Print Page | Close Window

the String Theory

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Discription: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=91833
Printed Date: August 28 2014 at 18:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: the String Theory
Posted By: Icarium
Subject: the String Theory
Date Posted: February 01 2013 at 11:26
I was having a conversation with a random dude who knew was talking about String Theory, about somthing I understood but i did not knew the term of it, like i knew what he was saying, i know stuff about quantum theory and also about dimentions and levels of reality which string theory is sort of about.

, as i had not stuck that name my head as of anything relevant,

but i felt i did understood what he was talking about i was not familiar with the term string theory, so i went home and looked it up on Wikipedia, i did not read all of it but it is very interesting, and its basis is quite appealing in how to understand the univese and reality in how we perseve it,

It also helps as a tool to connect the rules of nature, quantum theories, relativisme and the expation or withdrawel of the universe. I have a feeling it is sort of aiming for a grand understanding of things around us and our perseption of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory


-------------
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world



Replies:
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: February 01 2013 at 14:11
Could you rewrite that, so that I can actually parse and understand it? And I don't mean the wikipedia article....

-------------
Even prog is rooted in the blues, at some point...


Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: February 02 2013 at 03:50
Eggs can exist in all time periods and alternate dimensions. However, their charateristics change depending on their location. In our existence eggs are food and contain DNA to produce more of the host lifeform. In alternate realities, eggs can only perform complex mathematical computations without the needs to raise a garden.

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: February 02 2013 at 11:58
I like physics and I'm quite familiar with String Theory (not the technical formulations but the concepts yes) but I don't understand what are you asking.
String Theory sounded very promising in the beginning but a lot of people have been working on it for over 30 years and the more work is done the less it seems that it points in the right direction. It's time that somebody starts exploring other paths because String Theory seems to be a dead end, some nice mathematical coincidences and relationships but without any relevance to the physical world.


Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: February 12 2013 at 06:45
Sorry guys, have to do it:

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ogIuxegkQ[/tube]

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012


Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: February 23 2013 at 10:24
Speaking of which, anybody tried the 4-dimensional rubik's cube?

http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: February 23 2013 at 11:23
^ I was told by my Calc III instructor that the fourth dimension is time. Guess he was wrong.

Sorry for the digression. In all due honesty, I know nothing of The String Theory, but I ain't voting for the "12-string" option.


-------------
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock


Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 21:57
I don't think it's a "Theory of Everything", but it's really interesting to read about and watch on things like Nova.

I actually think it's really important for people to spend time considering something like this as much as they can.  At least to watch something about it and be exposed to it.  It really forces you to evaluate what you're doing.  Broadening your awareness like that breaks you from routine and can put things into perspective.


Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: July 08 2013 at 07:25
Here's my answer:
String Theory
Big smile


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 08 2013 at 08:01
Originally posted by twseel

Here's my answer:
String Theory
Big smile
Well, that was quite the original hope, and if proved true (even if only meaning 'mathematically consistent complete theory') it would have provided a very powerful unifying principle and a conceptually attractive explanation for why do we see so many different 'elementary' particles and forces in the Standard Model (plus hopefully also the ones we do not really know such as dark matter).

Pity is, that after years of work the dream of such great underlying simplicity did not hold up. It became clear that 'vibrating strings' could not explain the whole edifice and other concepts needed to be gradually added, first closed loop strings, then, 2-branes, D-branes, p-branes... Of course the theory may still be right but the edifice being assembled in String Theory is again so complex that the initial motivation of conceptual simplicity has been lost. The main problem in String Theory though, is that it seems to allow a potentially infinite diversity of possible universes and offers no clue as why our universe is as it is. Saying that anything is possible so consequently our universe must be one of the infinite possibilities is not a very helpful solution to our desire for understanding.


Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: July 08 2013 at 08:19
Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by twseel

Here's my answer:
String Theory
Big smile
Well, that was quite the original hope, and if proved true (even if only meaning 'mathematically consistent complete theory') it would have provided a very powerful unifying principle and a conceptually attractive explanation for why do we see so many different 'elementary' particles and forces in the Standard Model (plus hopefully also the ones we do not really know such as dark matter).

