Exploring Quantum Gravity: A Discussion on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

[sol2]

I decided to start this thread and it can be moved to wherever people might feel it appropriate, under the heading of Relativity or quantum Mechanics, or New Forum.

I decided to started http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@2.gNrQc8lGC5Y.43@.1de0f3cf in the event such an idea was to begin.

Any other quantum Gravity links would be appreciated.

 

[quasar987]

Nice. Thanks.

 

[marcus]

I decided to start this thread ...
Any other quantum Gravity links would be appreciated.

thanks sol, you show a welcome lot of enthusiasm and energy in this.
After thinking some more about the idea, it seems to me that we should
petition Greg to establish a QG subforum---wherever he sees fit to locate it

 

[sol2]

thanks sol, you show a welcome lot of enthusiasm and energy in this.
After thinking some more about the idea, it seems to me that we should
petition Greg to establish a QG subforum---wherever he sees fit to locate it

yes and thank you Marcus. This is, and has been, the direction I had always wanted to go.

It is a carry over from this https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=40892

The question rasied by plum, was to refrain from including Strings or LQG? I do not know how one could do this without incorporating all the necessary links. I tried to provide links that would explain what quantum gravity is so people are a little clearer.

How diverse is the topic, "Quantum Gravity"? As to how one would monitor this again is a problem, but certainly, if this could be manageable, why not, if Sa is up for it.

 

[marcus]

that Quantum Gravity page you made, with all the links, is a beauty.

the Egyptian art is highly appropriate with the quote from Ramanujan

because for one thing it shows the Scales (which are an equation)

I think if you look in the Gods' pavilion up near the roof you will see a feather. IIRC this feather was traditionally used to weigh a man's soul, the soul was placed in one pan of the scales and the feather in the other. I do not know whether your soul was supposed to be heavier than a feather or lighter than a feather. I would rather mine were lighter, but the Egyptians might have thought differently. the feather may have had other significances as well---things usually did. anyway lovely choice of graphic thematic

 

[sol2]

The "http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@148.xiSLb2mhfCp.1@.1dde3fdf " on the main page reminds me of the Planck Epoch, to today

 

[marcus]

The "http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@148.xiSLb2mhfCp.1@.1dde3fdf " on the main page reminds me of the Planck Epoch, to today

if we talk about things like this a lot people will be confused and think its about art. have to tell you a quote from Italo Calvino, the writer (actually a scientist too, with Engineer background, well educated, but nevertheless a writer)

this from chapter 3 of his book "Six Memos"

"For the ancient Egyptians, exactitude was symbolized by a feather that served as a weight on scales used for the weighing of souls. this light feather was called Maat, goddess of the scales. The hieroglyph for Maat also stood for the unit of length---the 33 centimeters of the standard brick---and for the fundamental note of the flute."

Calvino says he learned this from the philosopher Giorgio di Santillana (sometimes anglicized George Santayana)

 

[sol2]

Literature has always been humanity's way of communicating ideas across generations. But the meteoric growth of the mass media threatens to change the nature of literature. Its traditional role is being eroded by movies, television and the Internet. Has this era of rapid technological change rendered literature irrelevant? Italian writer Italo Calvino thinks not. To him, literature remains fully capable of addressing modern issues and complementing other forms of media:

In an age when other fantastically speedy, widespread media are triumphing, and running the risk of flattening all communication onto a single, homogenous surface, the function of literature is communicating between things that are different simply because they are different, not blunting but even sharpening the differences between them, following the true bent of written language.

http://www.culturevulture.net/Books2/SixMemos.htm

Hmmmmmmm....

if we talk about things like this a lot people will be confused and think its about art. have to tell you a quote from Italo Calvino, the writer (actually a scientist too, with Engineer background, well educated, but nevertheless a writer)

this from chapter 3 of his book "Six Memos"

"For the ancient Egyptians, exactitude was symbolized by a feather that served as a weight on scales used for the weighing of souls. this light feather was called Maat, goddess of the scales. The hieroglyph for Maat also stood for the unit of length---the 33 centimeters of the standard brick---and for the fundamental note of the flute."

Calvino says he learned this from the philosopher Giorgio di Santillana (sometimes anglicized George Santayana)

That is very interesting.

You would have to conceptualism the deeper meaning of this plate. What your heart means, and what your truth would mean. I choose Benjamin Franklin for "good reason," to show this developement, of reasoning.

They also used the Eye(music).

