Documentary on cutting-edge physics Strings / LQG

[autumnwests]

Hello there,

I am filming a documentary on cutting-edge physics, and I was wondering what constitutes a "professionally researched theory."

What is it about ST and LQG that make them "professionally researched?"

Are there other non-profesionally researched theories out there?

Thanks so much!

I have an undergrad degree in physics from Harvard, but I am now in film school--go figure!

I enjoyed Deja Vu--I read that Brian Greene of THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE was the leading consultant on the movie, which includes time-travel and wormholes.

Speaking of which, are wormholes and time travel "professsionally researched" theories?

Thanks!

 

[marcus]

Hello there,

I am filming a documentary on cutting-edge physics,

IMO the longterm effect of giving media play to speculative untestable ideas (and treating them as science "documentary" rather than fantasy) is to distort public perceptions of science and undermine the credibility of theoretical physics.

What are loosely referred to as "theories" are often some work-in-progress better called a theory-in-development. The real bar-mitzvah day for a theory is when the logical/mathematical model is complete enough so you can derive a falsifiable prediction from it.

That is, the theory bets its life on an outcome of some future experiment or observation that hasn't been made yet. If the predicted result is not seen, the theory is dead.
It is always fair to ask a theorist who is working on some model this question: can you describe an experiment which hasnt been done yet where one possible outcome would make you abandon what you are working on? If he or she can't, then the ideas are still half-baked----not yet a scientific theory.

Inflaming the public imagination with untestable half-formed notions doesn't help matters.

If you want to do a doc about real frontier physics, you should try to get at what is actually being tested now, or is approaching test. Theoretical ideas which are actually out there AT RISK of refutation if the data stacks up against them. No glory without running that risk.

AFAIK no string theorist has so far bet string theory---or some specific version of it----on any upcoming experimental outcome. It would be nice if such and such (supersymmetry, extra dimensions) are observed, but still OK if it isn't observed. (No problem: it might just take a higher energy)

What people call LQG is actually a handful of different approaches to quantum gravity and matter. Most theories in that group are 4D. They would be trashed if evidence of extra dimensions appeared. I think LQG theorists could recover---they could reconstruct analogous models in higher dimensions---but it would involve a lot of rebuilding and it would be a serious setback.

LQG still has not gotten to where it unequivocally predicts definite new stuff. Maybe next year. It looks like at least one version (probably several) of LQG will predict a slight variation of the speed of light with energy (much more energetic photons travel a teeny bit faster) and that this will be testable by an astronomy satellite scheduled for launch in 2007. But they haven't crossed their eyes and dotted their tees yet about that. The researchers involved still have to sign off on that---so something real will be at stake, and it can be a test.

Besides that with LQG, to find more leading-edge stuff that is actually facing empirical tests you probably should think outside the ST+LQG box. Think neutrino astronomy, cosmic ray astronomy, gammaray astronomy-------the images are beautiful, huge detectors under antarctic ice, under mountains, in mines, out on the plains of Argentina, gammaray bursts observed by satelites in orbit. I am not suggesting your budget would allow direct filming but there is some very beautiful stuff going on (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what Brian Greene talks about or Kaku or what is in scifi films or PBS series etc.---the media have to some extent been conned in recent years)

 

[autumnwests]

IMO the longterm effect of giving media play to speculative untestable ideas (and treating them as science "documentary" rather than fantasy) is to distort public perceptions of science and undermine the credibility of theoretical physics.

Thanks Marcus,

The sub-title of this forum is, "Professionally researched theories... strings, branes, & LQG."

So does that mean that this forum, as a prominent part of the media, is "distorting perceptions of science and undermining the credibility of theoreticla physics?"

Are strings, branes, & LQG professionally reserched theories or "speculative untestable ideas?"

Thanks!

 

[marcus]

So does that mean that this forum, as a prominent part of the media,

you flatter us, kiddo , we ain't all that prominent----but it was a nice thought.

a lot of what we do here can actually serve to debunk stuff that has been overhyped in the media

if your proposed documentary is about DEBUNKING some of the [I meant commercial entertainment ] garbage about wormholes and time travel that somehow gets associated with names of legitimate scientists then maybe you can get some help here

there are some special part of PF for "alternative theories" and speculative stuff and debunking.

