The rules of logic dictate that, given multiple mutually conflicting options, they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong.
1 Like
I find your own hubris amusing. Anecdotally, relating your pursuit of knowledge and the mastery thereof as if it mattered to anyone other than yourself - whilst, i might add, noting general relativity and quantum physics in the same sentence (a relationship which all of our best thinkers have shown cannot co-exist). Mere extensions of thought. Masturbations of conceptualizing. Scribbles on a a piece of paper. How many sheets of paper will succumb to your extension of preponderance before the whole of the Arboreal forests are no more?
In your taste for cruelty you almost beg for them to return. The taste of disdain on your lips knows no satiate. Ahahahahahhahaha.
Well, that’s not quite true. “All our best thinkers” do not say that the said two relationships cannot coexist. What they do say is that general relativity is a classical theory while quantum mechanics is not. The former describe phenomena over cosmic scales and with high mass and energy density where individual quantum particles do not matter, while the latter describe microscopic phenomena where large scale behaviour is downplayed. In addition, they have different approaches, of which one of the more important ones is that QM is quantised while GR is not. This makes them hard to unify into quantum gravitation, in their current formulation. There are strong reasons to believe that there can exist a theoretical framework of quantum gravitation that encompasses both GR and QM. One can mention string theory as a candidate that the relevant theoreticians had high hopes about, but it is not quite there, at least not yet, but this has not been found. Yet. Further research is needed. Which is not the same as saying it can’t be done.
2 Likes
Indeed. And the utility and predictive power of both systems mean they are largely valid and strongly suggests to me that there probably IS a way to integrate them. In the meantime, they are different tools for different contexts and if they remain thus, I’m unperturbed by it.
It’s been fifty years now since the first work on String Theory and it just keeps getting more convoluted and patched up. I think it’s a dead end. It might be mathematically elegant, but it bears no testable relationship to the real world.
And based on the rigorous definition of the word theory, it shouldn’t be called that–it should be called either the String Hypothesis or the String Conjecture.
Complicated stuff takes time to figure out. It took decades to find the Higgs particle and confirm its existence. String theory is terribly complicated, so it’s no wonder it takes time to figure out if it corresponds to the real world in a meaningful way.
However, String theory is has spawned quite a lot of new mathematics. So if we see it from the side of mathematics, it is a theory.
1 Like
The real problem with the string stuff is that it’s untestable in any meaningful way. What use is a hypothesis if it’s untestable? It’s been said that the “theory” predicts 10 to the 500th vacuum states, which means it’s useless at predicting anything.
I have an informed opinion on this matter. It’s more of a Buddhist Science sound bite of sorts.
In Buddhism we have the state called “the attainment of neither perception nor non-perception”. It hovers between the observed quantum world and the unobserved quantum world. It is a duality of sorts where one is simultaneously aware of both the particle and wave-like nature of sensory phenomena (sensory phenomenon being - most relevantly - sound waves and light perception of forms).
In fact, if we go a step further, we can arrive at the next highest attainment “the cessation of perception and feeling” (which, in fact, has no higher meditative attainment). In phenomenological terms, this is where all traces of the mind and body have been suspended. The observer is broadly aware of his existence within a non-local non-spatial totality (an infinite or boundless expanse of freedom from physical constraints).
In quantum terms, the second highest attainment relates to the quantum level, where particles are coming under contact with other ones and out of contact with other ones. The unobserved quantum state is indeterminate and fluctuates between states of particularity, physically bound by gravity - as well as wave-like - detached from gravity while in a spatial relationship to it.
That would be to say, that the Higgs boson in part determines the particle or wave nature of the wave function (although I know nothing of the Higgs boson). It may be more accurate to simply describe “gravity” as a particle which binds to substance tightly on large scales, and less tightly on smaller scales.
The reason we cannot nail down gravity and the quantum world is that we lack the conceptual mechanics to describe “non-existence” (the cessation of feeling and perception). To make matters worse, we are totally lacking a mathematical framework to describe pure “nothingness” - which is a different category of non-existence.
If we understood “nothingness” we could demonstrate mathematically how gravity breaks bonds with particles and allows them to act as waves. This also might lead to a fuller understanding of the “unbound” state where gravity is no longer even “in the picture” (ie. the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling)
I have a fairly well worked out physical framework for the above observations, but as Fermat would say, the details are too extensive to add in the margins.
If you’d like a confidential copy of my observations, formulae, and examples - I’d be happy to share them with you via PM.
I don’t think that’s it.
Of the four known physical forces (electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity), three of them are mediated by gauge bosons. Photons for the electromagnetic force, gluons for the strong nuclear force, and the W and Z bosons for the weak nuclear force.
Whether or not there’s a gauge boson that mediates the gravitational force is something that’s still up in the air because there isn’t a coherent theory of quantum gravity. General relativity does not appear to be renormalizable, which is the current stumbling block in formulating a theory of quantum gravity. It’s been postulated that gravity is mediated by a massless spin-2 gauge boson called the graviton, but so far there’s been no evidence for its existence. Assuming they exist, they’re so weakly interacting with matter that any reasonable detector would be enormous (much larger than the earth).
Allegedly…
Allegedly…
Allegedly…
Nonsense, it’s called dying.
1 Like
I am fully aware of that. You can adapt string theory to almost any type of reality you want by tweaking the countless parameters involved, thus making it very hard or maybe even impossible to make theoretical predictions that can be verified empirically. However, even if string theory itself turns out to not be the theory of quantum gravitation that theorists had hoped, it has been (and still is) useful as a springboard to make variations of and iterations towards something that may describe reality better, and/or as a playground for playing around with novel ideas where applications might materialise later, and/or (as I’ve already mentioned) as a source of inspiration for developing new mathematical methods.
In short, even though string theory so far is not a predictive type of theoretical framework, the mathematical side of it is quite useful.
Other than the reaction “Nature (i.e. physics) does not care about your feelings”, I must confess that the rest of your paragraphs did not make much sense to me.
Truthfully, I have really given up trying to talk to believers at all. It’s like talking to a fencepost and for obvious reasons. I was once approached by two Mormons trying to sell me on their religion. I simply smiled and said “don’t bother guys, I’m an antitheist.” They thanked me and bid me a good evening. It was a wonderful victory for me in which I finally felt that I had risen above my former religious delusions. I have stolen the famous line from that Christian song: “Twas blind but now SEE!”
It was originally a poem. The stories of it and the man who wrote it are interesting. Worth learning about, imo.
Silly Christians, fairy tale beliefs are for kids 
Is that a “no” to my short paper covering the fundamental theorems of temporal dynamics?
Yes, it’s a no.
202020
1 Like