General Relativity Quantum Mechanics and the new String Theory

[sebastien]

Hey guys (and girls for that matter) I was wondering what your thoughts were on the new String Theory, General relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

[sebastien]

Because we cannot have General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics co-exist together, we have now come up with the new String Theory. It is that everything is made up of small membranes (strings). They are like violin or Cello strings, each vibration makes a different sound or note, so for string theory, each vibration makes different 'things'. But because these 'strings' are so small, we cannot actually see them in any way, so how can we prove that the String Theory is correct (by the way if we find out that this string theory IS correct, than, we have found the UNFIED THEORY). But because we cannot do any real tests on it because it is so small, we can't actually prove it, therefore a lot of people are saying that it is not science, it is actually philosophy. I was curious on your thoughts on the matter.

P.S: On Youtube their is a great series called "The Elegant Universe" that explains all this.

Thankyou

Sebastien.

[supernova1965]

I am not 100% sure on this but I think that Quantum Mechanics may rely on String Theory and if that statement is true wouldn't the fact that they can make Quantum Computers a new and emerging field of computing wouldn't this mean that String Theory would have to be proven even if we can't see them. Anyone is invited to shoot me down as I stated I am not sure but would like all views on my reasoning or lack thereof.

[sebastien]

No, I don't think that this is correct, people are saying that string theory is a string of energy that represents everything and basically anything in the universe, according to the different vibrations. Quantum Mechanics state that everything is ruled/governed by chance. So it isn't exactly the same as String Theory but good thought :)

For example in the depth of a black hole a star s crushed to HUGE amounts of force, so huge that light can't escape. But because we are not sure on which rule to use:-
1-Should we use General Relativity because The force/power of the black hole is so MASSIVE
or
2-Should we use Quantum Mechanics because at the depth of a black hole
it is so small/sub-atomic.

And when we try to put the 2 together, as I have already stated, they just don't work, they just cannot co-exist together. But if both of these (huge forces in such a small thing) do become together then their MUST BE A THEORY, which is what we cal the UNIFICATION THEORY, but no one has found it.

Now we think we may have found it, in the so called String Theory, but we can't/ there are no means for us to test it, but f it was right than we would have, in front of us the Unification theory solved! Which would make us understand so much more about the Universe and its realms. (For eg. we would understand how Black Holes work.) But once again we can't really test this, we may later in the century consider this the greatest discovery of all, or a tragic failure. I just wanted to know peoples thought on this, but good thinking!!! But I don't think that that would be right to answer your question. Sorry for the essay;)

Sebastien.

P.S: By the way i am kind of new to this myself, i am only 13 years of age:):D

[supernova1965]

Well if you are only 13 I have great hopes for the future:D

[sebastien]

hahaha, thanks a lot Warren :)
And Happy Christmas and New Year :)

Clear Skies
Sebastien.

[sjastro]

Great to see a young person thinking of such concepts.

Unfortunately I suppose there are not too many other 13 year olds you can discuss your ideas with.:)

Steven

[sebastien]

Thanks a lot:).Yea, that's for sure! But I really don't mind discussing it with anybody, I discuss it a lot with my father :), so if anybody does have any thoughts or opinions on this topic, please do post them!! I am always glad to listen to anything that has to do with Science/ these kind of topics:)

Sebastien

[that_guy]

I've watched the series elegant universe, but im still not sure if the string theory should be considered as science just yet... I mean there is hardly enough evidence to make it a theory... However it is still worth pursuing and maybe it will be the bridge between the two different theories

[sebastien]

I totally agree with you!!! But it does solve the Unification problem, so... it would be nice if it was right, it just makes so much sense though, but again, if we can't prove it, then as they said, it isn't science, it's philosophy. Keep the posts coming in, love them!!

Regards
Sebastien

[that_guy]

i've been reading alot of books on qquantum mechanics and the book im currently studing (due to my dad nagging me to study it and not just read it) the book the universe a biography. its a real informative book and talks about almost everything regarding the subject and beyond. Now that you mentioned your age... i'm only 14 myself.. NOw i can relax...! :)

[that_guy]

Does 14 count??

[sebastien]

for sure!!!!!!!!

