2 of 4
2
Quantum Physics
Posted: 23 March 2007 06:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  107
Joined  2007-02-17

Granted but in QM there are rediculous answers to some questions, string theory gives a better explination.  Keep an eye on 2009, when CERN fires up the Large Hadron Collider.

 Signature 

http://www.drawingwithlight.smugmug.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 06:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14
[quote author=“Carbon based”]Granted but in QM there are rediculous answers to some questions

:?:

Which ones are those? And do recall that string theory doesn’t falsify QM ... it is consistent with it, as it must be since QM has been verified experimentally. So the weird bits stay.

[quote author=“Carbon based”]string theory gives a better explination.  Keep an eye on 2009, when CERN fires up the Large Hadron Collider.

Well, I would be delighted if the LHC could help establish string theory. We’ll see.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 07:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  107
Joined  2007-02-17

What string theory is trying to do is come up with “The Theory of Everything.”  QM can not explain quantium gravity, or how gravity ties into the other three forces.  Sting theory may do this, but with certain cavet’s, strings, multidemensions etc.
Thinking of sub-atomic particles as “point-particles” seems probmatic, but as vibrating strings of energy these issues go away.

And yes String Theory maybe false, but until someone comes up with a better theory…?  But it’s (string theory) intent is not to “disprove” QM but lend better understanding to QM.

Special relativity didn’t falisfy Newtonian gravity, but better explains gravity at cosmic scales.
Newtonian gravity works just fine at eathbound scales.

Edited to remove erroneous info: CB

 Signature 

http://www.drawingwithlight.smugmug.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 07:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  107
Joined  2007-02-17

Here is an interesting paper on QM myths:  

 Signature 

http://www.drawingwithlight.smugmug.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 08:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  107
Joined  2007-02-17

Here is another good site for String Theory, it has a Basic explination and a diffucult explination path.  Choose wisely.  LOL

 Signature 

http://www.drawingwithlight.smugmug.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 10:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11

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

“Some physicists would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist independently of whether we observe them. This however is impossible.” Werner Heisenberg


This sentiment was similarly echoed by French physicist Bernard d’Espagnat:

“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with Quantum Mechanics and with facts established by experiment.”[4]

Som one mentioned “What the bleep…” so I had to post this. I’m no proponent of this “quantum consciousness” observer effect stuff but the above link includes a bit of their take on it for anyone that’s interested.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 10:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14

[quote author=“skepticdave”]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

“Some physicists would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist independently of whether we observe them. This however is impossible.” Werner Heisenberg


This sentiment was similarly echoed by French physicist Bernard d’Espagnat:

“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with Quantum Mechanics and with facts established by experiment.”[4]

Som one mentioned “What the bleep…” so I had to post this. I’m no proponent of this “quantum consciousness” observer effect stuff but the above link includes a bit of their take on it for anyone that’s interested.

Right, yes, but the Wikipedia entry also says, “Most physicists regard this theory as a non-scientific concept, claiming that it is experimentally unfalsifiable, and that it introduces unnecessary elements into physics, rather than simplifying.”

That is, this is one rather radical interpretation of QM. I am opposed to it, so I prefer other interpretations, such as Bohm’s or the many world hypothesis.

I would also suggest taking a look at the multitude of articles and links against “quantum consciousness” at the bottom. E.g., one by Victor Stenger from CSI , another by Michael Shermer for Scientific American , etc.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 11:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11

[quote author=“dougsmith”][quote author=“skepticdave”]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

“Some physicists would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist independently of whether we observe them. This however is impossible.” Werner Heisenberg


This sentiment was similarly echoed by French physicist Bernard d’Espagnat:

“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with Quantum Mechanics and with facts established by experiment.”[4]

Som one mentioned “What the bleep…” so I had to post this. I’m no proponent of this “quantum consciousness” observer effect stuff but the above link includes a bit of their take on it for anyone that’s interested.

Right, yes, but the Wikipedia entry also says, “Most physicists regard this theory as a non-scientific concept, claiming that it is experimentally unfalsifiable, and that it introduces unnecessary elements into physics, rather than simplifying.”

That is, this is one rather radical interpretation of QM. I am opposed to it, so I prefer other interpretations, such as Bohm’s or the many world hypothesis.

I would also suggest taking a look at the multitude of articles and links against “quantum consciousness” at the bottom. E.g., one by Victor Stenger from CSI , another by Michael Shermer for Scientific American , etc.

Excellent links Doug.

Like I said, I’m no proponent of “that” interpretation either. I just wanted to throw that side of the argument out there for anyone that may be interested in hearing it and from who and where it comes from.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  138
Joined  2007-03-15

I’ve always found speculation about superstrings both very unscientific as well as very unphilosophical. 

First of all, has any one asked what these strings are comprised of?  And second, a superstring is supposedly as small in comparison to a proton as a proton is in comparison to the solar system, in other words, probing this realm directly would require an accelerator 1,000 light years around!  Our entire solar system is only one light day around.

It is this problem that led the Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow to compare superstring theorists to “medieval theologians.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 11:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  107
Joined  2007-02-17

I’ve always found speculation about superstrings both very unscientific as well as very unphilosohical.
Does science have to be philosophical?

 Signature 

http://www.drawingwithlight.smugmug.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 12:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  107
Joined  2007-02-17

[quote author=“CoryDuchesne”]
It is this problem that led the Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow to compare superstring theorists to “medieval theologians.”

Well Glashow also says he doesn’t understand string theory, so to comment on something you don’t understand…

Read interview here:  

Read many interviews on string theory here:  

 Signature 

http://www.drawingwithlight.smugmug.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11

[quote author=“CoryDuchesne”]I’ve always found speculation about superstrings both very unscientific as well as very unphilosophical. 

