What about the absence of a unified field? [Archive]

Fredrick

Sep16-04, 06:44 PM

I would like to start a new thread - not on strings, M, or other possible theories of everything that lead to a unified field theory - but to the opposing view: the option that a unified field of forces does not and cannot exist.

I have some mathematical information that I want to use later (that gave me an indication that a unified field of forces is an impossibility). First I am curious if there is anybody else out there, who has serious doubts about the existence of any unified field theories.

Much has been said about the ultimate platform on which unification would be possible. In my opinion, not enough attention has been given to the opposite. Can you please articulate why a unified field of forces cannot exist.

I am going to give one example of a singular platform (our earth) with four active members (North, South, East, and West). Though the platform is (or appears to be) singular, these four active ingredients do not have a common thread; the platform is known, but does not contain unification.

East and West can go on forever in their direction, but some unification can be found in that they can cover exactly the same spots. Depending on your point of view, a single place can be East or West.

For such single spot, North and South appear to deliver the same set-up as East and West, but North and South cannot go on forever in their direction. When on the North pole, one cannot go further North. One cannot even go East or West on the North pole. There is only one direction on the North pole, and that is South. To unify North and South in absolute terms is not possible, while it appears possible for East and West.

These four directions contain a pair of opposition without the possibility of unification (North and South), and a pair of opposition in which unification appears very well possible (East meets West).

This example may not be scientific enough for everyone. Please use any platform you can think of to denounce (or confirm) the possibility of unification on a single platform.

humanino

Sep17-04, 11:11 AM

I have no doubt on the existence of such a law : as Feynman said, take all the laws you can imagine. They are all LHS=RHS. Here is the TOE : sum[ (LHS-RHS)^2 ] = 0

The question would be is there a reason why Nature would entirely follow from a simple principle. I do believe this is so. This is a religion.

humanino

Sep17-04, 11:16 AM

... plus the fact that history has shown us how much we gained by unifying. Starting with Copernicus/Galileo/Newton : the fact that movements on Earth are the same as movements of planets. There is a whole list following.

Yet of course, it is very possible that a TOE would be useless. It is also possible that it really would get us closer to what Nature really is. Spinoza rules !

setAI

Sep17-04, 11:29 AM

I myself lean toward a concept of pluralism and "noncompromise" [Marvin Minsky's idea of agents/forces working independently resulting in an emergent selection where dominant forces are reinforced and endure/equilibrate while lesser forces dissapate]- however pluralistic systems are still kinds of unified frameworks becasue their interrelationships form a collective system which establishes the structure of the world

Fredrick

Sep17-04, 06:52 PM

I think I see what you are doing, Humanino, with "... all the laws you can imagine. They are all LHS=RHS. Here is the TOE : sum[ (LHS-RHS)^2 ] = 0" but I read in it that they are ultimately balanced, I do not read there is unification between the parts.

Einstein said that the ultimate theory had to be simple, and I guess we both support that idea. Still, that does not mean it múst be on the condition of unification. I do agree with you that unifying principles have delivered us much insight and knowledge, and as such I have nothing against the idea that unification would indeed be wonderful. Question is: are there any facts to support it? Or to pose the opposite: if there are so many facts against it, why do we believe in it still?

North, South, West and East are very simple parts of a single spinning planet, yet unification is not delivered (except in the singular spin). Unification appears to exist because almost all spots on earth can be approached from any of these directions; exceptions are, however, the North pole and South pole - they each miss 3 directions. As such I must agree with you, setAI, that "the pluralistic systems are still kinds of unified frameworks because their interrelationships form a collective system which establishes the structure of the world." Similar terms would be 'family' or 'nation.' They are unifying principles, while the members do not necessarily have to agree with each other (except on the principle that they are family or a nation). Does Marvin Minsky deliver evidence/source material for his theory/idea of independently working forces?

Humanino, can you come up with a different set (or can you deliver the unifying aspect to your sum)?

Mike2

Sep17-04, 08:11 PM

Einstein said that the ultimate theory had to be simple, and I guess we both support that idea. Still, that does not mean it múst be on the condition of unification. I do agree with you that unifying principles have delivered us much insight and knowledge, and as such I have nothing against the idea that unification would indeed be wonderful. Question is: are there any facts to support it? Or to pose the opposite: if there are so many facts against it, why do we believe in it still?
I would argue that simplicity does equal unification. This is perhaps a tautology. If the universe did come from a singularity, then all things were the same thing at that singularity. And divergences arose from this single entity. But if the universe did not come from a single entity, then you have the situation of instantaneous emergence of complexity. This is perhaps the antithesis of a reasonable explanation for all things. Instant complexity defies explanation and thus is the same as suggesting that the creation defies logic.

selfAdjoint

Sep18-04, 08:29 AM

On the other hand Freeman Dyson, in his recent essay in the New York Review of Books, was perfectly OK with not unifying gravity with the other forces. He would want some addition to GR to permit the development of the standard model within it, but otherwise we have spacetime, and we have quantum theory, and maybe that's it!

arivero

Sep18-04, 09:59 AM

I have no doubt on the existence of such a law : as Feynman said, take all the laws you can imagine. They are all LHS=RHS. Here is the TOE : sum[ (LHS-RHS)^2 ] = 0.
This is algebra. I would expect TOE to be a geometric theory. And no unyfied field in the GUT sense.

Fredrick

Sep18-04, 03:03 PM

I would argue that simplicity does equal unification. This is perhaps a tautology. If the universe did come from a singularity, then all things were the same thing at that singularity. And divergences arose from this single entity. But if the universe did not come from a single entity, then you have the situation of instantaneous emergence of complexity. This is perhaps the antithesis of a reasonable explanation for all things. Instant complexity defies explanation and thus is the same as suggesting that the creation defies logic.

I have no problem with accepting that the origin was singular, but the results coming from the origin do not automatically have to be singular. It could be, but nowhere is it prescribed that the result must be singular. But it is an interesting path that you are creating.

If the result is indeed unified then the result must contain/reflect the origin. On the other hand if the results are all different variations of the singular origin, the results do not require unification between the forces. This latter example requires nothing more than the momentary existence of a single (but absolute) level of separation within the origin right before the start of creation. Both (or more) versions would reflect the original state, but they would do so in their own specific way.

Arivero, I personally do not mind the use of any platform that may deliver insight into how unification could (or could not) come about.

SelfAdjoint, thanks for info on Freeman Dyson. I'm looking him up.

humanino

Sep18-04, 06:23 PM

This is algebra. I would expect TOE to be a geometric theory. And no unyfied field in the GUT sense.
Agreement from me. I do believe in an elegant formulation. I was just quoting Feynman. We basically reproduced his explanation. I am not certain in which book he wrote this.

Fredrick : the dummy example of Feynman I quoted illustrates only that unification is a difficult and deep task, from which some expect to gain profound insights.

Fredrick

Sep19-04, 05:57 PM

So, Humanino, if I get it correctly, you showed me an open door, which was actually a painted door on a wall, and I tried to walk through it?

I like the joke! But I don't know if the insight I gained is more than a profound bump on my head.

If you believe in an elegant formulation, what place would the very option of believing have in that formulation? Said differently, if it is elegant, the freedom to believe or the freedom to theorize - which can basically be seen as a separate area existing next to the facts - must be included.

In short: do you expect such formulation to include/mention separation?

humanino

Sep19-04, 06:17 PM

The door was painted by Feynman !

Once again, when we look backwards, we contemplate a formidable path towards unification, where in each step, understanding how two apparently distinct phenomena are in fact the two sides of the same coin, and this often lead to discover yet other sides (ok, my analogy is poor :wink: ) So, we historically gained so much by unification that we came to the certitude that all phenomena must be explained by only one simple elegant principle, which probably reflect closely the very deep Nature of Reality. That Nature is one, is my belief too. No matter how well we can justify this belief : until we reach our goal, we cannot be sure it exists in the form we conceive it.

Feynman was pointing that : in the path we could sometime be victims coincidences misleading us, and we have to expect our road to be long and difficult. Even worse : maybe there is no such thing as a single law having more significance than the dummy sum of squares, maybe Nature is twofold ! Maybe Nature is manifold...

Fredrick

Sep21-04, 06:24 PM

I like your reply. I don't blame you (hmm) but Feynman. Okay, we disagree on a small aspect, but I have the feeling our minds are not that far apart. Not identical - but not far apart.

Quoting Feynman: In the path we could sometimes be victims: coincidences misleading us, and we have to expect our road to be long and difficult. What if the road was short, done already, and simple (like Einstein expected)?

I read the longing for simplicity in your words, and I want to deliver simplicity, though not one that supports (absolute) unification. When probing for the most important information about life, DNA has become the center explanation of it all. DNA has a four-fold mechanism, and nobody is sincerely asking what A, C, G, and T have in common. In my thinking it is the basic difference of at least one level of separation that causes this mechanism to work.

What do I mean with one level of separation in regards to DNA? Because the segments occur in pairs, I do not see the necessity to conclude that all are absolute separations. It is already possible to say that the difference of four exist when two segments cannot exist in each other's vicinity (if they were to exist all by themselves), but they are able to be in each other's vicinity because they are both accompanied by a different second segment that work as pacifiers.

I then have a single level of separation that has been bridged by the additional two other segments. Could there be more levels of separation? I guess so, why not, maybe. But without a level of separation, I see not how they could have cooperated and not evolved into one and the same thing. The absolute incompatible difference that exists between (at least) two segments creates a long term stability (for all four segments).

I am able to deliver exactly the same idea for the four forces — electromagnetic, gravity, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces — where each in themselves may be the perfect representation of what existed before the Big Bang, but at least two of those platforms are absolutely incompatible. The other two may have similarities, congruency, or what have you with one or both of these platforms, and because of their pacifying presence the whole is not more violent than it already is. Two platforms deliver 'stability,' while the two other platforms could not, and would not exist in the same universe all by themselves.

Enos

Sep24-04, 12:10 PM

Unified field theory requires an equation right? because I have principles that seem to make alot of sense to me lately but no experince in equations.

Fredrick

Sep25-04, 12:45 PM

Hi Enos,

Threads in PhysicsForums allow for quite an amount of freedom to discuss what you want. Equations or principles, they are fine with me. This thread in particular was set up to discuss the possibility of the absence of a unified field, but the opposite is naturally part of such a discussion. Whatever you communicate is open for discussion in this thread. I am interested to hear what your principles entail.

Enos

Sep25-04, 04:49 PM

These ideas are kinda new so I haven'd had time to add more detail into it. But I'll paste what I wrote so far. Hope it makes sense. Please let me know if you see some wrong with it or have questions on connections. :shy:
---------------------------------------------------------

Change Constant and Order + Chaos Principle

It all started with self-discovery, but as I started to narrow down to answer the reason behind every human action I started to realize that the universe must follow the same laws. Just recently the answer hit me.

