Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: the String Theory
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

the String Theory

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Poll Question: What do you think of the theory.
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
10 [66.67%]
1 [6.67%]
1 [6.67%]
1 [6.67%]
2 [13.33%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3397
Post Options Post Options   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: the String Theory
    Posted: August 04 2013 at 10:35
Originally posted by aginor

are you saying there is 5 rather then 4 forces of nature, gravity force, electro-magnetic force, strong and weak nuclear force and dark energy force,

is dark energy force explaining the very big like general relativity or is it describing the small quantum mechanics.
I'm not sure that Dark Energy has been formally considered as a "force" (I don't think so), although I would say that it could well be a candidate, it can exert work (sending two clumps of matter away from each other overcoming the gravitational attraction between them).
But it does not "explain" anything, it just says that the expansion of spacetime is accelerating.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15412
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 21:02
Originally posted by HackettFan

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521


Originally posted by HackettFan

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

Gravity is by far the weakest force. It's ability to span distance has nothing to do with its inherent strength. 


What is your definition of inherent strength? The nuclear strong and weak forces have no effect whatsoever between planetary bodies. That is very weak. At quantum sizes/distances gravity is very weak. Again, the standard the forces are measured against have not been independent of physicists' more favored paradigm. This tends to be dominated quantum mechanics for many if not most modern physicists.
Coupling Constant

Yes, and the coupling constant comes right out of quantum mechanics. The lack of distance spanned in the coupling constant calculation is simply an arbitrary artifact of the measurement used. Since we're comparing two different paradigms, a theory internal artifact is only helpful in conveying that one theory has greater internal beauty than the other. Since the disparity in strength of the forces doesn't actually bring an answer to any particular problem that I'm aware of I am not swayed by the internal beauty argument. Which is stronger electromagnetism or gravity? Gravity or dark energy? This is missing the point, I think. A theory independent observation is that the forces have different scope relations. One is responsible for tidal effects and the others don't because the scope of gravity is broader than the other three, but less than that of dark energy. Explain the make up of these different scope relations among the forces and you have a theory of everything.


So you're arguing that we can't compare them. Fine. If we're going to compare them, then this is the only sensible way to do it. And under this framework we must conclude that gravity is the weakest.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
The Bearded Bard View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Errors & Omissions Team

Joined: January 24 2012
Location: Oslo, Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9207
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Bearded Bard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 14:08
No! How many times must I say this? He's not prog!



























Oh, sorry! Thought it said Sting Theory. Carry on!

Edited by The Bearded Bard - August 03 2013 at 14:09
Back to Top
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23204
Post Options Post Options   Quote Icarium Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 11:15
are you saying there is 5 rather then 4 forces of nature, gravity force, electro-magnetic force, strong and weak nuclear force and dark energy force,

is dark energy force explaining the very big like general relativity or is it describing the small quantum mechanics.

also Hackett, would you join me at the Quantum Club and Cafe Wink  Cool and play some quantum pool or card game.
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1198
Post Options Post Options   Quote HackettFan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 11:06
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521


Originally posted by HackettFan

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

Gravity is by far the weakest force. It's ability to span distance has nothing to do with its inherent strength.


What is your definition of inherent strength? The nuclear strong and weak forces have no effect whatsoever between planetary bodies. That is very weak. At quantum sizes/distances gravity is very weak. Again, the standard the forces are measured against have not been independent of physicists' more favored paradigm. This tends to be dominated quantum mechanics for many if not most modern physicists.
Coupling Constant

Yes, and the coupling constant comes right out of quantum mechanics. The lack of distance spanned in the coupling constant calculation is simply an arbitrary artifact of the measurement used. Since we're comparing two different paradigms, a theory internal artifact is only helpful in conveying that one theory has greater internal beauty than the other. Since the disparity in strength of the forces doesn't actually bring an answer to any particular problem that I'm aware of I am not swayed by the internal beauty argument. Which is stronger electromagnetism or gravity? Gravity or dark energy? This is missing the point, I think. A theory independent observation is that the forces have different scope relations. One is responsible for tidal effects and the others don't because the scope of gravity is broader than the other three, but less than that of dark energy. Explain the make up of these different scope relations among the forces and you have a theory of everything.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15412
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 09:35
Originally posted by HackettFan

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

Gravity is by far the weakest force. It's ability to span distance has nothing to do with its inherent strength. 


What is your definition of inherent strength? The nuclear strong and weak forces have no effect whatsoever between planetary bodies. That is very weak. At quantum sizes/distances gravity is very weak. Again, the standard the forces are measured against have not been independent of physicists' more favored paradigm. This tends to be dominated quantum mechanics for many if not most modern physicists.


