A Scientist Takes On Gravity

Originally posted by LightFantastic
reply to post by Byrd

 

I think the holographic principle and information theory don't really need string theory to hold up in their own right. I think

Wiki:

During this period, Tom Banks, Willy Fischler Stephen Shenker and Leonard Susskind formulated a full holographic description of M-theory on IIA D0 branes, the first definition of string theory that was fully non-perturbative and a concrete mathematical realization of the holographic principle

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
My view is the Standard Model is simply wrong. Doing science by consensus litrally throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Anton–Babinski syndrome is a rare symptom of brain damage occurring in the occipital lobe. People who suffer from it are "cortically blind", but affirm, often quite adamantly and in the face of clear evidence of their blindness, that they are capable of seeing.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You are such an arse.

This is an absolute paragon of an argument that is bound to leave any interlocutor speechless and gasping for air, in realization of truth bestowed on them by such masterful debater! Nice to meet such sophistication on ATS.

I'll bet you slapped kids that asked interesting questions in your classes.

I like interesting questions! What I don't like is a dufus who thinks he can grasp a complex subject without ever covering basics... and in their arrogance asking utterly uninteresting questions. Like a teen who just shot a BB gun for the first time and ponders the depths of military strategy.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Please explain how you "construct" stuff from space-time.
What exactly is the coherence of matter?

Come on and you claim to be a physics teacher??? You seem to have severe lack of fundamental knowledge to claim this and I postulate that you are someone who wants people to listen to them but has no credentials. As such has taken it upon him/herself to make up the fact they were a physics teacher to attempt to throw weight in what they are saying…

I might also add that there are many people here who may have genuine credentials that can catch you out in a heartbeat, so I might also add that a person of such a persuasion must be quite arrogant to believe they won’t be caught out…

The Coherence of matter… is where quantum fluctuations and effects are negated by interaction. Ultimately, as demonstrated by Schrodinger that quite large systems can themselves be incoherent..

The Schrödinger’s cat example is a very famous gedanken experiment …. Surely I don’t need to explain some very basic physics to you do I, cause after all you are a physics teacher right???

Essentially the coherence of matter is where matter interacts with a system and so all values are set at that moment. All potentials are deducted to just a single set of values. The wave function collapses. But as covered earlier entire systems can be placed into superposition and as such will not be coherent.

Now the question is not how large a system can we place into superposition, more why is it only when observed does a system placed into superposition become coherent??

I hope this answers your question, though if not please do let me know, I could go into quite some detail on this matter.

It's already not smooth or predictable, we have strange things happening left and right... You point?

Incorrect. At this level of reality there are some basic fundamental laws of physics that means situation and circumstance are predictable, if not then the pursuit of physics would be a follies adventure. The only time this breaks down is when physics is faced with a chaotic system.

Korg- it is where chaos reigns

Either it's poetry or you are trying to scare me, but neither works. Show me the math.

I’ll show you some maths then… But first you mention poetry, let me say that and to highlight my point… If you had 12 monkeys sat at typewriters with an infinite amount of time (and ink/paper) the monkeys would eventually write the entire works of the greatest poet of all William Shakespeare…

o.k. to put this into a way that not just the maths teachers out there can understand I found quite a nice program that introduces chaos theory by looking at how the knowledge came to be and at the maths.

Take a look at the video documentary in this thread...

The Greatest Documentary Ever?? Order Comes from Chaos

O.k. the hard math as according to Edward N. Lorenz

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c2d1c0bcfa96.jpg[/atsimg]

Where σ is called the Prandtl number and ρ is called the Rayleigh number. All σ, ρ, β > 0, but usually σ = 10, β = 8/3 and ρ is varied. The system exhibits chaotic behaviour for ρ = 28 but displays knotted periodic orbits for other values of ρ. For example, with ρ = 99.96 it becomes a T(3,2) torus knot.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0f73cd747aa4.png[/atsimg]

Essentially a Chaotic system is one where even though you may know the starting values and the simple rules that govern such a system, the output is unpredictable.

