Quantum Geometry-the Brian Greene quote

  • Thread starter marcus
  • Start date
  • #36
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
Sol, I don't want to hassle you, and I have thought long and hard about whether to post this, but I think you will apopreciate the facts, rather than a pacifier.

The happy string talk you quoted from that UCSB site is obsolete. I think it was Witten who first pointed out that the standard model isn't just "generations of particles". it has some specific, rather complex, machinery under the hood. Chiral properties, if you want a buzzword. And the simple models like the one you link to just don't cope with the chiral properties.

Furthermore, when you build string models that do respect the chiral facts of life, those models don't look like the pretty models that were originally fed to the public. Now we have strings with their endpoints fixed to branes - different branes for each end, and the branes intersect, so you get kind of a mesh of branes and strings running every which way, and all this machinery is needed to faithfully represent that machinery which is under the hood of the standard model.

It is a long dream of humanity to find a SIMPLE explanation for the variety of our perceived world. For a while, it looked like string physics coud do that. And maybe they will eventually get back to a simple explanation. But right now their attempts to model what the accelerators see is looking uncomfortably like Ptolemy's epicycles.
 
  • #37
sol2
909
2
selfAdjoint said:
Sol, I don't want to hassle you, and I have thought long and hard about whether to post this, but I think you will apopreciate the facts, rather than a pacifier.

I have appreciated your posts over the years the most, and as a true mentor. Will it deter the direction I am going? :rofl:

selfAdjoint said:
The happy string talk you quoted from that UCSB site is obsolete. I think it was Witten who first pointed out that the standard model isn't just "generations of particles". it has some specific, rather complex, machinery under the hood. Chiral properties, if you want a buzzword. And the simple models like the one you link to just don't cope with the chiral properties.

It has been very important that this subject come forward in its perspective, and looking at the standard model still requires a framework from which to map it's features from the early universe to today. I do not think we will have argument here. We needed to go beyond the standard model would you agree?

selfAdjoint said:
Furthermore, when you build string models that do respect the chiral facts of life, those models don't look like the pretty models that were originally fed to the public. Now we have strings with their endpoints fixed to branes - different branes for each end, and the branes intersect, so you get kind of a mesh of branes and strings running every which way, and all this machinery is needed to faithfully represent that machinery which is under the hood of the standard model.

Yes getting to that point is a real challenge for some. :smile: It still requires a basic understanding of why graviton consideration are being used and how this was advanced. If this is not looked at, there is no way in which to move ahead here in a very abstract world the mathematics is building.

So yes in the sense I am going over old material and trailing the current perspectives, but the concepts are still there in general. This has not been removed from the explanation of higher dimensional applications, even though those dimensions are hidden. I still have to understand the frame work in which these branes are establish and working on the thread how branes came to be, is a continuing effort. My advancement will come from those who I can engage and those who are continuing to publish. My past history here and gathering of information will support that opinion.

selfAdjoint said:
It is a long dream of humanity to find a SIMPLE explanation for the variety of our perceived world. For a while, it looked like string physics coud do that. And maybe they will eventually get back to a simple explanation. But right now their attempts to model what the accelerators see is looking uncomfortably like Ptolemy's epicycles.

This is a good point. Before I finished https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=40185 it was well evident to me where I would be going next to post and fortunately you responded in the very thread :smile:

What had to be realized is that all the time we have this model(string/Mtheory) trying to describe the very nature of our reality, granted it is a model of apprehension that has so many paintings that one could draw, the application still had to be recognized in the current structure experimental data is current confronting.

Here this means Glast, and LQG attempt at photon intersection. Theoretically this has to be taken a step further, yet there are limitations that we have come to face, which requires greater undertandings by me, but do not lack the trail I have followed to its conclusion for LQG. Why would I say this?

One had to have a model in mind the whole time we ask to falsify these methods we like to use. Looking at the information released in gamma
radiation we get this preview, of the dynamics being revealled over a vast amount of time.

The ideas of strings attached to branes became a complicated one to me when I look back to those events and find the fermions could be attached and then not? Yes very confusing, when you hold in mind that the em considerations are held to the brane. This would mean the length of that travel from the event has never really been separated, once we get this information here?

Holding this thought in mind, I had heard LUBOs and Urs make a comment sometime back about the nature of the photon if we had given it another spin? That sort of tweaked my ears and of course complicated the picture more :smile: Even Smolin, with information revealed by Marcus is speaking to this nature.

But that's not what I want to say :smile: What I want to say is that the method needs to be esatblished to describe the negative energy being ejected at the same time the grvaiational collpase is taking place and how much further string/M theory will establish a view , then what will be limited by LQG? This is important

The downfall as I have stated before will be if LQG is verified through this Glast process, and the issue then it will be how to describe that negative energy being ejected from the gravitational collapse. A I said before LQG is limited here, and we will have to look for a much more romantic process if strings are proved wrong. :smile:

But I am a optimist. I look at the gravitational understanding we have in place. Those boson's that arise from the point on the brane, and as gravitons, geometrically describe for us a the nature of quantum geometry, of quantum gravity.

The models that I am demonstrating, together, point to the understanding of the boson as a close string, that reveals information about the event. That I might have shown the boson as a ring that vibrates, would not have removed the thinking from this view, that we could not look back to the early universe and know, we are directly connected to all around us.

You understand this or we could not look at the information we hope to recieve in LIGO.Kip Thorne is very smart this way and has been a good father for a lot of us. :smile:

Thank you for the continued support you offer.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
sol2
909
2
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
sol2
909
2
As you can see LQG is not alone in its attempt to define the parameters of quantum geometry to qubits in computation, to accurately describe the nature of the universe.
 
  • #40
sol2
909
2
Degrees of Freedom

I had found some relation in how LQG could applied it geometrical structure in relation to John Baez's soccer ball, to look at the cubist art demonstated here and in the link supplied in following quote. You have to travel in this link to get to the picture.


http://scholar.uwinnipeg.ca/courses/38/4500.6-001/cosmology/frontpicture.jpg [Broken]

We live in a space with three different degrees of freedom for movement. We can go to the left or to the right. We can go forward or backward. We can go up or we can go down. We are allowed no more options. Any movement we make must be some combination of these degrees of freedom.

Any point in our space can be reached by combining the three possible types of motion. Up / down motions are hard for humans. We are tied to the surface of the Earth by gravity. Hence it is not hard for us to walk along the surface anywhere not obstructed by objects, but we find it difficult to soar upwards and then downwards. Space is more 3-D for a bird or a fish than it is for us.

http://scholar.uwinnipeg.ca/courses/38/4500.6-001/cosmology/dimensionality.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Suggested for: Quantum Geometry-the Brian Greene quote

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Top