[sebastien]

Hahahah, your dad is just like mine, hahaha, always telling me to do those sort of things. I must get that book for sure, sounds very interesting!!! :)
Thanks for the recommendation, i have in actually borrowed a book from my local library, that I myself is studying called: Q is for Quantum, Particle Physics from A-Z, by John Gribbin, and it basically is a kind of very good dictionary to particle physics :) Nice to know that their is someone around my age that I can discuss things with, I try mentioning a word about anything that has to do with Science with my brother and sister, and they start walking away, haha:)

Anyway Catch you later:)
Sebastien

[that_guy]

Also there are books like 3 roads to quantum gravity which is a book on how they relate quantum mechanics and general relativity. My dad wants me to be a lawyer...

[sjastro]

You just make the grade.

[sebastien]

haha, awesome! That is annoying over your dad wanting you to be a lawer, but that's okay, you, yourself knows what you really want to do :) Thanks again a lot on the recommendations, i will defintely post any recommendations that I would later come across :)

Regards
Sebastien

[that_guy]

I shall hold my ground until I enroll in uni! Then he can't do much can he... and thanks on the thanks and thanks for the offer!

Thanks (Yet Again)
Tony

[sebastien]

haha, yeah, no worries. And thanks for the thanks that you thanked me for thanking you, thanks ! :):lol:

[renormalised]

Here's something for you to ponder...strings are the smallest definable fundamental entities that we know of, much smaller than protons, quarks, gluons, photons, or any of the other particles in the Standard Model. They are made up of pure energy, according to theory.

If they are pure energy (whatever that may be), then what is that pure energy made out of?? In effect, what are strings??

:D

[bojan]

Strings are mathematical objects... constructs.
We do not need to know "what they really are made of", especially if they are "really" fundamental....

[renormalised]

Yes, they are described by mathematics, but are you proposing that reality is made up of an abstract entity. If so, then everything is an illusion.

Physicists believe in the physical reality of the presence of strings, since they believe in the physical reality of every other particle and type pf energy present in the Universe...and they think that strings are the basic building blocks of everything else.

Even if they are "fundamental", why would you stop at wanting to know what they're made of?? What is "fundamental" in the first place?? If something is made of something, then what is that other "something"??

So, if a string is made of "pure energy", what is that energy?? What is it made of?? That also brings up the point...what/when do you call something as being "fundamental"??

[sjastro]

Hmmm this can evolve into a deep philosophical discussion.
How does one define a force (both real and fictitious) in this context.
Therefore does it make any sense to ask what W and Z bosons are made out of?

Steven

[bojan]

Well, the definition of "fundamental" is that it can not be made of other stuff.. otherwise it is not fundamental.

And, it is about the definition of reality and illusion.
If something fundamental can only be described as mathematical concept, it is perfectly OK.. and it does not imply that everything else build from those is illusion. It only means that we can not describe those fundamental entities (strings or whatever) in other, more simpler terms.
If we can, then they are not fundamental.

[sebastien]

Very interesting discussion, good thinking renormalised, this is exactly the kind of discussions I was looking forward to, Bojan, great answering to :)

Now first of all, because quantum mechanics laws are so different to the ones of general relativity, is it not that if string theory was found to be correct, would we not find very puzzling questions, such as what happens in a black hole etc.. and if so, we would be finding more theories on more things, so, we are not so far exactly sure on what strings are made of, but we are hoping, that we will, by applying those things such as what happens in a black hole, and apply them to these strings so like that we DO know these things about the strings.

Also in quantum mechanics, it states that everything is 11-Dimensional, if that makes any sense, so what happens in the sub-atomic level, happens in other parallel universes, and if string theory unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity, that we wouldn't be surprised, that what happens to the strings, ALSO happen in other parallel universes, which kind of means, that there may be other neighboring universes, which is something that is very odd, and doesn't make much sense, but anyway, if string theory is the unified theory, then what happens to strings DOES happen to other neighboring universes, and like, that it kind of is an illusion, to answer the illusion part.

The fundamentals, to tell you the truth I am not exactly sure on that one, sorry, but Bojan I think can explain more than me on this question.

Great discussion everyone, exactly the sort of discussion i would like to see more of on this thread :)

Regards
Sebastien.