Wow. The "anyplace" must be something you invented, not Heisenberg. How about:

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision.

Gosh you really have no clue about Quantum mechanics do you??
Here is a simplified explanation for you seeing as you don’t seem to know about the wave duality of quantum mechanics..

No it does not. Not at the level of particle physics.

Please refer to the above lol..

There was no such discovery. A discovery is a measurement, and LOG has none in its favor. So it's just one of a garden variety of exotic theories. Besides, beware mnemeth, who's gonna have you for breakfast for suggesting such exotic crap, whereas it's clear that all of the Universe is explained by Ohm's law

Really? How odd, then I guess this white paper must be a figment of my imagination then??

Quantum Gravity and the Standard Model

We show that a class of background independent models of quantum spacetime have local excitations that can be mapped to the first generation fermions of the standard model of particle physics. These states propagate coherently as they can be shown to be noiseless subsystems of the microscopic quantum dynamics. These are identified in terms of certain patterns of braiding of graphs, thus giving a quantum gravitational foundation for the topological preon model proposed. These results apply to a large class of theories in which the Hilbert space has a basis of states given by ribbon graphs embedded in a three-dimensional manifold up to iffeomorphisms, and the dynamics is given by local moves on the graphs, such as arise in the representation theory of quantum groups. For such models, matter appears to be already included in the microscopic kinematics and dynamics.

And just to be pedantic cause I know that will get up your nose…

Discovery
Noun
1. the act of discovering something
(synonym) find, uncovering
(hypernym) deed, feat, effort, exploit
(hyponym) detection, catching, espial, spying, spotting
(derivation) fall upon, strike, come upon, light upon, chance upon, come across, chance on, happen upon, attain, discover
2. something that is discovered
(hypernym) disclosure, revelation, revealing
(derivation) fall upon, strike, come upon, light upon, chance upon, come across, chance on, happen upon, attain, discover
3. a productive insight
(synonym) breakthrough, find
(hypernym) insight, brainstorm, brainwave
(derivation) detect, observe, find, discover, notice

LQG has Discovered that quantum gravity can give rise to geometry that accurately describes the properties of sub atomic particles… That’s not a discovery then I take it?? And it’s actually String Theory that has an issue with describing the world around us… Loop Quantum gravity actually goes a long long way to unifying quantum mechanics with astrophysics.
It describes how something can indeed come from nothing…

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Anton–Babinski syndrome is a rare symptom of brain damage occurring in the occipital lobe. People who suffer from it are "cortically blind", but affirm, often quite adamantly and in the face of clear evidence of their blindness, that they are capable of seeing.

Hmmm how to answer this one… [scratches head] I know like for like…

The superiority complex involves covering up your inferiority by pretending to be superior. If you feel small, one way to feel big is to make everyone else feel even smaller! Bullies, braggarts, and petty dictators everywhere are the prime example. More subtle examples are the people who are given to attention-getting dramatics, the ones who feel powerful when they commit crimes, and the ones who put others down for their gender, race, ethnic origins, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, weight, height, etc. etc.

Hope this answers some of your questions…

Korg.

One Question… If Buddha is the god of the meek… then why is Buddha so fat??

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Korg Trinity]

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
One Question… If Buddha is the god of the meek… then why is Buddha so fat??

a) Buddha is not a "God". He garnered respect, though, not only from meek but also from valiant warriors. So you got it wrong twice in one sentence.

b) traditional depiction of Buddha do not show him as fat at all. For most of his life, he was quite athletic before he tried asceticism and was skeletal , then regained more normal weight. You are probably mixing some netsuke or other such form of Asian art with Buddhist art, which is wrong.


Once again, you don't do homework. You get "F". Dismissed.

--
--double post--

[edit on 17-7-2010 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by buddhasystem


You didn't even address anything but Korg's last sentence...


