if they are not adjusted to contain the reality of gravity. So why cant the equations of gravity, and equations of quantum mechanics, be slightly adjusted at different points, until they are compatible? It sounds like a puzzle, sounds like a puzzle a super computer can solve, by typing out every type of sequence and kind of equation using the variables we know are needed in the final equation, and well I understand you may say the problem is 'we dont know what we are looking for, we dont know, or how can a computer know when it has found the right product, if we or it cant know what its looking for', and would I be wrong in saying that we have some idea what the final product would contain, the relationships between variables at least and some aesthetic structure of equations? I dont know, bleh, this sucks.
What if the probability functions in quantum mechanics were eliminated and given steady exact existents, and replaced with gravity values? I think there may be something to that idea.
Without testing I'd say it can't be a theory, only a hypothesis. On that basis I suppose string theory should be called string hypothesis, I don't know why it's called string theory, seems like a misnomer. Testing, experiment and observation are really relevant to this thread, because EU folks like to point out problems with the standard models and then imply that means EU must be right. That's not the case, and the only way to know which of 1000 alternate models might be right is to test them, so I'm both shocked and appalled at your lack of interest in testing.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
I dont care about probing or testing (as of now, as of the, I want to understand a basic and general analogous essential theory of just the bare minimum description.
I'm not sure what that means.
What if the probability functions in quantum mechanics were eliminated and given steady exact existents, and replaced with gravity values? I think there may be something to that idea.