The universe must follow the change constant rule which is governed by Order and Chaos. Which states that all existence must constantly change and do it in the most orderly way possible. But when the choices are limited to where all possible choices have chaotic results, the orderly way would be to choose the lesser chaotic choice.

Humans follow this rule clearly but I should give it more detail. How I know we follow order and chaos is the fact that pain and pleasure exist. Pain represents chaos while pleasure represents order. There are also two types of feelings which are mental and physical. Physical pain and pleasure isn't that complex, although mental pain and pleasure may seem more complex due to different personality types and life experiences. But all the pain and pleasure we get in life, both physical and mental decide what actions we choose. Certain mental values may exceed the physical pains and get us in a harmful choice. Or certain physical and mental pleasures may exceed the mental and physical pains and get us into bad habits.
Example: you are cold and there is a fire. To most people getting closer to the fire is the most orderly choice, with the exception of those with mental reasons for not doing it like if they felt they had to prove their bravery or someone who fears fire.
An example of a chaotic/chaotic choice is a bulimic person. I'll use a female in my example so I don't have to keep saying him/her or she/he. The bulimic female mentally convinces herself that she is fat and that food makes her fatter. So she physically makes herself throw up. To her the physical pain of throwing up is the lesser chaotic choice of the mental pain of feeling insecure and fat.

Enough about humans, lets get back to the universe as a whole. Big Bang is where many believe our universe began but it is just another part of the change constant - order + chaos principle. Something can only change so much before it changes into something that it already was. The orderly thing for all existence is to unify as a singular being or existence. But to do so would take a long time in our measurements of time because this must be achieved while avoiding chaos. But once absolute order is achieved change constant and order + chaos priciple still applies. That is why the most orderly time of existence is followed by the most chaotic time of existence (Big Bang). Absolute order has no lesser chaotic choice because no order is else where so change constant forces absolute order into absolute chaos. So then the singular existence is no more and order is a part of the rules again in this infinite existence.
No beginning and no end would mean creation is impossible.

Just because we manipulate the order of something that has always existed doesn't mean creation was involved.

Fredrick

Sep25-04, 10:41 PM

I clearly get the point you are trying to make, Enos. And though I do not see too much wrong with it, I must say that it does not give me enough handles to get to a full understanding.

First and possibly foremost of all is that your words contain a lot of subjective terms that make it difficult to discuss. With subjective words I mean words that can mean something for one person and something else for another. The most famous one in circulation the last couple of years is the word 'evil.' Though we can certainly all agree on what it more or less means, evil is in the eye of the beholder (just like beauty is). It is impossible to nail down a definition that stands indefinitively for all people involved. American actions in Afghanistan seem brave to me, but for some religious people they are deeds of evil. Iraq is a whole different ballpark altogether. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Objective words on the other hand can mean one and the same thing (though variation often exist) for all people. Moon, sun, dog, you name it. Many specialist words exist in use only by those of the trade or branche of science. I would like it if you used more specific words, but I do get the image you are portraying, I think.

I get an idea what you mean with the words constant together with change, order and chaos. So I want to ask you how much importance you give, for instance, to the actual quantity of something. Take water for instance, the amount of water of dew falling off a leaf, and all the water in the Pacific Ocean are not the same. The water may be seen as similar but nevertheless the difference in quantity makes it completely different.

Or human intervention/interaction. Wouldn't you say human intervention changes the course and therefore the outcome, which is different from how the universe behaves? There is a unique feature involved with life, where a living being can decide to not do something, where a planet or star must continue its path. A bulimic person may decide to give up on either throwing up or on the whole ideal of skinny people. A star cannot stop its path, a human being can (though indeed this may be terribly difficult). We can walk away from situations, or we may get involved. It is a question of consciouness whether we see that there is a choice available to us, that is not available for a meteor or river.

Was consciousness part of the beginning of our universe. Do you think it will play a role in a possible ending?

Enos

Sep26-04, 12:44 PM

I don't think I bring up good and evil, I bring up pain and pleasure which everyone feels mentally and, or physically. These principles apply no matter how different their views might be. Because ones definition of order will be someone else's definition of chaos. But the one doing the action is doing the order, the one doing the reaction, Is also doing order. Conflicts arise but it is the orderly thing to do. But because humans have consciousness they also have the power to manipulate the order of things and come to a mutual agreement. But the power to manipulate order doesn't effect the laws of change and order.

Quantity has importance in how things are ordered. That is why I think our universe is the way it is from the Big Bang. When space began to cool down the particles would have been in different quantities spread throughout the universe. So while some particles sought order with a larger group the conversion of these would have been faster than the particle group with smaller quantities. Then making differences between these particles and unable to convert in an orderly manner. Much like human groups, when different color skins and culture first met order was difficult because order takes time.

Consciousness, I think is just what comes with beings who are able to feel think and do. Order is done differently by different things. Consciousness is what makes humans and life different from each other. But humans manipulated order, which I am unsure if animals and other types of life do.

I don't know if the most orderly time of existence will have consciousness but whether or not it does, it doesn't have a choice what to do because the only room for change and order is through chaos because order is no longer a choice once absolute order is achieved.

Fredrick

Sep26-04, 07:17 PM

I get the picture. I cannot go where you are going. I think ordering is important, but not that important. At the top I see space for either Chaos or for Order, and within the order I see a lot of variations that can come to the top. A leader who puts him (her)self above everyone else is significantly different from a leader who places him (her)self between everyone else (first among equals). A king can lead, but so can a city manager who got hired by a staff that can also fire the manager. Anarchists say we do not need leadership (though I think basically that under those conditions the biggest ***%^&#@ get the best of it all). In pluralistic democracies nations are organized with weak leadership, but strong individual rights (where a democracy with the two party system often shows the opposite). Top/bottom is steeper in dictatorships and a two party system democracies than in pluralistic democracies.

I never thought I would talk here about Adam and Eve, but when it comes down to order, then ordering is in question and it must be addressed. There are two versions of ordering and I mention it here because it brings us back to the reason of this thread, which is basically the question: Unification or not.

With establishing the story that god created Adam first and from Adam god created Eve, an ordering has been used in time. Not to dispell any person's belief that this is true, a different way of ordering exists as well. God could have easily created both Adam and Eve at the same time.

What is the difference between these two versions? The difference is the ordering in time, and the link that exists (or not exists) between Adam and Eve.

When god created Adam and from Adam Eve, god established a top and bottom, a first and last, an important and an unimportant aspect, or however you want to frame it. This way a version of ordering has been created that appears applicable to everything; and everything is linked to each other. I think that the truth is not that simple. What is most important for you, is not most important for me. What is the top for you, I regard as not that high of a standard, what is first for me, maybe second for you. You may give importance to leadership, I want everyone to follow their own voice while being respectful to others' voices.

When god created Adam and Eve at the same time, god delivered two segments that may have a lot in common, but in at least one aspect both have nothing in common: on one level of separation there is no link. Ordering can still be applied but each has their own version of ordering, in which various segments have their own positions. The parts may, but whole picture is not based on ordering because it is based on two equals that are not identical. One can armwrestle and decide who will be the winner, but that does not deliver an order that is natural; it is an order of results only. In this version it is preposterous to mention one of the two as top and the other as bottom, because each is not organized according to the other's principle, but to their own. Same goes for culture. Cultures can never top other cultures as a whole, only in segments. What is great in Western society, may be dummm in other societies, and vice versa.

Sorry to bring a religious story (Ada & Eve) into a scientific/metaphysical thread, but I am using it because it is familiar to everyone (Christian/Jewish/Muslim or not). It delivers an order, which may have much appeal, but which is not the only way in which everything can be ordered. It lacks information; it lacks options that clearly exist. That's why we have different religions. Some have only one god, others have multiple gods, while there are also a lot of people who believe there's no god(s) at all. I know that nobody can answer that question for everyone, only for ourselves.

Scientists mention that in nature there are four forces: gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force. According to me they are organized according to their own principles, which do not dispell the possibility that there may be several links between them, but that at least one level of separation exists within this group of four.
A few more remarks: Chimpanzees share 99% of our genetic make-up. Not everything humans can do, chimps can do, but to say that we are truly different from animals ignores a significant part of who we are (and who they are).

I understand that symmetry has a strong appeal, and ordering delivers a strong push for symmetry, but life is not symmetrical. The way we are born and the way we die is as a-symmetrical as it gets. Beginning and ending do not have to correlate at all (a car hitting someone has nothing to do with the conception of that person).

Can I ask you to reply to this message with regards to our thread: do you believe unification exists or do you believe a separation of at least one level is the norm?

Enos

Sep26-04, 11:27 PM

I think you misunderstood my statement about the differences in life and humans. I meant that consciousness is what seperates life from each other. Consciousness is what seperates you from me. Like the meteor must stick to its path. Consciousness opens a gateway to change their path. Order applies to both the meteor and the conscious life.
I believe life is very symmetrical if you look close to why people do what they do. And keep in mind that consciousness opens change in the order. We conscious beings makes it seem more complex because we are the masters of changing our faith.

A car hitting someone has everything to do with the conception of that person, because if it wasn't for that conception, that person wouldn't be around to get hit.

Can I ask you to reply to this message with regards to our thread: do you believe unification exists or do you believe a separation of at least one level is the norm?
I believe that unification and order go together. But I also believe that separation happens after absolute order is achieved because absolute order means only change possible is absolute chaos.

Fredrick

Sep27-04, 03:30 PM

I believe that unification and order go together. But I also believe that separation happens after absolute order is achieved because absolute order means only change possible is absolute chaos.

At least we have the leak above the water line. I see where we differ. For us to agree while making use of ordering there is one way and one way only:
in the single order of things separation must come first. There is no other way I can ever agree with you about an absolute order.

Yet as you can see that may undermine unification. I do not believe in unification as the ground rule, but I do believe it exists for the separate parts who follow unification within their own segments (possibly even to the extent where the parts believe that they alone are formed according to the whole picture - which would translate into: they believe in a lie, but they don't know any better).

My universe started with materialization, but that materialization was the visible result of an invisible single action: separation. On the most fundamental of levels separation is the invisible unified principle that all various forms have in common. The various forms may show agreements/accordances among each other, but at least one degree of separation exists within this composite field of forms (forces).

I have some mathematical evidence to support my claim, but I do not know if you are interested in wrestling about the basics of math. Nevertheless, I am glad we bumped heads and got some clarity about our differences.

Enos

Sep27-04, 09:00 PM

I'm in the begining of learning math and working on it. So far it's very fun and a great challenge. So if you share your math I am more than willing to try and understand it.

Although I believe unification and order go together I still believe that seperation and order go together also. Order agrees with both.

Fredrick

Sep29-04, 05:29 PM

That would be my pleasure. It is good, however, to understand that the math involved is very much like talking about the ABC in language. The concepts are enormously big and tremendously simple (just the way it should be according to Einstein).