[renormalised]

Yes, it can:D

Science, Steven, without philosophy is like knowing the mechanics of how a car works...all the physics behind its workings...but not knowing why it should work. All the relationships between the parts and their surroundings, where those workings might lead and any consequences that might come out it working. Science is the mechanics of why things are the way they are, philosophy is the soul and the reason of the why. It's a grave mistake to try and separate the two, doing so has done and will lead to unforeseen consequences, many of which have been and will be detrimental to our wellbeing.

A force would be defined as it always has.

Since the force carriers and all other particles of the Standard Model are composed of strings, or combination of strings, then they would be defined by what the strings are...what they're made out of. The only difference being the vibratory mode of the string/s in question. Each particle species having a string/s vibrating at a frequency and wavelength particular to that species...also possibly the geometry of that vibration.

But that still doesn't answer the question...if strings are made of energy, then what is that energy?? Then, if that energy has any sort of structure or definable quality/quantity, then strings themselves are not fundamental entities, as we would normally define the concept of fundamental.

Which answers your statement, Bojan...if the last statement is true, then they're not fundamental entities. Fundamental, as you so rightly observe, means they have no "parts". They are complete unto themselves. Which causes a problem. A mathematical construct or abstraction, by definition, is a derived entity. It is made up of "parts" and is derived from other constructs which are formulated and reduced to give a final product. Therefore, in this case, it can be said that no mathematical construct or abstraction is truly fundamental. In which case, anything that is truly fundamental can only be approximated by mathematical derivations and any subsequent physics, it can't be truly described in of itself. Except in terms of the philosophical expression "I am"...pure thought. Which is as close as written or spoken language can come to expressing the singular definition of existence.

[sjastro]

I have no idea what you are going on about Carl. Seems to me the reading far more into the post then what is there.:shrug:



No it isn't. The force carriers in the Standard Model are gauge bosons. The underlying theories are Gauge theories where the Lagrangian (difference between kinetic and potential energies of the electromagnetic/ weak and strong fields) is invariant under local symmetries.

The Standard Model is based on Quantum Field Theories not String theory.




As pointed out by Bojan it nothing more than a mathematical construct. The idea of defining a "string" is to produce a renormalizable QFT of gravity. The fact is the string can also be a "point" or a "surface".

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

I know that Steven....that's not what I was on about. What I was saying is that since they believe that the particles that are found in the Standard Model are composed of strings (if you follow Brian Greene and Co), the differences between the particles are due to different vibrational modes of the strings that make them up and their topology.



That still doesn't answer the question...mathematical construct or not, they are believed to have a basis in physical reality and if that's the case, and they are made out of energy, then what, precisely, is that energy. Their topology is neither here nor there in so far as this is concerned.



I knew you wouldn't. What I read into the post was exactly what you had written there in your previous response...



I just took that a bit further than maybe you were prepared to consider in this case. What I said, in a nutshell, is that you can't or shouldn't separate the philosophy of science from the "mechanics" of science. Leave out the ethics and reasoning behind what you are pursuing and what you're left with is nothing but an amoral exercise. Anything goes, then, and the consequences of your actions become moot. They maybe harmless, but they can also be very harmful. It's one thing to know you have the knowledge to do something, but is it ethical to actually go ahead and do it.

[cwjohn]

"Believed to have a basis in physical reality"

I am not sure that you can state this. The strings (only one theory in many) are composed of probabilistic energies over multiple dimensions (I believe 10 is in vogue at this time). If something has a varying probability that it exists I dont know whether you can class it as having a basis in physical reality, but then again that may be a "philosophical question"

[renormalised]

Stranger things have been considered real, or possibly real, before strings came along. It's actually 11 dimensions. If Supersymmetry holds (and they hope the LHC can say something about this), you will have to have 11 dimensions, in order to account for all the particles in the Standard Model and their supersymmetric counterparts. All matter and energy exists a set of probabilities...take light. Are the photons particles or waves?? Or are they both simultaneously. Your choice, you know. The observer affects the observed. Choices, choices, choices. How do you want to look at them...what method of detection?? Is the cat alive or dead?? Is the electron "here' or what speed is it traveling at?? I just flipped over that electron's spin, but why did that other electron all the way over there do exactly as my electron did, at the same time?? If I decide not to directly measure something, how many possible paths can that something take to arrive at an answer...how many states of existence can it possibly be in simultaneously...how many other universes does it occupy before I make the decision??

