searching for a string explanation

[mitch bass]

Can someone please define for me what is meant by string theory and what the significance of it is and why, according to stephen hawkins, it would take 32 dimension to permit the existence of such a phenomenon.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by mitch bass
Can someone please define for me what is meant by string theory and what the significance of it is and why, according to stephen hawkins, it would take 32 dimension to permit the existence of such a phenomenon.

It is an ad hoc kludge-theory patching incorrect relativity theory with incomplete quantum theory. It has all these 32 some odd dimensions (which do not exist in reality) precisely because of the unnecessary and incompatable complexity in standard model.

It is completely abstract and has no basis in reality.

[:D]

If the standard model had the correct fundamental substrate (a single fluid-dynamic continuous and compressible fluid) instead of point-particles in a void this monstrous complexity would be rendered superfluous and the whole thing would be a single unified whole as in Sorce Theory for instance.

[ahrkron]

String Theory (ST) is an attempt (a very good one, I should say) to put together all fundamental interactions (including gravity) into one unified framework.

It is not just a "nice description" of general ideas about how things would work (as many "theories" you can find on the web), but a very detailed mathematical set of models, able to produce experimental predictions.

The "strings" on the name is due to the fact that, originally, instead of using points as fundamental objects (as is the case with quantum field theory), ST considers one-dimensional objects (curved lines, if you will).

Later on, it has been found that fundamental objects have to include also surfaces ("membranes", or "2-branes"), solids (3-branes), etc.

This (http://superstringtheory.com) is nice site to learn about it.

BTW, I should add that ST is not the only contender to produce a quantum-mechanical description of gravity. Another very important one is called "Loop Quantum Gravity". A google search on it should help you find some info about it.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by mitch bass
Can someone please define for me what is meant by string theory and what the significance of it is and why, according to stephen hawkins, it would take 32 dimension to permit the existence of such a phenomenon.

If you want to be a quantum accountant then the standard theories may be for you, but if you actually want to UNDERSTAND reality then I would recommend Sorce Theory.

[:D]

[subtillioN]

The following is from an introduction to M-Theory, which reveals many of the problems with the ‘string’ approach.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.ht ml

“The standard model was designed within a framework known as Quantum Field Theory (QFT), …. But unfortunately the fourth interaction, gravity, beautifully described by Einstein's General Relativity (GR), does not seem to fit into this scheme. Whenever one tries to apply the rules of QFT to GR one gets results which make no sense. For instance, the force between two gravitons (the particles that mediate gravitational interactions), becomes infinite and we do not know how to get rid of these infinities to get physically sensible results.”

First of all General Relativity did not explain the mechanism of gravity. It merely gave us the abstract image of warped space and the tautology of the rubber-sheet analogy (which uses gravity itself to explain gravity). There was and is no accepted explanation of what physically is the cause for the gravitational field which is visualized abstractly as the “shape of space”. There is no evidence for the hypothetical “graviton” or any other force-mediating-particle or particle-mediated-force.

One major problem with the standard model, that string theory is attempting to reconcile, is the nonsensical conception of the point-particle. The calculations of the forces between two “particles” become mathematically infinite because they are using the mathematical fantasy of the “point-particle” as their model for the “fundamental particle”. These so-called point-particles are "infinitely" small thus they can approach each other indefinitely, ever increasing their inter-attractive forces without ever touching each other. This is the age-old problem of trying to quantify the continuum, as explained in Zeno’s paradox. If you are going to use point-particles to escape the necessity of physical extension and then use those extensionless particles for explaining phenomena in extended space then you are going to run into problems, because you are trying to marry two separate realms: the non-existent realm of mathematical extensionless points, with the existent realm of physically extended matter. In reality a particle with zero extension can not exist! Its negation is implicit in its own zero-dimensional definition.

To deal with those infinities which are a result of a faulty premise of the point-particle, Physics has invented a trick called “renormalization”, which is simply a method of replacing those errors (infinities) with the correct observational data. It is now common-place to hear physicists speak of “renormalizability” as a necessary component of any correct theory! It has become considered a positive and necessary attribute of any theory!

[[ I recently heard a professor state that renormalizability means that the theory is mathematically consistent!! In fact it means just the opposite. ]]

String theory deals with this problem by giving a pseudo extension to the point-particle and it replaces it with a loop of “string”, a simple mathematical radius, which also possess zero-dimensionality in its width, thus it also does not exist.

Another M-Theory excerpt:
“One of the most remarkable predictions of String Theory is that space-time has ten dimensions!”

Space-time does not have dimension. It is the finite human mind which must compartmentalize nature into the quantifiable parameters called dimension. The M-theorists are concretizing a mental abstraction and tucking it neatly away beneath the quantum level where it can never be seen or experimentally verified. It is a big mistake to base a theory on an unverifiable, misinterpreted and concretized mental-abstraction. Has anyone ever SEEN a dimension or observed its physical actions? That is because there is no such thing as a dimension in the real physical world.

The main problem with modern physics is in the tacit assumption of the atom-in-the-void inherited from the ancient Greeks, the programmed obsession of breaking things down to an ultimate, quantifiable, non-structured thus indivisible particle residing in an intervening void. In contradiction to this atomic schema our experiments reveal that ALL of the so-far revealed/manufactured subatomic particles have deeper level complexities manifested in their wave nature interactions and their fluid inter-convertibility. They are harmonic resonances and fluid-dynamic effects in a continuous medium.

M-theory is a VERY complex method for patching together incorrect Relativity Theory and incomplete Quantum Theory. However, there is a much simpler, more coherent and thus humanly understandable, alternative method for the unification of ALL the disparate forces, but it requires a fundamental paradigm-shift from an underlying overly simplistic kinetic-atomic substrate to a more complex fluid-dynamic-continuum substrate. This shift in foundation from abstract, nonunified and overly-simplistic toward realistic, more complex, holistic and fluid-dynamic--ultimately enables simpler, more coherent higher-level constructions to be built, thus rendering the whole of physics visualizable and thus humanly understandable. With the proper foundation, all of the complex ad-hoc kludges to get the disparate (and desperate ;) compartments of modern physics to fit are rendered superfluous.

[Hurkyl]

Kaluza and Klein (in the 50's, I believe) had essentially succeeded in unifying classical electromagnetism with gravity.

Kaluza was curious what would happen if he carried out Einstein's reasoning in developing General Relativity, but instead used 4+1 dimensions instead of 3+1 dimensions. (n+1 means n spatial dimensions, 1 time dimension)

Since 3+1 dimensional general relativity was so consistent with observation, Kaluza imposed that his extra dimension should be perfectly perpendicular to the ordinary 4, so that if you "cut away" the extra dimension, you would recover general relativity unchanged. Kaluza then carried out the derivation of the analogue to Einstein's field equations in this 4+1 dimensional space-time, and lo and behold Kaluza discovered that Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism popped out of the math!

Of course, this leaves the problem with just what an extra dimension could mean... Klein reasoned that if this extra dimension was curled up into a really thin loop (in a higher dimensional analogy to a cylinder), then it would look like space as we know it.



On the opposite end of modern physics, quantum physicists were having great success describing the other three forces with gauge theory. For example, electromagnetism could be described with the gauge group U(1); that is one would consider in some particular way functions took values in the transformatino group U(1).

It turns out that U(1) is simply a loop! Suitably abstracting both theories, Kaluza-Klein's derivation of electromagnetism via adding an extra dimension is identical to using a U(1) gauge theory to describe electromagnetism. In general, gauge theory is equivalent to studying higher dimensional surfaces.


Since gravity had resisted all attempts at quantization, the next logical thought was that if the geometrical interpretation worked for unifying classical electromagnetism with gravity, then maybe it would work for the other forces!


So, like mathematicans do whenever two disparate concepts are found to be intimately related, they lift results from each field into the other. In particular, string theorists study higher dimensional spaces, hoping to distill The Standard Model out of the geometry like Kaluza-Klein did with classical electromagnetism. It doesn't matter if the universe really has lots of extra physical dimensions or not; all that matters is that the math is the same.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
It doesn't matter if the universe really has lots of extra physical dimensions or not; all that matters is that the math is the same.

And so it doesn't matter if we actually understand reality so long as the math works.

The fact is that we can have both!!!

[Eh]

Mitch,

Have a look at http://www.superstringtheory.com. The site has some nice tutorials on the basic ideas of the theory, and math is optional. It also has a very good forum (just ignore the spam bot kx21) where you can ask questions about aspects of the theory without crackpots hijacking your thread with their nonsense. Neat flash presentation of the big bang as well.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh

...where you can ask questions about aspects of the theory without crackpots hijacking your thread with their nonsense.

Yes how simple that every alternative viewpoint is neatly placed in your box marked "crack pot". What a brilliant method to justify your ignorance.

This is a discussion forum. We are discussing ALL sides of the subject. If you wish a narrow-minded discussion then go to your favorite religious forum where everybody believes the same.

Science evolves through diversity not through stagnation.

[Eh]

For someone who never learned QM or GR, and yet proclaims to have found a better theory, you aren't one to be talking about ignorance.

Yes, this is a discussion. It's a discussion about string theory, not crackpot ideas. There is a very specific forum for that.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
[B]For someone who never learned QM or GR, and yet proclaims to have found a better theory, you aren't one to be talking about ignorance.

Sorry but I have learned both and I actually know what the equations physically represent.

You don't have to be a quantum accountant to understand quantum theory.

[Eh]

Sorry but I have learned both and I actually know what the equations physically represent.

Your posts here have proven otherwise. Really, this thread is about string theory, not crackpot ideas or conspiracy theories.

[Brad_Ad23]

Agreed. I believe it was Chroot who demonstrated you did not know what the Einstein equation was in some other thread.



anyways, one of the interesting areas of research going on now is in the holographic principle. We are starting to see that what may be described as strings for example in a 5d anti-de Sitter spacetime can be represented as plain old vanilla conformal fields in 4d spacetime (speak of the devil, I see my new issue of Sci American has the cover story about just this topic). So it will be interesting to see what developments come out of that.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
[B]Agreed. I believe it was Chroot who demonstrated you did not know what the Einstein equation was in some other thread.

Right, I am not a QM or GR accountant nor am I an astro-navigator near a space-hole (which don't exist) so the equations are not as important as the deeper understanding itself.

anyways, one of the interesting areas of research going on now is in the holographic principle.

What is the "holographic principal"?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
Your posts here have proven otherwise.

Proven that there is a vast difference between the theories which you do not understand.

Really, this thread is about string theory, not crackpot ideas or conspiracy theories.

Ok so I have presented the other side of the debate about string theory. If you have a problem with what I have said then address it directly instead of this ad hominem nonsense.

[Brad_Ad23]

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0203101

That's a good place to start.