Coupling Constant

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32907
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 03:17
Gravity is called weak because it is weak in relation to the other forces (electromagnetism, strong & weak neuclear). If we were just talking about its affect on mass then the others are extremely weak by comparison (ie they have no effect). In absolute terms it is strong enough to main planets as spheroids and keep them in stable orbits around a star, it acts over sufficiently large distances to pull the galaxies in our local neighbourhood towards the "Great Attractor". It is not a weakling.

Edited by Dean - August 03 2013 at 04:23


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1198
Post Options Post Options   Quote HackettFan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 19:52
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

Gravity is by far the weakest force. It's ability to span distance has nothing to do with its inherent strength.


What is your definition of inherent strength? The nuclear strong and weak forces have no effect whatsoever between planetary bodies. That is very weak. At quantum sizes/distances gravity is very weak. Again, the standard the forces are measured against have not been independent of physicists' more favored paradigm. This tends to be dominated quantum mechanics for many if not most modern physicists.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15412
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 10:03
Gravity is by far the weakest force. It's ability to span distance has nothing to do with its inherent strength. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3397
Post Options Post Options   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 04:05
Originally posted by HackettFan

Originally posted by Gerinski

Gravity is an extremely weak force and it works noticeably only because of its cummulative property. You routinely overcome the gravitational pull of the whole planet Earth every time you lift a coin from the floor. A simple fridge magnet overcomes easily the gravitational pull of the whole planet.
With objects smaller than a small planet or moon, gravity is rather negligible.
 
No, gravity is an extremely strong force dispersed over great distance. It is weak up close but extends much further. If you drop a coin it falls back to the earth a distance so many orders of magnitude greater than what the strong and weak force have any influence over that scientific notation would be needed. If you pick it up you only separate it permanently from the earth only at a distance equal to your reach and by continuously holding it and being immortal like Atlas. And really the coin is still on the earth's surface because we basically still part and parcel of the earth's mass, so it hasn't really been separated from the earth. If you can routinely throw a coin into escape velocity from the surface of the earth that would be a better comparison. Of course, there's no one who can separate a coin from the earth in that more real sense. At large distances we see gravity acquitting itself quite against the strong force throughout the life of a star, and in fact causes the fusion chain reaction to occur in the first place. The idea that gravity is weak is simply a bias many physicist carry with them because they are pre-occupied by a perspective that focuses only on the quantum level as significant. Even if one can't separate themselves from this perspective, consider black holes. Black holes are so "impossibly" small as to have no size (they're a singularity), yet no force can even compete with gravity in that case all the way out to the event horizon.
I won't argue about the strength of gravity, it is indeed a "different" sort of strength, weak in unit power but very long-range reaching and cummulative, so large amounts of mass can exert a very strong total force.
Black holes do have size, that determined by the event horizon. We are not sure what goes on inside the event horizon and we are not sure at all if there is a singularity at the center, GR says that there should be one but this is precisely why most physicists believe that GR is wrong, because they assume that singularities are not physical.
The matter which has fallen into a black hole is definitely still in our universe, we know because we still feel its gravity.
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1198
Post Options Post Options   Quote HackettFan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 20:45
Originally posted by Gerinski

Gravity is an extremely weak force and it works noticeably only because of its cummulative property. You routinely overcome the gravitational pull of the whole planet Earth every time you lift a coin from the floor. A simple fridge magnet overcomes easily the gravitational pull of the whole planet.
With objects smaller than a small planet or moon, gravity is rather negligible.

No, gravity is an extremely strong force dispersed over great distance. It is weak up close but extends much further. If you drop a coin it falls back to the earth a distance so many orders of magnitude greater than what the strong and weak force have any influence over that scientific notation would be needed. If you pick it up you only separate it permanently from the earth only at a distance equal to your reach and by continuously holding it and being immortal like Atlas. And really the coin is still on the earth's surface because we basically still part and parcel of the earth's mass, so it hasn't really been separated from the earth. If you can routinely throw a coin into escape velocity from the surface of the earth that would be a better comparison. Of course, there's no one who can separate a coin from the earth in that more real sense. At large distances we see gravity acquitting itself quite against the strong force throughout the life of a star, and in fact causes the fusion chain reaction to occur in the first place. The idea that gravity is weak is simply a bias many physicist carry with them because they are pre-occupied by a perspective that focuses only on the quantum level as significant. Even if one can't separate themselves from this perspective, consider black holes. Black holes are so "impossibly" small as to have no size (they're a singularity), yet no force can even compete with gravity in that case all the way out to the event horizon.
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3397
Post Options Post Options   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 08:45
I honestly doubt that in normal conditions gravity has any influence on how hard can you hit something. But I admit I'm not a physicist.
Back to Top
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23204
Post Options Post Options   Quote Icarium Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 07:53
I am a martial artist so i am very interested in all aspects of martial arts, and force behind what you do, sorry for not interest you with the science of martial arts which is a very precise yet, the results form measuring the science behind kicks and punches, is able to shock physicist who is measuring the scores, so much they have hard time believe what they are seeing on the data screen and monitors.