Maybe we should get this thread moved to some appropriate subforum.

 

[autumnwests]

you flatter us, kiddo , we ain't all that prominent----but it was a nice thought.

a lot of what we do here can actually serve to debunk stuff that has been overhyped in the media

if your proposed documentary is about DEBUNKING some of the garbage about wormholes and time travel that somehow gets associated with names of legitimate scientists then maybe you can get some help here

there are some special part of PF for "alternative theories" and speculative stuff and debunking.

Maybe we should get this thread moved to some appropriate subforum.

Why are Brian Green's hype-laden documentaires on ST heavily promoted on PF?

I think that wormholes and time travel get associated with the names of prominent scientists such as Thorne and Kaku and Green and Davies because they write books about them and PF promotes them.

Why do ST and LQG have their own forum?

 

[autumnwests]

IMO the longterm effect of giving media play to speculative untestable ideas (and treating them as science "documentary" rather than fantasy) is to distort public perceptions of science and undermine the credibility of theoretical physics.

What are loosely referred to as "theories" are often some work-in-progress better called a theory-in-development. The real bar-mitzvah day for a theory is when the logical/mathematical model is complete enough so you can derive a falsifiable prediction from it.

That is, the theory bets its life on an outcome of some future experiment or observation that hasn't been made yet. If the predicted result is not seen, the theory is dead.
It is always fair to ask a theorist who is working on some model this question: can you describe an experiment which hasnt been done yet where one possible outcome would make you abandon what you are working on? If he or she can't, then the ideas are still half-baked----not yet a scientific theory.

Inflaming the public imagination with untestable half-formed notions doesn't help matters.

So why does PF prominently link to Brian Green's documentaries on ST?

Should not PF take those links down?

Again--you never answered my original question--"what constitutes a professionally-researched theory?"

 

[belliott4488]

Well, I'm sure there are a lot of alternate opinions about this, but I would call a "professionally-researched theory" one that has the history of its development documented in major peer-reviewed journals, such as the various flavors of The Physical Review. Of course, there will be debate over what consitutes a "major journal" or just who counts as a "peer", but for better or worse, there is a relatively small set of journals that are well-accepted by the majority of working physicists as being trustworthy for their standards of publication.

Some will say that it's an "old boys' club" or an ivory tower, but it's where the bulk of the important work of the past century first appeared, with rather few notable exceptions.

 

[autumnwests]

Well, I'm sure there are a lot of alternate opinions about this, but I would call a "professionally-researched theory" one that has the history of its development documented in major peer-reviewed journals, such as the various flavors of The Physical Review. Of course, there will be debate over what consitutes a "major journal" or just who counts as a "peer", but for better or worse, there is a relatively small set of journals that are well-accepted by the majority of working physicists as being trustworthy for their standards of publication.

Some will say that it's an "old boys' club" or an ivory tower, but it's where the bulk of the important work of the past century first appeared, with rather few notable exceptions.

Regarding peer review, what about this?

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

BAEZ REPORTS:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/

Decide For Yourself

If you wish to judge the Bogdanoff's work for yourself, there is nothing to do but master the necessary physics and read what they have written. Their theses are available in PDF format online - at least for now:

* Igor Bogdanoff, Etat topologique de l'espace temps a echelle 0. (Topological state of spacetime at scale 0.)

* Grichka Bogdanoff, Fluctuations quantiques de la signature de la metrique a l'echelle de Planck. (Quantum fluctuations of the signature of the metric at the Planck scale.)

The Bogdanoff's theses are in French, but there are English versions of the abstracts. Here's the abstract of Igor Bogdanoff's thesis:

We propose in this research a new solution regarding the existence and the content of the initial spacetime singularity. In the context of topological field theory we consider that the initial singularity of space-time corresponds to a zero size singular gravitational instanton characterized by a Riemannian metric configuration (++++) in dimension D = 4. Connected with some unexpected topological data corresponding to the zero scale of space-time, the initial singularity is thus not considered in terms of divergences of physical fields but can be resolved in the frame of topological field theory. We get this result from the physical observation that the pre-spacetime is in a thermal equilibrium at the Planck scale. Therefore it should be subject to the KMS condition. We consequently consider that this KMS state might correspond to a unification between "physical state" (Planck scale) and "topological state" (zero scale). Then it is suggested that the "zero scale singularity" can be understood in terms of topological invariants, in particular the first Donaldson invariant. Therefore, we here introduce a new topological index, connected with 0 scale, of the form Zbeta = 0 = Tr (-1)s, which we call the "singularity invariant". Interestingly, this invariant corresponds also to the invariant topological current yielded by the hyperfinite II* von Neumann algebra describing the zero scale of space-time. In such a context we conjecture that the problem of inertial interaction might be explained in terms of topological amplitude connected with the singular zero size gravitational instanton corresponding to the initial singularity of spacetime.