[Eh]

What ad hominem? You are the one who jumped in and started defending crackpots, with the usual excuses. If you want to start claiming ignorance is the reason why your theory is ignored, you should at least know what you're talking about first.

Judging by this post:

It has all these 32 some odd dimensions (which do not exist in reality) precisely because of the unnecessary and incompatable complexity in standard model.

You haven't bothered to learn anything about string theory either, right? Nevermind math, just try to get the basic idea correct. You could also actually read the quotes from websites you post.

[Brad_Ad23]

Whoa, even I missed him saying that. 32????? Last I checked it was 10 to 11.

[subtillioN]

Lol...

Did you guys neglect to read the first post in this thread? I'll paste it below for you:

"Can someone please define for me what is meant by string theory and what the significance of it is and why, according to stephen hawkins, it would take 32 dimension to permit the existence of such a phenomenon."

I have studied string theory in the past and for a time was actually quite interested in it, as of now I simply have no need for it so I don't keep up on how many hypothetical dimensions they currently need to patch the incorrect theories together. The mathematical details of a faulty theory are quite pointless to me. But to each his own.

[Eh]

You've studied it, yet you don't see a problem with the claim it requires 32 dimensions, as opposed to 26 and 10? Right, and I'm the president of the United States.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
[B]What ad hominem? You are the one who jumped in and started defending crackpots...

You answered your own question.


If you want to start claiming ignorance is the reason why your theory is ignored

?? you are talking in circles and misunderstanding everything I am saying. I am saying that clinging to a theory in spite of the falsifications of that theory and instead of searching for an actual understanding is what stops you from hearing what I am saying.

You are simply another defender of the faith.

%99 of the Universe consists of a mysterious substance called "dark matter/energy" yet you believe and have faith that your theory is absolutely correct and you have no need to even understand any other theory. That is hubris.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
You've studied it, yet you don't see a problem with the claim it requires 32 dimensions? Right, and I'm the president of the United States.

I did not make any such claim. I was responding to the original poster who was saying that Stephen Hawking had made such a claim.

I don't really care how many hypothetical entities they have to invent to save their theory, Mr. President.

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
You answered your own question.

When is it in ad hominem to tell a poster that crackpots are absent from a specific forum?

?? you are talking in circles and misunderstanding everything I am saying.

You aren't saying anything meaningful. You are simply attacking theories you haven't even bothered to learn.

I am saying that clinging to a theory in spite of the falsifications of that theory and instead of searching for an actual understanding is what stops you from hearing what I am saying.

Wow, so GR and QM have been falsified? It's amazing how you are able to see facts that physicists are apparently missing. But again, you would have to know what GR and QM actually are about before being able to make any honest statements about them.

You are simply another defender of the faith.

Why, because I don't buy into your drivel? Actually, I've got no problems with new ideas, alternative theories or such. My gripe isn't with the alternative ideas, it's with posters who claim a current theory (like GR) is wrong without even knowing what the said theory is. This is exactly what you are doing, attacking theories without even having a clue as to what the theory actual says. Such intellectual garbage does not help anyone hoping to learn something about a certain theory.

%99 of the Universe consists of a mysterious substance called "dark matter/energy" yet you believe and have faith that your theory is absolutely correct and you have no need to even understand any other theory. That is hubris.

So energy is a substance now? And no one is saying everything current theories are absolutely correct. Get a clue.

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I did not make any such claim. I was responding to the original poster who was saying that Stephen Hawking had made such a claim.


To which you replied: "It has all these 32 some odd dimensions (which do not exist in reality) precisely because of the unnecessary and incompatable complexity in standard model."

So it seems you have "studied" string theory as much as you've studied GR.

[Mentat]

People, please stop with the personal remarks.

Anyway, there is no way that String Theory could require 32 dimensions, since it's hyperspacial mathematics is based on the work of that Indian (dots not feathers) whose name I can't remember (the one that re-invented all of mathematics from a paper that he found), and these equations always yield the answer 8 or the answer 24, these are taken up by two, in order to fit reality (I don't really remember why...time to break out the old textbooks again [:)]), but these are always the conclusions. In fact, that Indian dude (I'm gonna soon, if I don't remember his name...[s(]) used to have dreams about those two numbers (8 and 24).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

LONG LIVE M-THEORY!!!

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
[B]When is it in ad hominem to tell a poster that crackpots are absent from a specific forum?

To call someone a crackpot is an ad hominem especially considering that you don't know the theory I am talking about.

You aren't saying anything meaningful. You are simply attacking theories you haven't even bothered to learn.

I HAVE learned them.


Wow, so GR and QM have been falsified?

Yes by the fact that they are incompatible with each other and with reality itself and that it takes far too many hypothetical dimensions to incorrectly patch them together.

My gripe isn't with the alternative ideas, it's with posters who claim a current theory (like GR) is wrong without even knowing what the said theory is.

I know what GR is and what it isn't. GR isn't wrong it is just misunderstood. It is SR that is wrong.

This is exactly what you are doing, attacking theories without even having a clue as to what the theory actual says. Such intellectual garbage does not help anyone hoping to learn something about a certain theory.

I made valid criticisms about string theory. If you think they are invalid then please by all means demonstrate their invalidity. ((and the exact number of dimensions is not part of my criticism.))

So energy is a substance now? And no one is saying everything current theories are absolutely correct. Get a clue.

I don't think energy is a substance and I don't think dark matter is one either. It simply demonstrates the incorrectness of the theory.

Yet another ignored falsification.

[Mentat]

Ramanujan. I think that's it (the name of the Indian). What, no applause? Oh well, a personal victory then [:D].

[Mentat]

subtillion, I'd like to not take sides in your personal argument here, but the supposed "counter" to string theory, that you posted on the first page of this thread, contained a lot of ridiculous flaws. A few that I can remember are:

1) It said that GR didn't explain gravity, but just gave us an analogy of the rubber-sheet. This is entirely false, as General Relativity is a mathematically sound theory of gravity itself, and gives a perfectly reasonable explanation.

2) (And this is probably the worse one) it actually says that there are no dimensions, but that is something the human mind has invented. I don't know who wrote this originally, but they obviously have no understanding of theoretical physics.

3) It said that the idea of point-particles is utterly nonsensical, when, in fact, Quantum theorists have been using it for decades.

4) It said that the purpose of String Theory was to get rid of the ridiculous point-particles, which would make String Theory a reductionist theory, when - in fact - it is both as reductionist as the Standard Model, and as holisitic as General Relativity (taken up a few dimensions).

[subtillioN]

Hi Mentat,

Originally posted by Mentat
[B]1) It said that GR didn't explain gravity, but just gave us an analogy of the rubber-sheet. This is entirely false, as General Relativity is a mathematically sound theory of gravity itself, and gives a perfectly reasonable explanation.

There are two types of explanation confused here. There is causal explanation and mathematical description. I was specifically refering to a causal explanation. GR does not give the causal mechanism of gravity. This is what the search for quantum gravity et al is all about.

2) (And this is probably the worse one) it actually says that there are no dimensions, but that is something the human mind has invented. I don't know who wrote this originally, but they obviously have no understanding of theoretical physics.

I wrote it. Dimension is a method of measurement and quantification. You can quantify space in many different dimensional systems. Physical reality does not contain dimension whatsoever. Do you think that science has really ever observed a dimension?

And so assuming that dimensions are actually physical things is to make an unnecessary and baseless assumption.

3) It said that the idea of point-particles is utterly nonsensical, when, in fact, Quantum theorists have been using it for decades.

And this is exactly why quantum physics cannot explain the causality beneath their probability equations!!!

The point-particle assumption (as an explanation of the quantum reaction) is the direct cause of the uncertainty relations and Born's probability interpretations of Schrodinger's (et al) wave equations.

4) It said that the purpose of String Theory was to get rid of the ridiculous point-particles, which would make String Theory a reductionist theory, when - in fact - it is both as reductionist as the Standard Model, and as holisitic as General Relativity (taken up a few dimensions).

Well I don't recall saying that. I thought I said that the purpose was to patch the two incompatable theories together. Giving an extension to the point-particles to solve the infinities and focusing on wave-harmonics (even though it is completely abstracted from any physical reality whatsoever) are examples of steps in the right direction for string theory.

[Hurkyl]

GR does not give the causal mechanism of gravity. This is what the search for quantum gravity et al is all about.

What's wrong with "Stress-energy warps space"? And incidentally, the search for quantum gravity is about unifying gravity with the other three forces.


Physical reality does not contain dimension whatsoever. Do you think that science has really ever observed a dimension?

No less so than observing a cloud or a force.


The point-particle assumption (as an explanation of the quantum reaction) is the direct cause of the uncertainty relations and Born's probability interpretations of Schrodinger's (et al) wave equations.

No. The point-particle definition was prompted from the fact that a particular property of a wavefunction (average, I think) has many of the properties of the ideal classical point particle (or the ideal relativistic point particle in relativistic QM)

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
To call someone a crackpot is an ad hominem especially considering that you don't know the theory I am talking about.

It has nothing to do with your theory. Attacking theories you haven't learned is what earns one the title of crackpot. Note that crank will also suffice. It's like a creationist coming here and claiming evolution is wrong, even though they couldn't tell you what the theory actually is.

I HAVE learned them.

So you've learned these mathematical models without math. Impressive.
But wait. If you understand the conceptual aspect of say GR, without it, why do you ask questions like "how can nothingness be curved?" and make statements like "space is just abstract"? Statements like those show a. you do not understand the physical meaning of the theory and b. you haven't put much thought into it at all.

A little more intellectual honesty on your part would make your posts here more productive.

Yes by the fact that they are incompatible with each other and with reality itself and that it takes far too many hypothetical dimensions to incorrectly patch them together.

Uh huh, they are incompatible with each other. So let's just throw them away and forget about the fact that they have both had a lot of experimental sucess, right?

I made valid criticisms about string theory.

No, you simply displayed that you never bothered to learn basic geometry either. Arguing that there is no such thing as a dimension based on an ignorance of geometry is not a very convincing argument against string theory.

I don't think energy is a substance and I don't think dark matter is one either. It simply demonstrates the incorrectness of the theory.

Yet another ignored falsification.

What theory is falsified here?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
[B]It has nothing to do with your theory. Attacking theories you haven't learned is what earns one the title of crackpot. Note that crank will also suffice.

I am not interested in defending myself against your personal unwarrented and incorrect attacks. If you wish to debate the actual content of my posts unstead of making baseless claims and calling me names then I will be glad to discuss it.

Otherwise my posts are simply not for you and just go ahead and ignore them like a civil human being.

[Hurkyl]

I am not interested in defending myself against your personal unwarrented and incorrect attacks.

And what does that have to do with the post you quoted?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]What's wrong with "Stress-energy warps space"?