In Chapter 5 you can find the mathematical evidence (I am still working on the wording to get it as tight as possible, so if you have any suggestions.... language-use, math-contents, or otherwise, I would appreciate your remarks).

http://www.pentapublishing.com

There is a link on that page that directs you to page 5. There are 8 tables in that chapter. The significance is that at one point in time I must use the number zero to explain a step. I conclude that zero is therefore a fundamental part of math (which by itself could be a moot point, but it is important even when zero may point to something unimportant; people may ignore the fact that to call something unimportant is an important fact).

Again, the math is terribly simple, but it may give you a nice look at the prime number sequences that exist within the natural numbers, and how they are all connected.

KonradKorzenowski

Oct22-04, 08:57 PM

perhaps there is not a TOE but many different but non compatible theories that comprise a unified theory

RingoKid

Oct23-04, 01:31 AM

I was just wondering if we as conscious entities are the unified theory.

Do not all the forces align in us and that the understanding of unification is essentially the understanding of ourselves ???

Chronos

Oct23-04, 02:27 AM

What part of science does this involve? Try the philosophy forum. It is inappropriate here.

RingoKid

Oct23-04, 04:39 AM

sorry chronos, I didn't have much time to elaborate but I needed to put something down before my train of thought left without me...

so anyway, I think you're trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted.

What does unification in the sense being discussed here have to do with strings, branes and LQG ??? My question in light of the discussion is perfectly relevant.

Do all the fundamental forces exist in us as conscious entities and are we then the manifestation of the unified theory ???

To understand the unifying principles involved in a "theory of everything" would also neccessitate unifying the concepts of our physical selves with the awareness of ourselves as both physical and non physical entities???

Duality implies the physical self exists in the 4d universe and the awareness of self ie the soul propagates somewhere else. Could that place not be a hidden dimension of string theory.

The difference between an entity that has an awareness of itself and it's surroundings sucg as us and one that doesn't like a rock or a star for instance is merely the accumulation of strings that vibrate in said dimension.

The commonality all life shares is the awareness due to the vibration of our fundamental strings in a dimension of consciousness. The higher the vibration the higher the intellect of the species.

If time is a dimension of motion that is formed from particles existing in a 3 d universe then why can awareness/consciousness not be a dimension also for without it we wouldn't know anything of the concept of time and the physical realm ???

dimension

n 1: the magnitude of something in a particular direction (especially length or width or height) 2: a construct whereby objects or individuals can be distinguished;

Then again maybe you're right. Maybe the whole thread needs to be in the metaphysical section.

What then are some of the philosophical ramifications of knowing everything of nature and the forces involved in defining it ???

do what you gotta do chronos...

pelastration

Oct23-04, 06:41 AM

The difference between an entity that has an awareness of itself and it's surroundings sucg as us and one that doesn't like a rock or a star for instance is merely the accumulation of strings that vibrate in said dimension.
The essence - imo - is how these vibrations are connected. A TOE must combine all.
Imagine a membrane with on it's surface many knots or strings. When a vibration goes over the membrane surface, that vibration will also be felt in all the knots and the strings. So the membrane can act as a propagating medium for vibrations. That explains non-local communication since the interactions (local vibrations) between knots or strings will also affect more distant knots on other areas of the membrane.

You can see this on a toy-model with balloons I made some years ago. Look how knots will bend or deform spacetime. http://www.mu6.com/show5.html.

yanniru

Oct23-04, 08:26 AM

Unification not predicted by Bojowald-Smolin Cosmology

Over a series of papers (e.g., http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0311015) Martin Bojowald developed a model of the physics of the Big Bang assuming an initial collapse of a universe. This model has been criticized by Penrose as it predicts that entropy goes to zero during the Big Bounce.

This plus other criticisms of the Bojowald cosmology are summarized by D. H. Coule in Contrasting Quantum Cosmologies (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0312045). The following quote from Coule expresses the reduction of entropy and the lack of unification:

“Instead of the energy density growing on approaching the singularity it rather decreases so that degrees of freedom are being removed: so the arrow of time is actually reversed during the collapse. This goes against notions in black hole physics that information should not be destroyed”

So Bojowald predicts with LQG that Planck energies and the unified field are never achieved. This answers the original question of this thread. If Bojowald is correct, singularities in black holes or at the beginning of the universe do not reach Planck energies and the forces of nature are never unified.

So the question mis: is Bojowald’s model correct? I suggest that it is based on a further criticism, apparently new with Coule, that is expressed in the following quote from the Abstract of Coule’s paper:

“However, this approach could render flat space unstable to rapid expansion or baby universe production….violates notions of unitarity, on passing through the bounce”

A Big Bounce cosmology is unappealing as Dark Energy considerations suggest that the universe will never bounce. However, the properties of Bojowald’s model, namely baby universe production and resetting entropy to near zero, make it a perfect match to Smolin’s old hypothesis that black holes produce baby universes and that the predominant kind of universe in existence are ones that maximize black hole production.

A principle criticism of Smolin’s hypothesis was that if entropy is never lost, chaos would result in just a few generations. But here we have a LQG model of singularities predicting that entropy is reduced in singularities.

And it is easy to presume that unification energies are never reached because baby universe production bleed off energy in non-unitarity regions. So if Bojowald-Smolin (BS) cosmology is correct, unified fields do not exist and there is no need for a unification theory. In short any TOE will be a TON (theory of nothing).

marcus

Oct23-04, 11:01 AM

Hi yanniru,

I see that Coule has revised and re-posted his paper ((http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0312045) a couple of times, so I will go back and have another look at it---stimulated by your interest.

I remember looking at Coule's preprint last year, when it was posted on arxiv. It did not seem to me to constitute an effective criticism of the results in LQC because it didnt accurately come to grips with them. I could not find the overlap----Coule did not reproduce Bojowald's equations for study but seemed to be working within an earlier formalism. The references to current LQC seemed impressionistic rather than precise. But I could be wrong so I will have another look.

It does not seem that the Coule paper has been published---do you know what is going on? Is he not trying? Has he run into problems with peer review?

It also does not seem to have been much cited by other researchers. I was able to find only one paper in the literature which cites the Coule e-print. It was cited as ref. [31] by Bojowald and Vandersloot http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0312103 on page 8.

So the Coule paper remains for me something of an enigma.

By contrast it seemed to me that http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311015,
co-authored by Tsujikawa and Maartens (both of whom have done numerous string papers) and by Singh, did make solid contact with LQC and provided a constructive mix of corroboration and criticism. From my standpoint this was encouraging because it showed that outsiders with an independent perspective can get productively involved

---------------------
On another matter, I heard a recorded talk by Penrose in which he raised the thermodynamic question. This a fascinating question. We think entropy must never decrease. What happens to entropy during a bounce? I will say that Penrose was rather tentative about this. No one has rigorously defined the entropy during these processes so it remains speculative---based on hunch---but Penrose hunches are well worth minding!

What happens during such extreme circumstances is a question which is being addressed by current work and which I expect will stimulate interesting developments. Ashtekar and Bojowald are co-authoring one or more new papers (not yet posted) on Black Hole collapse and evaporation---including a possible resolution of the information paradox.

I understand that Penrose spends a fair amount of his time at Ashtekar's Institute (CGPG-penn state), and so would imagine he is following this work of theirs as well.

I will get a link to a recent seminar Ashtekar gave at penn state
If you are interested, you might also look at
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0410054
Ashtekar's recent "Gravity and the Quantum" paper
which summarizes some of his work with Bojowald

yanniru

Oct23-04, 04:00 PM

I find it interesting that Coule's paper that you and I cite starts by claiming to be a response to the paper by Tsujikawa and Maartens. Is this an impressionistic reference. If you read my profile myou will see that I am biased towards a Smloin Bojowald cosmology. Too bad Coule is not so well respected. Could I find similar criticisms in the discussion by Lubos on wikipedia.

marcus

Oct23-04, 05:08 PM

I find it interesting that Coule's paper that you and I cite starts by claiming to be a response to the paper by Tsujikawa and Maartens. Is this an impressionistic reference...

It's a case in point, Richard.
Coule brought out 3 versions of the paper. In the first two, no mention of Tsujikawa, Maartens, Singh (TMS)

Date (v1): Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:23:47 GMT (16kb)
Date (revised v2): Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:25:30 GMT (16kb)
Date (revised v3): Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:38:21 GMT (16kb)

In between Dec and Feb, it looks like someone called his attention to his not squaring with them. Could have been one of them, or a reviewer.
So he tried to address the difference. but I still dont think he connects with
TMS either. I read some TMS and liked what I read.

Each of us must decide what papers to take seriously. I found little telling or credible in Lubos-Wiki article, and was not impressed by Coule. You on the other hand may choose to give some weight to one or both of them!
Whatever you choose is fine with me. It is not something we need to argue about.

I guess my only caution would be to remind you that Lubos-Wiki has not passed peerreview (and sounds to me either misleading or as if he doesnt know what he's talking about) and also that Coule paper does not seem to have gotten over the publication hurdle----although David Coule has published a whole bunch of other papers!

In other words, he CAN publish physics paper and he is an established guy, he is just not (yet?) up to speed with this particular paper.

Rothiemurchus

Oct23-04, 05:35 PM

Epoch1

Oct23-04, 06:40 PM

As far as I can see, North, South, East or West only exist as points of reference on a physical grid. They are not good examples of a force. In the case of the Earth, a round sphere, I can reach any place from my position by traveling in any direction. Where I am determines where a direction lies only as it relates to what planet I am on. Is Mars east or west of earth? There is a unifying force for the universe. The force, however, is not in the universe. Instead, the universe is contained within the force.

Epoch1

Oct23-04, 07:44 PM

"I was just wondering if we as conscious entities are the unified theory."
Ringokid

"Was consciousness part of the beginning of our universe. Do you think it will play a role in a possible ending?"

"Einstein said that the ultimate theory had to be simple"
Frederick

"Consciousness, I think is just what comes with beings who are able to feel think and do. Order is done differently by different things. Consciousness is what makes humans and life different from each other. But humans manipulated order, which I am unsure if animals and other types of life do."

"I think you misunderstood my statement about the differences in life and humans. I meant that consciousness is what seperates life from each other. Consciousness is what seperates you from me."
Enos

"If the universe did come from a singularity, then all things were the same thing at that singularity."
Mike2

I am new to Physicsforum and as dumb as they come. But finding a TOE has always been a subject of interest. So far the posting in this thread have intrigued me the most. I have my own ideas and have found them echoed in the posts here. I have taken some quoyes from some of the members and will addres them here..

Ringokid touches on the best observation from my point of view. We are indeed, as conscience beings, examples of the true unifying force. As illustrated by the "uncertainty principle" the only way to determine the properties of the cat is by observation. It is just as true for the universe. The universe can not exist unless there is a witness. It could not have been created without first having been concieved. Concept and observation are properties of a conscious being.

Fredrick also touches tentatively on some truths. Einstein is correct. The answer is simple. Consciousness is not the beginning of the universe, it is the source of it. The universe is created everytime a new lifeform is created and ends when that lifeform when it dies.