Here's the abstract of Grichka Bogdanoff's thesis:

We propose hereafter that the signature of the Space-Time metric (+++-) is not anymore frozen at the Planck scale and presents quantum fluctuations (++++/-) until 0 scale where it becomes Euclidean (++++). (i) At the albraic level we suggest an oscillation path (3,1) (4,0) excluding (2,2). We built the quotient topological space describing the superposition of the Lorentzian and the Riemanian metrics. In terms of quantum groups we evidence a relation between q-deformation and deformation of the signature. We have obtained a new algebraic construction (a new cocycle bicrossproducts by twisting) which allowed us to unify the Lorentzian and the Euclidean signatures within a unique quantum group structure. Moreover the q-deformation of space-time shows that the natural structures of q-Minkowski and q-Riemanian spaces are linked by semiduality. (ii) Regarding the physical motivations we suggest that at the Planck Scale the Space-Time is in KMS state. Within the limits of the KMS holomorph strip, the beta timelike parameter is complex. We propose an extension of relativistic gravity which begins at the Planck Scale with the Lagrangian R + R2 + RR*. Then, the infrared limit of the theory is given at the Planck Scale by the Einstein term in R and corresponds to the Lorentzian metric while the ultraviolet limit is given at beta=0 scale by the topological term RR* and corresponds to the Euclidean metric ( topological sector). We propose a duality between instantons and monopoles in 4 dimensions giving a representation of the superposition of the metrics. (iii) On the cosmological plan we suggest to describe the Initial Singularity of Space Time by a topological invariant I(S) = Tr(-1)S which is analog to the first Donaldson invariant. The initial singularity must be considered as a singular 0-size gravitational instanton. The physical observables are therefore replaced by cycles of homology in the moduli space of gravitational Instantons. We propose a conjecture regarding the existence of a topological amplitude associated to a "topological expansion phase" which preceeds the classical cosmological expansion. This topological phase is also able to be described by the flow of weights of the II* hyperfinite factor type corresponding to the beta=0 initial singularity.

The papers by Grichka and Igor Bogdanoff include:

* Grichka Bogdanoff and Igor Bogdanoff, Topological field theory of the initial singularity of spacetime, Classical and Quantum Gravity 18 (2001), 4341-4372.
* Grichka Bogdanoff and Igor Bogdanoff, Spacetime Metric and the KMS Condition at the Planck Scale, Annals of Physics, 296 (2002), 90-97.
* Grichka Bogdanoff and Igor Bogdanoff, KMS space-time at the Planck scale, Nuovo Cimento, 117B (2002) 417-424.
* Igor Bogdanoff, Topological origin of inertia, Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, 51 (2001), 1153-1236.
* Igor Bogdanoff, The KMS state of spacetime at the Planck scale, Chinese Journal of Physics, 40 (2002).

I have looked at all these papers. It is interesting to note that the Annals of Physics paper is almost identical to the Nuovo Cimento paper, and the Chinese Journal of Physics paper is also very similar to these two.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/

WIKIPEDIA/LUBOS REPORT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

The most positive comments about the papers themselves came from string theorist Luboš Motl. Writing in his blog almost three years after the heyday of the controversy, Motl stated, "[T]he Bogdanoff brothers are proposing something that has, speculatively, the potential to be an alternative story about quantum gravity ... What they are proposing is a potential new calculational framework for gravity. I find it unlikely that these things will work but it is probably more likely than loop quantum gravity and other discrete approaches whose lethal problems have already been identified in detail".[12] This comparison is perhaps less than completely illuminating, since theoretical physicists are still debating exactly how useful an approach loop quantum gravity truly is. (The field is sufficiently fertile to support scientific conferences, like the Loops 05 meeting which took place a week after Motl's blog entry.) Like string theory and all other attempts to quantize gravity, loop quantum gravity, or "LQG", remains — at least for the moment — beyond the reach of experimental proof or disproof. Debate over LQG is intimately associated with that about string theory's own problems, an often-heated discussion which is beyond the scope of this article.