It is waaaay too abstract and far from a causal explanation. Can you give an explanation of how mass (or "stress-energy" whateverthatmeans) warps space?

And incidentally, the search for quantum gravity is about unifying gravity with the other three forces.

Obviously, but this cannot be achieved without understanding gravity first.


No less so than observing a cloud or a force.

We have observed clouds directly, but the forces of Physics are abstract as well, but still not as purely quantitative as is a dimension.

No. The point-particle definition was prompted from the fact that a particular property of a wavefunction (average, I think) has many of the properties of the ideal classical point particle (or the ideal relativistic point particle in relativistic QM)

It was an incorrect interpretation of the quantum reaction of a light wave or an electric field to a responding atom.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And what does that have to do with the post you quoted?

you can figure it out

[Hurkyl]

Can you give an explanation of how mass (or "stress-energy" whateverthatmeans) warps space?

Nope. So?

I'm sure you're aware that ANY theory (even Sorce theory) has a point where it must say "It just does"... so I'm hard pressed to see why you are trying to imply this is a flaw.


We have observed clouds directly, but the forces of Physics are abstract as well, but still not as purely quantitative as is a dimension.

A cloud is an abstract entity; it's the description of a particular observation. (that there's a collection of water droplets in the sky sufficiently dense to have a grey/white color... and of course one could argue that all of the terms in this definition are abstract as well...)

What makes it okay to believe in clouds but not dimension?


It was an incorrect interpretation of the quantum reaction of a light wave or an electric field to a responding atom.

[?]

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
If you understand the conceptual aspect of say GR, without it, why do you ask questions like "how can nothingness be curved?" and make statements like "space is just abstract"?

Because I am not a believer in such nonsense so I can ask any question I like, even those "banned" by relativity theory.

A correct theory does not have to protect itself from reality.

Statements like those show a. you do not understand the physical meaning of the theory and b. you haven't put much thought into it at all.

Precisely the opposite actually. You are simply demonstrating your ability to believe and how difficult is that?

A little more intellectual honesty on your part would make your posts here more productive.

A little more actual discussion instead of personal attacks would be productive.

You act as if I am making personal attacks against you when I am simply arguing the other side to make for a more balanced debate. Why must you defend your faith through personal attacks instead of dissecting the errors in my logic?

Uh huh, they are incompatible with each other. So let's just throw them away and forget about the fact that they have both had a lot of experimental sucess, right?

Another misunderstanding. I am not saying to throw them away. i am saying that we need a deeper understanding so that we can know in what way they are correct and in what way they are not.

No, you simply displayed that you never bothered to learn basic geometry either. Arguing that there is no such thing as a dimension based on an ignorance of geometry is not a very convincing argument against string theory.

Come on can you actually debate anything or must you resort to blanket statements like this?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Nope. So?

I'm sure you're aware that [b]ANY theory (even Sorce theory) has a point where it must say "It just does"... so I'm hard pressed to see why you are trying to imply this is a flaw.

This is my point. Sorce Theory can explain the root level of causality by fluid-dynamic mechanisms. All forces can be explained as a consequence of a basic fluid-dynamic pressure.

A cloud is an abstract entity; it's the description of a particular observation.

Not so. A cloud is a REAL entity and it is only our description (mathematical or otherwise)that is an abstraction.


What makes it okay to believe in clouds but not dimension?

As a physical entity I am guessing? It's because we can observe a cloud and understand its causality. A dimension is obviously an invention of the mind for the quantification of reality. No one has ever observed a dimension in the wild and there is no evidence that such a thing can exist outside the mind because there is no causal description of a dimension.

In String Thoery the extra dimensions are simply an excuse to add in the needed complexity that must exist at the core level. In Sorce Theory this complexity is derived entirely from the observed and quantified fluid-dynamic nature of fundamental PHYSICAL reality. Sorce Theory invents no hypothetical particles nor does it make any hypothetical assumptions of the physical reality of any mathematical entity. It simply does not need to rest with abstractions.

[?]

[:D]

The theory is VASTLY different so it's bound to not make sense to you... before you understand the deeper mechanisms involved.

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I am not interested in defending myself against your personal unwarrented and incorrect attacks. If you wish to debate the actual content of my posts unstead of making baseless claims and calling me names then I will be glad to discuss it.

What personal attacks? Your posts here have demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about, yet you continue.

Otherwise my posts are simply not for you and just go ahead and ignore them like a civil human being.

I seem to recall that I didn't start this convsersation in this thread, you did.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
What personal attacks? Your posts here have demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about, yet you continue.

Yet again you answer your own question... You are getting quite good at this!!

[:D]



I seem to recall that I didn't start this convsersation in this thread, you did.

I made my critique of string theory and you attacked me personally.

[Hurkyl]

All forces can be explained as a consequence of a basic fluid-dynamic pressure.

Can you explain why there should be fluid-dynamic pressure? Describing the universe as a fluid is a pretty abstract idea anyways, don't you think?



The theory is VASTLY different so it's bound to not make sense to you... before you understand the deeper mechanisms involved.

My [?] was because your statement was seemingly unrelated to my comment, and entirely unrelated to the reasons physicists consider point particles.


No one has ever observed a dimension in the wild and there is no evidence that such a thing can exist outside the mind because there is no causal description of a dimension.

Sure we have. We do it every day.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can you explain why there should be fluid-dynamic pressure? Describing the universe as a fluid is a pretty abstract idea anyways, don't you think?

No it is entirely physical.



“... since the nineteenth century it’s been recognized that the equations of electromagnetism are almost identical with the equations of hydrodynamics, the equations governing fluid flow. Even more curious, Schrödinger’s equation, the basic equation of quantum mechanics, is also closely related to equations of fluid flow. Since 1954 many scientists have shown that a particle moving under the influence of random impacts from irregularities in a fluid will obey Schrödinger’s equation.

“More recently, in the late seventies, researchers found another curious correspondence while developing mathematical laws that govern the motion of line vortices—the hydrodynamic analogs of the plasma filaments .... The governing equation turns out to be a modified form of Schrödinger’s equation, called the nonlinear Schrödinger equation. [This equation is a central part of the study of ‘quantum liquids’ as well. The interesting coincidence is that it is a modified form of the equation describing the shell structure of an atom. How this fluid-dynamic shell gets quantized into the known electronic “orbits” is a key concept illustrated in Sorce Theory.]

“Generally in science when two different phenomena obey the same or very similar mathematical laws, it means that in all probability they are somehow related. Thus it seems likely that both electromagnetism and quantum phenomena generally may be connected to some sort of hydrodynamics on a microscopic level. But this clue, vague as it is, leaves entirely open the key question of what the nuclear particles are. And what keeps them together? How can fluids generate particles? [Sorce Theory fills in these crucial gaps as well.]

“But the idea of particles formed from vortices in some fluid is certainly worth investigating. …However, I think there are additional clues, some developed from my own work, which indicate that plasma processes and quantum mechanical processes are in some way related.

“First and foremost are Krisch’s experimental results on spin-aligned protons. Qualitatively, the results clearly imply that protons are actually some form of vortex, like a plasmoid. Such vortices interact far more strongly when they are spinning in the same direction-which is certainly the behavior Krisch observed in proton collisions. Because vortex behavior would become evident only in near-collisions, the effects should be more pronounced at higher energies and in more head-on interactions—again, in accordance with Krisch’s results.

“A second clue lies in particle asymmetry …. Particles act as if they have a “handedness,” and the simplest dynamic process or object that exhibits an inherent orientation is a vortex. Moreover, right-and left-handed vortices annihilate each other, just as particles and antiparticles do.”

“The Big Bang Never Happened” -- Eric J. Lerner



My [?] was because your statement was seemingly unrelated to my comment, and entirely unrelated to the reasons physicists consider point particles.

Right, "seemingly".


Sure we have. We do it every day.

Only if you believe in it first!!! [:D]

You can say "yes space is definitely 3-d! Just look I can measure it this way and that way and...". Then Buckminster Fuller comes along and says that it is, 12 dimensional, and proceeds to show how the isotropic vector matrix is a much more efficient method of the geometrization of space (not to mention Gauss and Reimann etc.. But is space really physically any of these systems? You simply cannot prove that space is dimensional whatsoever. All you can do is invent different dimensioning schemes that make your quantitative reasoning more concrete. This is not a proof, nor is it an observation of a dimension independent of the mind.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]Can you explain why there should be fluid-dynamic pressure?

It is due to the omni-directional turbulent motion of fine-scale fluid matter.

The root level is matter in motion (or abstractly "time and space"). This is the simple axiomatic level of Sorce Theory. If you can further reduce this level then PLEASE by all means do show me how!! [:D]

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Because I am not a believer in such nonsense so I can ask any question I like, even those "banned" by relativity theory.

The point is that the questions display that you don't have a grasp of the conceptual (or physical) meaning of the theory. But you are claiming you do, even as you make those statements that show otherwise.

Precisely the opposite actually. You are simply demonstrating your ability to believe and how difficult is that?

As I said, it has nothing to do with believing the theories. If you can't even tell what the theory is, you're not in a position to judge whether or not it is true.

A little more actual discussion instead of personal attacks would be productive.

Again, what personal attacks? The only thing I have attacked are you arguments based on cartoon versions of theories. In other words, the fact that you didn't bother to learn a said theory necessarily means you will attempting to show flaws in a misrepresentation of it.

You act as if I am making personal attacks against you when I am simply arguing the other side to make for a more balanced debate. Why must you defend your faith through personal attacks instead of dissecting the errors in my logic?

No, you are making arguments against cartoon versions of theories. It has nothing to do with your logic or theories, only that you insist on attacking certain theories without knowing what they actual are.

Another misunderstanding. I am not saying to throw them away. i am saying that we need a deeper understanding so that we can know in what way they are correct and in what way they are not.

Prior to writing that, I asked you if GR and QM had been falsified, to which you replied:

Yes by the fact that they are incompatible with each other and with reality itself and that it takes far too many hypothetical dimensions to incorrectly patch them together.

Doesn't sound like you're interested in a deeper understanding of these apparently falsified theories.

Come on can you actually debate anything or must you resort to blanket statements like this?

Do you want a basic geometry lesson? We already went over this in the thread about the center of the universe. I explained how space is not a mere abstraction, and how the universe would have no size if it wasn't a real property of things. From there, if you want to say that dimensions aren't real, volumes can't be real either and everything, including you and the computer you're typing on would be zero volume and thus not exist. But hey, we already went over that one.

[Hurkyl]

Fluid space is a nonsensical abstraction, it's not physical. You're confusing math with reality.

The only thing worse than someone who blindly follows the pack is someone who blindly departs from it.



And the non-satirical portion:

I don't have to believe in clouds to observe them. All I have to do is know what properties a cloud would have and go looking for occurances of those properties.