Enos is correct about consciousness being a common factor shared between life forms. However consciousness is not what serparates life forms or what make them different... it is what connects them all regardless of intellect or complexity. We all share the same time but not the same perceptions. Thus the universe is different for all beings.

And mike2 asks if the universe came from the same singularity. As in the Big Bang. Even if the single particle theory is true as far as where all the matter in the universe was when the bang happened the question remains...where did the particle come from. What existed before the bang? There was either something or nothing. And as a matter of fact... you can't make something from nothing.

For me the answer is simple. It is the physical manifestation of the one absolute factual product of the conclusive equation. The universe has to exist because nothing, as a starting point, is impossible.

Consciouness is the unifying force that allows the universe and the life forms within it to exist. Life is the result of the interaction of the conscious force and physical matter. Life does not exist within the universe... the universe exists within life.

Twistedseer

Oct23-04, 08:34 PM

unified theory is simple.

to understand how the universe functions you need to know about expansion and the basic way matter behaves in relation to expansion.

overlooking the obvious is humankinds biggest flaw

Twistedseer

Fredrick

Oct23-04, 10:39 PM

I have been away for a bit and just got back. Much to my surprise this thread is really really going somewhere. I have been very interested in your replies and I want to join in again with my view.

The concept that there is no unified field of forces does not contradict the idea that everything came from a singularity. The distinguished point here is the line between materialization and the previous unexpressed state of singularity. Materialization can be seen as crossing a line. By crossing that line the materialized segments were no longer based on the singular state, but on their own reflection/recreation of that singular state. The forces themselves are based on particular singularities, yet together they cannot be seen as entities from one and the same field.

To say this in different words: the ultimate level is a level on which various deliveries exist, all (how many?) coming from a previously experienced singular state. Unification is therefore extremely strong, but between the various forms differences should cause conflict as well, because each contain its own blueprint on how to be singular.

Singularity cannot be achieved unless everything that exists gives up being specific. I personally like life the way it is (admitted it is far from perfect) so I am rather happy that that is not going to happen anytime soon.

The nothing, that exist right on the crossing line between the unexpressed and the materialized universe, did not exist in the unexpressed universe. There was no nothing before the Big Bang. In our universe nothing does take in a place. In human experiences two places of nothing score the highest marks for their important impact on us: death and divorce. The unity that existed no longer exists after divorce or death. We can gather some memories/facts about the previous unity, but we cannot deliver proof of that unity anymore. First there was no separation, now there is no unity anymore.

I see the Big Bang as an enormous force of separation. The separation caused a change: materialization occured consisting of imperfect unities, half-unities, no-longer-unities clinging on to unity. We may each individually portray unity, but on the highest platform we are no longer united. That what was before cannot be seen anymore. If we were unified even on the smallest grounds - throughout - we would know it. According to me the universe would then not have come into being.

I am happy the universe came into being, even though I too wish we were more united.

marcus

Oct23-04, 10:47 PM

this is an awesome thread---feynman, humanino, fredrick, and others have said some profound and/or witty ideas

I will try to join in, but am admittedly not quite up to philosophical speed.

Anyway, i think that human thought goes in expansion contraction waves and it is just getting a new concept of time and space

the last time like this was around 1680 when newton postulated absolute space and time. after that the program was to explain everything by particles moving in that absolute space according to some laws, and by waves moving in it. the program developed enormous momentum.

heat and sound were explained by particles moving in abs. space
electricity and magnetism, light, even quantum field theory and the Standard Model are built on absolute space and an idealized time variable

A crack developed in 1915 with Gen Rel in which spacetime points do not have physical existence, there is no fixed geometry. In GR there is no absolute space, there is just the gravitational field. but the rest of 20th cent physics will not mix with 1915 GR---it is like oil and water.

So I guess something like 1680 will happen. People will get a new model of time and space compatible with Gen Rel. then they will build quantum physics on the new spacetime. there will be a new program.

The program is always one of unification----of gathering the threads of explanation together---of braiding the threads of understanding. But be careful what you unify in with!
It is a different program depending on what the core concept of space and time is!

Actually the phrase "Theory of Everything" sounds a bit presumptious to me. I would be real happy if people could just come up with a quantum theory of spacetime and matter-----I would not call that "Everything". Just a modest theory of how space behaves, how and why matter curves it, a quantum theory of space at the fundamental scale, and just a modest quantum theory of some matter-fields living on that quantized space. Never mind consciousness or life or other grand topics. Just modeling a room inhabited by some matter would be great!

But we dont have that. 1915 Gen Rel invalidated both newton's absolute spacetime and the minor variant of it that came with 1905 Special Relativity. I dont think we have the new one yet.

So I dont think saying the phrase "Theory of Everything" means anything.
We have to let history unfold. Whatever we picture now will be mostly wrong. I personally feel sure that the new historical wave will begin with a quantum theory of spacetime, that is to say a quantum theory of the geometry of spacetime (which is the gravitational field). there are half a dozen good approaches being worked on---maybe one of them will pan out.

the moment we have such a theory---then something like newtons's 3 laws will happen, and a new program will start, and wave on wave of unification----putting things together within the new context.

personally, the most evocative thing I have heard along these lines recently is a talk by Ashtekar (with slides) that is downloadable. The whole talk lasts 1hour 16 minutes
He was talking about the gravitational field interchanging with matter, how a black hole evaporates----not just the semiclassical way hawking says but the way Ashtekar says. He was talking about the deep planck regime at the pit of the hole too. the good part starts around minute 34, and then it gets even better at about minute 56 (out of total 76 minutes as I said)
this is what, to me, sounds most like the beginnings of a theory of time space and matter.

I will get link for it, incase anyone wants. Stingray, who is at Penn State, supplied it
Ashtekar recently gave a talk where he discusses this a bit:

http://www.phys.psu.edu/events/index.html?event_id=934;event_type_ids=7;span=2004-08-20.2004-12-25

Hopefully that's a static link.

Fredrick

Oct24-04, 07:27 PM

A theory is an idea about how known subject matter fits in within a larger model. I agree with you Marcus that a theory of everything sounds big, but I think it was made big by having all these hot shots talk about it, placing it in a position almost impossible to grasp, while in the end it isn't (going to be) big at all. Einstein already said - freely adopted here - that it wasn't going to be anything incredibly difficult.

I hope this thread will remain to be an open forum in which we do not have to be afraid to speak our minds. Though I have great respect for the force of dismissal, I hope we can refrain ourselves from dismissing each others' ideas out of hand. Sometimes the 'foolish' words of one, are golden in the eye of another. I do agree with you Epoch1 that East, North, West and South are no forces. The reason I used this model of global directions is that I am trying to make the point that unification is not available. A second reason is that Stephen Hawking has mentioned that a theory of everything may be something North of the Northpole. By placing all global directions in this single model (planet plus spin), I deliver a model in which unification is definitively not possible on directional grounds. North opposites South, while East and West are different from North and South altogether. The singular model of course is the globe and its spin. Though the spin may be regarded as directional, the globe is not.

Quite paradoxically the Northpole is a place that lacks North (only South is available at the Northpole). Also, jumping in the air at the Northpole is exactly the same direction as walking a step North at the equator. Of course a jump and a walk can never be the same even when it is in the same direction. According to me a similar situation exists in prof. 't Hooft's evidence for linking three forces except gravity together (got him the Nobel prize). Question mark I would like to place is: is his evidence delivered on a very intricate but nevertheless 'trivial' piece of information?

I would hope that we all recognize that we are looking for a model in which everything can fit. A model does not have to be scientific only to be scientifically correct. A model can be more, but to have it be a correct model, all known scientific information must fit. Therefore I value information that contributes to understanding everything even when that information itself is not most scientifically. I hope we can agree on that.

I want to describe another form of model that's been floating in my head and that is figuring out how many structurally organized ways there are in which one can line up numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I am not an immediate proponent of chaos theory (though I recognize it definitively for the interesting views it has given us), and I require that the sequences must have some logic to them to be of value. This is my result (but I bet there are some clever minds out there that can possibly deliver another one or two?):

1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

1, 3, 5, 4, 2.

1, 3, 5, 2, 4.

5, 3, 1, 2, 4.

5, 3, 1, 4, 2.

It is easy to see that each line has the same five members and contains no doubles. If 1 is the original unity that existed before the Big Bang then these six lines deliver six possible ways to create an imperfect materialized version of that previously experienced unity that no longer exists. Some place 1 at the beginning, some in the middle, some place it last. 5 is the final segment of creation within each sequence.

I have names for these six states: up, down, top, bottom, strange, and charm. Can you fit the correct names with the correct sequence?

Enter a sixth number, zero, which according to me started to exist at the initial moment our universe came into being. If you wish you can see it as the number to portray the already mentioned force of dismissal; as in My way is the only way, the other ways are no ways. By being able to dismiss the information of the other sequences, each sequence is able to adhere better to its own format. Though each sequence claims to be everything - is even made up out of the same stuff as the other sequences - each must denounce the others' claims to represent everything. In reality they cannot deny the others' existence, but internally each can deny the others' validity. When placing the number zero on the above lines, its spot may be at the beginning or at the end, it may even be placed in the middle. Would two spots for zero contradict the above mentioned rules?

One last remark for the believers in a unified field of forces: we do not share the same belief. I respect you in your belief, I hope you can respect me too when I cannot go where you are going. If you are able to deliver evidence that unifies the forces in one field I will be the first one to cheer you on. However, I have not seen any evidence that a unified field of forces can exist, and I have seen an infinite amount of models that are based on at least a single level of separation, I have seen some evidence that separation is an intricate part of our universe, and that lead me to conclude that unification is not possible. Without the intention to insult I say: I am not a Cyclops; and even though I have one vision, I still use two eyes.

marcus

Oct24-04, 09:32 PM

I agree with you Marcus that a theory of everything sounds big, but I think it was made big by having all these hot shots talk about it, placing it in a position almost impossible to grasp, while in the end it isn't (going to be) big at all. Einstein already said - freely adopted here - that it wasn't going to be anything incredibly difficult.
...
... and that lead me to conclude that unification is not possible. Without the intention to insult I say: I am not a Cyclops; and even though I have one vision, I still use two eyes.

a comic sense of history
an ability to use aphorism

everything I have to say in response is tangential. I think you are a writer.

BTW richard feynman and einstein were both humorists
feynman was more relentless about it

feynman had a really good knowledge of the history of science----his own individualistic take on everything but could relate it to facts and people.
half the value of science is its history
(its sometimes comic or ironical history)

right now I am watching a really close hard-played game and I cant take time to stand back. I dont want to think about issues you raise.

can you read any foreign language? most people who are actual or potential writers can, I think, because they are greedy for language----word-hogs---so they cant be satisfied with just one language

pelastration

Oct25-04, 03:36 AM

Haelfix

Oct25-04, 05:52 AM

marcus

Oct25-04, 08:22 AM

Sorry I don't buy it.

Already we know the weak and electromagnetic forces are linked.