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

 

[autumnwests]

Just came across some cool quotes regarding ST:

It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does not manifest itself. –Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest

String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses. –Feynman, Noble Laureate

String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick. –Laughlin, Nobel Laureate

“It is tragic, but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when one person spends 30 years, it’s a waste, but when thousands waste 20 years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that curious.” Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate

I don’t like that they’re not calculating anything. I don’t like that they don’t check their ideas. I don’t like that for anything that disagrees with a n experiment, they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, “Well, it might be true.” For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there’s a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that’s all possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there’s no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn’t eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn’t produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn’t look right. –Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics

But superstring physicists have not yet shown that theory really works. They cannot demonstrate that the standard theory is a logical outcome of string theory. They cannot even be sure that their formalism includes a description of such things as protons and electrons. And they have not yet made even one teeny-tiny experimental prediction. Worst of all, superstring theory does not follow as a logical consequence of some appealing set of hypotheses about nature. Why, you may ask, do the string theorists insist space is none-dimensional? Simply because string theory doesn’t make sense in any other kind of space. --Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in Physics

personal advertisement removed

I hope I am not banned, nor that this thread is locked, for quoting Nobel Laureates!

 

[chroot]

I don't think anyone here is trying to say that string theory works, or will ever work. I know you'd like to think we're just brain-dead cheerleaders who take whatever Brian Greene says as the new gospel, but you're wrong. We're not so emotionally invested in the success or failure of string theory as are you. Sorry.

- Warren

 

[autumnwests]

I don't think anyone here is trying to say that string theory works, or will ever work. I know you'd like to think we're just brain-dead cheerleaders who take whatever Brian Greene says as the new gospel, but you're wrong. We're not so emotionally invested in the success or failure of string theory as are you. Sorry.

- Warren

thanks friend! I'm glad we're all on the same page. :)

i hope st & lqg succeed! they certainly have attracted a lot of effort form a lot of smart people! i hope they both succeed!

while digging up quotes over at personal advertisement removed regaridng ST & LQG, i ran into another profesisonally-researched theory in addition to ST & LQG -- MDT.

what do you guys think about MDT? seems it's got some things going for it! seems it's brand new--given some time and funding, it could pave the path to unification! after all, smolin & davies & wheeler keep saying we need a new way to define time!

But there is another that actually unifies QM & SR & GR with a physical model: MDT--it's physics!

Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all experimental tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity. MDT is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted by quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The genius and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model which shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics derive from the same fundamental physical reality.

Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source, nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe which troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox.

Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies formerly disparate phenomena within a simple context.

THE GENERAL POSTULATE
OF DYNAMIC DIMENSIONS THEORY
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.
-Albert Einstein

But after thirty years of the absurdity of String Theory, millions of dollars from the NSF, and billions of complementary dollars from tax and tuition and endowments spent on killing physics and indie physicists, perhaps it's time for something that makes sense-for a physical theory that actually accounts for a deeper reality from which both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, from which time, entanglement, gravity, entropy, interference, the constant speed of light, relativistic time dilation, length contraction, and the equivalence of mass and energy emerge. It's time for Moving Dimensions Theory-MDT.
-The Physicist with No Name

I know what you're thinking. Did he say there were thirty-six dimensions or only thirty-five? Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .45 Revolver-the most powerful hand gun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question--Do I feel lucky? Well, do you punk!? -Clint Eastwood

I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice. -Clint Eastwood

Go ahead. Make my day. -Clint Eastwood

MDT IN BRIEF
Without further adieu, allow me to present the beauty and elegance of MDT by showing both its simplicity and far-reaching ability to account for and answer fundamental questions. All of the below will be elaborated on throughout the book.

Questions Addressed by MDT:

Why does light have a maximum, constant speed independent of the source? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. A photon is momenergy that exists orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions. It is carried along by the expanding fourth dimension. So no matter how fast the source is moving when the photon is emitted, the photon travels at the rate with which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Thus c is always independent of the movement of the source.

