Slashdot Mirror
Quantum Gravity Will Be Just Fine Without String Theory
StartsWithABang writes: It's a difficult fact to accept: our two most fundamental theories that describe reality, General Relativity for gravitation and the Standard Model / Quantum Field Theory for the other three forces, are fundamentally incompatible with one another. When an electron moves through a double slit, for example, its gravitational field can't move through both slits, at least not without a quantum theory of gravity. String Theory is often touted as the only game in town as far as formulating a quantum theory of gravity is concerned, but in fact there are five viable options, each with different pros, cons, and approaches to the problem. Many of them, in fact, have undergone significant developments in the past 5-10 years, something String Theory cannot claim.
This near-automatic re-posting of Ethan's blog postings is becoming annoying. For sure, it popularizes science and may hence be argued to be stuff that matters. It can, however, certainly be proved to not be news for nerds.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Go on click on the link, this one is different trust me.
If anyone wants to read an entire fucking half baked science blog we would subscribe to the entire fucking blog and we wouldn't need every fucking article from that fucking blog reposted.
One or two at the start were bearable, but seriously fuck off!
without the endless error-ridden blogposts on unreadable hipster website clickbait spam, thanks.
Ooo, sounds likes a medium.com story.
"When an electron moves through a double slit, for example, its gravitational field can't move through both slits, at least not without a quantum THEORY of gravity. "
Ahh, Newtons apple fell because of the THEORY of gravity, until someone had that theory they didn't fall....
Look, any Quantum theory describing any force faces the basic problem that the effects of the force occur before the state is detected. Since QM believers think that detecting something *determines* its state at the time of detection, it requires time travel to go back in time and determine the effect so the force can apply correctly. Thus QM is an incorrect model because it violates causality.
String Theory has always had the problem that as soon as it hits a problem, they add more dimensions. Its an infinitely fixable theory because any conflicts can be resolved by adding more dimensions.
LQG forget quantizing space, first try to remove the quantumizing effect of your detectors! Once you eliminate the QM BS, all these theories that stem from it to fix up cases no longer are needed.
Asymptotically Safe Gravity,... i.e. the 'flock of starlings' force, the more separated and less overlapping the +- flock the stronger the force. First you have to kill the QM bullshit and their broken theory. Do that and you realize its a flock your seeing through quantum sized eyes!
Bye Slashdot.
I'm sick of the videos and silly new poll positioning and STARTS WITH A BANG.
Any recommendations for other tech news sites?
There are sites offering an alternative view to the internals of the electron. Not sure how controversial it is.
You may want to take a look at Blaze Labs Research.
http://blazelabs.com/index.htm
Some of us click these 'stories' just to read the rage. It's obvious that Ethan's 'startswithabang' stuff automatically gets on the front page without going through the submission system. There must be a deal going on here that the rest of us aren't privy to and I for one am waiting for the time when this sort of thing ends, one way or another.
Nobody is forcing anyone to visit /. or click on any of the articles.
Yes, we have the freedom to ignore this stuff. But we also have the freedom to give feedback to the moderators. Surely it's not in Slashdot's interest to have people silently turn their backs on the site.
Even he couldn't figure out how to make it explain things.
Has anyone told Sheldon yet?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
"Just skip the article if you are not interested" -- yes, but due to it being posted on a news aggregator, one might wrongly assume that it would concern some sort of news, and not just external ramblings that one could as well get the gist of by a quick Wikipedia check. Why not just promote Slashdot posts regarding random Wikipedia articles, for that matter?
"It is not like you pay for the content, so you have no right to complain" -- well, I am still allowed to voice my displeasure.
The only people who ever think that quantum gravity requires string theory no matter what are string theorists and, occasionally, the media. And maybe people in the nineties when string theory was hot because actual progress had been made in it.
For the rest of us, string theory is just one of many options on the table (and not really a very attractive one, I might add) and the main reason to pursue it is to get tenure in theoretical-physics positions.
http://link.springer.com/artic...
Abstract
It is shown here that Newton’s gravity law can be derived from the uncertainty principle. The idea is that as the distance between two bodies in mutual orbit decreases, their uncertainty of position decreases, so their momentum and hence the force on them must increase to satisfy the uncertainty principle. When this result is summed over all the possible interactions between the Planck masses in the two bodies, Newton’s gravity law is obtained. This model predicts that masses less than the Planck mass will be unaffected by gravity and so it may be tested by looking for an abrupt decrease in the density of space dust, for masses above the Planck mass.
How about a theory that connects classical physics, electrodynamics, special relativity and gravity, and explains everything from the stability of atoms and molecules to the accelerated expansion of the universe? http://blacklightpower.wikia.c...
go back to the fundamentals and try something different. I personally believe the problem is geometry. I don't think geometry is fundamental. I think it is derived. Quantum entanglement implies that distance isn't important.