What is reality?? You tell me.

[Nesti]

May I add two quotes which may throw the cat among the pigeons at this point.

1. A quote from H.A. Lorentz 1919 paper called ‘The Einstein Theory of Relativity’,
“Till now it was believed that time and space existed by themselves, even if there was nothing else – no Sun, no Earth, no Stars – while now we know that time and space are not the vessel for the universe, but could not exist at all if there were no contents, namely, no Sun, Earth and other Celestial bodies”

2. A quote from Einstein, “Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. Physical objects are not in space but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept ‘empty space’ loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part ... and can only appear as a limited region in space where the field strength / energy density are particularly high.”

In these two quotes, you may see that it becomes impossible to define material/energy without defining the field (gravitation, electromagnetic, whatever!). Conversely, it is equally impossible to define any field without defining the material/energy.

SO, the big issue here is that a general (universal) definition would need to be found - one which describes both the field and the constituents at the same time - before any TRUE understanding of what stuff is could ever be asked. Our TOE perhaps.

Interesting to see that Einstein didn’t really believe in space and/or time, in that he talked about objects being spatially and temporally separated. This probably leads straight back to his assertion of synchronicity being the primary hand rail for understanding.

So in the context of this thread, asking what Strings are becomes as meaningless as asking what space and time are…

This is exactly why I prefer to look at events/laws/energy etc as ‘associations’ which form and die-off between particles and how these ‘associations’ affect fields…the electromagnetic field, gravitational field, whatever! Looking at association between one particle and another, between one field and another, or many particles in many fields (strings operating within 11 dimensions for instance, or perhaps just 4 in our spacetime brane) it is much simpler to get a picture that energy, matter and fields may be shared and are connected with each other.

This means that one photon moving within a field can and does affect another photon moving in the same field, or perhaps another field, IF an association between the two exists.

An association simply being a link (related frequencies within string particles perhaps) between as Einstein put it, one “energy density” and another “energy density”. With this in mind, it should be easy to believe in say isospin and 'spooky action at a distance', the outcomes and strange behavior in Young's double slit experiment, quantum tunneling, and even probability itself may somehow be related to regions of varying strengths of "field densities" and the associations, the shared string frequencies operating within fields themselves or across manifolds (many-folds, or many fields).

Mathematically, it might not change anything, maybe only additions to current formulations in quantum mechanics and relativity, but it is only a suggestion of a cause.

Cheers
Mark

[sebastien]

To Mark- Thanks a lot for the post :thumbsup:very interesting, and I definetly get what you are saying:):thumbsup: They are both good quotes ad I am just wondering where you came across them? Thanks :)
Once again thanks for bringing new light on the subject, appreciate it a lot :)

Regards,
Sebastien:thumbsup:

[Nesti]

Hi Sebastien,

The quote from Einstein came from my book and the one from Lorentz was extracted from an Amazon Kindle paper (H.A. Lorentz 1919 paper ‘The Einstein Theory of Relativity’) which cost me all of $2.

Cheers
Mark

[AlexN]

Why not? Havent we all seen the Matrix?

[Nesti]

Yes, but that movie still had a reality in it. One which supported the illusion of the matrix itself.

Everything we touch or conduct experiments with, and even our perception of reality itself - from the light coming into our eyes, to our senses, and even the firing of neurons in our brain - are almost exclusively aspects and properties of light...and light has been the most surprising of all of the constituents of the universe in that it's behavior is entwined with, not just itself (a single photon), but often other photons and even the space (continuum) in which it is traveling.

The Standard Model may well explain the constituents of the universe, but I feel the whole well and truly exceeds the sum of the parts. Almost as if there is a great deal of organisation, a cosmic balancing act, happening behind the scenes.

[sjastro]

On the subject of maths and behind the scenes action.....

The Standard Model may not be complete but one of it's components, Quantum Electrodynamics, is one of the most profound theories ever devised. The maths is very abstract but given that QE is able to produce theoretical values that are accurate to within 10 parts in a billion of the experimental (actual) values brings up the age old question. Is mathermatics discovered or invented?