The same with 3-dimensional space; I don't have to believe it, I just have to go around and find occurances of things with the properties of 3-dimensional space.

The root level is matter in motion (or abstractly "time and space"). This is the simple axiomatic level of Sorce Theory. If you can further reduce this level then PLEASE by all means do show me how!!

That's my point; you can't explain any better... you just pick a different starting point of things to presume initially true. There's no reason to think Sorce Theory gives a better interpretation than anything else.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
It's a discussion about string theory, not crackpot ideas. There is a very specific forum for that.

But String Theory IS a crackpot idea!! That is my point.

I vote we move all discussions of String Theory to the "crackpot" forum!!!

[:D]

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Yet again you answer your own question... You are getting quite good at this!!

It's not a personal attack, it's a statement about the content of your posts. The act of attacking strawman versions of theories is being criticized here.

I made my critique of string theory and you attacked me personally.

Well I didn't mention your name, and I wasn't talking to you, but you can infer whatever you like.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]Fluid space is a nonsensical abstraction, it's not physical. You're confusing math with reality.

Who said anything about "fluid space"? I am talking about physical substance.

The only thing worse than someone who blindly follows the pack is someone who blindly departs from it.

Words are cheap. Care to back that up?

I don't have to believe in clouds to observe them. All I have to do is know what properties a cloud would have and go looking for occurances of those properties.

The same with 3-dimensional space; I don't have to believe it, I just have to go around and find occurances of things with the properties of 3-dimensional space.

Lol. Well there is an multitude of geometrization methodologies. Can your "observations" prove that those are incorrect?

You still cannot prove that space has dimension. All you can prove is that you can apply the idea of dimension to it. Which simply amounts to the measurement of it.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
[B]It's not a personal attack, it's a statement about the content of your posts. The act of attacking strawman versions of theories is being criticized here.

You can make loose claims that I am attacking a strawman, but you have never been able to actually deconstruct my reasoning and point out where it goes wrong.


Well I didn't mention your name, and I wasn't talking to you, but you can infer whatever you like.

oh, ok...

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
But String Theory IS a crackpot idea!! That is my point.

And my point is that you aren't in a position to be making that judgement! See? We're making progress here.

[Hurkyl]

But String Theory IS a crackpot idea!! That is my point.

I vote we move all discussions of String Theory to the "crackpot" forum!!!

String Theorists will admit their theory is incomplete. That's why we have a Theoretical Physics forum.

String Theorists don't make strawman attacks against misunderstandings of mainstream physics and actively seeks testable predictions to empirically verify it. That's why it's not a crackpot theory.


Words are cheap. Care to back that up?

My justification is no worse than yours for calling the rest of us "defenders of the faith".


Lol. Well there is an multitude of geometrization methodologies. Can your "observations" prove that those are incorrect?

One can apply the scientific method to any geometrization methodology.


You still cannot prove that space has dimension. All you can prove is that you can apply the idea of dimension to it. Which simply amounts to the measurement of it.

And how is that different than observing clouds?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
The point is that the questions display that you don't have a grasp of the conceptual (or physical) meaning of the theory. But you are claiming you do, even as you make those statements that show otherwise.

baseless


As I said, it has nothing to do with believing the theories. If you can't even tell what the theory is, you're not in a position to judge whether or not it is true.

baseless


Again, what personal attacks? The only thing I have attacked are you arguments based on cartoon versions of theories.

You have simply said that I don't know what I am talking about. That is a baseless statement of opinion that has no place in a productive debate.

In other words, the fact that you didn't bother to learn a said theory necessarily means you will attempting to show flaws in a misrepresentation of it.

baseless

No, you are making arguments against cartoon versions of theories. It has nothing to do with your logic or theories, only that you insist on attacking certain theories without knowing what they actual are.

BACK IT UP!!! or give it up!!



Prior to writing that, I asked you if GR and QM had been [b]falsified, to which you replied:

Yes by the fact that they are incompatible with each other and with reality itself and that it takes far too many hypothetical dimensions to incorrectly patch them together.

Doesn't sound like you're interested in a deeper understanding of these apparently falsified theories.

I already have a deeper understanding of them than the standard model permits. I don't need to back-track and believe in them so that I ask only the permitted questions.

[subtillioN]

That's my point; you can't explain any better... you just pick a different starting point of things to presume initially true.

Yes a starting point from which the unification of ALL the forces naturally follows and everything is causal and visualizable.

There's no reason to think Sorce Theory gives a better interpretation than anything else.

I just gave you the reason.

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
You can make loose claims that I am attacking a strawman, but you have never been able to actually deconstruct my reasoning and point out where it goes wrong.

That is too funny. [:D] Do you really want me to go into your threads and quote every single time you've misrepresented a theory, or shown that you aren't familiar with it's physical meaning while claiming otherwise? It can be done. Your claim that the Einstein equation was a created to fit the null-results of the M&M experiment is my favorite, but there are others. This shouldn't be necessary, since others have been correcting you in virtually all of those threads.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
And my point is that you aren't in a position to be making that judgement! See? We're making progress here.

Baseless attack. Why don't you debate the points I have already made instead of simply declaring them invalid?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
That is too funny. [:D] Do you really want me to go into your threads and quote every single time you've misrepresented a theory, or shown that you aren't familiar with it's physical meaning while claiming otherwise? It can be done. Your claim that the Einstein equation was a created to fit the null-results of the M&M experiment is my favorite, but there are others. This shouldn't be necessary, since others have been correcting you in virtually all of those threads.

more baseless claims

we can debate the points one at a time.

[Hurkyl]

Yes a starting point from which the unification of ALL the forces naturally follows and everything is causal and visualizable.

(a) You have claimed that the math is the same as in the Standard Model.
(b) You are claiming that all forces are describable by Sorce Theory.

One of these is wrong.


Oh, and what again was the definition of "causal"? Wasn't it something like being derived from premises deemed physical? Sounds circular to me.


I already have a deeper understanding of them than the standard model permits. I don't need to back-track and believe in them so that I ask only the permitted questions.

Incorrect; every advance in scientific knowledge must explain why old, wrong ideas seemed correct.


BACK IT UP!!! or give it up!!

Let's start with 2 easy questions.

(a) Why does Quantum Mechanics consider Hermitian operators?

(b) What are the Einstein field equations?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
One can apply the scientific method to any geometrization methodology.

and so how does that prove that dimension is mind-independent?

And how is that different than observing clouds?

Ever heard of objective reality? We can see clouds in objective reality whereas a dimension must be applied to it by measuring something. BIG difference!!

[Eh]

So is that a YES? You won't cry foul when I make a list of some of your blatent (and rather embarassing) misrepresentations of physical theories?

[Hurkyl]

and so how does that prove that dimension is mind-independent?

How is this relevant to anything?


Ever heard of objective reality? We can see clouds in objective reality whereas a dimension must be applied to it by measuring something. BIG difference!!

Sir, I don't think that word means quite what you think it means.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B](a) You have claimed that the math is the same as in the Standard Model.
(b) You are claiming that all forces are describable by Sorce Theory.

One of these is wrong.

Please go on...


Oh, and what again was the definition of "causal"? Wasn't it something like being derived from premises deemed physical? Sounds circular to me.

Whose definition was that? Causal simply means that visualizable mechanisms (derived from experience with physical reality) can be derived to explain the root level details.




Incorrect; every advance in scientific knowledge must explain why old, wrong ideas seemed correct.

Which is EXACTLY what Sorce Theory actually does.


Let's start with 2 easy questions.

(a) Why does Quantum Mechanics consider Hermitian operators?

(b) What are the Einstein field equations?

lol I can come up with multitudes of questions unanswerable by you and I repeatedly have. So what? EVERYONE is ignorant to a degree. ((That means even you!!)

I already said that I am not a quantum accountant and certainly not an expert on relativistic mathematics, but please point out any errors in the posts made by me about those theories or any other.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How is this relevant to anything?

Because that was what we were talking about.




Sir, I don't think that word means quite what you think it means.

Please demonstrate.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
So is that a YES? You won't cry foul when I make a list of some of your blatent (and rather embarassing) misrepresentations of physical theories?

Yes. Why don't you start up a thread specifically to discuss my errors.

[Eh]

I'll probably get moded for that. This is as good a place as any.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
I'll probably get moded for that. This is as good a place as any.

By all means. Let's discuss them!! Maybe I can learn something.

[Eh]

We can hope.

[Hurkyl]

Please go on...

In a previous post, you demonstrated your awareness that the Standard Model does not incoporate gravity... so the conclusion should be obvious.


Whose definition was that? Causal simply means that visualizable mechanisms (derived from exrerience with physical reality) can be derived to explain the details.

All of science is derived from experience with physical reality. Try again.



I already said that I am not a quantum accountant and certainly not an expert on relativistic mathematics, but please point out any errors in the posts made by me about those theories or any other.

see:

Originally posted by subtillioN

I HAVE learned them.


A Hermitian operator is one such that A*=A. Do you remember their significance now?

The Einstein field equations are G=T. Do you remember their significance now?

[Eh]

This is philosophy, but objective reality typically means something outside of our perceptions processed from our visual cortex. But hey, physicsforums even has a board for philosophy as well.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]In a previous post, you demonstrated your awareness that the Standard Model does not incoporate gravity... so the conclusion should be obvious.

I said that it does not possess a causal description. Obviously gravity is one of the four mysterious forces. [[ or three depending on which creation myth you subscribe to ]]

A Hermitian operator is one such that A*=A. Do you remember their significance now?

The Einstein field equations are G=T. Do you remember their significance now?


I did not say that I am an expert in the mathematics. Come on you can do better than that!! [zz)]

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
This is philosophy, but objective reality typically means something outside of our perceptions processed from our visual cortex. But hey, physicsforums even has a board for philosophy as well.

Hey!! [:D]

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]All of science is derived from experience with physical reality. Try again.

Try again to understand what i said because you did not address it.

[Hurkyl]

Come on you can do better than that!!

Probably. But all I wanted to demonstrate is that you have not learned them. I chose two concepts that are very fundamental to their respective subjects. If you knew more about these two subjects than the vivid imagry in layman's treatments of the topic, you would know what those two things are.



Try again to understand what i said because you did not address it.

Isn't that a frusterating feeling?

Anyways, I was using your definition to refute your previous assertion that modern physics is not causal. (I highly doubt that whatever concept you have about "causal explanations" is something that should be considered a strike against any theory... but the definition you gave is certainly satisfied by modern physics)

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B][quote] Come on you can do better than that!!

Probably. But all I wanted to demonstrate is that you have not learned them. I chose two concepts that are very fundamental to their respective subjects. If you knew more about these two subjects than the vivid imagry in layman's treatments of the topic, you would know what those two things are.

I have never taken a class in Relativity Theory nor have I taken a class in Quantum Mechanics so I have never learned the math. I have read extensively on the subjects however.