Why are light and energy quantized? The fourth dimension is expanding in a quantized manner relative to the three spatial dimensions. Light and energy are matter rotated completely into the fourth expanding dimension, and as it expands in a quantized manner, light and energy are thus quantized.

Why is the velocity of light constant in all frames? Time is an emergent phenomena that arises because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The flow of time is inextricably wed to the emission and propagation of photons. In all biological, mechanical, and electronic clocks, the emission and propagation of photons is what determines time. The velocity of light is always measured with respect to time, which is inextricably linked to the velocity of light. This tautology ensures that the velocity of light, measured relative to the velocity of light, will always be the same.

How can photons display both wave and particle properties? The fundamental photon propagates as a spherical wave-front, surfing the fourth expanding dimension. This is because the fourth expanding dimension appears as a spherical wavefront as it expands through the three spatial dimensions. The act of measurement localizes the photon's momenergy, taking it out of the expanding fourth dimension and trapping it in the three stationary spatial dimensions, and it appears as a localized particle, trapped by electrons as it blackens a grain on a photographic plate.

How can matter display both wave and particle properties? The fundamental electron is abuzz with photons. Photons are continually being emitted into the fourth expanding dimension and reabsorbed by the electron. The continual dance with these photons gives the electron its wave properties. Nothing moves without photons which up the net probability that the combine momenergy will be in the expanding fourth dimension. The more photons one adds to an object, the greater the chance it has of existing in the expanding fourth dimension, and thus it moves.

Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That means that what begins as a point in the fourth dimension is a sphere with a 186,000 mile radius one second later. So it is that the entire spherical wavefront of the photon exists in the exact same place in time. Hence the non-locality observed in double slit experiments, the EPR effect, and quantum entanglement. Take two interacting spin ½ photons and let them propagate at the speed of c in opposite directions. They are yet at the exact same place in time! And too, they are yet in the exact same place of the fourth expanding dimension.

Why does time stop at the speed of light?
Time depends on the emission and propagation of photons. If no photons are emitted, time does not occur. This holds true whether the clock is an unwinding copper spring, a biological system such as a heart, or an oscillating quartz crystal. No photom emission=no time! As an object approaches the speed of light, its ability to emit photons without reabsorbing them diminishes. An object traveling at the speed of light cannot emit a photon.

How come a photon does not age?
A photon represents momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth expanding dimension. A photon stays the exact same place in the fourth dimension, no matter how far it travels. A photon stays the exact same place in time, no matter how far it travels. Again, time is not the fourth dimension, but in inherits properties of the fourth dimension.

Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing?

Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction?
Movement is always accompanied by a shortening in length. This is because the only way for a body to move is for it to undergo a rotation into the forth dimension, which is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The more energy an electron has, the more photons it possesses, and the higher probability it exists in the expanding fourth dimension. Hence its length appears contracted as perceived from the three spatial dimensions.

Why are mass and energy equivalent?
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That means that a baseball sitting on a lab table stationary in our three-dimensional inertial reference frame, is yet moving at a fantastic velocity relative to the fourth dimension. Hence every seemingly stationary mass has a vast energy, as given by E=mc2. In a nuclear reaction matter is rotated into the expanding fourth dimension, appearing as high-enegry photons (gamma rays) propagating at the same velocity of the fourth expanding dimension-c.

Why does time's arrow point in the direction it points in? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Hence every photon naturally expands in a spherically symmetric manner. Hence every electron, or piece of matter that interacts with photons, is naturally carried outward from a central point in a spherically symmetric manner. Hence the particles in a drop of dye in a swimming pool dissipate in a spherically symmetric manner, and are never reunited. Hence time's arrow and entropy.

Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling at a velocity c? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. Hence photons, which are tiny packets of momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth dimension, appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts propagating at the velocity c.

Why is there a minus sign in the following metric?
x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. Hence the only way to stay still in the space-time continuum, and to achieve a 0 interval, is to move with the velocity of light.

What deeper reality underlies Einstein's postulates of relativity?
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. This single postulate assures that the speed of light is constant for all observers and that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

What deeper reality underlies Newton's laws?
Newton's laws are an approximation of relativity and quantum mechanics, and as MDT underlies QM & relativity, it underlies Newton's laws.