Scientists like Paul Davies and the man who should won the Nobel Prize for Physics, Freeman Dyson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson) point to idea that if maths is a part of nature which is discovered, then nature possesses an intelligence which may indicate the existence of a Supreme Being.

Regards

Steven

[bojan]

This is metaphysics, not physics.. with all due respect to aforementioned gentlemen, in short, it is not science.

[Robh]

I have a somewhat different viewpoint on this. Pure mathematics is totally independent of nature. Consider the definition of a prime number and the conjectures and theorems regarding them. Conceptually, these exist regardless of whatever particles and ensuing laws are deemed part of our known Universe. If our theories of the origins and evolution of the Universe change, the pure mathematics remains as an invariant conceptual backdrop. Here the mathematics is discoverable only in the sense that a new conjecture is found or a theorem is proved.
Mathematics that is intimately tied to the physics of our Universe (applied mathematics) can be used to both explain its laws and make predictions. However, incorrect physical assumptions cannot lead to mathematical models which reflect the true Universe. New mathematical concepts may originate to explain physical structures but, in essence, it is only really the physics that is discoverable in the natural sense i.e. as existing in nature. The physics depends on observation and measurement for its confirmation.
Music is another entity which can exist purely in the conscious sphere or the mind. It may rely on physical instruments for propagation but I can "play" a tune mentally without any recourse to the physical world. In fact, people can write the music before they play it out with instruments.
In theory, pure mathematical concepts and music are translatable into any Universe to any sentient conscious being regardless of it's physical particles or the laws it operates under. It is one of the riddles of our Universe that consciousness (involving mental concepts) can evolve from unconscious and mindless matter. Perhaps, consciousness is a gift reflecting the mind of a Supreme Being.
Thus, mathematics is not discoverable as one would discover a physical law or property of nature. To discover mathematics, one need only conceptualize and make mental and logical connections. Nature itself is irrelevant to this invention process.

Regards, Rob.

[bojan]

Rob, you put this very precisely. It is my view also. Wrong assumptions may result in mathematically consistent model, which is not necessarily applicable to nature.
There are many mathematical concepts that are TOTALLY un-related to reality, but are beautiful from pure mathematical point of view and 100% consistent within themselves. But they are not "real".



Perhaps, the consciousness is just a by-product of chaotic evolution of central nervous system - the vast over-kill from the point of view of functionality required for a living thing to survive, but necessary to have all this so that this minimal but essential functionality is there.
I do not subscribe for too important role of our minds in our existence.. it is just there and lets enjoy it's presence - this way it is becoming even more valuable than just un-avoidable consequence of some speculative "higher" reality.

[avandonk]

Dat is a hellova good question!

Bert

[Bassnut]

Man is a product of nature, so how can nature itself be "irrelevent" to human "conceptualizing and making mental and logical connections".

Or is there some aspect of human thought that was installed by something other than nature?.

[Nesti]

Hi Steven,

I agree with you about the Standard Model and QED. What I was alluding to was the possibility of an Einstein/Bohm type Hidden Mechanism for determining one particular outcome over another. To have an array of possible outcomes and assigned probabilities, without a decision making mechanism which determines one outcome over another, is to me, an incomplete theory, because when I look outside the window, I don't see randomness, I see structure and order, and this is again no different to chaos being reclassified as deterministic chaos...it is only chaotic because we are not in possession of the full facts. I feel this is the case with much of QM.

I feel that Bells Inequality is an accidental 'sweeping under the carpet' of the true nature of reality.

M

[Nesti]

That's a true enough statement however, this thread pertains to string theory, and since string theory is hailed as a possible TOE, then I personally feel Steven's statement holds true, simply because a true TOE, MUST encompass ALL phenomena of nature, not just the ones we conveniently pick and choose. I stipluate this exact point very clearly in my book; we must address ALL phenomena if we are to observe and quantify all of nature.

I feel the definitions and demarcations of what constitutes science and what constitutes philosophy is a manifestation of yet another typically flawed facet of the human mind.