Isn't that a frusterating feeling?

I am used to it.

Anyways, I was using your definition to refute your previous assertion that modern physics is not causal.

Please go on. I am curious how you can derive that.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
(I highly doubt that whatever concept you have about "causal explanations" is something that should be considered a strike against any theory... but the definition you gave is certainly satisfied by modern physics)

Can you derive a mechanism for gravity? Can you visualize how all the forces can be derived from one force?

Sorce Theory can.

There is a huge difference which makes all the difference when you know it.

[Hurkyl]

I have never taken a class in Relativity Theory nor have I taken a class in Quantum Mechanics so I have never learned the math. I have read extensively on the subjects however.

That's the point I and others have been trying to make. You don't have an understanding of the subjects, you merely know some things about them. Layman's books don't give the full picture because the authors are necessarily trying to pigeonhole theories into layman language in an effort to inspire vivid imagry. Pop media is worse because they retranslate the translation and the description ecome even worse.


Can you visualize how all the forces can be derived from one force?

Yes. That doesn't mean my visualization is right.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]You don't have an understanding of the subjects, you merely know some things about them.

My posts speak for themselves. If you can show where my reasoning is faulty, that is a valid criticism, but so far you haven't. All you doing is giving your opinion, that I am not qualified to discuss these things because I don't know the math. That is totally wrong and I could easily say the inverse that you don't know the physical mechanisms so you are not qualified to discuss physical reality.

...and lo and behold you are not!!!

Layman's books don't give the full picture because the authors are necessarily trying to pigeonhole theories into layman language in an effort to inspire vivid imagry. Pop media is worse because they retranslate the translation and the description ecome even worse.

I don't read layman's books because they are TOTALLY full of horse****. I read text-books and deeper level books.


Yes. That doesn't mean my visualization is right.

And it obviously isn't correct if you can't even describe how mass "warps space".

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I don't read layman's books because they are TOTALLY full of horse****. I read text-books and deeper level books.

So, summarizing your posts:

1. you "LEARNED" (your uppercase) QM,
2. you don't know the math.
3. You don't read layman's books
4. You "read text-books and deeper level books".

It is hard not to smile at this, subtillioN.

Look, physicsforums is a place for people to share knowledge about physics and to learn about it. So far, you seem only interested in pushing your own pet theory.

So far, it is pretty clear that
1. "Sorce theory" has no working mathematical model, and consists only of a few nice-sounding phrases without experimental support.
2. You have a poor understanding of QM and GR, based on non-math texts (if at all). Such texts can, at most, leave you only a very limited understanding of these subjects, far short form the foundation anybody would need in order to build a better theory.
3. You are not interested on improving your understanding of "standard" physics

The forums can be an extremely good learning resource. Why don't you drop (at least for a while) your sorce theory advocacy, and spend some time learning about how the current models actually work in some more detail?

I'm sure you can contribute more to the forums than "my non-math theory is better than your ultra-precise infinite-dimensional math".

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by ahrkron
[B]So, summarizing your posts:

It is hard not to smile at this, subtillioN.

Glad to make you smile.


Look, physicsforums is a place for people to share knowledge about physics and to learn about it. So far, you seem only interested in pushing your own pet theory.

I am giving the other side of the story and DISCUSSING things and learning things as well.

So far, it is pretty clear that
1. "Sorce theory" has no working mathematical model, and consists only of a few nice-sounding phrases without experimental support.

What, clear from my posts? I have not posted the theory. It is far too detailed to do it justice in this forum.

2. You have a poor understanding of QM and GR, based on non-math texts (if at all).

I would like to see where my understanding is faulty. Can you show where I have made errors?

Such texts can, at most, leave you only a very limited understanding of these subjects, far short form the foundation anybody would need in order to build a better theory.

Well I entirely disagree with your assumption that you have to know the math to get a good understanding of the theory.

I do know basic physics math BTW.

3. You are not interested on improving your understanding of "standard" physics

Now THAT is a baseless assumption. I am quite interested in Physics (if only to help it evolve past its core errors)

The forums can be an extremely good learning resource. Why don't you drop (at least for a while) your sorce theory advocacy, and spend some time learning about how the current models actually work in some more detail?

Thanks, but I am going to school for that.

I'm sure you can contribute more to the forums than "my non-math theory is better than your ultra-precise infinite-dimensional math".

If at the very least I can disillusion someone with the standard model then I have done my part. And I mean that in all sincerity. The standard model is deeply flawed and a search for alternatives is imperitive.

[:D]

[Eh]

BACK IT UP!!! or give it up!!

All right then. Here are some quotes that demonstrate that you have not studied the theories being attacked. Note that I only grabbed a few quotes from this thread here, and thread about the center of the universe. Though I am sure you have many more gems in other waiting for us in other threads.

(your explanation of what the Einstein equation is)It is the fudging of the classical concept of time to mathematically retro-fit the null-results of the M&M experiment.

How can nothingness be curved?

Ok, it (GR in this context) is useful for the Standard Model to explain the null-results of the M&M experiment, but it is rapidly becoming superfluous.

It claims that it is space itself that is expanding yet if space itself were expanding there would be no relative changes in distance whatsoever because EVERYTHING would be expanding at the same rate.

The new "quantum vacuum" fits this description rather well as it is essentially a "zero-energy superfluid

I know much about the equations at a more global level, but I have never needed to know the level of the actual equations themselves.

Is there not space within each and every atom? If so then why doesn't every atom expand with space

QM degutted the whole of physics and Relativity said that experiential reality is useless to understand the nature of space and time.

It is an ad hoc kludge-theory patching incorrect relativity theory with incomplete quantum theory. It has all these 32 some odd dimensions (which do not exist in reality) precisely because of the unnecessary and incompatable complexity in standard model.

If the standard model had the correct fundamental substrate (a single fluid-dynamic continuous and compressible fluid) instead of point-particles in a void this monstrous complexity would be rendered superfluous and the whole thing would be a single unified whole as in Sorce Theory for instance.

Right, I am not a QM or GR accountant nor am I an astro-navigator near a space-hole (which don't exist) so the equations are not as important as the deeper understanding itself.

Folks who have studied GR, QM and string theory don't make statements like those above. Stop pretending, because everyone is seeing right through you.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
[B]All right then. Here are some quotes that demonstrate that you have not studied the theories being attacked. Note that I only grabbed a few quotes from this thread here, and thread about the center of the universe. Though I am sure you have many more gems in other waiting for us in other threads.

(your explanation of what the Einstein equation is)It is the fudging of the classical concept of time to mathematically retro-fit the null-results of the M&M experiment.

How can nothingness be curved?

Ok, it (GR in this context) is useful for the Standard Model to explain the null-results of the M&M experiment, but it is rapidly becoming superfluous.

It claims that it is space itself that is expanding yet if space itself were expanding there would be no relative changes in distance whatsoever because EVERYTHING would be expanding at the same rate.

The new "quantum vacuum" fits this description rather well as it is essentially a "zero-energy superfluid

I know much about the equations at a more global level, but I have never needed to know the level of the actual equations themselves.

Is there not space within each and every atom? If so then why doesn't every atom expand with space

QM degutted the whole of physics and Relativity said that experiential reality is useless to understand the nature of space and time.

It is an ad hoc kludge-theory patching incorrect relativity theory with incomplete quantum theory. It has all these 32 some odd dimensions (which do not exist in reality) precisely because of the unnecessary and incompatable complexity in standard model.

If the standard model had the correct fundamental substrate (a single fluid-dynamic continuous and compressible fluid) instead of point-particles in a void this monstrous complexity would be rendered superfluous and the whole thing would be a single unified whole as in Sorce Theory for instance.

Right, I am not a QM or GR accountant nor am I an astro-navigator near a space-hole (which don't exist) so the equations are not as important as the deeper understanding itself.





Hey! You picked my very best ones!! Great aren't they?


Care to debate them to figure out what the hell I am actually talking about?
[:D]



These are simply statements that you disagree with. I stand by every single one of them. If you think they are incorrect then demonstrate HOW they are incorrect. Can you debate them?

Note: according to the standard model to which you subscribe, these statements OBVIOUSLY ARE incorrect. This is the whole point of an alternate theory. Statements that make sense in one interpretation simply don't make sense in another sufficiently alternate one. From your paradigm they are wrong, but from mine they are correct.

You have to do alot more than say that you disagree with something to prove someone wrong.

You have not backed up anything all you have done is to compile some of my greatest quotes as they embody the VAST difference between the two paradigms.

Folks who have studied GR, QM and string theory don't make statements like those above. Stop pretending, because everyone is seeing right through you.


It is not a matter of knowledge, it is a matter of belief. If you believe in those theories then you won't ask the forbidden questions nor will you state anything that those theories disagree with, as I have done.


You really have a limited idea of what a theory actually is, otherwise you would understand that there is a simple, yet VAST, difference in interpretation operating here.

A Theory is an interpretation. It is not automatically the Truth. The sooner you understand this the sooner your mind will unfossilize and you will be able to see a vast richness of interpretative possibilities...some MUCH better than others.

The goal of Science is to evolve. It can't do this by faith alone. Evolution has to occur by actively searching out the alternatives, not by attacking anything that is different from the established theory.

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Hey! You picked my very best ones!! Great aren't they?

Sad is the word I would use.

These are simply statements that you disagree with. I stand by every single one of them. If you think they are incorrect then demonstrate HOW they are incorrect. Can you debate them?

No they are not. Some are factual errors about what the theories actually say. Others are statements that further show you don't know what the theories are. It has nothing to do with whether or not the theories are actually true, or if anyone agrees with them. You aren't gettng a description of the theory right in the first place.

For example, when asked for an explanation for the Einstein equation, you replied that is was "It is the fudging of the classical concept of time to mathematically retro-fit the null-results of the M&M experiment." As others have pointed out, the equation has to do with the relation of spacetime curvature to energy. It has nothing at all to do with the MM experiement, though I can imagine you are confusing SR and GR. Actually taking the time to learn the theories would prevent mistakes like that.

Granted, you admit you don't know the math aspect, but still claim to have the conceptual aspect down cold. This is shown to be unlikely with other comments you made. For example, GR does not say space is nothingness, and it does not say locally bound objects (such as galaxies) will expand along with the flat space in between. As well, QM does not claim the vacuum has zero energy, or that particles are mere points floating in a void (they are also waves), nor even that the value of experimental evidence is to be discarded for a theory of spacetime. In fact, the opposite is true, as without experimental success, no one would actually believe it to be true.

Note: according to the standard model to which you subscribe, these statements OBVIOUSLY ARE incorrect.

How would you know what model I subscribe to? My only gripe with your posts have been your blatent misrepresentations of the current theories. I realize that current theories are only approximations to the complete description of nature, and don't hold to any model like one would to a philosophical or religious position.