By some rather clever extrapolations we see the strong force indeed converges into coupling constant unification (or at least damn close). In fact its so close to being perfect, it really begs the question. With SUSY it more or less is exact.

Ok 3 forces in nature that are unified, why not the last one?...

Hi Haelfix, I dont know if it's appropriate for me to respond since you didnt quote my post---so you may have been responding to someone else and saying you dont buy some other notion. this thread's ideas are a bit nebulous.

the question is whether there can be a satisfactory unification with "the last one" before we have a major remodeling of space and time.

"Ok 3 forces in nature that are unified, why not the last one?..."

Well, a priori I see no reason to suppose that (simply because 3 forces have been unified within Minkowski space) a fourth could be unified with them on the same basis.
Indeed the evidence (the difficulty experienced) suggests otherwise.

current progress in quantum gravity, for me, is exemplified by work around the big bang/inflation and around black hole evaporation. The trouble with your "ant" observer is that she cant venture into highly curved regimes.
I agree with you that in a nearly flat context it's not unreasonable to suppose that one could make an effective theory of gravity that is approximately right and which is compatible with theories of matter (also approximately right).

But what I find interesting is current progress around former singularities.

here's the link to that 20 September talk by Ashtekar, on Black Hole evaporation, again. It really impresses me. I dont see this kind of thing coming out of an effective theory that approximates past results on a flat or nearly flat space with an ant running around on it.

http://www.phys.psu.edu/events/index.html?event_id=934;event_type_ids=7;span=2004-08-20.2004-12-25

this is why I expect the next significant round of unification to happen only after a satisfactory quantum treatment of spacetime geometry

Fredrick

Oct28-04, 06:02 PM

Hi Marcus,

Touché, as they say in French: I am a multi-lingual person, but I would be hopelessly lost if it wasn't for SpellCheck. I hope you had a good time watching the game (didn't we all want the Sox to win?). You make me jealous about Feynman (fine man) and Einstein (one stone); I wish I had more humor in me, but I do not mind if I happen to deliver a hilarious moment by accident.

I believe in unity, but I do not believe unity is retrievable on the ultimate level. The links provided by Pelastration and by you are more evidence that it is not unity that we are looking at. We are looking at variations of the initial unity. Together these variations make it impossible to speak of unity on the final level.

Allow me to express myself once again on a theoretical level of structures, instead of factual information. If the initial unity no longer exists and has been torn apart in a fragment A and a fragment B then the following deliveries trying to resemble unity are:

AA
AB
BA
BB

I call them gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic forces. Can you fit the correct name with the correct combination?

A is not the same as B, so how do they differ? I say that A can only be A (whether it is in a first spot or in a second spot does not matter). B however changes depending on the spot it is in. Therefore we have four different pairs of unity.

Even though AA is a double set it may experience itself as singular since it is based on two that are identical.

AB is different from BA in that the B behaves differently. Suppose the first position for B is one with a certain level of being in control while the second position for B is one in which a certain level of surrender is okay. Remember, A cannot be anything other than being A; it is B that delivers the experienced difference.

For AB the B will 'subject' itself somewhat to A and A will therefore be expressed better/more easily than in the BA situation in which B steps up to the plate and arm-wrestles with A to express itself as somewhat dominant.

In BB the situation is more like the AA situation, except that BB is fully delivering its duality because the first and second positions are part and parcel of the B's make-up. It will be difficult, however, to distinguish between which B is first and which B is second.

To complete the information: A nor B exists as such, only the combinations exist. AA appears to be A but isn't - though it may be impossible to distinguish the fact of the two A's.

So, I was able to deliver four versions of (initially disrupted but then 'restored') unity that together are not based on unity anymore because two parts are no longer based on both 'halves' A and B but on 'double-halves' AA and BB.

My apologies for going into this dry kind of theorizing. I prefer to keep things simple and by using this alpha-ordinal approach I can show the intricacies of rebuild segments. Is it possible to deliver a connection of three, but not four? Easily: AA, AB, BA. The fourth option BB does not fit.

Did I describe a simple theory of everything here? Yes I did, but it is one in which unification does not exist. Everything (the four forces) are linked to each other, but not linked to all at the same time. I see the same pattern appearing with DNA where multiple A, C, G, and T's can create an incredible amount of outcomes. Four parts that together deliver a beautiful (or not) outcome, but they exist in coordination of pairs only, not independently. I wonder here out loud whether the pairing is required to overcome an insurmountable difference. Let's say Jayne, Peter, Harry, and Grandpa are four people and Peter and Grandpa cannot get along at all. Put these two in a room together and the room will be too small. However, the same room can be occupied if not only Peter and Grandpa are in that room, but Jayne and Harry are there too. They are the catalysts that prevent that Peter and Grandpa go for each other's throat. Is there unity in the room? The answer is clearly No. But can they exist in one room? Yes.

So what are we looking for when we want to give gravity a place among the others (without it fully connecting to all three other forces)? We 'only' need to deliver evidence that one of the other forces has a connection with gravity. This is extremely hard because the B in BA is altered by the nearly unshakeable A in the second position, and the B will therefore not immediately resemble the first B in BB.

It is even more difficult to show the connection between AB and the second B in BB because the B in AB will have given up a somewhat important part of its characteristics to establish a clear connection with A in first position.

In English, gravity may be connected to a single part that exists within one of the other forces. Which part? I am not that knowledgeable in the field work but my suggestion would be a connection between gravity and magnetism. But another contender is gravity and part of the strong nuclear force. Then again the weak nuclear force seems quite well possible too. Gravity and electricity? Only one will suffice, and it shouldn't be based on the already established connection between the other three.

The only three forces able to deliver a combined connection are the ones that contain at least one of those unchangeable A's in them. It is (was) hard to connect the third force because of the BA force, which has an A in it that has to arm-wrestle with B all the time. This A does not change but it ís constantly busy.

The four forces are different forces and though clear links can get established among them, the ultimate goal of linking all of them — at the same time — is not feasible. God cannot be proven as a fact. By default, scientists are not looking for god, ergo scientists shouldn't be looking for god in a scientific way even if they want to do just that.

Marcus, the Sox won the World Series, so you have no more excuses (that is, if you didn't immediately jump into the football season)!

marcus

Oct28-04, 06:56 PM

a comic sense of history
an ability to use aphorism

everything I have to say in response is tangential. I think you are a writer.

...
right now I am watching a really close hard-played game and I cant take time to stand back. I dont want to think about issues you raise.
...

Hello Fredrick, I am glad you are pleased by the outcome of the Series.

I am watching another contest right now, not between people so much as between mathematical models (and those working to develop them). String is the yankees and Loops is the sox.

Laurent Freidel just stepped to the plate and he is trying to hit a triple.
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/activities/scientific/PI-WORK-2/program2.php

Well more accurately let's say Saturday, day after tomorrow, at 3PM Freidel will give this talk Symmetry and particles in 3d quantum gravity

If you can say how to include particles in 4d quantum gravity, that would qualify as a home run. Doing it in 3d is not that but it certainly rates a triple

Smolin goes to bat on Sunday, at 5PM
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/activities/scientific/PI-WORK-2/program3.php
His talk is Physics from Loop Quantum Gravity

conferences like this one this weekend at Perimeter Institute (initials PI like the greek letter) are where a showdown can happen----of if it is a case of gradual progress then you can see what progress is being made.

the game is to get a modern description of the gravitational field to replace the 1915 Einstein one (Gen Rel)
and in the process get rid of glitches or singularities that were snags in the 1915 theory, around bigbang and blackholes
and then find out how to put matter into the gravitational field so that quantum space and quantum matter interact

this last is why the Freidel and Smolin talks---unifying space and matter is part of the program.

to be a good watcher you have to pay more attention to developments by the major players than to your own theories. this has its plusses and minuses,
right now I am pretty focused on the action---I hope you will excuse me if I dont comment on anything extraneous to that right now.

Fredrick

Oct29-04, 02:29 PM

To be a good watcher you have to pay more attention to developments by the major players than to your own theories. This has its plusses and minuses, right now I am pretty focused on the action---I hope you will excuse me if I dont comment on anything extraneous to that right now.

Thank you for your remark. I will accept it as information that I took up too much of (y)our space. It was not my intention to push out any other people or enforce my ideas upon anybody. I guess I got swept away in the excitement of our thread and its many interesting contributions.

I must come clean here: for twenty years I have been paying more or less close attention to the major players, and from a perspective of them delivering structures on which a theory of everything can exist, I must say that I am not impressed. Of course the Sox winning was hot, but that was not because they played so well, but because the odds of them winning seemed close to impossible. The games were not that exciting if they had just been regular games. It was the combination of all factors combined that made it extraordinary.

Similarly, the big guys and gals in physics battling on what is going to be the next hot issue may attract a lot of attention by many. I am not impressed. If you buy into the game, the result can be very exciting. If you don't buy into the game there ain't much there there. If you like baseball, but not soccer, does that in anyway reduce the importance of soccer? Of course not. It only tells something about your preferences, and nothing about the level of excitement of each game. From a neutral perspective I can assure you that the potential excitement in baseball is identical to the potential excitement in soccer.

Hot or not: if you are interested in discussing the validity of the requirement that a theory of everything will be based on unification then this is your thread. Otherwise, as Marcus pointed out, there are some very hot other games out there to follow.

Apologies to anyone for putting myself in this driver's seat again, but from a structural point of view I would like to point out that a final theory of everything must have a structure.

One apple and one apple is two apples.
One orange and one orange is two oranges.

Though apples and oranges should not be compared to each other, the abstract structure for both sums is the same:
1 + 1 = 2.

Same way for the final theory of everything: there múst be an abstract structure on which everything fits together.

I do not believe in the currently proposed structure that leads to a single ultimate 1. I believe multipe parts together are the final picture, in which relationships can be discovered between the parts but not between all the parts. I deliver such a structure which in my opinion creates a platform that can include all currently known information, but that excludes the possibility of unification of all forces on one field.

I would like to hear from others what they think about the structure with four forces portrayed as AA, AB, BA, and BB. Independently, A nor B exists; only combinations are valid results. I do not fill in the apples and oranges, I only deliver the structure.

If we must have a singular entity that exists within each force than that number should be zero. It is not a force to be reckoned with, but it is a function that enables each force to tune out of one game and focus on its own game. Which game do you give attention to?

Fredrick

Nov7-04, 10:59 PM

I am very happy with physicsforums.com but I wanted to let you know there are other forums out there too.

here is one:
http://www.toequest.com

Fredrick

Nov10-04, 03:54 PM

It would not make sense if the forces cannot be unified because at some level gravity must be the same as electricity and as the colour force and so on, or else colour charge and mass would not exist in the same universe which they clearly do.
The question is:at what energy does unification take place? Are the forces already unified now but we haven't noticed for some reason?
It is interesting that you consider a link between gravity and electricity; why not between magnetism and gravity? I am aware that electricity and magnetism are united in the electromagnetic force, but I suspect a closer relationship between gravity and magnetism? What do you say?