[Nesti]

I don't believe that human thought contains an element of destiny, but I feel the early universe held provision for conscious awareness. I believe conscious awareness gives rise to consciousness, and in turn consciousness gives rise to rational thought. For me this is like an element's condensation from plasma to gas to liquid to solid.

[Robh]

The truths of pure mathematics exist independently of any conscious being or any particular Universe that supports that being. As a hypothetical situation- two conscious beings in separate Universes could theoretically communicate the logic of mathematics even though the physics of their particular Universes might be quite different. The mathematics is discoverable as a logical system but is not dependent on the physical Universe itself i.e. the home Universe (nature) is irrelevant to the mathematics.

Regards, Rob

[bojan]

You believe... or you do not believe.
Again, this is not science.



I believe (!!!) that mathematics does not exist as an entity (if I understood you correctly) it is a concept, that can be invented or developed even by artificial intelligence.
The fact that AI will be one day developed by help of mathematicians (among others) is not per se the reason those beings would be capable of math... only the processing capacity of their brains will determine this.

[Nesti]

Hang-on Steven, doesn't QED outcomes rely upon the renormalization process? If so, there are a handful of numbers which need to be fed into the equations by hand in order to make the post-dictions (in contrast to a prediction) work; numbers which are derived AFTER the experiment has already produced an outcome, correct???

If it does include recookingthebooksation then my blurb below may be relevant, if not, please disregarded the rest of this post.

That mathematical process entirely bypasses the point I'm trying to show...the reason why we have different outcomes from identical [experimental] setups, is because we are missing a vital piece of the puzzle; what determines one outcome over the next. By taking values from the final boundary condition - that is, AFTER the experiment has ocured - and then plugging the numbers in, bypasses the region where a possible hidden variable could occur. That's not good science, that's science heresy!

Aharanov writes:
"Two identical particles with identical environments can subsequently exhibit different properties under identical measurements. These subsequent identical measurements provide fundamentally new information about the system which could not in principle be obtained from the initial conditions. Time-Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics suggests that two 'identical’ particles are not really identical, but there is no way to find their differences based only on information coming from the past, one must also know the future. We also show how the second generalization involving ‘destiny’ is consistent with free will...

...The concept of free will is mainly that the past may define the future, yet after this future effect takes place – i.e. after it becomes past – then it cannot be changed: we are free from the past, but, in this picture, we are not necessarily free from the future. Therefore, not knowing the future is a crucial requirement for the existence of free will. In other words, the destiny vector cannot be used to inform us in the present of the result of our future free choices."

Buy using inputs from the final boundary condition (final states of the event), we are effectively cutting future influence out of the loop and essentially factoring-in a numerical correction/s to realign the mismatch between the history vector and the destiny vector, therefore missing the process which displays the differences between two identical experiments, what I feel creates one reality instead of another reality which was also possible, in effect 'cooking the books'!

Therefore attaining a "10 parts in a billion of the experimental (actual) values" is not that spectacular at all. What that process is showing is that the equation/s are correct, it's not showing any power in predicting anything, or even showing that we have a handle on the quantum world...it's actually fooling ourselves.

"But no matter how clever the word, it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent. ... I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
- Richard Feynman -

[Nesti]

This isn't science, it's a forum where people offer their opinions and beliefs...we're not in a lab ya-know! :D

I am merely stating what I believe, just as you are stating your belief/trust in science.

[Nesti]

You just told me off for that!

Hang-on, just checked your profile...you work in the 'Black Art' of RF...and you're hitting people with the stick of science...tut-tut-tut, oh dear me!

[bojan]

Well.. I am also capable of self-criticisms you know :P

[Nesti]

I work in data messaging, so that includes simulcasting data over a network of TX's...there's more intuition in setting that up than science.

I'm sorry, but I can't take comments from the 'Dark Side' seriously...

:P back at you!

[bojan]

Black art? RF?
Well, I like the idea people believe this is black art, this way of thinking keeps me still employed :-)

[Nesti]

Agreed!

[orestis]

Hi everyone,
Very interesting discussions.Hi sebastion i too am 14 yrs old and love these topics on physics and maths.Thanks for starting thread.
The elegant universe series is very good.
Why do people always say parellel universes what about if there were unique universes which are completely diferent but have charachteristics which are the same.