Kinetic energy is gravitational force, and it decides the power of the strikes, your base weight, your acceleration, your speed and strike force is all defined by the laws of gravity, etiolation of gravity. there is over 1000 tests and data and feats which confirms that,    
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3397
Post Options Post Options   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 07:05
Originally posted by aginor

Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by aginor

what about these issues

[QUOTE=aginor] 
I know that a punch (boxing punch) straight can mac be 150 to 400 kgs or more) a boxing punch down can be between 700 to 1200 kgs, because of the pull of gravity, its easier to hit hard with the help of gravitational pull then, punching straight out in the air with gravitation breaking you kinetic force 
Where did you read that? I believe that's a misunderstanding. The strength of your hit is the same, but of course the gravitational pull on the punching bag itself makes a difference, if you try to lift it up punching from below, it will be harder than if you try to push it down punching from above.
an episode of fight science about MMA, referring to the force of a punch straight forward and a punch that goes downwards, horizontal punch vs downward punch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMphoz0hNeE 
Sorry but that doesn't interest me in the least and I'm not going to spend 45 min watching this. If you point me to some precise minute of the doc where they say that I may have a look at it.
Gravity is an extremely weak force and it works noticeably only because of its cummulative property. You routinely overcome the gravitational pull of the whole planet Earth every time you lift a coin from the floor. A simple fridge magnet overcomes easily the gravitational pull of the whole planet.
With objects smaller than a small planet or moon, gravity is rather negligible.
Back to Top
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23204
Post Options Post Options   Quote Icarium Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 06:46
Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by aginor

what about these issues

[QUOTE=aginor] 
I know that a punch (boxing punch) straight can mac be 150 to 400 kgs or more) a boxing punch down can be between 700 to 1200 kgs, because of the pull of gravity, its easier to hit hard with the help of gravitational pull then, punching straight out in the air with gravitation breaking you kinetic force 
Where did you read that? I believe that's a misunderstanding. The strength of your hit is the same, but of course the gravitational pull on the punching bag itself makes a difference, if you try to lift it up punching from below, it will be harder than if you try to push it down punching from above.
an episode of fight science about MMA, referring to the force of a punch straight forward and a punch that goes downwards, horizontal punch vs downward punch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMphoz0hNeE 
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3397
Post Options Post Options   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 05:47
Originally posted by HackettFan

I, for one, question the the very premise of quantum mechanics though that particles are sometimes particles and sometimes waves (ironically Einstein's own major contribution to quantum mechanics). Particles sometimes have wavelike properties, not because they are waves or wavy strings or whatever, but because they flow through wavy space-time. It's like a ball floating on water. It's motion proceeds in a way that can be graphed or transposed into a wave but it's still a ball. The wave motion is a function of waves occurring in the water not an integral property of the ball. Again, I'm not a physicist, but this makes something rational out of a long standing paradox, which I find incredulous.
Possibly the problem comes from trying to describe things in our human everyday language. "Particles" are neither particles nor waves, they are "whatever" and these "whatever" entities depending on the circumstances can display wave-like properties or particle-like properties. They are neither of both, wave or particle are just familiar terms which we can associate with the behaviour we observe from those entities.
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3397
Post Options Post Options   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 05:04
Originally posted by aginor

what about these issues

a) gravitons
A prediction of sting theory and other attempts at TOE's (Theory Of Everything). Extremely difficult to detect experimentally due to their very weak interaction, but I guess that if the theory proved to be consistent and complete, most physicists would be happy to accept them even without direct experimental detection.
If all the other forces can be described as being mediated by force-carrier particles, it's very tempting to expect that gravity should as well have its force carrier particle.

Originally posted by aginor

 
b) 9 dimensions or 11
The lastest versions of string theory (M-theory) have 11. 9 was the prediction of earlier versions of string theory.

Originally posted by aginor

 
c) multiverse,
there are two different uses of this term. One is in the context of Many Worlds Interpretation (of quantum mechanics) which represent alternate universes, different versions of our universe in which events happen differently.
The other use is in the context of Eternal Inflation, which states that new universes are continuously born, different from each other, usually referred to as "bubble" universes or "child" universes.