When Lucy, the remnants of an early human, was found a discussion followed soon after whether Lucy could be seen as the person we all originate from or not. A good explanation was delivered in which not Lucy, but the group of which Lucy was a member could be seen as the ancestral group. The genetic material of Lucy would have been only part of the genetic material from which we pool our genetic material. As such there is no unification because several separate members deliver the outcome. According to me, same is true for gravity, electricity etc. Together they form the platform, but the platform itself is not unified.

Fredrick

Nov10-04, 04:05 PM

For me the answer is simple. It is the physical manifestation of the one absolute factual product of the conclusive equation. The universe has to exist because nothing, as a starting point, is impossible.

Consciouness is the unifying force that allows the universe and the life forms within it to exist. Life is the result of the interaction of the conscious force and physical matter. Life does not exist within the universe... the universe exists within life.

I agree that nothing cannot be the starting point of our universe, but I disagree with the location of nothing, because I would still have to place that at the beginning of our universe. Difference of statement is that according to me the materialized universe is the expression of what existed before together with the phenomenon of nothing. It is not nothing that existed before, but the phenomenon of nothing forced the expression (created the materialization) of our universe. As such nothing is the reason our universe came into being, not the source.

Can you deliver an explanation of what consciousness is for you in the light of what existed before the BB?

Fredrick

Nov10-04, 04:07 PM

Fredrick

Nov10-04, 04:31 PM

I think that human thought goes in expansion contraction waves and it is just getting a new concept of time and space

the last time like this was around 1680 when newton postulated absolute space and time. after that the program was to explain everything by particles moving in that absolute space according to some laws, and by waves moving in it. the program developed enormous momentum.

heat and sound were explained by particles moving in abs. space
electricity and magnetism, light, even quantum field theory and the Standard Model are built on absolute space and an idealized time variable

A crack developed in 1915 with Gen Rel in which spacetime points do not have physical existence, there is no fixed geometry. In GR there is no absolute space, there is just the gravitational field. but the rest of 20th cent physics will not mix with 1915 GR---it is like oil and water.

So I guess something like 1680 will happen. People will get a new model of time and space compatible with Gen Rel. then they will build quantum physics on the new spacetime. there will be a new program.

The program is always one of unification----of gathering the threads of explanation together---of braiding the threads of understanding. But be careful what you unify in with!
It is a different program depending on what the core concept of space and time is!

How about the idea of the Renaissance (lit: rebirth)? After the Dark Ages Europe woke up to the ideals of the ancient Greeks. However, one interesting difference between 'us' and 'them' remained in place all this time, and that is that the Greeks did not believe in a single god. While we are following the Greek path of knowledge (and have contributed to it significantly ever since), we are not accepting (yet) of the idea that unification is improbable. If - as you say - human thought goes in expansion contraction waves, isn't it time we embrace the old greek ideals and abandon the idea of unification?

While Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions were developed with the ultimate highest standing in respect to believing (in that these religions do not necessarily need the connection to the factual materialized world: believing is not the same as seeing), it may have been impossible for the Greek, the Egyptians, and other ancient people to have a belief that lacked such connection (for them: seeing = believing). For them religion may have been based on/evolved from/connected to the surrounding world.

marcus

Nov10-04, 06:24 PM

How about the idea of the Renaissance (lit: rebirth)? After the Dark Ages Europe woke up to the ideals of the ancient Greeks. However, one interesting difference between 'us' and 'them' remained in place all this time, and that is that the Greeks did not believe in a single god. While we are following the Greek path of knowledge (and have contributed to it significantly ever since), we are not accepting (yet) of the idea that unification is improbable. If - as you say - human thought goes in expansion contraction waves, isn't it time we embrace the old greek ideals and abandon the idea of unification?
...

hello Fredrick,
this is your thread, so if you want to mix physics and religion nobody can object.

so then you would equate monotheism in religion to the drive to unify physical theories-----which is reasoning by analogy: something that often and in lots of cases works very well.

I would say two things.
1. A lot of the "unification" talk is just hype because the idea of having a unified explanation for basic physics appeals to the public.

and in a general sense it appeals to the human mind. The Greeks were certainly not immune to this----there are half a dozen examples of Greek science where the guy tried to find a single substance or a single principle that would explain the properties of all substances. Everything is made of water, no, everything is made of fire! No you are wrong....etc.

So people are suckers for any kind of total explanation type single essence theory----and even today they will funnel taxpayer money into projects that are hyped as a promising quest for Unity.

2. But in sober truth, gradual piecewise unification of known parts of physics has been a great strategy. It hasnt always been a GRAND unification----hasnt always been comprehensive all in one fell swoop---but it has been practiced for centuries and it has worked.

In 1650 people knew the motion of pendulums and they knew the motion of planets. Who put pendulums and planets together? newton
He put various kinds of motion on the same footing.

In 1850 people knew electric forces of Pos and Neg attraction and repulsion and they knew magnetism North and South stuff. But those were different. Who explained electricity and magnetism in a single set of equations?
Maxwell.
And he managed to finesse light and predict radiowaves in the bargain.

All through the history of physics since, like, 1600, there have been these sudden COUPs of unification.

Anyone who imagines there is going to be a "final" coup in his lifetime is probably self-deluded, or looking to sell books. Or he is just talking up his line of research. Final Unification is a kind of Snake Oil.

But step-by-step consolidation of physical theory is real pragmatic, and it has been a major engine driving progress in understanding nature.

and frankly i dont see any connection with religious monotheism.

Like i say, though, it is your thread----I'm just replying 'cause you quoted me, so it is like you said something to me in particular, so i'm telling you what I think

Fredrick

Nov13-04, 07:36 PM

Thanks Marcus, for delivering a good addition to this thread. I like the fact that you make this my thread, but I want to make clear that I do not claim ownership. I claim voice, and I like it when others claim this thread to voice their ideas/opinions in regards to "unification yes or no."

I like your grounded response - especially the reference to snake oil. I think your contribution is very important in that it points to the fact that much can be seen in similar lights. There is no denying at all, and I am glad you bring this forward. Do I believe that everything derived from one and the same? Actually I do. But can the ultimate theory be one of unification? That I doubt.

It was not my intention to put religion on the front burner, so apologies, I merely wanted to deliver honor to those old Greeks who knew so much already. Much of the modern work still finds basis in their ideas. And who knows, maybe what we consider answers to real questions, were not considered questions at all for them? If they had a completed view already - but not per se all the specific facts - their Grand Theory may still be identical in as far as structure is concerned to the one we may find/have found.

What if their four forces (fire, air, earth, water) were mere abstractions for the underlying structure of the universe? We too know that they come in four (electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and gravity). Greek mythology is filled with structure. What if they present us the structure of the grand theory but then in a different context? People in the past had less facts available, but does that necessarily mean they couldn't figure out the beginning of the universe? We know about the Big Bang, but we - must - look as much as they looked in the dark for answers on how it all started.

arivero

Nov14-04, 10:35 AM

the Greeks did not believe in a single god.

An interesting point to note here is Lucretius.

Well, it is true that faith is an inconvenience. Any faith on knowing answers precludes you of searching them. XXth century faith in money, or XVIIth century faith on the Creator, are two instances of it. A way it operates is by retiring valious people. Pascal or Barrow, for two examples of fighters conversed to divinity.

marcus

Nov14-04, 11:33 AM

... A way it operates is by retiring valious people. Pascal or Barrow, for two examples of fighters conversed to divinity.

I had almost forgotten about Barrow. Was he Newton's math teacher at Cambridge?

A dominant way of thinking can operate by neutralizing independent thinkers (putting them out of action by isolating them or driving them into madness and despair, or in some other way).

I think this is what you are saying. I am not sure though.

In english one says "converted" to belief in divinity

to converse is to discuss. It is amazing how bad English spelling is.

I did not know that Pascal was a convert to belief in divinity. I thought he was always religious. What a shame!

Greatest moment in all of European history: Laplace telling the Emperor "that is an hypothesis which I don't need" Do I have the names right?
[corrected: Sire, je n'avais besoin de cette hypothese. Simon de Laplace
to Napoleon]

Belief in global free market capitalism is another of those aggressive proselytizing dogmas like Islam in the 800s and wellknown other instances----convert the heathen by the sword if they wont submit voluntarily---is this also what you are saying?

selfAdjoint

Nov14-04, 01:54 PM

As to Pascal, I think it was specifically the Catholic heresy Jansenism that he was converted to. a sort of Calvinistic Catholicism, very stern and gloomy, human beings are nothing and deserve nothing from almighty god.

Newton. Kepler, and Pascal were all deeply religious, and all heretics to their separate birth faiths (C of E, Lutheranism, and Catholicism, respectively).

marcus

Nov14-04, 02:16 PM

... Do I believe that everything derived from one and the same? Actually I do. But can the ultimate theory...

Fredrick here is an axiom:

Scientific theories are not meant to be believed in. They are meant to be tested.

If a theory does not make testable predictions then it is vacuous.
that is the whole point----and it is why some stuff they call theory is not really scientifically-speaking a theory. but more a philosophy imposed on the public by hype and sustained by the human tendency for wishful thinking

If a theory makes predictions and survives rigorous testing-----repeatedly agreeing with experimental measurements out to many decimal places, say---then one still does not have to believe it.

One uses it, and one keeps on testing it, but one is never required to believe.

If something is a real theory, then there is always the possibility that it will be fail to predict the next decimal place accuracy and that it will fail the test and will need to be modified or replaced.

===========
my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
there is nothing you need to believe is a perfect final description of nature
============

Suppose sometime there is a theory which unifies Gravity with what is called the Standard Model (of particle physics: all those little bitty things and their interactions)

OK. So what? Would that be FINAL? No.
it would not be a final ultimate theory---talking like that is hype.
It would just be some theory. surviving by continuing to accurately predict the next accelerator experiment and the next astronomical observation,
each day betting its life on predictions of microscopic physics and of cosmology-----and destined to eventually be shot down

============

I happen to suspect that string theory has gotten started on the wrong track to such a thing. But eventually some ingenious human brain will get a theory that puts cosmology (gravity---spacetimetheory) together with microscopic physics (the Std Mdle)---in such a way that it can make testable predictions. And that will be cool. And completely non-threatening.

marcus

Nov14-04, 02:33 PM

...
Newton. Kepler, and Pascal were all deeply religious, and all heretics to their separate birth faiths (C of E, Lutheranism, and Catholicism, respectively).

How can an intelligent man not be a heretic?

given the general caliber of human religions so far.

I love Kepler.

His cackling over the third law, in his 1618 book, beats all.

marcus

Nov14-04, 02:55 PM

In 1618 Kepler thought he had a unified scheme explaining
Geometry
Music
the Cosmos (the motions and distances of the planets)
and I think also the human mind as well, but dont remember for sure.