This is the whole point of an alternate theory. Statements that make sense in one interpretation simply don't make sense in another sufficiently alternate one. From your paradigm they are wrong, but from mine they are correct.

That is where you're confused. It has nothing to do with the alternatives - you are either misrepresenting a theory outright, or asking a question (explained by the theory) that displays that you haven't studied it. As I said before, it's like trying to think outside the box without actually knowing what the box is.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by ahrkron
2. You have a poor understanding of QM and GR, based on non-math texts (if at all). Such texts can, at most, leave you only a very limited understanding of these subjects, far short form the foundation anybody would need in order to build a better theory. I'm going to have to disagree with that one. I think you CAN get a decent understanding of the theories by studying them conceptually only - as long as conceptual understanding is all you want or try to use. There is a vast amount that can be learned from (for example) "A Brief History of Time" - a book with but ONE equation. Sub has just chosen to reject and/or misrepresent (as shown in the previous post) the existing theories without basis for some unknown reason (though we can speculate).

What you CANNOT do without a deep understanding of the underlying math is go beyond the conceptualization of existing theories and complete your understanding of the theories, much less start to derive real proofs for these theories or build new ones. And that was the point of my Nobel Prize crack.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
For example, when asked for an explanation for the Einstein equation, you replied that is was "It is the fudging of the classical concept of time to mathematically retro-fit the null-results of the M&M experiment."

Not knowing the actual equation I gave a description of what relativity theory actually is from my outside pov.

For example, GR does not say space is nothingness

Einstein said that his "curved space" was meaningless without the conceprt of the ether and that the M&M experiments simply proved that the ether was dynamic and not classically solid.

The modern conception of the "quantum vacuum" is that it is made out of energy or vacuum fluctuations, both of which are abstractions for properties that the standard model can not causally explain. An abstraction is not a substance thus it is equivalent to nothingness. That was my point. To say that space is curved it must be made out of a substance, as Einstein had intuited.

Energy is not a substance and the Standard Model has no clue what energy actually is. Its definition is simply that energy is the ability to do work. So space is composed of the ability to do work? Come on, we humans can do better than that!!


, and it does not say locally bound objects (such as galaxies) will expand along with the flat space in between.

Right, this was my point. To say that space arbitrarily expands here but not there is to selectively use the definition of space to fit whatever they want. If the fabric of space-time is expanding then it is expanding and all objects embedded in it would expand with it.

As well, QM does not claim the vacuum has zero energy

I never said that it did. I said that one modern quantitative conception is that it is a "zero-energy superfluid".

Take for instance this quote from G.E. Volovik in “The Universe in a Helium Droplet” .

“According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum.
“Among the existing condensed matter systems, the particular quantum liquid—superfluid 3He-A—most closely resembles the quantum vacuum of the Standard Model. This is the collection of 3He atoms condensed into the liquid state like water. But as distinct from water, the behavior of this liquid is determined by the quantum mechanical zero-point motion of atoms. Due to the large amplitude of this motion the liquid does not solidify even at zero temperature.”

, or that particles are mere points floating in a void (they are also waves)

Particles and waves existing paradoxically in a void which somehow (mathematically) can fluctuate. I never denied the wave-aspect to the point-particles.

, nor even that the value of experimental evidence is to be discarded for a theory of spacetime.

I never said that it did. I said that experiential understanding (common sense or causality) must be abandoned in order to believe in it.

In fact, the opposite is true, as without experimental success, no one would actually believe it to be true.

Exactly, but this experimental "success" can be interpreted in many ways from many different theoretical schemes. You know of ONE model and I know of at least two.


How would you know what model I subscribe to?

It is quite obvious. If I am mis-representing you please correct me.

My only gripe with your posts have been your blatent misrepresentations of the current theories.

No. You simply don't see how they can make sense, but this is because you are seeing them from within the standard paradigm in which they simply do not make sense.

I realize that current theories are only approximations to the complete description of nature, and don't hold to any model like one would to a philosophical or religious position.

Ok, then try and have an open mind please and we can discuss this in a civil manner.



That is where you're confused. It has nothing to do with the alternatives - you are either misrepresenting a theory outright, or asking a question (explained by the theory) that displays that you haven't studied it. As I said before, it's like trying to think outside the box without actually knowing what the box is. [/B]

It simply looks to you that I don't understand the box because of the VAST difference between the interpretive paradigms.

Again you have failed to prove that i don't know the theories that i am talking about.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
[B]I'm going to have to disagree with that one. I think you CAN get a decent understanding of the theories by studying them conceptually only - as long as conceptual understanding is all you want or try to use. There is a vast amount that can be learned from (for example) "A Brief History of Time" - a book with but ONE equation.

Amen!! Finally someone understands the value of qualitative understanding.

What you CANNOT do without a deep understanding of the underlying math is go beyond the conceptualization of existing theories and complete your understanding of the theories, much less start to derive real proofs for these theories or build new ones.

True to an extent, but the ideas I am espousing are not mine. They come from people who DO understand the math quite well as you will see in this paper by the author of Sorce Theory.

http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Articles/4LP.htm

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Not knowing the actual equation I gave a description of what relativity theory actually is from my outside pov.

Your outside pov is a cartoon version of relativity.

Einstein said that his "curved space" was meaningless without the conceprt of the ether and that the M&M experiments simply proved that the ether was dynamic and not classically solid.

Not quite. See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

The modern conception of the "quantum vacuum" is that it is made out of energy or vacuum fluctuations, both of which are abstractions for properties that the standard model can not causally explain. An abstraction is not a substance thus it is equivalent to nothingness. That was my point. To say that space is curved it must be made out of a substance, as Einstein had intuited.

This is another aspect you're confusing. First off, Quantum theory does not say anything about what space is made of, nor is there any complete quantum theory of spacetime. What you get from current quantum theory is that even in a vacuum, you'll necessarily have a non zero energy content. It says nothing about the space itself, nor that space it made of energy. Second, you need to read up on the concept of fields. The gravitational field is not to be confused with localized fields (such as EM) that are distributed throughout the points spacetime, as it is spacetime. At any rate, this field has many of the same properties that you would probably use to classify something as a substance, and calling it nothingness is silly.

Energy is not a substance and the Standard Model has no clue what energy actually is. Its definition is simply that energy is the ability to do work. So space is composed of the ability to do work? Come on, we humans can do better than that!!

See above. Quantum theory (nor GR) does not claim space is made of energy. I can why this confusion would arise, since there seems to be energy everywhere. But any serious look would reveal that GR is the only 1 of the 2 theories that is actually a theory about spacetime.

Right, this was my point. To say that space arbitrarily expands here but not there is to selectively use the definition of space to fit whatever they want. If the fabric of space-time is expanding then it is expanding and all objects embedded in it would expand with it.

How is the difference in geometry between different spaces arbitrary? But wait, that would require the use of math, and specifically geometry. Since Einstein's general relativity is primarily a theory of geometry, to claim you understand it without knowing the geometry is ludicrous.

I never said that it did. I said that one modern quantitative conception is that it is a "zero-energy superfluid".

I think you're confusing the notion of zero point energy with zero-energy. No big deal, but it shouldn't have come up from someone who actually studied the concept of ZPE.

Particles and waves existing paradoxically in a void which somehow (mathematically) can fluctuate. I never denied the wave-aspect to the point-particles.

Your claim that points in a void are fundemental to the standard model is misleading, since the wave function is necessary. The energy distribution fluctuates, and as I said above, quantum theory doesn't actually deal with the background of spacetime or the void itself.

I never said that it did. I said that experiential understanding (common sense or causality) must be abandoned in order to believe in it.

Since when does experiemental understanding have anything to do with common sense in physics?

Ok, then try and have an open mind please and we can discuss this in a civil manner.

Certainly, as soon as you agree not to misrepresent or attack theories you clearly don't understand. That's when discussions can actually turn out to be useful.

Again you have failed to prove that i don't know the theories that i am talking about.

I agree. You did.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Amen!! Finally someone understands the value of qualitative understanding. You either missed or chose to ignore the last sentence in the paragraph. It was just as important as the ones you paid attention to.

And of course the qualitative understanding is only useful if its CORRECT.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
[B]Your outside pov is a cartoon version of relativity.

Enough of the derogatory comments. If you cannot back up your negative opinions then keep them to yourself.


Not quite. See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

"He clearly did not mean the kind of ``aether'' which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the nineteenth century"

This is what I am talkng about. Maxwell's ether was proven incorrect, but a substance is still necessary, according to Einstein, to explain "curved space".


This is another aspect you're confusing. First off, Quantum theory does not say anything about what space is made of, nor is there any complete quantum theory of spacetime.

The modern versions of Quantum theory say that space is filled with zero-point vacuum energy or vacuum fluctuations. Yet this quantum energy is filling the continuous "spacetime" of relativity. There is no standard understanding of how these items are related. From this abstract, mathematical "quantum vacuum" the theory is free to "borrow energy from the Universe" to create virtual particles exactly where the theory needs them. And yes there is no complete quantum theory of "spacetime". I simply NEVER said there was.

In Sorce Theory, there is ONE substance which produces ALL fields which are mere configurations of this ONE substance. This single substance is the Unified Field itself. There is no need for all these seperate fields made of non-connected whatever.

All of this confusion and incompatibility is rendered superfluous. ((I suppose you would consider this statement to be incorrect? Obviously you cannot see it's correctness if you do not know the theory.))

What you get from current quantum theory is that even in a vacuum, you'll necessarily have a non zero energy content. It says nothing about the space itself, nor that space it made of energy.

Subtle nit-picking. Ok so you are saying that space is made of what, then? Nothingness, or "curved-space" which is really some unknown substance with inadequate properties te explain the mechanism of the g-field and the superimposed "quantum vacuum"? So the theory has these two overlapping fields one is quantized and the other is continuous. There is no known mechanism for uniting these fields.

This is exactly where Sorce Theory fits into the picture. It unites the quantum with a deeper understanding of the continuous.


Second, you need to read up on the concept of fields. The gravitational field is not to be confused with localized fields (such as EM) that are distributed throughout the points spacetime, as it is spacetime.

First of all, relativistic spacetime is not made of points. It is a continuous field. Secondly, the theory arbitrarily says that some fields are independent of "spacetime" and others are not. There is no mechanism by which the standard model can unite the fields, but obviously this failure of the standard model does not prove that these fields are not indeed united. What about the higgs field? What about the electric fields inside the atom? If the electromagnetic fields of light expand with space then why not the electromagnetic energy and frequencies within the atom?

This is my point. If spacetime is the root-level then its expansion must be applied to ALL fields within it. There cannot be this arbitrary use of this concept exactly where it produces the desired results. Is the electromagnetic field exempt from the expansion of space or is it not? If it is exempt then there would be no lengthening of the light waves due to expansion. If it is not exempt then the fields within the atom would expand as well.