Pity is, that after years of work the dream of such great underlying simplicity did not hold up. It became clear that 'vibrating strings' could not explain the whole edifice and other concepts needed to be gradually added, first closed loop strings, then, 2-branes, D-branes, p-branes... Of course the theory may still be right but the edifice being assembled in String Theory is again so complex that the initial motivation of conceptual simplicity has been lost. The main problem in String Theory though, is that it seems to allow a potentially infinite diversity of possible universes and offers no clue as why our universe is as it is. Saying that anything is possible so consequently our universe must be one of the infinite possibilities is not a very helpful solution to our desire for understanding.
Exactly. It's fun to think about these things and consider the possibilities, but in the end we won't really find a meaning or a goal or completely understand the universe. I actually believe it's very improbable that the actual structure of the universe is within the reach of the human understanding.


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 08 2013 at 11:28
Originally posted by twseel

It's fun to think about these things and consider the possibilities, but in the end we won't really find a meaning or a goal or completely understand the universe. I actually believe it's very improbable that the actual structure of the universe is within the reach of the human understanding.
That may well be right, but it should not stop us from trying. Just trying is a very rewarding exercise, we have made decent progress so far so we must certainly keep trying.
I am actually cautiously respectful of John Wheeler's philosophy which roughly states that the 'purpose of life' is to understand (or rather, 'to make real' or 'make happen') the universe ('the participatory universe principle'), or those who propose that 'consciousness' eventually will evolve to encompass all the knowledge required to understand the universe, effectively making a loop where 'understanding' or 'awareness' and 'physical reality' are just two sides of the same coin.
Sorry, a bit profound for a Prog Rock forum probably LOL


Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: July 08 2013 at 11:35
tiny vibrating strings mmmmmm


-------------
http://www.nervoushorse.com/" rel="nofollow - Aria ariari isa, vena amiria asaria

DEATH TO TOTALITATARIAIANIMISM! UNBAN SHAKESPEARERARE


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 08 2013 at 11:42
Not these, although I love them too LOL




Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: July 08 2013 at 12:03
Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by twseel

It's fun to think about these things and consider the possibilities, but in the end we won't really find a meaning or a goal or completely understand the universe. I actually believe it's very improbable that the actual structure of the universe is within the reach of the human understanding.
That may well be right, but it should not stop us from trying. Just trying is a very rewarding exercise, we have made decent progress so far so we must certainly keep trying.
I am actually cautiously respectful of John Wheeler's philosophy which roughly states that the 'purpose of life' is to understand (or rather, 'to make real' or 'make happen') the universe ('the participatory universe principle'), or those who propose that 'consciousness' eventually will evolve to encompass all the knowledge required to understand the universe, effectively making a loop where 'understanding' or 'awareness' and 'physical reality' are just two sides of the same coin.
Might be, but then again I think one could doubt to what point this is still 'understanding' and where it turns into 'believing'. For example, many religious people think their religion already explains all there is to know about the universe. In that case, you might be 'done' by taking on a religion.


Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: July 08 2013 at 12:04
Originally posted by Gerinski

Not these, although I love them too LOL


mmmmmmmmmmm


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 08 2013 at 12:39
Originally posted by twseel

 
Might be, but then again I think one could doubt to what point this is still 'understanding' and where it turns into 'believing'. For example, many religious people think their religion already explains all there is to know about the universe. In that case, you might be 'done' by taking on a religion.
I believe in a) preferably what I can understand, or otherwise at least in b) what I can perceive as 'objectively true' even if I don't understand it (take quantum mechanics).
No religion has offered me any of these perceptions so far.


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: July 08 2013 at 14:08
Actually when I first read about String Theory some years back it kept me awake at nights pondering the meaning of it all........
 
 
 
Wink


-------------
Et In Arcadia Ego


Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: July 08 2013 at 14:30
I did as well

-------------
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world


Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: July 08 2013 at 14:37
Existence sucks.
Consciousness too.


Posted By: pfloyd
Date Posted: July 09 2013 at 16:25
all i know is we are really just floating on giant bubbles in 11th dimensional hyperspace. 

-------------
check out my art: http://alex-bennett.cghub.com/images/


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 09 2013 at 17:23
Well, let's remember quantum mechanics pioneer Niels Bohr's quote (more or less): 'the point is not whether the theory is crazy, but whether it is crazy enough to be true'.
I personally think that String Theory is not really on the right track but who am I to tell...  At any rate it provides some useful principles and concepts and could have some bearing to the actual truth, some of its mathematical 'coincidences' are possibly too striking to be 'just coincidences'. I think we are still rather far for any true understanding of what's really going on, but keeping on trying is great and we should not give up.