Why is an increase in velocity always accompanied by a decrease in length as measured by an external observer? All increases in velocity are accompanied by rotations into the fourth dimension. All particles can be represented by momenergy 4-vectors. The greater the momenrgy component in the expanding fourth dimension, the greater the velocity and speed of the particle. Rest mass is the invariant here. It never changes. It prefers the three spatial dimensions. In order for it to move, one must gain energy in the form of photons. These photons prefer the fourth expanding dimension. The more photons one adds, the greater the component of the momenergy 4-vector that appears in the fourth expanding dimension, the more energy the particle has, the shorter it appears, and the faster it moves.

How MDT Is Aiding Fellow Physicists

"The conclusions from Bell's theorem are philosophically startling; either one must totally abandon the realistic philosophy of most working scientists or dramatically revise our concept of space-time." -Abner Shimony and John Clauser

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this new concept of space-time. The vast ambitions of most tenure-track physicists, including string theorists and LQG hypers, causes them to focus on irrelevant, minute questions, and thus, though funded by millions for over thirty years, have not yet been able to string the bow. Deeper, true physicists, such as Abner Shimony and John Clauser are alert to the fact that physics need news ideas.
The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

"For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal. The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

"Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

"For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal. The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

"Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

personal advertisement removed

 

[chroot]

autumnwests,

This forum is dedicated to current theories which are widely accepted by the physics community. While I cannot say anything about the veracity of MDT, it is not considered mainstream, and thus is not welcome in the general forums. You are welcome to post it in the Independent Research forum, but it may not be posted anywhere else.

Thanks for your cooperation and understanding of our rules.

- Warren

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I have an undergrad degree in physics from Harvard

Yet you're totally unable to grasp how little, on the scale of funding budgets, $500 million over 30 years is? Instead you make totally unrealistic comparisions for nothing more than twisting the truth for your own purposes?

Either you're lying or Harvard isn't putting out physics students of a very high calibre.

 

[George Jones]

This forum is dedicated to current theories which are widely accepted by the physics community. While I cannot say anything about the veracity of MDT, it is not considered mainstream, and thus is not welcome in the general forums. You are welcome to post it in the Independent Research forum, but it may not be posted anywhere else.

Thanks for your cooperation and understanding of our rules.

- Warren

I just went over to physicsmathforums.com, and I found some interesting things. Particularly interesting was the result of a search I did on the administrator who uses Astro as an alias. Asto claims to have a physics degree from Princeton.

Autumn West is the name of one of the main characters in a http://physicsmathforums.com/showpost.php?p=162&postcount=1" written by Astro.

Threads on physicsmathforums.com started by Astro:

http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=2122"

"[URL
string theory tries to extort taxpayers via the NSF[/URL]

http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=1238"

http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=366"

autumnwests posted in Physics Forums suff on tax, tuition, Godel's Block Universe, MDT, etc.

What's going on?

 

[marcus]

IIRC someone has been spamming Peter Woit blog for over a year now, trying to get people to come to "physicsmathforums" and also touting a film about string theory that he pretends is being made or soon to be issued.

Peter has always just deleted the spam.

The talk about the film had pretend (funny?) assignments of actors to play various roles. It always seemed not to be serious---more like a campus humor magazine parody or fantasy.

When autumnwest first appeared, he did not immediately remind me of the spam that Peter immediately erases. It was only after he mentioned "physicmathforums" and showed (?) promotional material that I realized that there might be some connection.

 

[Hans de Vries]

What's going on?

Elliot McGucken used to post under his own name here on physicsforums.

https://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=3753

http://elliotmcgucken.com/Elliot did set up http://physicsmathforums.com when he came in trouble here
as a sort of "competitor" of https://www.physicsforums.com.


Regards, Hans

P.S: See for instance: http://physicsmathforums.com/showpost.php?p=1331&postcount=2
which links everything together. I do taste a lot of bitterness and it's getting
worse over time.

 

[Severian]

I can understand why you don't like String Theory. It has, admitedly, not gone very far in 30 years (although I think it is an avenue which needed to be explored). But what is your problem with LQG? It is a new field and looks quite promising.