Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

String theory or quantum theory which one to you agree with?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • String theory or quantum theory which one to you agree with?

    Loop quantum gravity theory for definite. I have read about both and i just donʻt see string theory as a sensible answer to what this is about. Out of all of these theories for the matter of the universe loop quantum gravity makes much more sense. Who knows however they might both be wrong.

    For the hell of it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMSmJCKaaC0
    Last edited by dolphin of dawn; 02-27-2012, 11:02 AM.
    Dolphin energy, light and love. The world is what you make of it. Reap all the rewards but tend and care for the earth all you can. Anything can turn a great person evil. Stray from riches, learn spiritually. I don't blame people for there mistakes. Just as long as they learn. Remember with love you can do anything.

  • #2
    I believe in the string theory. I am a Superluminal supporter as well which is a component of Quantum physics and string theory, I think. Superluminal allows a being to transcend time and affect the past without leaving The Now.

    Superluminal communication is the term used to describe the hypothetical process by which one might send information at faster-than-light (FTL) speeds.

    Some theories and experiments include:

    Group velocity > c experiments
    Evanescent wave coupling
    Tachyons
    Quantum non-locality
    According to the currently accepted theory, three of those four phenomena do not produce superluminal communication, even though they may give that appearance under some conditions. As for tachyons, their existence remains hypothetical; even if their existence were to be proven, attempts to quantize them appear to indicate that they may not be used for superluminal communication, because experiments to produce or absorb tachyons cannot be fully controlled.[1]

    If wormholes are possible, then ordinary subluminal methods of communication could be sent through them to achieve superluminal transmission speeds. Considering the immense energy that current theories suggest would be required to open a wormhole large enough to pass spacecraft through it may be that only atomic-scale wormholes would be practical to build, limiting their use solely to information transmission. Some theories of wormhole formation would prevent them from ever becoming "timeholes", allowing superluminal communication without the additional complication of allowing communication with the past.[citation needed]

    In standard quantum mechanics, it is generally accepted that the no cloning theorem prevents superluminal communication via quantum entanglement alone, leading to the no-communication theorem. Consider the EPR thought experiment, and suppose quantum states could be cloned. Alice could send bits to Bob in the following way:

    If Alice wishes to transmit a '0', she measures the spin of her electron in the z direction, collapsing Bob's state to either |z+>B or |z->B. If Alice wishes to transmit a '1', she measures the spin of her electron in the x direction, collapsing Bob's state to either |x+>B or |x->B. Bob creates many copies of his electron's state, and measures the spin of each copy in the z direction. If Alice transmitted a '0', all his measurements will produce the same result; otherwise, his measurements will be split evenly between +1/2 and -1/2. This would allow Alice and Bob to communicate across space-like separations.
    However, some authors have pointed out that at least some of the no-communication are tautological, having the limitation on superluminal communication built into the starting assumptions.[2]

    Although such communication is prohibited in the thought experiment described above, some argue that superluminal communication could be achieved via quantum entanglement using other methods that don't rely on cloning a quantum system. One suggested method would use an ensemble of entangled particles to transmit information,[3] similar to a type of quantum eraser experiments.[4][5][6] As the quantum eraser experiments rely on a classical, subluminal channel for coincidence detection, it is unclear whether superluminal communication would be possible by this method. Physicist John G. Cramer at the University of Washington is attempting to replicate one of these experiments and demonstrate whether or not it can produce superluminal communication

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_communication



    A superluminal phenomenon is a frame of reference traveling with a speed greater than the speed of light c. There is a putative class of particles dubbed tachyons which are able to travel faster than light. Faster-than-light phenomena violate the usual understanding of the "flow" of time, a state of affairs which is known as the causality problem (and also called the "Shalimar Treaty").

    It should be noted that while Einstein's theory of special relativity prevents (real) mass, energy, or information from traveling faster than the speed of light c (Lorentz et al. 1952, Brillouin and Sommerfeld 1960, Born and Wolf 1999, Landau and Lifschitz 1997), there is nothing preventing "apparent" motion faster than c (or, in fact, with negative speeds, implying arrival at a destination before leaving the origin). For example, the phase velocity and group velocity of a wave may exceed the speed of light, but in such cases, no energy or information actually travels faster than c. Experiments showing group velocities greater than c include that of Wang et al. (2000), who produced a laser pulse in atomic cesium gas with a group velocity of . In each case, the observed superluminal propagation is not at odds with causality, and is instead a consequence of classical interference between its constituent frequency components in a region of anomalous dispersion (Wang et al. 2000).