Heres a very good topic-Albert Einstein said that nothing in the known universe can excell the speed of light but Theoretically WARP DRIVE can go faster than the speed of light. warp drive is a simple concept which uses gravity amplifiers to expand and contract space time at the rear and at the front of the spacecraft respectively. What do you think about warp drive.

If you like philosophy and science go to www.symphonyofscience.com (http://www.symphonyofscience.com)
and watch the music videos .There great.

orestis
Warp drive is awesome:thumbsup:.

[sjastro]

Mark,

QED does rely on the renormalization process when dealing with the S-matrix, but renormalization has a physical interpretation involving non quantum mechanical effects.
Renormalization involves removing these effects. It is not a fudging of the maths. Renormalization involves eliminating infinite theoretical values.
QED is renormalized prior to experimental verification.

Here is the theoretical vs experimental value of the fine structure constant under different conditions.

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

Interesting comment by Richard Feynman. Quite a contrast given that he referred to QED as "the jewel of physics".

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

Mark,

Experimental physics shows through photon polarization testing that Bell's inequality is violated hence Hidden Variable theory doesn't apply.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

Getting back to the subject on whether mathematics is discovered or invented, I don't believe that classifying maths as "real maths" or "pure maths" validates the point one way or the other.

The issue is whether mathematical properties themselves are invariant.
Lets assume the Everett interpretation of QM is correct then multiple Universes exist. While prime numbers may appear to be an ad hoc invention with no physical significance, a property of prime numbers is that they form an infinite set as proven by the ancient Greeks. The question is are they an infinite set in all other Universes? If the answer is yes and the concept is applied to maths in general then one can argue that the maths is discovered. A Universe where prime numbers do not exist may simply reflect it hasn't been discovered yet:)

Steven

[bojan]

Wether other universes exist or not is one issue (to be proven or disproven in due time).
However, prime numbers exists as a mathematical, logical etc entity, with their properties, but not as physical entity (yes we can count individual physical pieces, but that is all)
And I bet it will be shown one day that they exist (in full, with all properties mentioned above) in any other universe, (even if other universes do not exist.. I know this sounds contradictory, but I am trying to make a point, perhaps too desperately... because I feel that you guys and some others are jumping into conclusions using logic which is not used properly despite it seems OK at the first glance)
Simply because (in this, and many other cases) this is mathematical concept. And it can exist as such even in the mind of a machine. Perhaps even in Matrix :P

[Robh]

Perhaps, it is not clear exactly what my argument (opinion) is and maybe we agree at some level.
I believe that mathematical axioms, conjectures and theorems exist as a conceptual logical structure independent of the physical make-up of our Universe. Yes, you need a Universe and a conscious being to develop the logical structure but it exists as an independent body of ideas.
Initially, the concept of number probably originates from the need to count objects. Once defined, number can exist by itself e.g. 1<2 and 2<3 then 1<3 does not depend on any physical object but simply on the definition of "<". Mathematics can be applied to the Universe but is not discoverable in the sense that one discovers a physical law or theory (e.g. General Relativity), which through observations and measurement, we deem to govern some aspect of the Universe.
However, as I mentioned earlier I also think that the language of mathematics is communicable across the Universe (or, hypothetically, over to another Universe) to another intelligent being as it does not depend on the physical properties of that Universe. In this sense, the logic of mathematics is invariant of the Universe's material structure.
But I do not agree that there is an embedded wallpaper or backdrop of mathematical knowledge waiting to be discovered, like gold in a field. Mathematics is a conceptual body of logical theorems that are driven by human interest. The results attained will vary according to the path followed and they are not simply waiting there to be discovered. A particular path followed does not necessarily have to be relevant or have the need to be discovered in another Universe, even though the concepts may be communicable. Take, for example, the whole body of theory around complex numbers. This was developed as an interesting concept based on a definition of i (i^2=-1) and later on found applications, but was it a discovery or simply an invention? Another being in another Universe could live without it; it wasn't lying around waiting to be found.
Consider this. Someone invents the idea of a perfect number- a number that is the sum of all its factors other than itself. Example: 6 has the factors 1,2,3 and 6=1+2+3; 28 has the factors 1,2,4,7,14 and 28=1+2+4+7+14. This is a defined and constructed concept; it wasn't waiting around to be found. Any subsequent logical derivations or proofs exist from the initial definition. The human mind is capable of thinking of and defining whole new directions- from perfect numbers we can navigate to amicable numbers.
So, although number may be a consequence of the Universe at large, most mathematical discoveries (conjectures and theorems) will depend on a particular path followed starting from defined statements and axioms . These are not embedded in the Universe waiting to be "discovered" but are driven by human interest. Hypothetically, a comparison of the mathematics of two cultures from different Universes may find some overlap of mathematical theorems but I would tend to think they would differ significantly. However, the basic logical starting points from number would allow each culture to navigate the others mathematical directions and results.
At some level the logic is transferable but the content is not universal.

