- 203
- 0
I've heard that if one of these theories is correct then the other must be wrong. What exactly is the conflict between these two theories?
Last edited:
Well.....Now, as I said before I am no math wiz, but I do know that a probability equation that yields a probability of "p>100%" is incorrect.
And these total up to values greater than 100%? If f(1) is infinite and so is f(2), then you've done something wrong, yes?Originally posted by Hurkyl
Well.....
Actually, in my understanding of QM, it is not required that one work with normalized probability distribution functions (pdf); i.e. it doesn't have to add up to 100%. The probabilities are actually relative probabilities, so if f(1) = 2 and f(2) = 6, then the odds of the particle being at point 2 are three times as much as it being at point 1.
For many pdf's, you can divide by the overall total to get a "real" pdf that has the property that it adds up to 100%, but some of them cannot, such as plane wave states.
A couple differences I can point out:Originally posted by einsteinian77
I've heard that if one of these theories is correct then the other must be wrong. What exactly is the conflict between these two theories?
Not necessarily something wrong.And these total up to values greater than 100%? If f(1) is infinite and so is f(2), then you've done something wrong, yes?
Yes. I just wanted to comment that there are some cases in which the infinities cannot be removed by selecting a different technique.Originally posted by Hurkyl
Same thing here; if you get infinites, that would mean that you need to try and apply some other snazzy technique to get the real answer.
It is, although probability is not the infinite quantity. It can be, for instance, a mass, or a coupling constant. What has to be done (and it does work) is measuring one value for the infinite parameter, and make things so that such infinity is "renormalized" to become the measured number. Then, when you use the renormalized model to compute the value of the same parameter on different conditions (different interaction energy, for example), you do get a number, which can be compared to new experimental data.(I believe "renormalization" is related to this)
First, here is some physics folklore. To make it easy to talk about, assume planck scale units (c = G = hbar =1)Originally posted by einsteinian77
I've heard that if one of these theories is correct then the other must be wrong. What exactly is the conflict between these two theories?
You must be joking. You can't neglect spin of elementary BH because graviton has a spin (=2, I believe).Originally posted by marcus
First, here is some physics folklore. To make it easy to talk about, assume planck scale units (c = G = hbar =1)
Imagine an uncharged nonrotating black hole with mass M = 1.
No, he is not joking. He is talking about nonrotation in the classical sense, not quantum mechanical spin. This case is worked out in all GR textbooks. You are correct in that graviton is spin-2, but that does not imply a spin on the black hole itself. If the gravition field is spherically symmetric, then angular momentum would be conserved for a spinless black hole, in much the same way as a spin-0 meson decays to two (spin-1) photons without violating conservation of angular momentum (the photons travel in antiparallel directions).Originally posted by Alexander
You must be joking. You can't neglect spin of elementary BH because graviton has a spin (=2, I believe).
That is why your futher conclusions are wrong.
Nobody really knows. QM sometimes suggests that the "curvature" is really the probability curve or potentiality curve (or some such) of a force-carrying partical called a Graviton. So far, this partical remains undiscovered.Originally posted by einsteinian77
I've read alot of books on general relativity and Im pretty sure i know what the theory is offering. However, Im not exactly an advanced mathematician so can't understand stand all of it completely. What im curious about is how matter actually "bends" space-time or in other words what is it that matter is doing that bends space-time?
ANY form of energy bends space-timeOriginally posted by einsteinian77
I've read alot of books on general relativity and Im pretty sure i know what the theory is offering. However, Im not exactly an advanced mathematician so can't understand stand all of it completely. What im curious about is how matter actually "bends" space-time or in other words what is it that matter is doing that bends space-time?
Send it to any respectable peer-reviewed journal. If the theory is good, it will be published. As to recognition, don't bet much on this horse - I do not know anyone who became wealthy from theoretical physics (if not to count a couple of nobelists in their 60+).Originally posted by einsteinian77
I'm not trying to sound overly confident in my theory but i don't necessarily want to post a potentially correct theory on the internet without knowing that I will get the full recognition for it.