    It turns out that all relativistic wave equations possesses infinity families of formal solutions with arbitrary speeds raging from zero to infinity, called undistorted progressive waves (UPWs) by Rodrigues and Lu (1997). However, like the arbitrary-speed plane wave solutions, UPWs have infinite energy and therefore cannot be produced in the physical world. However, approximations to these waves with finite energy, called finite aperture approximations (FAA), can be produced and observed experimentally (Maiorino and Rodrigues 1999). Among the infinite family of exact superluminal solutions of the homogeneous wave equation and Maxwell equations are waves known as X-waves. X-waves do not violate special relativity because all superluminal X-waves have wavefronts that travel with the speed parameter c (the speed of light) that appears in the corresponding wave equation. The superluminal motion of the peak is therefore a transitory phenomenon similar to the reshaping phenomenon that occurs (under very special conditions) for waves in dispersive media with absorption or gain and which is in this case responsible for superluminal (or even negative) group velocities (Maiorino and Rodrigues 1999).

    Several authors have published theories claiming that the speed-of-light barrier imposed by relativity is illusionary. While these "theories" continue to be rejected by the physics community as ill-informed speculation, their proponents continue to promulgate them in rather obscure journals. An example of this kind is the Smarandache hypothesis, which states that there is no such thing as a speed limit in the universe (Smarandache 1998). Similarly Shan (1999ab) has concluded that the superluminal communication must exist in the universe and that they do not result in the casual loop paradox.

    http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...erluminal.html
    http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/x...0Tesla/171.jpg
    In my hands I hold a candle whose flame is small to see,
    And if I give but one light to you my life is filled for me.
    But...In your hands you hold a torch for many eyes to see,
    So hold it high that they may light their candlewicks from thee... موم γλυφή !

    - By Faye


    http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/x...mixretro-1.jpghttp://i739.photobucket.com/albums/x...cept/louuu.jpghttp://i739.photobucket.com/albums/x...mixretro-1.jpg

    Comment


    • #3
      I believe thought travels faster than light and is in motion beyond our brain by the brainwaves that exit our bodies constantly.
      Last edited by tmt; 02-26-2012, 12:10 PM.
      http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/x...0Tesla/171.jpg
      In my hands I hold a candle whose flame is small to see,
      And if I give but one light to you my life is filled for me.
      But...In your hands you hold a torch for many eyes to see,
      So hold it high that they may light their candlewicks from thee... موم γλυφή !

      - By Faye


      http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/x...mixretro-1.jpghttp://i739.photobucket.com/albums/x...cept/louuu.jpghttp://i739.photobucket.com/albums/x...mixretro-1.jpg

      Comment


      • #4
        Tachyons exist in the physical, though nobody will believe me because they call it a tomato, but anyways, I am sure the stuff I smoke is what blows my mind out of belief.

        Comment


        • #5
          .............................malfunctioning....... .............
          Last edited by ANewKindOfNeo; 02-27-2012, 07:49 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            physics and existentialism

            Hmmmm. I'll just bet my years of experience as a ship engine room crew member, my abilities as a Pacific NW Indian art woodcarver, my decades of esoteric studies, and Master's in Theology quailify me to judge this, the most complex of scientific disciplines.

            However, I also have a science degree (biology) and know something about how science is done. I am NOT saying science is the only valid approach to truth-- just that if its methodologies are not understood, then neither are its conclusions.

            In the field of (post)modern physics, rationality and precision count. It is not a matter of personal likes or dislikes, nor even of extensive experience in the realms of mysticism, spirituality, the arts, etc. The latter are in my opinion real, which is contrary to that of some scientists who deny anything non-physical. But these ways of perceiving are by definition not scientific since they cannot be falsified.

            Physics is mostly discussed in a mathematical language way beyond most of us. But keep in mind Godel's Theorum: that any mathematical system beyond the trivial cannot be both consistant and complete. Thus the internal consistancy (so far) of string theory cannot be considered proof. In addition, string theory has not provided predictions-- by which it would be placed in the category of falsifiability and thus properly scientific. There are plenty of scientists with complex critiques of this model.

            On the plus side, string theory does account for something that has eluded physicists for close to a century. What is known as "unified field theory," which would bring together the strong force (keeps protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom,) the electro-magnetic force, the weak force (repulsion, like electrons and neutrinos,) and gravity-- with its proposed gravitons, which have yet to be discovered.