WTF.

-----

Great post, Korg

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Takes on gravity.......Hmmmm.........Tell him to jump off a high building. I bet he looses.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You didn't even address anything but Korg's last sentence...


WTF.

-----

Great post, Korg

Thanks beebs,

My question was supposed to be a joke and not taken literally. I was trying to lighten the thread somewhat though I realize this thread is about gravity, it really doesn't have to get sooo heavy lol

And Buddhasystems not answering my post is kind of expected. Enlightenment is not something that you can tell someone about and they become enlightened, it is a self discovery and has to be experienced before it can be understood. It looks like Buddhasystems is on the path, he just needs to start to walk.

All the best,

korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

My question was supposed to be a joke and not taken literally. I was trying to lighten the thread somewhat though I realize this thread is about gravity, it really doesn't have to get sooo heavy lol

And Buddhasystems not answering my post is kind of expected. Enlightenment is not something that you can tell someone about and they become enlightened, it is a self discovery and has to be experienced before it can be understood. It looks like Buddhasystems is on the path, he just needs to start to walk.

Yes, and my apologies to anyone in the thread if I got too heavy as well. (yes, including you buddhasystem)

It just irks me when I see someone that has the know-it-all attitude... it has all my life.

But we are all on a journey, and helping each other overcome obstacles and alleviating suffering is the duty for a mahayana buddhist(which i like to think i am more or less...)

Yes, as morpheus said in the matrix:

'There is a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path.'




[edit on 18-7-2010 by beebs]

Originally posted by beebs

But we are all on a journey, and helping each other overcome obstacles and alleviating suffering is the duty for a mahayana buddhist(which i like to think i am more or less...)

It takes time to realise that having a goal is important but not as important as the journey.



You may find this interesting, and again validates the concept of the grand unifying field thoery that gives rise to quantum gravity.

Where Science and Buddhism Meet PART 1



Where Science and Buddhism Meet PART 2



All the best,

Korg.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
The Coherence of matter… is where quantum fluctuations and effects are negated by interaction.

Quantum effects are never "negated" by interaction. If interaction is the act of measurement, it's one way we observe quantum effects at work.

The term "coherence of matter" is typically used in relation to Bose-Einstein condensation. You bizarrely chose to use it for something very different.

All potentials are deducted to just a single set of values.

What "potentials"? Applied to what?

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Where Science and Buddhism Meet PART 1

I must admit I'm extremely allergic to New Age "blah" in high concentrations, and the vid is a prime example of that. Drawing parallels between "emptiness" in Buddhism and physical void in the structure of solid matter (which is indeed the case) is just about as superficial as it gets... Just read the Heart Sutra as a primer if you don't get it. And equating Tao with "quantum field" is in the same vein. My hovercraft is full of eels.

Misleading fiascos like that do a disservice to both science and Buddhism. No amount of space music can cover this up.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Quantum effects are never "negated" by interaction. If interaction is the act of measurement, it's one way we observe quantum effects at work.

What "potentials"? Applied to what?

The wave function is 'collapsed', or 'negated' by the interaction... shouldn't you know this? The potentials are collapsed and realized.

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the process by which a wave function —initially in a superposition of different eigenstates —appears to reduce to a single one of the states after interaction with an observer. In simplified terms, it is the condensation of physical possibilities into a single occurrence, as seen by an observer.

wiki: wave function collapse

And as for the correlations between buddhist and eastern philosophy and modern physics... perhaps you should find out what his holiness thinks. I will take his word over yours, buddhasystem.

I recommend reading his book:
The Universe in a Single Atom

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Quantum effects are never "negated" by interaction. If interaction is the act of measurement, it's one way we observe quantum effects at work.

What "potentials"? Applied to what?

The wave function is 'collapsed', or 'negated' by the interaction... shouldn't you know this? The potentials are collapsed and realized.