So he wrote this wonderful book called
Harmonies of the Universe

Harmonice Mundi

his wild-eyed ecstasy in this book is revealing of something basic
in human nature

the prurient itch for an all-encompassing theory

==================

the compelling urge to sink one's teeth into the Apple

people are wonderful

Kepler is my hero

================

but Kepler's enthusiasm notwithstanding,
in science theories are not to believe.
the theory of the day is just what happens
to temporarily be the most successful model.
those who puff theories up to appear more:
those who poeticize and rhapsodize and philosophize,
are hucksters, hyping science-porn to teenagers

Fredrick

Nov14-04, 10:02 PM

Axiom:

Scientific theories are not meant to be believed in. They are meant to be tested.

I do not disagree with this axiom.

When I use the word believe, I mean believe in the old fashioned kind of way: as an instrument of freedom. Believing is not a scientific word, it is an English word.

When I do not know for certain, but think something could be true, I express that by using the word believe. If I am convinced that there are no facts to support my ideas, I will use the word believe. I can even believe two opposite things that would contradict each other if they were both true at the same time; that's how much freedom there is in believe.

Theory may cover much of what believe covers, but believe is less intellectual: no explanation is required, just stating you believe something is enough. As such there is an incredible amount of freedom and nobody can take that away. Most people would like to be taken seriously by others, so most people will stay within a certain realm of what can be considered acceptable. I try to do that as well.

The essence of believe is that what you think may be true, or that what you think is true, but by using the word you leave freedom to others to think whatever they want to think about it. Again, believing is an instrument of freedom. Unfortunately some take the freedom of believing and create a belief that leaves no freedom for others to believe something else. Some are even willing to eliminate others in the name of a belief; this is in itself a paradox. The freedom is fully taken in and not given out: for me that is not a belief, that is a dogma that been taken too far.

War can be the strongest 'imprinter' of a belief on a population. The Netherlands still shows the marks of the Spanish Inquisition. An Eighty Year War of Independence was fought between the Low Countries and Spain and in the locations where the fighting was most severe and lasted the longest you can still find a bible belt of deeply religious Protestants. In the Netherlands they are called black stocking churches because the people are so devote they do not want to dress up more colorfully. The severity of war created a deep deep imprint that has lasted to this day, four centuries later.

War leaves deep wounds and creates extreme moments in which people grasp the last straw of a belief to hang on for dear life. That is how desperate believers can become. Please, do not count me among them. Believing means only one thing for me: freedom.

Before the Renaissance theologians and scientists were often one and the same people. After the rediscovery of the ancient wisdom a split got underway between church and science. What used to be one and the same is now often regarded as two separate fields.

marcus

Nov14-04, 11:23 PM

Fredrick your post is too abstract. About "belief". the rightest theories we have are known to be wrong and are simply not believed.

Gen Rel predicts with unprecedented and exquisite accuracy. As a theory of gravity it has no peer. It rivals QED in the precision with which it is able to predict the rate that a pair of neutron stars in tight orbit will radiate away gravitational energy in the form of gravity waves.

But everybody knows that Gen Rel is wrong! Even I am not so credulous as to think that Gen Rel is a correct theory. Indeed this is obvious, because it breaks down at the big bang and at the center of black holes----calculating with Gen Rel in such circumstances results in singularities, which indicate failure of the model.

I find it inconceivable that this situation would not be duplicated each time the fundamental theories of science are replaced by new, more accurate and more powerfully predictive ones. Everybody will know that these new theories are wrong, and will not believe them.

Maybe verbal models can be correct. I dont know about that.
but mathematical models, in science, are customarily known to be wrong and one uses them only in limited circumstances where they'r applicable and one hopes to see them eventually replaced by better

So, yeah I see no obstacle to humans getting a mathematical theory that combines Gen Rel with Std Muddle and outperforms both in making accurate predictions.

I think humans will be able to do that. But it wont be a "THEORY OF EVERYTHING" because that phrase is just poetry and baloney and hype. Merely including gravity with the other "forces" of particle physics is certainly not EVERYTHING. Starry eyed people can rhapsodize about that in order to sell books.

So I think your thread-start premise is wrong. Nothing can be concluded from the ABSENCE of a theory unifying particle physics and gravity. It is just the next thing on the agenda. No danger of that being a final theory. Not a chance. It is not a big deal that nobody has seen how to take that particular step as yet.

I think the way humans will get a unified theory is by first getting the theory of spacetime right. that is what Loop QG is trying to do.
Then once there is a decent quantum theory of spacetime, they will put matter into the picture.

It is like being in 1850 and Maxwell has not figured out how to put Electricity together with Magnetism yet. You cant go and draw grand portentous conclusions from the fact that there is no "unified" theory.
Just wait. It will come. Electricity and Magnetism will be unified and then, guess what, there will still be more stuff to do and improvements to make.

So with us now. People will put quantum spacetime together with quantum fields and particles.

Then it will be a little less mysterious how it happens that "matter tells space how to curve" and curved space tells matter how to flow.

It will be like when Maxwell's equations happened.
And like then, no big deal and plenty more to do in getting to know nature better.

Well this is an opinion piece, one person's view. You hospitably said "mi casa es su casa" about this thread, so hope it accords with your wishes.

selfAdjoint

Nov15-04, 10:34 AM

But everybody knows that Gen Rel is wrong!

Dyson doesn't admit it.

Kagmi

Nov15-04, 11:08 AM

General relativity seems to work just fine, I think all we need is a modification of the way either space or particles work at quantum scales. M theory is, in my opinion, the most promising candidate at the moment.

marcus

Nov15-04, 12:16 PM

Dyson doesn't admit it.

I read Dyson's recent article in NY Review of Books (found it online!)
and it seemed to me he hedged

IIRC he was saying not that Gen Rel is OK but only that it is OK in its range of applicability, nothing better in sight.

he didnt seem aware of LQG and its removal of the classical singularities

he was addressing string theory and all the talk about gravitons---string theory predicts gravitons etc etc.

he was skeptical of gravitons---said we'd never be able to see one, why even suppose they exist?

from that POV then sure, just stick with old Gen Rel and be content. have one theory for gravity and another for particles and fields. The underlying sense there is you cant do any better

But I think Dyson would readily admit that Gen Rel is unsatisfactory because of the singularities. He may even have acknowledged that in the NYRB article----I can't remember whether he did or not----though that was a non-technical piece of writing for general audience and maybe discussing singularities would have been a bit too technical in that context.

Kagmi

Nov16-04, 05:32 AM

I'm just being introduced to the theory of LQG, but I have long been a proponent of M theory (or superstring theory, or whatever you want to call it) because of the mathematics. I read in an earlier post a question about the unification of gravity and electromagnetism, and would like to note that part of the basis for M theory's extra dimensions is the fact that, when extended into a fifth spatial dimension, the equations of gravity yeild the equations for electromagnetic force. As for never detecting a graviton, I find it hard to beleive that, if they exist we will never have instrumentation sensitive enough to detect them.

marcus

Nov16-04, 10:34 AM

... As for never detecting a graviton, I find it hard to beleive that, if they exist we will never have instrumentation sensitive enough to detect them.

I'm in strong sympathy with the attitude you express. Never say never.
But this is how I remember Dyson's NYRB article. There should be a link to it somewhere so we can check if he really said that or if he qualified it substantially.

Why would Dyson have been pooh-poohing gravitons? I think it is part of a contemporary trend to debunk string hype---a trend that one sees, for example, in the recent article From Gravitons to Gravity: Myth or Reality? by Thanu Padmanabhan.
It is on arxiv, so one finds it easily by author search.

the basic message is "let's not attribute so much importance to the string claim to include gravity" An equation for something that might be a graviton comes out of string math, but gravity is more than gravitons, or so it is said, and maybe just having gravitons in a fixed background geometry does not accurately reproduce gravity. Anyway, so the story goes.

Dyson's particular contribution to the general message is to cast doubt on the significance of gravitons: to the extent they can be said to exist (as conjectured quanta of the gravitational field which no one yet knows how to quantize) one can expect individual gravitons to have much lower frequencies than, for instance, light. Much lower energies than those of detectable quanta of radiation.

No one, so far, has ever detected a quantum with the frequency MIDDLE C.
You can think about the processes that are expected to produce gravity waves. think about the expected wavelengths, and frequencies. The energies are many orders below those of, say microwaves. Would you expect to detect a quantum of microwave?

I am paraphrasing Freeman Dyson's message to readers of the New
York Review of Books. It is not a technical audience and he is choosing to communicate what he can to them. the point is perhaps not terribly significant or decisive. What it communicates is more Dyson's perspective or attitude.

I dont offer his opinion as my own. I would not want to say "never" detectable. but look at the figures. Micron light has about 1 eevee quantum energy. Just as an order of magnitude. A manmade instrument can detect an individual 1 eevee photon. there are photon counters at roughly this level----you get to hear the click.

A gravity wave detector is say, 10 meters long, and it detects a gravity wave with characteristic wavelength 10 meters. what is the energy of individual quanta of this wavelength? Ten million times weaker than 1 eevee.

I dont think anyone has imagined a way to detect an individual photon with energy of one ten-millionth of an eevee. so is it reasonable to imagine detecting a graviton with such small energy, if one cannot even picture doing it with a photon?

Maybe Dyson's point is not so strange as it originally seems.
In any case, if you want to read his NYRB article I will try to help find it on the web. Might be a simple google search. Or self-adjoint may just happen to know.

Fredrick

Mar29-05, 12:27 PM

marcus

Mar30-05, 08:05 PM

In the New York Times Science section of today (3-29-05) I read about the collision of gold nuclei in the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Here is a picture of the result:
http://www.physicscentral.com/pictures/images/pictures-00-4s.jpg
and the abstract can be read at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501068

This is powerful imagery that seems to support what I am saying about an empty center at the emergence of the universe. Dr. Horatiu Nastase describes in the NY Times article that "(t)he collision of gold nuclei produce matter as it existed shortly after the Big Bang."
...

nice picture
the superficial similarity to an eyeball was not lost on me

it seems to me I was discussing that RHIC result somewhere else, maybe a thread here at PF
the similiarity with "matter as it existed shortly after the Big Bang"
is a similarity of temperature

Oh, you mentioned that part of the picture is missing, so there is an empty part of the picture in the middle.
I suppose that part is the tube where the particles collide (so there cannot be any detector there) the image would only be generated from what happened in the ringshaped space around the tube where they could position detectors.

correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that if they could situate detectors closer in to where the collision occurred, then they would see a whole lot more activity not included here, but this is a great picture already (even with the missing detail in the middle)

does anybody know more about the RHIC (relativistic heavy ion collider) "fireball"

Haelfix

Mar30-05, 08:25 PM

marcus

Mar30-05, 11:37 PM

Err the reason people like the concept of the graviton is it more or less reproduces linearized GR exactly. Write down the field theory for a massless spin 2 particle, poof Einsteins eqs. It would be one of the fantastic cruelties of nature if that turned out to be coincidental.