First of all, has any one asked what these strings are comprised of?

The same matter/charge that point particles are comprised of except the “point particle” all along was observed as just a point of the string.

And second, a superstring is supposedly as small in comparison to a proton as a proton is in comparison to the solar system, in other words, probing this realm directly would require an accelerator 1,000 light years around!  Our entire solar system is only one light day around.

So, minus Pluto, for one to orbit our solar system travelling at 186,000 miles per second, tracing Neptunes orbit, would take 1,000 light years? That doesn’t add up.

Strings are small but not that small. Yet, as of currently, strings are undetectable hence unfalsifiable so yeah, it is philosophy not science yet.

It is this problem that led the Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow to compare superstring theorists to “medieval theologians.”

He’s entitled to his opinion as are you and me or anyone else. Until all the data and evidence is in, I guess the most rational position to hold is agnosticism on this subject.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 01:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  138
Joined  2007-03-15

[quote author=“Carbon Based”]
[quote author=“Cory”]
I’ve always found speculation about superstrings both very unscientific as well as very unphilosohical.

Does science have to be philosophical?

 

I’m not sure what you mean.  Are you under the assumption that super-string theory is scientific?  It’s realy not.  It has more of a resemblance to literature, art or theology in that it merely offers points of view, which are, at best, ‘interesting’. 

There is no reason to think that SS theory should be associated in any way with the truth.

[quote author=“Cory”]
[quote author=“Carbon Based”]
It is this problem that led the Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow to compare superstring theorists to “medieval theologians.”

Well Glashow also says he doesn’t understand string theory, so to comment on something you don’t understand…

He knows that it’s not scientific.  That’s all he needs to know. 

One of Newton’s famous quotes was: “I don’t feign hypotheses!”  He made the comment with a scorn that was directed toward Descartes, who had a propensity for producing a great many hypotheses that were, from their initial conception, devoid of any actual observation or testing - - much like SS theory. 

It’s amazing that a hypotheses whose validation depends on an accelerator 1,000 light years around could get so complicated that a Nobel laureate physicist can’t understand it.  It’s really quite silly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 01:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11

[quote author=“CoryDuchesne”][quote author=“Carbon Based”]
[quote author=“Cory”]

I’ve always found speculation about superstrings both very unscientific as well as very unphilosohical.

There is more to philosophy than just mere speculation of course, but the very act of philosophizing and “speculating” is in its most base regards….“questioning” or phronesis, maybe even dianoia. Philosophy in and of itself is unfalsifiable. When you get verifiable answers, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes a science.

One of Newton’s famous quotes was: “I don’t feign hypotheses!”  He made the comment with a scorn that was directed toward Descartes, who had a propensity for producing a great many hypotheses that were, from their initial conception, devoid of any actual observation or testing - - much like SS theory.

 
True, or as Socrates many earlier centuries said,” I know what I don’t know.” The Socratic disavowel of knowledge. Time will tell whether physicists disprove String Theory. Until then….......

It’s amazing that a hypotheses whose validation depends on an accelerator 1,000 light years around could get so complicated that a Nobel laureate physicist can’t understand it.  It’s really quite silly.

I’m sure you could’ve found a ‘physicist’ that objected to the Michelson/Morley experiments for ether too.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2007 01:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  107
Joined  2007-02-17

He knows that it’s not scientific. That’s all he needs to know.

Aren’t you making a classic logical error?  Setting up Glashow as the authority, and only authority on string theory due to his nobel status?

I could/would counter with: David Gross shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics and is the director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Gross: The big bang theory is the idea that if we go back early enough in the history of the universe—and we can do this, of course, by looking at starlight coming to us from billions of years ago—we will see a very hot and dense period where the universe was much smaller, denser, and hotter. And that explosion or hot state left remnants that we can observe today in the microwave background. So we know that that aspect of the theory is true.

If we push back even farther, that hotter or denser state becomes even hotter and denser. And if we extrapolate using Einstein’s theory of general relativity, we find total disaster. That is, we find a singularity, in which the forces that act on particles become infinitely strong. Things break down completely, and the theory no longer makes sense.

Our conclusion is not that the universe doesn’t make sense, but that the equations are wrong. They’re applicable maybe at later times, but they’re not applicable at the beginning of the universe. So we desperately need something like string theory appears to be—a theory that is consistent.

NOVA: Basically you need a theory that’s going to work under those conditions.

Gross: Yes, and one that can provide an answer to questions that with our present theories we can’t dream of answering, such as: How does the universe begin? What starts it off? What is the state of the universe at the beginning? Is that unique or arbitrary? Who fixes the initial conditions? There are questions that can’t be answered within the standard theory. We’re not sure that string theory, or any theory, could provide answers to the beginning of the universe, but it’s a goal that many of us are desperate to try to reach.

NOVA: And string theory can help provide these answers?

Gross: String theory is the best hope at the present. And the questions are some of the most interesting questions that we can ask. All of us would like to know: Is the universe arbitrary? Could it have been otherwise than it is? Could there have been different laws, different constants of nature? Has it begun only once, or is it cyclic? Was there beginning to time? Does time have any meaning before it began? These are wonderful questions, and we’re now in a position to address them. We have no guarantee that we will find the answers, of course, but the effort is as important as finding the answer.

Philiosophical enough for you?

Also could you please supply your source on the 1,000 light year accelerator.

 Signature 

http://www.drawingwithlight.smugmug.com

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2
 
‹‹ Is absolute truth possible?      Necessity ››