A recurring problem in this sort of things is that mathematics has proved to be extremely fertile, there are lots of mathematical facts which are amazing and clearly true but which in principle do not seem to have any bearing at all with the actual physical world. String Theory is possibly a bit on the same path, it builds on some mathematical structures and relationships, but whether it has any significance to the actual physical world in rather unclear.

We expect our universe to behave in a mathematically consistent way, but that does not mean that any mathematically consistent structure is actually deployed by nature in our real universe. We may find lots of mathematically consistent structures which have no physical implementation in our actual universe. And I feel that String Theory is one of these.

Sorry, again possibly a bit too profound Embarrassed


Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: July 09 2013 at 20:20
Do you think that it's even possible for science to find a theory of everything?  What if the results are infinitely regressive?



1:03 - 5:30 is the relevant part.

[TUBE]YYrzxlur0KY[/TUBE]



-------------


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 10 2013 at 03:23
Originally posted by Earendil

Do you think that it's even possible for science to find a theory of everything?  What if the results are infinitely regressive?


This is an old dilemma, on one side we strive for understanding ever more and we dream with finding a theory of everything, but if we did ever find it, would might that imply? would 'the future unfold in front of our eyes'?, would there still be randomness and unpredictability preventing us from knowing the future?, would it affect our freewill? would the motivation of knowing and understanding fade away, as if 'there's nothing more for us to do'? In a certain sense, while we search for it, we hope to never find it, for the consequences might be scary.

As for the video, honestly I don't hear anything that scientists are not aware of, he's just blablabla trying to sound transcendental, nothing of what the guy says should be any reason for being anti-scientific.


Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: July 10 2013 at 08:58
Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by Earendil

Do you think that it's even possible for science to find a theory of everything?  What if the results are infinitely regressive?


This is an old dilemma, on one side we strive for understanding ever more and we dream with finding a theory of everything, but if we did ever find it, would might that imply? would 'the future unfold in front of our eyes'?, would there still be randomness and unpredictability preventing us from knowing the future?, would it affect our freewill? would the motivation of knowing and understanding fade away, as if 'there's nothing more for us to do'? In a certain sense, while we search for it, we hope to never find it, for the consequences might be scary.

As for the video, honestly I don't hear anything that scientists are not aware of, he's just blablabla trying to sound transcendental, nothing of what the guy says should be any reason for being anti-scientific.

I don't think he's being anti-scientific.  My understanding of what he's saying is that this question is outside the scope of science.  You can't drive your car to the moon.  But you can drive your car to a spaceship and then fly to the moon.


-------------


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 10 2013 at 12:38
Originally posted by Earendil

 
I don't think he's being anti-scientific.  My understanding of what he's saying is that this question is outside the scope of science.  You can't drive your car to the moon.  But you can drive your car to a spaceship and then fly to the moon.
I don't know how far can we drive, nor in how many steps, but let's drive as much as we can and see where do we get to. If you already think that you will hit a wall so it's not worth trying, no good.
Personally I'm also wary of a 'theory of everything', among many other things it's highly doubtful that it would 'explain everything'. Mathematical physics theories as we understand them now are unlikely to be able to explain emergent phenomena such as life, consciousness, chaos, fractals, social behaviour and all other manifestations of emergent complexity, emotions, love...  but we should not give up trying to understand ever more, in some way it may seem that learning about the universe where we live in is the reason why we exist.


Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: July 10 2013 at 12:52
Absolutely.  It's amazing to think how much we've learned, and I agree that we should never stop using science to learn more, even if it's only part of the picture.

-------------


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 11 2013 at 16:51
At any rate, String Theory may be an amusing (or even fascinating) idea to ponder, but at best it remains an interesting hypothesis. Quantum mechanics on the other hand is even more mind-boggling, and it is proven to be true. Now, that is genuinely fascinating. Don't fall prey of popular talking about string theory unless you are already familiar with quantum mechanics, I bet that knowing quantum mechanics and knowing that it has been proven to be true (up to our experimental accuracy limits) is going to give your thought much more food than all that string theory stuff (serious and respectable physics undoubtedly, but still unproven speculation). 



Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 11 2013 at 17:14
Originally posted by Gerinski

 
I am actually cautiously respectful of John Wheeler's philosophy which roughly states that the 'purpose of life' is to understand (or rather, 'to make real' or 'make happen') the universe ('the participatory universe principle'), or those who propose that 'consciousness' eventually will evolve to encompass all the knowledge required to understand the universe, effectively making a loop where 'understanding' or 'awareness' and 'physical reality' are just two sides of the same coin.
At the time of writing that post the name of such a view's proponent didn't come to my mind but I remembered it, for anyone interested it's Frank Tipler's Omega Point hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler


Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: July 11 2013 at 17:45
Originally posted by Gerinski

At any rate, String Theory may be an amusing (or even fascinating) idea to ponder, but at best it remains an interesting hypothesis. Quantum mechanics on the other hand is even more mind-boggling, and it is proven to be true. Now, that is genuinely fascinating. Don't fall prey of popular talking about string theory unless you are already familiar with quantum mechanics, I bet that knowing quantum mechanics and knowing that it has been proven to be true (up to our experimental accuracy limits) is going to give your thought much more food than all that string theory stuff (serious and respectable physics undoubtedly, but still unproven speculation). 


I thought I had a decent (non-technical) understanding of quantum mechanics until I just listened to a theoretical physicist as a guest on a podcast.  Just as mind-blowing (and incredible that we can know it to be true) as when I first heard about it.

Also amazing, but in a depressing way, most people don't have a clue about any of it.


-------------


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 11 2013 at 18:07
Originally posted by Earendil

 

I thought I had a decent (non-technical) understanding of quantum mechanics until I just listened to a theoretical physicist as a guest on a podcast.  Just as mind-blowing (and incredible that we can know it to be true) as when I first heard about it.

Also amazing, but in a depressing way, most people don't have a clue about any of it.
This is an unforgivable cultural shame. One of the most important (if not the most) milestones in human knowledge and it's basically unknown by most of the population. The same with Relativity (both Special and General), they were discovered 100 yeas ago and yet they are not known (let alone understood) by most normal people... but, sure they know about computer games and Facebook... what kind of world are we living in?
Sure, quantum mechanics and relativity rarely touch our daily lives in direct ways, but the fact that such important rules governing our world are known only by a very small part of the population is sad.


Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: July 11 2013 at 23:59
Oh god, I can't keep up with this thread.Cry


Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: July 12 2013 at 01:56
^I see your problem. Big difference between string and thread.

-------------


Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: July 12 2013 at 11:00
LOL


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 15 2013 at 07:18
Originally posted by Gerinski

At any rate, String Theory may be an amusing (or even fascinating) idea to ponder, but at best it remains an interesting hypothesis. Quantum mechanics on the other hand is even more mind-boggling, and it is proven to be true. Now, that is genuinely fascinating. Don't fall prey of popular talking about string theory unless you are already familiar with quantum mechanics, I bet that knowing quantum mechanics and knowing that it has been proven to be true (up to our experimental accuracy limits) is going to give your thought much more food than all that string theory stuff (serious and respectable physics undoubtedly, but still unproven speculation). 





It wouldn't even be possible to understand an iota of string theory without grasping quantum mechanics first.


-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 15 2013 at 07:19
My research is technically in string theory, so I guess I should say I find it interesting? I'm reluctant to say I do if we're considering it as a physical theory because I have low expectations that it will prove to be viable. 

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: July 15 2013 at 07:56
As long as they dont start produsing mass destruction weapons from these "strings" i dont care.

-------------
My Music: www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com
My blog: www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 15 2013 at 08:57
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

My research is technically in string theory, so I guess I should say I find it interesting? I'm reluctant to say I do if we're considering it as a physical theory because I have low expectations that it will prove to be viable. 
That's interesting. I also think it more to be a mathematics theory than a physics one, but that's also fine, many interesting progresses have started by a theoretical mathematics discovery and only later found application in real fields of science.


Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: July 15 2013 at 09:15
my understanding of physics goes in two directions one based on my interest in solarsystem and space, from age of 5 and i feel i take sceince naturaly since it hs been in my life so very long, ( i started with universe science and dinosaur science on the same time, age of 4-5 maybe as earl as 2 years old), so sceince is like water for me, astronomy and palentology as i leanrd thats their name when i was 20ish Embarrassed).

i have then been through everything, biology, zoology, ornithology, anatomy, geography, geology, cosmology, 

but i have also a wide interest in fantastic literature so my taste for philology, mythology, linguistics, symbology, fairy-tales, myth, folklore, theology, humanism, 

String theory intrigues both my scientific part of my brain but also the fantastical part of my brain,  its feeds on both my curiosity and imagination, my hunger for learning more of science but also hunger for fantasy literature, with multiple dimensions. 


-------------
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: July 15 2013 at 09:23
Just curious......has there been any actual testing of this theory on a practical level via colliders or the like that show there's any merit to the theory..?
 
 


-------------
Et In Arcadia Ego


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 15 2013 at 09:40
Originally posted by dr wu23

Just curious......has there been any actual testing of this theory on a practical level via colliders or the like that show there's any merit to the theory..?
 
 
No, this is one of the problems, string theory is not testable with our current technology, and not just by a small margin but by orders of magnitude. It is highly unlikely that we can ever achieve the energies required to probe strings processes. Scientists have been trying to find ways in which it could be possible to get some indirect testing of the theory at lower energies but so far have not found any viable experiment.


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 15 2013 at 11:50
Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

My research is technically in string theory, so I guess I should say I find it interesting? I'm reluctant to say I do if we're considering it as a physical theory because I have low expectations that it will prove to be viable. 
That's interesting. I also think it more to be a mathematics theory than a physics one, but that's also fine, many interesting progresses have started by a theoretical mathematics discovery and only later found application in real fields of science.


Yes, of course. I doubt our prospects to test the hypothesis anytime in the near future though, and it makes me question that strategy to channel an overwhelming majority of funding into string theory at the loss of alternative unification theories when such an ability is lacking.


-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 15 2013 at 13:00
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521


Yes, of course. I doubt our prospects to test the hypothesis anytime in the near future though, and it makes me question that strategy to channel an overwhelming majority of funding into string theory at the loss of alternative unification theories when such an ability is lacking.
Fully agree, have you read the book by Peter Woit 'Not Even Wrong'? if you work in string theory I'd say it's a must read.


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 15 2013 at 14:06
I have not. I did read Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. Does it add anything to the argument made there?

It's a bit ingenuous to say I work in string theory. I'm a pure mathematician whose research happens to be related to string theory / high energy physics.


-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: July 15 2013 at 14:48
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

I have not. I did read Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. Does it add anything to the argument made there?

It's a bit ingenuous to say I work in string theory. I'm a pure mathematician whose research happens to be related to string theory / high energy physics.
I have read 'The Trouble With Physics' too, nice one, I like Lee Smolin, I just ordered his 'Time Reborn' and I look forward to reading it.
I really recommend you 'Not Even Wrong', it's a kind of reaction to the popular science books about string theory such as Brian Greene's 'The Fabric Of The Cosmos' and such. It's maybe a bit over to the opposite side (against string theory) but very worth the reading if you are smart enough to use the reading to form your own opinion. 


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 15 2013 at 16:12
I'll add it to the inexhaustible To Read list. 

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: July 31 2013 at 00:01
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.


Posted By: Gerinski
Date 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.


Posted By: HackettFan
Date 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.


Posted By: Icarium
Date 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 


-------------
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world


Posted By: Gerinski
Date 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.


Posted By: Gerinski
Date 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.


Posted By: Icarium
Date 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" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMphoz0hNeE  

-------------
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world


Posted By: Gerinski
Date 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" rel="nofollow - 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.


Posted By: Icarium
Date 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


Posted By: Gerinski
Date 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.


Posted By: HackettFan
Date 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.


Posted By: Gerinski
Date 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.


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date 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. "


Posted By: HackettFan
Date 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.


Posted By: Dean
Date 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.

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant" rel="nofollow -
Coupling Constant


-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: HackettFan
Date 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant" rel="nofollow - 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.


Posted By: Icarium
Date 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


Posted By: The Bearded Bard
Date 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!

-------------


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant" rel="nofollow - 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. "


Posted By: Gerinski
Date 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.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz - http://www.webwiz.co.uk