You misunderstand the issue, slashdot should not be actively trying to drive away users.
Because it can be mangled to fit any observation. It's not disprovable. All of the alternatives are better because they are actually disprovable via experimentation.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
have to do with gravity? I have never heard of this interpretation ever, and I've been reading about it for 30 years.
Please provide a link that shows the double-slit experiment has anything to do with an electron's gravity.
The Double-Slit experiment is easy to explain if we consider that EM fields ride on a substrate or carrier wave, or dark matter or let's just call it "The Aether". It's a concept that Space was a thing, and along with bad ideas, Einstein threw this baby out with the bath water.
Now we've got physicists who want everything to be a particle and they can't say "Aether", so they'll invent dark matter or something else to fill the void, rather than saying the void is already filled.
EM fields don't have gravity, do they? So the extra interfering slit is a resonance set up by space itself. Gravity is the phenomena of particles (I think they are 8 dimensional resonating fields -- but whatever to avoid argument with current ideas) pushing out on Space. When their motions are organized (such as in a magnetic field or resonating with kinetic energy/heat) we can get EM fields. Gravity is many times more powerful than the standard model -- it's just not aimed at matter and we drift around and clump together based on the pressure of Gravity pushing on Space (like corks on the ocean).
Well anyway, that's just the way I see things. It sounds a bit like m-theory or the Quantum Gravity, but it's just easier to use a clean slate and figure out how we get what we observe with the fewest forces possible. So to me, it's resolvable with the Push of Gravity, the Pull of EM fields, folded space (particles) that have positive or negative charges in various degrees (created by Time potential), and we have space which allow these things to interact and interfere with each other. Gravity is created by Space/Time coming out of the folded space/time (particles). All you need is a medium and a Universe can be created merely by the interference.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
I'm crazy enough to believe I have found a path to unification that is actually quite simple: add a new relativity principle that states that laws of physics must be the same irrespective of the measurement instrument we use. Here is a parallel:
- Special relativity states that the laws of physics must be the same irrespective of your state of motion. So a complete description of an experiment must include which referential you are using. There is no absolute space, no absolute time, no aether. And we need to add new transformation laws from one referential to the next, which are Lorentz transforms.
- General relativity states that the laws of physics must be the same irrespective of acceleration. So a complete description of an experiment must include accelerations, including gravitation. There is no flat space-time anymore, but something that is curved by gravitation fields. So we need to add new transformations from one curved space-time to another, use tensor math, covariant and contravariant quadrivectors, etc.
- My still incomplete theory of incomplete measurements (TIM) states that the laws of physics must be the same irrespective of the measurement instruments used. So a complete description of an experiment must include which instruments were used, including calibration and range. Just because two instruments are calibrated to coincide on a given range cannot be used to postulate that they match at any scale. Space, time, mass and other measurements are no longer continuous, but discrete (because all our physical instruments give discrete results). We need to add new transformation when going from one physical instrument to another, which correspond almost exactly to renormalisation in quantum mechanics, but give an explanation as to their origin.
The TIM focuses on what I learn about a system using a physical measurement instrument. This starts by defining what an instrument is:
- It's a portion of the universe (i.e. it's not "outside the matrix")
- which has an input and an output (e.g. the probe and the display of a voltmeter)
- where changes in the state at the input yield a change in the state of the output (change in voltage result in changes on the display)
- which ideally depend only on the input (the voltmeter picks the voltage at the probe, not somewhere else)
- and change the output (nothing being said about the change in the input, since even macro-scale experiments can be destructive)
- the change in the output being mapped to a mathematical representation (often a real number) through a calibration
The instrument gives me knowledge about the state at the input. Since the instrument has a limited number of states in the output, my knowledge of the system through this instrument at any given time is described by a probability for each of the possible states. If I have N states, the probabilities p_1...p_N are all positive, and their sum is 1. So the knowledge state can be represented by a unit vector in dimension N.
For example, if I care about "is there a particle here", the possible measurements are "yes" and "no". The knowledge state is therefore represented by a unit complex number. If now you want to answer that on a plate with 1 million possible positions, you have a field of 1 million complex numbers, with the additional constraint that the particle must be at only one position (which is expressed as the sum of the probabilities for all "yes" being 1). That field is remarkably similar to the wave function, and this reasoning explains why it is complex-valued, why it is a probability of presence, and why it collapses when you know where the particle is.
But the primary difference with QM and GTR is that space-time is no longer continuous. It is discrete, and the discretization depends on the instrument being used. Because it is discrete, there are never any theoretical infinities in the sums you compute (these infinities being the reason why QM and GTR are considered fundamentally incompatib
-- Did you try Tao3D? http://tao3d.sourceforge.net