Originally posted by aginor

 
how can you test gravitation in a lab, 
What do you mean? gravitation is experimentally proven, in lab and out the lab. The Solar system is a big lab.

Originally posted by aginor

 
I know that a punch (boxing punch) straight can mac be 150 to 400 kgs or more) a boxing punch down can be between 700 to 1200 kgs, because of the pull of gravity, its easier to hit hard with the help of gravitational pull then, punching straight out in the air with gravitation breaking you kinetic force 
Where did you read that? I believe that's a misunderstanding. The strength of your hit is the same, but of course the gravitational pull on the punching bag itself makes a difference, if you try to lift it up punching from below, it will be harder than if you try to push it down punching from above.
Back to Top
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23204
Post Options Post Options   Quote Icarium Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 04:38
what about these issues

a) gravitons

b) 9 dimensions or 11

c) multiverse,

how can you test gravitation in a lab, 

I know that a punch (boxing punch) straight can mac be 150 to 400 kgs or more) a boxing punch down can be between 700 to 1200 kgs, because of the pull of gravity, its easier to hit hard with the help of gravitational pull then, punching straight out in the air with gravitation breaking you kinetic force 


Edited by aginor - August 01 2013 at 04:38
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1198
Post Options Post Options   Quote HackettFan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 31 2013 at 19:18
Originally posted by Gerinski


Originally posted by HackettFan

I voted for 'yes, it's interesting', although no I don't really like it. There's been a long time tug of war between whether a unified field theory will look more like relativity or more like quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has been winning out more often than not, though it still fails to seal the deal. Personally I think particles are particles not strings. They exist in space that is curved and wavy. The particles take on properties of waves because they travel through wavy space. Finally, I expect that a unified field theory will be more like relativity than quantum mechanics in the end. I'm not a physicist.

Everything points the other way around though, most physicists believe that General Relativity needs to be quantized. GR does not only describe spacetime but also matter and the way both of them interact, in GR both spacetime and matter / energy are classical (continuous). It is known that matter / energy is quantized, so from this point of view GR is already incorrect. There are some approaches where quantized matter / energy interacts with continuous spacetime but they also present difficulties. Quantum field theory by itself is not devoid of problems either, it is based on a rigid background geometry (that of Special Relativity) when we know that the background geometry is not rigid.
So none of both look like real winners, the solution probably needs to be something else altogether.

Yes, relativity needs to be quantized, but quantum mechanics needs to account for gravity. That's exactly the tug of war I was talking about. Physicist tend to learn fundamental things at high energy states, but disagreement occurs as to where high energy states are really found, when things are really large or when they are really small. Quantum mechanics doesn't handle gravity easily, but a lot of physicists are strangely untroubled by this, because they consider it a low energy state. You're probably right that a viable unified field theory will be different from both relativity and quantum mechanics. I, for one, question the the very premise of quantum mechanics though that particles are sometimes particles and sometimes waves (ironically Einstein's own major contribution to quantum mechanics). Particles sometimes have wavelike properties, not because they are waves or wavy strings or whatever, but because they flow through wavy space-time. It's like a ball floating on water. It's motion proceeds in a way that can be graphed or transposed into a wave but it's still a ball. The wave motion is a function of waves occurring in the water not an integral property of the ball. Again, I'm not a physicist, but this makes something rational out of a long standing paradox, which I find incredulous.

Edited by HackettFan - July 31 2013 at 19:20
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3397
Post Options Post Options   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 31 2013 at 02:28
Originally posted by HackettFan

I voted for 'yes, it's interesting', although no I don't really like it. There's been a long time tug of war between whether a unified field theory will look more like relativity or more like quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has been winning out more often than not, though it still fails to seal the deal. Personally I think particles are particles not strings. They exist in space that is curved and wavy. The particles take on properties of waves because they travel through wavy space. Finally, I expect that a unified field theory will be more like relativity than quantum mechanics in the end. I'm not a physicist.
Everything points the other way around though, most physicists believe that General Relativity needs to be quantized. GR does not only describe spacetime but also matter and the way both of them interact, in GR both spacetime and matter / energy are classical (continuous). It is known that matter / energy is quantized, so from this point of view GR is already incorrect. There are some approaches where quantized matter / energy interacts with continuous spacetime but they also present difficulties. Quantum field theory by itself is not devoid of problems either, it is based on a rigid background geometry (that of Special Relativity) when we know that the background geometry is not rigid.
So none of both look like real winners, the solution probably needs to be something else altogether.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.