In the Big Bang it is said that the expansion of space itself is the cause of the red-shift. This is to escape the problem of the acceleration to near light speeds of the "receding" galaxies in the Doppler interpretation. Now you are saying that the expansion of space does not effect electromagnetic fields of which light is made. Well, which is it?

This nonsense is directly caused because the standard model is not a unified field model. From within the unified field model the unified field ("space") is an intimate part of EVERYTHING and if it were to expand then EVERYTHNG would expand accordingly and a relative expansion would not exist because it would be uniform and universal. The expansion would be un-detectable because there simply is no outside reference frame.

At any rate, this field has many of the same properties that you would probably use to classify something as a substance, and calling it nothingness is silly.

My sentiments exactly!!!

See above. Quantum theory (nor GR) does not claim space is made of energy. I can why this confusion would arise, since there seems to be energy everywhere. But any serious look would reveal that GR is the only 1 of the 2 theories that is actually a theory about spacetime.

Right, I am quite aware of that. The current model is simply far from complete as the most basic item "energy" is still a complete mystery.

How is the difference in geometry between different spaces arbitrary? But wait, that would require the use of math, and specifically geometry. Since Einstein's general relativity is primarily a theory of geometry, to claim you understand it without knowing the geometry is ludicrous.

The geometry is used arbitrarily, even though it is quite formalized... and I do understand the geometry and the transformations. I simply can't do the math which is quite different.

I think you're confusing the notion of zero point energy with zero-energy. No big deal, but it shouldn't have come up from someone who actually studied the concept of ZPE.

It was you who brought ZPE into this picture. You thought I was talking about ZPE when I wasn't. The confusion is yours.


Your claim that points in a void are fundemental to the standard model is misleading, since the wave function is necessary.

The fact is that point-particle ARE fundamental, along with the "wave-nature" as the core paradox of the theory. This ignorance-engendered paradox has been codified into the comforting principle of "complimentarity".

The energy distribution fluctuates, and as I said above, quantum theory doesn't actually deal with the background of spacetime or the void itself.

Ok so what is your point? Simply that the theory is incomplete? That is my point as well.


Since when does experiemental understanding have anything to do with common sense in physics?

What is "experiemental understanding"? I was talking about "experiential understanding", i.e. understanding based on experience with reality.


Certainly, as soon as you agree not to misrepresent or attack theories you clearly don't understand. That's when discussions can actually turn out to be useful.

They are only mis-representations of your notions of truth. If your notions are incorrect that is not my fault and a useful discussion is one in which there is a sufficient amount of diversity to see things from multiple angles.



I agree. You did.

cop out

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
[B]You either missed or chose to ignore the last sentence in the paragraph. It was just as important as the ones you paid attention to.

So what did I miss? I thought I addressed your points.

And of course the qualitative understanding is only useful if its CORRECT.

obviously

If you are claiming that my understanding is incorrect then please demonstrate just how it is. Otherwise you are simply giving your baseless opinion. Which amounts to more un-productive negativity.

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
"He clearly did not mean the kind of ``aether'' which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the nineteenth century"

This is what I am talkng about. Maxwell's ether was proven incorrect, but a substance is still necessary, according to Einstein, to explain "curved space".

No, that is incorrect. Read the page again, as this curved spacetime does not fit the scientific definition of substance at all. Though it should have the properties to convince you that no such classification of "substance" is required.

The modern versions of Quantum theory say that space is filled with zero-point vacuum energy or vacuum fluctuations. Yet this quantum energy is filling the continuous "spacetime" of relativity. There is no standard understanding of how these items are related. From this abstract, mathematical "quantum vacuum" the theory is free to "borrow energy from the Universe" to create virtual particles exactly where the theory needs them. And yes there is no complete quantum theory of "spacetime". I simply NEVER said there was.

You claimed quantum theory says spacetime is made of energy, when it doesn't deal with that spacetime at all. It assumes a fixed background that doesn't interact with matter - much like the classic background stage Newton believed in.

All of this confusion and incompatibility is rendered superfluous. ((I suppose you would consider this statement to be incorrect? Obviously you cannot see it's correctness if you do not know the theory.))

Do you see me attacking the theory I've never bothered to read about? Of course not, that would be downright stupid.

Subtle nit-picking. Ok so you are saying that space is made of what, then? Nothingness, or "curved-space" which is really some unknown substance with inadequate properties te explain the mechanism of the g-field and the superimposed "quantum vacuum"?

We've been through this. Space is the structural quality of the field, and the field is fundemental in GR. Asking what something fundemental is made of is silly. As well, what exactly the precise quantum nature of this fundemental field happens to be, is irrelevant.

So the theory has these two overlapping fields one is quantized and the other is continuous. There is no known mechanism for uniting these fields.

What does that have to do with you not knowing that GR does not say space is nothingness?

First of all, relativistic spacetime is not made of points. It is a continuous field.

Do you even have the slighest clue what it means to be continuous? Once again, geometry comes up.

Secondly, the theory arbitrarily says that some fields are independent of "spacetime" and others are not.

Wow, a new discovery! Can you enlighten us as to which fields GR (or QM??) says are independent of spacetime?

There is no mechanism by which the standard model can unite the fields, but obviously this failure of the standard model does not prove that these fields are not indeed united. What about the higgs field? What about the electric fields inside the atom? If the electromagnetic fields of light expand with space then why not the electromagnetic energy and frequencies within the atom?

Did you not read the exchange between you and Hurkyl
on this very subject in the thread re: the center of the universe? How many times does an explanation need to be repeated for you to read it? The explanation for why asymptotically flat space is all that expands requires some math.

My sentiments exactly!!!

I don't think you quite understand. My point is that your classification for a substance is unlikely to have anything to do with the scientific notion of substances.

The geometry is used arbitrarily, even though it is quite formalized... and I do understand the geometry and the transformations. I simply can't do the math which is quite different.

The geometry is math. This isn't the easy world of Euclidean geometry with simple visual aids. To suggest you can understand non Euclidean geometry without math is absurd.

It was you who brought ZPE into this picture. You thought I was talking about ZPE when I wasn't. The confusion is yours.

But then, I'm not the one calling the quantum vacuum a zero-energy substance.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
[B]No, that is incorrect. Read the page again, as this curved spacetime does not fit the scientific definition of substance at all. Though it should have the properties to convince you that no such classification of "substance" is required.

You can claim your authority of what is "correct", but it is just another argument. I have my own arguments for you to ignore.

You claimed quantum theory says spacetime is made of energy, when it doesn't deal with that spacetime at all. It assumes a fixed background that doesn't interact with matter - much like the classic background stage Newton believed in.

A complete fiction...


Do you see me attacking the theory I've never bothered to read about? Of course not, that would be downright stupid.

That is what I thought. You ARE attacking it because my statements are correct within its framework about which you are ignorant. They simply don't make sense without the proper background, but does that stop you from assuming that you understand them? Nope, you continue to make your ignorant assumptions.


We've been through this. Space is the structural quality of the field, and the field is fundemental in GR. Asking what something fundemental is made of is silly. As well, what exactly the precise quantum nature of this fundemental field happens to be, is irrelevant.

And so you will never have a unified field theory because the important questions are forbidden.

The fact is that the properties of this "fundamental" field are not sufficient to give the cause of a g-field and the gravitational response to that field.

The properties of the field are simply incorrect and incomplete.


What does that have to do with you not knowing that GR does not say space is nothingness?

I know what GR says space is and it does not have the properties required to explain the mechanism of gravity. Therefore I equate it with a mathematical abstraction which is not equivalent to a physical field, thus it is nothingness despite what GR claims it is.

Do you even have the slighest clue what it means to be continuous? Once again, geometry comes up.

I know geometry well enough and the concept of continuous is quite basic indeed.

Wow, a new discovery! Can you enlighten us as to which fields GR (or QM??) says are independent of spacetime?

It was your point that the em fields are "local" and independent of the expansion of space.


Did you not read the exchange between you and Hurkyl
on this very subject in the thread re: the center of the universe? How many times does an explanation need to be repeated for you to read it? The explanation for why asymptotically flat space is all that expands requires some math.

Hurkyl's points were wrong. Math does not justify this complete nonsense.


I don't think you quite understand. My point is that your classification for a substance is unlikely to have anything to do with the scientific notion of substances.

Unlikely huh? Please do expand on that brilliant point.


The geometry is math. This isn't the easy world of Euclidean geometry with simple visual aids. To suggest you can understand non Euclidean geometry without math is absurd.

Non-euclidean geometry is simple stuff to understand and visualize and I am not as math illiterate as you assume.

But then, I'm not the one calling the quantum vacuum a zero-energy substance.

Neither am I. These descriptions of the "quantum vacuum" as a "zero-energy superfluid" are a standard part of condensed matter physics. Maybe you have some learning to do?

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN

That is what I thought. You ARE attacking it because my statements are correct within its framework about which you are ignorant. They simply don't make sense without the proper background, but does tht stop you from assuming that you understand them? Nope, you continue to make your ignorant assumptions.

Do you have difficulty reading as well? I've never once mentioned this little theory you're promoting. I've only criticized your pretending to understand the theories you're attacking.

I know what GR says space is and it does not have the properties required to explain the mechanism of gravity. Therefore I equate it with a mathematical abstraction which is not equivalent to a physical field, thus it is nothingness despite what GR claims it is.

You don't know the equations, and you aren't familiar with the concept of a field, you don't understand the physical meaning of curved spacetime having an effect on geodesics, yet you somehow are able to pass it off as a mere abstraction.

I know geometry and the concept of continuous is quite basic indeed.

Then how do you explain your last statement? First of all, relativistic spacetime is not made of points. It is a continuous field.... From basic geometry, we've learned that volumes contain an infinite number of points. A continuous space is not discrete, but that hardly discounts the fact that it contains points.

It was your point that the em fields are "local" and independent of the expansion of space.

Now you're making stuff up. And at any rate, your claim was that the theory arbitrarily says that some fields are independent of "spacetime" and others are not, showing once again you don't know what you're talking about.

Unlikely huh? Please do expand on that brilliant point.

Substances are results of atoms. There, that was easy.

It is simple stuff and I am not math illiterate as you assume.

Are you now claiming that you have studied and understand Non-Euclidean geometry? Sounds like an easy claim to test.

Neither am I. These descriptions of the "quantum vacuum" as a "zero-energy superfluid" are a standard part of condensed matter physics. Maye you have some learning to do?

I'd wager no serious particle physicist is actually suggesting the vacuum is actually a superfluid, nor does the comparison to the vacuum imply they are essentially the same thing as you put it. I'd further wager you're just pulling quotes from content you don't even understand. What else is new?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
I've only criticized your pretending to understand the theories you're attacking.