String theories graviton is a little more complicated, its more of a SUGRA GR, eg gravitons coupled to some extra fields (like the dilaton) etc

Now you can argue that there should be extra stuff, presumably stuff that makes the background make sense, and all that is fine and good. But as an effective local field theory, it seems to me that its a damn good indication that people are on to something.

hi Haelfix, we had a discussion about this back in November, around the paper by Thanu Padmanabhan
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=44414

selfAdjoint started the thread, which was called
String Gravitons Yield GR. NOT.

Here was the first post of the thread:
This paper (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089) does a lot of testing of different kinds, and concludes that the string theorists assertion that the graviton reproduces the physics of GR in flat spacetime is a myth.

Haelfix, I personally am not challenging your remarks, which seem mainly intuitive. But I would be interested to know your thoughts about the Padmanabhan paper.
Here it is:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089

marcus

Mar30-05, 11:54 PM

here's a quote from the abstract of the Padmanabhan paper:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089

From Gravitons to Gravity: Myths and Reality
T. Padmanabhan

"There is a general belief, reinforced by statements in standard textbooks, that:

(i) one can obtain the full non-linear Einstein’s theory of gravity by coupling a massless, spin-2 field hab self-consistently to the total energy momentum tensor, including its own;

(ii) this procedure is unique and leads to Einstein-Hilbert action and

(iii) it only uses standard concepts in Lorentz invariant field theory and does not involve any geometrical assumptions.

After providing several reasons why such beliefs are suspect--and critically re-examining several previous attempts--we provide a detailed analysis aimed at clarifying the situation. First, we prove that it is impossible to obtain the Einstein-Hilbert (EH) action, starting from the standard action for gravitons in linear theory and iterating repeatedly.

This result follows from the fact that EH action has a part (viz. the surface term arising from second derivatives of the metric tensor) which is non-analytic in the coupling constant, when expanded in terms of the graviton field. Thus, at best, one can only hope to obtain the remaining, quadratic, part of the EH Lagrangian (viz. the Gamma2 Lagrangian) if no additional assumptions are made. Second, we use the Taylor series expansion of the action for Einstein’s theory, to identify the tensor Sab, to which the graviton field hab couples to the lowest order (through a term of the form Sab hab in the lagrangian). We show that the second rank tensor Sab is not the conventional energy momentum tensor Tab of the graviton and provide an explanation for this feature.

Third, we construct the full nonlinear Einstein’s theory with the source being spin-0 field, spin-1 field or relativistic particles by explicitly coupling the spin-2 field to this second rank tensor Sab order by order and summing up the infinite series. Finally, we construct the theory obtained by self consistently coupling hab to the conventional energy momentum tensor Tab order by order and show that this does not lead to Einstein’s theory. The implications are discussed."

Haelfix

Mar31-05, 01:15 AM

For technical reasons I don't like that paper, he keeps total derivatives here and there and there seems to be some issues with some of his math. I haven't looked at it since then but I was and still am a little skeptical.

It takes quite a bit to challenge 30 years of tried and true field theoretic results (note this has nothing to do with string theory necessarily).

marcus

Mar31-05, 09:03 AM

For technical reasons I don't like that paper, he keeps total derivatives here and there and there seems to be some issues with some of his math...

Haelfix, thanks for the reply. You hear coffee-room stuff which I am always glad when you pass along.

What has struck me as odd is that no one seems to have written a paper replying to Padmanabhan. He is prominent in his field, so if there is something wrong with the math in that paper I would expect more than unpublished gossip to that effect. I am surprised no one has published their misgivings. Or if they have I havent heard. I will do a citation check and see what "cited by" there are.

Nope. No one critical of the Padmanabhan paper has published anything citing it.

I guess you know: Ashtekar is editing a book to be published this year called "A Hundred Years of Relativity" and Padmanabhan is one of the authors.
The "Myth or Reality" paper will be apparently cited in Ashtekar's book because Padmanabhan cites it in his draft chapter.

Fredrick

Mar31-05, 03:54 PM

Oh, you mentioned that part of the picture is missing, so there is an empty part of the picture in the middle.
I suppose that part is the tube where the particles collide (so there cannot be any detector there) the image would only be generated from what happened in the ringshaped space around the tube where they could position detectors.

correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that if they could situate detectors closer in to where the collision occurred, then they would see a whole lot more activity not included here, but this is a great picture already (even with the missing detail in the middle)

does anybody know more about the RHIC (relativistic heavy ion collider) "fireball"
Dr. Nastase states that a (mini) black hole may have been recreated.

Fredrick

Apr23-05, 05:56 PM

I read it again in the New York Times science section this last week, that during the collision at BNL of two gold nuclei a momentary nothing - a fraction of a second in which nothing occurred - was detected before materialization of the new plasma became visible. I find this highly telling.

mosassam

Feb3-07, 01:31 AM

Apologies for just butting in randomly (I wasn't sure where else to go). Just a quick question - can anyone tell me if strange attractors have their own, independent existence or are they always dependent on something? (or is this a stupid question?)

Anonym

Feb8-07, 11:30 AM

In the eye of the ant beholder

Fredrick :” I never thought I would talk here about Adam and Eve, but when it comes down to order, then ordering is in question and it must be addressed. There are two versions of ordering and I mention it here because it brings us back to the reason of this thread, which is basically the question: Unification or not.

With establishing the story that god created Adam first and from Adam god created Eve, an ordering has been used in time. Not to dispell any person's belief that this is true, a different way of ordering exists as well. God could have easily created both Adam and Eve at the same time.

What is the difference between these two versions? The difference is the ordering in time, and the link that exists (or not exists) between Adam and Eve.

When god created Adam and from Adam Eve, god established a top and bottom, a first and last, an important and an unimportant aspect, or however you want to frame it. This way a version of ordering has been created that appears applicable to everything; and everything is linked to each other. I think that the truth is not that simple. What is most important for you, is not most important for me. What is the top for you, I regard as not that high of a standard, what is first for me, may be second for you. You may give importance to leadership, I want everyone to follow their own voice while being respectful to others' voices.

When god created Adam and Eve at the same time, god delivered two segments that may have a lot in common, but in at least one aspect both have nothing in common: on one level of separation there is no link. Ordering can still be applied but each has their own version of ordering, in which various segments have their own positions. The parts may, but whole picture is not based on ordering because it is based on two equals that are not identical. One can armwrestle and decide who will be the winner, but that does not deliver an order that is natural; it is an order of results only. In this version it is preposterous to mention one of the two as top and the other as bottom, because each is not organized according to the other's principle, but to their own. Same goes for culture. Cultures can never top other cultures as a whole, only in segments. What is great in Western society, may be dummm in other societies, and vice versa.

Sorry to bring a religious story (Adam & Eve) into a scientific/metaphysical thread, but I am using it because it is familiar to everyone (Christian/Jewish/Muslim or not). It delivers an order, which may have much appeal, but which is not the only way in which everything can be ordered. It lacks information; it lacks options that clearly exist. That's why we have different religions. Some have only one god, others have multiple gods, while there are also a lot of people who believe there's no god(s) at all. I know that nobody can answer that question for everyone, only for ourselves.”

Creating Adam and Eve was His last step. He worked hard five “days” before that.Moreover, before He started to work, it was T&V simultaneously. They may be considered as different and separated entities, but mathematically it is also possible to treat them as the same object, only conjugated to each other, and defined at the same point also in space, provided that the notion of the space-time continuum is well-defined.

Fredrick :“Can I ask you to reply to this message with regards to our thread: do you believe unification exists?”

Yes.

Fredrick :”or do you believe a separation of at least one level is the norm?”

No.The norm is defined as a single positive real number (measurable quantity).

In addition, I prefer to do math-ph exercises and let Him to decide.

Fredrick :” Again, the math is terribly simple, but it may give you a nice look at the prime number sequences that exist within the natural numbers, and how they are all connected.”

Sorry, I did not read your book, but if you call the natural numbers or any subsequence within the natural numbers the mathematics, you are deadly wrong. You apparently missed the last 3000 years of the physically relevant development in the mathematics. The physical picture behind the unification is beautifuly simple, but the mathematics involved is terribly complicated. Otherwise, how one may explain the beautiful complexity of the real world?

And now let us look again at the origin.

Fredrick :” I am going to give one example of a singular platform (our earth) with four active members (North, South, East, and West). Though the platform is (or appears to be) singular, these four active ingredients do not have a common thread; the platform is known, but does not contain unification.

East and West can go on forever in their direction, but some unification can be found in that they can cover exactly the same spots. Depending on your point of view, a single place can be East or West.

For such single spot, North and South appear to deliver the same set-up as East and West, but North and South cannot go on forever in their direction. When on the North pole, one cannot go further North. One cannot even go East or West on the North pole. There is only one direction on the North pole, and that is South. To unify North and South in absolute terms is not possible, while it appears possible for East and West.

These four directions contain a pair of opposition without the possibility of unification (North and South), and a pair of opposition in which unification appears very well possible (East meets West).”

You use the Euler’s parametrization to describe the 3-dim rotations. Why you do not consider the Cayley-Klein parametrization which is analytical? Since it looks to you too complicated to comprehend? The physical picture behind it is very simple: 3 continuous parameters define the direction of the axis of rotation and the pseudoscalar continuous parameter define the angle of rotation around that axis. I leave to you as exercise to find who is The Physicist behind that parametrization.

For everybody who with me: don’t be fantasioners. Three other fundamental interactions are still not unified since the proton is stable (it is the QM ground state of three bounded quarks). And the electroweak U(2;c)~U(1;q) is still only nearly adequate phenomenological model. And the “theory of everything” or the “final theory of everything” is obviously nonsense.

Marcus:” It would just be some theory. surviving by continuing to accurately predict the next accelerator experiment and the next astronomical observation,each day betting its life on predictions of microscopic physics and of cosmology-----and destined to eventually be shot down”

“The next accelerator experiment” is obsolete. The pulse compression will allow to perform the necessary verification/prediction experiments in microphysics as well as in cosmology on the laboratory tables of average universities.

Fredrick :”Before the Renaissance theologians and scientists were often one and the same people”

Long ago I had an interesting student. He had Ph.D. in theology and came from Vatican. He decided to know what physics is. He was 2-year undergrad. I asked him the basic questions in optics. He did not know the answers, but said that he was not able to imagine how difficult the study of physics is.

Marcus:” But everybody knows that Gen Rel is wrong!”

Who are these everybody, please? GR is the Chapter and the most beautiful chapter so far.

Fredrick :” The unity that existed no longer exists after divorce or death.”

I am divorced twice. Now my last X seems want the unification again (the same had happens also in the previous case). With respect to death I have no experience yet. And this is the reason why I am not “able to deliver evidence that unifies the forces in one field I will be the first one to cheer you on.” Simply I don’t want waste my time.

Daniel Gleekstein.

P.S. Thank you for your presentation. I should change my attitude to the philosophers. Please, send my best regards to your friend Karl.