What the hell do "potentials" have to do with the wave function, really? Is it yet another case of creative usage of unrelated terms? And how do "potentials collapse"? You really are addicted to talking in science-like gibberish sort of language. Besides, all entropy-maximizing vector fields are Lorentz-invariant when a proper gauge expansion is applied. However, when one takes into account the isospin symmetry, the solution becomes degenerate, leading to divergence of the propagator. Thus, we have a singularity in the equation describing baryon spectra.

And as for the correlations between buddhist and eastern philosophy and modern physics... perhaps you should find out what his holiness thinks. I will take his word over yours, buddhasystem.

I'm not against "correlations" which in fact Einstein was discussing as well. I'm against the mind-numbing superficiality in approach manifest in the YouTube links provided in the thread. If you insist on staying on that level, I can't say I care.

reply to post by buddhasystem

What the hell do "potentials" have to do with the wave function, really? Is it yet another case of creative usage of unrelated terms? And how do "potentials collapse"?

Schrodinger's cat has the Potential/Possibility of being alive or dead - both. When you open the box, the Interaction/Observance negates/collapses the Potential/Probability field that is the 'quantum medium/foam' into ONE reality which is observed. All of the other potential in the quantum system is negated to allow for one particular instance/manifestation of the field.

I am a philosopher of science. You are apparently a former teacher of physics that argues about semantics and belabors unimportant points - clever debating techniques.

Potentials collapse when a reality is observed. When an interaction takes place collapsing the probability of the quantum system.

Please elaborate:

You really are addicted to talking in science-like gibberish sort of language.

Besides, all entropy-maximizing vector fields are Lorentz-invariant when a proper gauge expansion is applied. However, when one takes into account the isospin symmetry, the solution becomes degenerate, leading to divergence of the propagator. Thus, we have a singularity in the equation describing baryon spectra.

Can you more precisely describe what this has to do with the wave function collapse?

I am sorry that my 'science-like gibberish' is not up to par with your own jargon, although I am sure that once we get beyond the semantical differences we can only agree - seeing as there is only one Truth.

Matter which we perceive is merely nothing but a great concentration of energy in very small regions. We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense. . . . There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and matter for the field is the only reality. -Einstein

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What the hell do "potentials" have to do with the wave function, really? Is it yet another case of creative usage of unrelated terms? And how do "potentials collapse"?

I believe beebs answered this one very well, and I am absolutely astounded that you as a physics teacher do not grasp the very basis of quantum mechanics. Even if this is not your area of expertise you should surely have a keen interest and a questing mind?? Should you not then have done some research out of your own interest??

Please review the double slit experiment I posted earlier to grasp the wave/particle duality of matter, and how this shows very clearly how potentiality and wave function are intrinsically linked.

You really are addicted to talking in science-like gibberish sort of language. Besides, all entropy-maximizing vector fields are Lorentz-invariant when a proper gauge expansion is applied. However, when one takes into account the isospin symmetry, the solution becomes degenerate, leading to divergence of the propagator. Thus, we have a singularity in the equation describing baryon spectra.

O.k. I have to bite on this one…

Firstly, you do not have to attempt to use terms that people who are not versed in vector math will not understand. Please try and relate what you are trying to say in a way that easier to be understood. The irony is you accused beebs of doing this (he didn’t) then go on to attempt to validate your point by using technical terms.

Besides Special Relativity/General Relativity rely on the four forces to work, the Standard Model relies on the four forces to work.... What we are stating here is that there is only one force. A single place (if you can call it a place) that all forces come and everything springs.

What you describe above is like looking at the bricks of a building and saying “look I am right the house is made of bricks….” What I and beebs are trying to convey is that the bricks themselves are made of a single substance, the same substance that everything else is also made of, including you and including me…

We are both right in this circumstance; just you are not looking at the same level of reality. As beebs quite rightly said, there can be only one truth.