You have made claims that you are attempting to justify

You don't know the equations, and you aren't familiar with the concept of a field, you don't understand the physical meaning of curved spacetime having an effect on geodesics, yet you somehow are able to pass it off as a mere abstraction.

You don't know what I know and what I don't know. Why are you still wasting your time with these personal attacks and why am I still defending myself?

Mathematics IS an abstraction. You believe that it is physical reality, that is where physics went wrong and where you blindly follow.

Then how do you explain your last statement? First of all, relativistic spacetime is not made of points. It is a continuous field.... From basic geometry, we've learned that volumes contain an infinite number of points. A continuous space is not discrete, but that hardly discounts the fact that it contains points.

An continuous field is simply not made of points. You are making the same mistake that Zeno made.


Now you're making stuff up. And at any rate, your claim was that the theory arbitrarily says that some fields are independent of "spacetime" and others are not, showing once again you don't know what you're talking about.

Showing only that you don't know what I am talking about.

Substances are results of atoms. There, that was easy.

That is the core error of physics. This error permeates the whole of physics this is why our pov's differ so drastically.


Are you now claiming that you have studied and understand Non-Euclidean geometry? Sounds like an easy claim to test.

I am claiming that I have a good enough understanding of what it is all about to know how it is used and abused in physics.


I'd wager no serious particle physicist is actually suggesting the vacuum is actually a superfluid, nor does the comparison to the vacuum imply they are essentially the same thing as you put it. I'd further wager you're just pulling quotes from content you don't even understand. What else is new?

You would be wrong.

[Hurkyl]

You have made claims that you are attempting to justify

He's past the attempt stage.


You don't know what I know and what I don't know. Why are you still wasting your time with these personal attacks and why am I still defending myself?

You haven't demonstrated that you know what you claim you know.


Mathematics IS an abstraction. You believe that it is physical reality, that is where physics went wrong and where you blindly follow.

You've gone wrong by presuming an abstraction is incapable of properly describing physical reality. You've also gone wrong by presuming science can do better than description.


An continuous field is simply not made of points. You are making the same mistake that Zeno made.

Your first statement is correct, but merely because of compensating errors. Fields are essentially functions over spaces which means the field is made of point-value pairs, not points. Spaces are made of points and can most certainly be continuous. It's trivially obvious to anyone who understands geometric concepts.


I am claiming that I have a good enough understanding of what it is all about to know how it is used and abused in physics.

You've merely claimed, not demonstrated, while we have well-refuted that claim. Anyways, Eh seems to have a particular test in mind for this one, I'll wait to see what he has to cook up on this point!

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
I'd wager no serious particle physicist is actually suggesting the vacuum is actually a superfluid, nor does the comparison to the vacuum imply they are essentially the same thing as you put it. I'd further wager you're just pulling quotes from content you don't even understand. What else is new?

Note that the following papers have nothing to do with Sorce Theory except a broadly similar fluid-dynamic approach to modeling the fundamental level.



http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0005091

Superfluid 3He-A gives example of how chirality, Weyl fermions, gauge fields and gravity appear in low energy corner together with corresponding symmetries, including Lorentz symmetry and local SU(N). This supports idea that quantum field theory (Standard Model or GUT) is effective theory describing low-energy phenomena. * Momentum space topology of fermionic vacuum provides topological stability of universality class of systems, where above properties appear. * BCS scheme for 3He-A incorporates both ``relativistic'' infrared regime and ultraviolet ``transplanckian'' range: subtle issues of cut-off in quantum field theory and anomalies can be resolved on physical grounds. This allows to separate ``renormalizable'' terms in action, treated by effective theory, from those obtained only in ``transPlanckian'' physics. * Energy density of superfluid vacuum within effective theory is ~ E_{Planck}^4. Stability analysis of ground state beyond effective theory leads to exact nullification of vacuum energy: equilibrium vacuum is not gravitating. In nonequilibrium, vacuum energy is of order energy density of matter. * 3He-A provides experimental prove for anomalous nucleation of fermionic charge according to Adler-Bell-Jackiw. * Helical instability in 3He-A is described by the same equations as formation of magnetic field by right electrons in Joyce-Shaposhnikov scenario. * Macroscopic parity violating effect and angular momentum paradox are both desribed by axial gravitational Chern-Simons action. * High energy dispersion of quasiparticle spectrum allow to treat problems of vacuum in presence of event horizon, etc.


http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Science/ptaeth2.pdf


A PARTICLE-TIED AETHER
INDICATIONS OF A DEEPER FOUNDATION FOR PHYSICS AND RELATIVITY

Miles F. Osmaston, The White Cottage, Sendmarsh, Ripley, Woking,
Surrey GU23 6JT, UK. miles@osmaston.demon.co.uk Basic concepts. This contribution† is primarily about the transmission of transverse electromagnetic (TEM) waves, our principal source of physical information. Relativity, as its name implies, seeks to describe relationships between entities in various circumstances but
doesn't illuminate the nature of those entities, a gap that quantum electrodynamics and particle physics try to fill. A variety of well-observed phenomena, to be outlined below, appear inconsistent with this currently accepted framework of physics. It will be shown that these phenomena indicate the need for a physics framework that admits the occurrence of TEM-wave transmission effects, a factor explicitly denied in the conceptual basis of Special Relativity (SR). To help with these matters, a continuum (aether) theory (CT) of physical
nature is outlined in which particles are special, rather (but finitely) concentrated, mainly-rotational forms of disturbance of the continuum. Particle random motions imply random motion of the aether, and this affects the propagation of TEM waves by it. Under this
proposal particles are "made" of aether (originally a suggestion of Larmor, 1894), and the Michelson-Morley result is satisfied. The relativity principle, that nothing can exceed the local velocity of TEM waves, will be firmly retained but regarded as only strictly applicable at the smallest scale of physical nature - that of the local aether.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]You've gone wrong by presuming an abstraction is incapable of properly describing physical reality. You've also gone wrong by presuming science can do better than description.

You've gone wrong on both of your assumptions that I am assuming such silly things!!

I am claiming quite the opposite!

I am saying that Physics (a description) can do better than its current languishing state!!! No more no less.

Good descriptions do not self-fossilize. They contain within tthem the seeds of change, i.e. the scientific method and falsification. Let's hope we can ressurect these neglected seeds!!


Your first statement is correct, but merely because of compensating errors. Fields are essentially functions over spaces which means the field is made of point-value pairs, not points. Spaces are made of points and can most certainly be continuous. It's trivially obvious to anyone who understands geometric concepts.

I understand your basic geometric concepts, but they are misleading. A continuum is only described and addressed by points. It is not MADE out of them. That would be like saying that infinity is made out of numbers!!! The infinite is not made out of the finite. It is quite the inverse!!!


You've merely claimed, not demonstrated, while we have well-refuted that claim. Anyways, Eh seems to have a particular test in mind for this one, I'll wait to see what he has to cook up on this point!

Oh, the herd mentality of the mob!!! [g)]

Get em' boys!!!

[Hurkyl]

A continuum is only described and addressed by points. It is not MADE out of them.

No, a continuum is "addressed" by coordinates; specifically the coordinates of each point of the continuum.


That would be like saying that infinity is made out of numbers!!!

An infinite set can most certainly be made out of numbers.


Oh, the herd mentality of the mob!!!

Get em' boys!!!

[?]

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]No, a continuum is "addressed" by coordinates; specifically the coordinates of each point of the continuum.

oh ok. point completely missed (no pun intended)




An infinite set can most certainly be made out of numbers.

an infinite set is finite, at best transfinite. a mere symbol...

[Hurkyl]

oh ok. point completely missed (no pun intended)

Are you admitting this, or are you trying to imply something?


an infinite set is finite, at best transfinite. a mere symbol...

[?]

Care to explain?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Are you admitting this, or are you trying to imply something?

I am implying something that resides outside the boundaries of mathematics...




[?]

Care to explain? [/B]

Mathematics is a symbol system. All symbol systems are finite. Mathematics represents infinity but it does not and cannot truely deal with the infinite.

[mitch bass]

Originally posted by Eh
Mitch,

Have a look at http://www.superstringtheory.com. The site has some nice tutorials on the basic ideas of the theory, and math is optional. It also has a very good forum (just ignore the spam bot kx21) where you can ask questions about aspects of the theory without crackpots hijacking your thread with their nonsense. Neat flash presentation of the big bang as well.

Thank you.

What is a spam bot kx21?

[subtillioN]

Here is another quite interesting string-based theory.

http://www.mu6.com/



[[[ quite overly complex if you ask me...]]]

[Hurkyl]

I am implying something that resides outside the boundaries of mathematics...

How and why would something lie outside the boundaries of mathematics? And if something does, do you understand the ramifications that implies to a logical understanding of that something?


Mathematics is a symbol system. All symbol systems are finite. Mathematics represents infinity but it does not and cannot truely deal with the infinite.

You're making the same mistake Mr Parsons was making on the "infinity" thread.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by mitch bass
What is a spam bot kx21? A spam bot is a computer applet that generates spam in chat rooms. Much like.....ah, nevermind.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How and why would something lie outside the boundaries of mathematics?

pure hubris!!! do you think the thought systems of man are all that exist?

And if something does, do you understand the ramifications that implies to a logical understanding of that something?

physical reality lies outside the realm of mathematics and logic, but it can be understood logically AND mathematically...to an extent.

what ramifications? A system of thought is an approximation of reality. It can never be absolutely complete.


You're making the same mistake Mr Parsons was making on the "infinity" thread.

Nope. Quite different actually. Mr.P said that we cannot even think about infinity. I am saying that we can easily think about it and understand it but we cannot actually use it or properly deal with it in our thoughts. This is simply because the mind and all its symbol systems are finite. There is a subtle but important distinction here if you can grasp it.

[Eh]

Originally posted by mitch bass
Thank you.

What is a spam bot kx21?

There is a poster on the forums there by the name kx21 who apparently created a bot that posts various links to articles, websites and such to the boards. If you post something there, you may get an automated response from the bot with a link to something irrelevant. Just ignore it. Sadly, the moderators have done nothing about this bot and the forum archives are looking quite silly because of it.

[Eh]

Originally posted by russ_watters
A spam bot is a computer applet that generates spam in chat rooms. Much like.....ah, nevermind.

[:D]. A bot that gets no responses will usually be deactivated, sooner or later.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
[:D]. A bot that gets no responses will usually be deactivated, sooner or later.

we can only hope...right? [;)]

[Phobos]

-- TWO MINUTE WARNING TO GET THIS TOPIC BACK ON TRACK --

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Phobos
-- TWO MINUTE WARNING TO GET THIS TOPIC BACK ON TRACK -- What makes you think thats the goal here? [;)]