            General relativity (Einstein) accounts for the gravitational effects of matter on space-time. Its predictions of the gravitational "lensing" of light and about black holes are among the points eventually confirmed. The other part of (post)modern physics is quantum theory, which deals with particle/energy operations at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. Quite different than the descriptions given by the classical mechanics of Newtonian physics. Predictions based on the equations of quantum mechanics have been proven accurate. However, the problem of how to combine both general relativity and quantum mechanics into one theory still remains.

            On scientific grounds, I am skeptical of string theory. Given the scientific evidence regarding mathematical predictions, general relativity and quantum mechanics have held up. Therefore what I may prefer is irrelevant.

            There is another area to consider. It is not a requirement of string theory, but it does include multiple universe models, which have been popularized by Brian Greene and other physicists. (As does the minority "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics by physicist John Wheeler.) It's kind of like if anything could happen, it does in some parallel universe. Again, this is in the realm of non-falsifiability.

            The multiple universe/many worlds propositions imply another big problem. They render the concepts of free will, political liberty, and individual identity meaningless. Along with mysticism, spirituality that involves any sort of theism, and teleology-- which is the idea that there is a purpose to creation and/or to human life. If anything that can occur does somewhere, then what happens in any given world is simply the deterministic product of automatic physical forces. The most bleak interpretations of the post-WWII existentialists agreed.

            I do not. And I'd bet few indigos side with the "life is meaningless" philosophers.
            "Beauty will save the world."--Dostoevsky

            Question authority... says who?!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tmt View Post
              I believe thought travels faster than light and is in motion beyond our brain by the brainwaves that exit our bodies constantly.
              I don't think though even travels it just is everywhere at once
              Your only purpose is to Know

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Rum View Post
                I don't think though even travels it just is everywhere at once
                That's a great interpretation!

                Maybe like an aspect of a hologram... where from any piece, the whole can be reconstituted. Or like the (east) Indian concept of Indra's net, where each knot in the infinite net contains a pearl, which reflects every other pearl.
                "Beauty will save the world."--Dostoevsky

                Question authority... says who?!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rafi View Post
                  That's a great interpretation!

                  Maybe like an aspect of a hologram... where from any piece, the whole can be reconstituted. Or like the (east) Indian concept of Indra's net, where each knot in the infinite net contains a pearl, which reflects every other pearl.
                  how do you separate one part from the other when all parts are the same
                  Your only purpose is to Know

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Troll
                    I believe in string cheese theory
                    nobody can resist string cheese
                    you know everything considered in the context of this thread that is actually quite funny
                    Your only purpose is to Know

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Rum View Post
                      how do you separate one part from the other when all parts are the same
                      That's precisely why I made the lengthy scientific critique below.

                      The "Indra's net" image and others are metaphors, the intuitive or mystical way of knowing. I don't actually totally agree with this one; I agree with what you imply in your question.

                      As a western esotericist, I find the idea of individual development a completely valid alternative to the eastern idea that only The One is real and our goal is to return within it, like a drop into the sea. But the "net" is made possible because of those knots with pearls. Each of them can be thought of as separate, yet with access to the others and to the whole matrix that supports them.
                      "Beauty will save the world."--Dostoevsky

                      Question authority... says who?!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        every particle contains the information for everything else

                        all thought all life all material everything
                        Your only purpose is to Know

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Loop quantum gravity and super-string theory are not necessarily at odds, it's more likely that they are both ways of trying to describe something that we have only begun to understand and cannot yet see. Neither makes a testable prediction (by current technology).

                          Both have really cool implications :-)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rafi View Post
                            But keep in mind Godel's Theorum: that any mathematical system beyond the trivial cannot be both consistant and complete.
                            That is, to say, everyone's brain hurts when it does math in 9 dimensions.


                            I believe in string theory.

                            I believe that 'thought' is a a form of consciousness, and could be construed as a type of string, as well as matter, light, energy, and time, raw information, etc... In imperceivable dimensions, these simplified 'strings' vibrate in different ways, dictating how the particular consciousness will manifest itself in our holographic world.

                            I think some information may travel faster than light. I believe that thought, however, does not. We experience thoughts constantly throughout our matrix of time, in which the speed of light tells us where we are in the present moment. I am inclined to agree with Rum that thought does not travel. It is somehow separate.
                            A reflection hovers an inch above reality.

                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Which string theory? A bosonic string theory? A superstring theory? M-theory? They are all theories within Quantum Theory. LQG is also a theory within Quantum Theory.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X