Yes art might have been implied, but also a deeper meaning. You'd get that from any definition of the Lotus. Even from the Ancient Egyptians

Measure is important, and from ancient traditions, concepts like line of light and line of darkness, gave a good indication of dualism that could manifest, but it also demonstrated the value of line in contrast. Maybe even, the inceptions of geometries that emerged. Sa had a early inkling of this.

Early geometry in Egyptian mode, is what I used in my original paradigmal building. Don't run now Both Pythagoras and Plato were opposite in their views? I think the Egyptians like to have both?

Anyway back to QG I might have bastardize the language, into a form of poetry, that many revolt from Some say math is th ebasis of language, but I would like to think that I am speaking directly to it as well. :rofl:

 

[sol2]

How Would the Holographical Principal Apply?

Dimensional Reduction in Quantum GravityGerard 't Hooft

The requirement that physical phenomena associated with gravitational collapse should be duly reconciled with the postulates of quantum mechanics implies that at a Planckian scale our world is not 3+1 dimensional. Rather, the observable degrees of freedom can best be described as if they were Boolean variables defined on a two-dimensional lattice, evolving with time. This observation, deduced from not much more than unitarity, entropy and counting arguments, implies severe restrictions on possible models of quantum gravity. Using cellular automata as an example it is argued that this dimensional reduction implies more constraints than the freedom we have in constructing models. This is the main reason why so-far no completely consistent mathematical models of quantum black holes have been found.

Essay dedicated to Abdus Salam.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9310026

We've progress some I'd say.

 

[Olias]

Recent paper Sol, some intering aspects of Planck Geometries:http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0409/0409006.pdf

 

[Chronos]

I have a problem with that. The statistical geometry they use is not on very sound footing.

 

[Olias]

I have a problem with that. The statistical geometry they use is not on very sound footing.

Ok, define your problems stating any ambiguities you feel are overlooked.

 

[sol2]

To me having defined the length at which this geometry must emerge from, and where it would exist at, is a formal agreement that must be struck?

So whether we use LQG in its attempts or strings here, we are after a fundamental unit of measure. Does someone else have a method they would liketo include here?

Notice that in these new units, increasing energy means decreasing length. Distances scales that are much smaller than the size of an atom have mass scales associated with them that are much larger than 2000 eV. That is typical behavior for quantum mechanics. The de Broglie relation for wave-particle duality

http://superstringtheory.com/equations/deBroglie.gif

also shows that in quantum physics, it is necessary to use a large energy or momentum scale to probe a small distance scale. That's why particle accelerators are like microscopes. When the particle accelerator energy gets bigger, the distance scale being probed gets smaller.

http://superstringtheory.com/unitsa.html

So in having done, so we needed formulate, based on the history, so that we could see who was guiding what, through our conceptions, in the attempt at unification of GR and QM. To me, if QM is entertaining, we are implementing subtle thoughts to a diverse probability scenario.

Are we being true to ourselves by saying how erroeous the ideas are in QM might we of implored in using consciousness?

Theoretical physicists are now confident that the role of the Planck values in quantum gravity, cosmology, and elementary particle theory will emerge from a unified theory of all fundamental interactions and that the Planck scales characterize the region in which the intensities of all fundamental interactions become comparable. If these expectations come true, the present report might become useful as the historical introduction for the book that it is currently impossible to write, The Small-Scale Structure of Space-Time.

http://people.bu.edu/gorelik/cGh_FirstSteps92_MPB_36/cGh_FirstSteps92_text.htm

Marcus was right to point one in the direction of QG and Planck units to aid in the process of the further model developement. So this, has to be taken into account as a standard. How would we model our perceptions, on the elements of such lengths?

So is there an agreement here that such mathematics although statistically based, must have recognized the values assigned to Planck length in terms of those energies? How each "QG model" assigns itself to these features?

So to me again we are faced with a highly based mathematical abstractive world, that must arise from fundamental values. In each presentation then we are looking for these consistancies to emerge.

If from a SRian approach to precede GR, the expression of LQGian perspective saids, " we can arrive at it much differently", then the GRianistic interpretation stringist implore. These are "conceptuals frameswork", that treat the question of a "geometry," that should emerge from those values, discerned from fundamental units?

 

[Mike2]

Ok, define your problems stating any ambiguities you feel are overlooked.

Wouldn't the existence of gravitons - associated with gravity alone - destroy the equivalence principle that says gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass? Yet, even at the quantum level, how would a particle know the difference between acceleration due to gravity or acceleration by any other means? If the graviton interacts with massive string in some way differently than other particles that cause acceleration, then we should be able to detect the presence of gravity even inside an enclosed box.