I'm not against "correlations" which in fact Einstein was discussing as well. I'm against the mind-numbing superficiality in approach manifest in the YouTube links provided in the thread. If you insist on staying on that level, I can't say I care.

All the videos presented in this thread are very pertinent to the OP and to act as a pointer to the right path, The information they contain are like sign posts pointing to the ultimate truth. Even a little nudge to try and get your to walk the walk.

If you cannot perceive there is even a path to walk upon, how can you know where the signs are pointing?

I must admit I'm extremely allergic to New Age "blah" in high concentrations, and the vid is a prime example of that. Drawing parallels between "emptiness" in Buddhism and physical void in the structure of solid matter (which is indeed the case) is just about as superficial as it gets... Just read the Heart Sutra as a primer if you don't get it. And equating Tao with "quantum field" is in the same vein. My hovercraft is full of eels.

Did you actually watch part two? This is the part where the parallels are drawn. Buddhism and the ultimate truth of total abstract oneness is a direct description of the unifying field theory. Quantum mechanics / Loop Quantum Gravity are now validating this knowledge.

There is no physical void. Virtual particles and particles are created and annihilated in the sea of pure potential, the quantum foam, the unifying field, the ocean of pure consciousness. This is the emptiness that Buddhism describes, it is not that it is empty, just it is empty of manifestation. Like a block of stone yet to shaped by a master sculptor. This is the source of Zen.

Let me ask you a question… If information cannot be destroyed, do you think it can be created?

Misleading fiascos like that do a disservice to both science and Buddhism. No amount of space music can cover this up.

There is no distraction other than the reality we build for ourselves. So ironically you stumble across the truth.

No Fate but what we Make…

Korg.

Originally posted by beebs

Matter which we perceive is merely nothing but a great concentration of energy in very small regions. We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense. . . . There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and matter for the field is the only reality. -Einstein

An excellent quote to bring to the table!!

I'm sure Einstein would have gone nuts over LQG. The spooky action at a distance and the cosmological constant issues he had would not have plagued him so.



Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


yes you are right I think because we only see a part of reality, we make our own reality via our senses, but we have very limited senses ... a dog can hear much more and smell much better than we do, a fly sees totally different than we do, so we create in our brain OUR reality, for a fly it is totally different .... lots of things we do not hear, do not see or do not feel, do not smell or taste ...
so imagine we could see ALL things, ALL reality, maybe we should see then the magnetic forces around us, or the electromagnetic fields, or the X and Gamma rays and their interacting .... maybe then we should understand much better how things work !!! but now, it is like asking a blind man to tell us about how a car accident just did happen before his eyes ....... how could he ... how could we if we do not have the senses for it and so we only can try to understand reality by searching into all kind of other indirect stimuli.

Originally posted by beebs
Schrodinger's cat has the Potential/Possibility of being alive or dead - both. When you open the box, the Interaction/Observance negates/collapses the Potential/Probability field that is the 'quantum medium/foam'

More bizarre wording... "Foam"?

As to "potential", the overwhelming usage in physics is different from "possibility" and relates to "potential energy".

I am a philosopher of science. You are apparently a former teacher of physics that argues about semantics and belabors unimportant points - clever debating techniques.

Without "semantics", in science, all there is left is a pile of garbage such is left here on ATS by throngs of armchair "philosophers" who like to speculate about "quantum foam" and feel important because it sounds damn cool.

Please elaborate:

Besides, all entropy-maximizing vector fields are Lorentz-invariant when a proper gauge expansion is applied. However, when one takes into account the isospin symmetry, the solution becomes degenerate, leading to divergence of the propagator. Thus, we have a singularity in the equation describing baryon spectra.

Can you more precisely describe what this has to do with the wave function collapse?

Of course I can -- absolutely nothing. This paragraph is absolutely meaningless. I made up this science-sounding babble just to illustrate just how easy it is to manufacture that sort of verbal crap that keeps coming from the "philosophers" bunch. You see, that's how one writes papers "Haramein style".