Regards, Rob.

[sjastro]

Rob,

Consider geometrical theorems/conjectures. The catalyst for geometrical concepts is through measurement. In a subtle way a geometrical theorem is analogous to a scientific theory except that individual measuresurements themselves do not prove the theorem.

As an example consider the Pythagorean theorem for right angle triangles c^2=a^2+b^2.
Did Pythagoras invent this geometric property for right angle triangles? Clearly no.
Mathematicians before Pythagoras knew of the relationship on the basis of measurement but where not able to prove it for all "a" and "b". Before Pythagoras the geometrical property was based on conjecture.

The geometrical property has always been around, measurement has simply confirmed it's existence.

The element of invention is through proof. There are at least 8 ways to prove the Pythagorean theorem. Each method is a product of logical processes at work but the ultimate objective of each proof is to confirm the existence of the mathematical property.

This example can be extended to mathematics in general.

In essence the theorems are "already there", how we proceed to prove them is where invention comes into the picture.

Regards

Steven

[Robh]

I've had a long, hard think about that one. Up to a point, I think we are in some agreement.
Interestingly, as you mentioned, Pythagoras' Theorem (like a lot of the early maths) was formulated from practical observations.
It stands as a provable theorem from defined axioms in the plane (flat geometry). However, the Earth is close to a sphere and Pythagoras' Theorem is decreasingly accurate for points at greater distances. At greater distances, spherical geometry must be applied. On a larger Universe scale, Pythagoras' Theorem only applies where the Universe is relatively flat. So the theorem is not a logical result of the Universe itself- it just happens to be true where its is locally flat.
Now consider this hypothetical. On planet X in some far away galaxy, a right-angle has no significance. 60 degrees is the angle of importance. All dwellings are hexagonal pyramids. The great mathematician Alpha has developed a theorem for triangles with one angle 60 degrees- c^2=a^2+b^2-ab with c being the side opposite the angle of 60 degrees. Like Pythagoras' Theorem the expression was first hinted at from early measurements.
My question is- was Pythagoras' Theorem or Alpha's Theorem there to be discovered or was it just an invention of the planet's conscious beings. Sure, they are both provable from defined axioms of plane geometry, but is not the theorem a logical result of the path of development taken by each planet civilisation.
However, having said this, either culture could prove the other's theorem from certain basic axioms. So the question I'm asking myself is what is it that is universal in the maths? Is it the logic itself? Theorems can be constructed but are not necessarily there to be found. The mathematical path taken will determine whether a conjecture is made or a theorem is constructed. Conscious beings from different Universes, with entirely different mathematical theorems and constructs, should be able to navigate each other's mathematics from some logical base.
As a digression, if we were to communicate with an alien civilisation, maths would be a logical starting point but what would be in that set to get the ball rolling? It is unlikely they would count in base ten, but is base 2 (numbers made up from zeroes and ones) a logical starting point?

Regards, Rob.

[sjastro]

The observable Universe is flat.
The geometry of the Universe is governed by the amount of mass and energy present.
A geometrical measurement therefore only confirms the underlying geometry, it doesn't determine it.
Pythagoras' theorem (or spherical geometry for the Earth's surface) only reflects the nature of the underlying geometry.



Let's take the analogy further. Suppose the inhabitants of Planet X have been building these structures for centuries before Alpha came on the scene. Let's suppose they have built the same shape but at different scales. The formula c^2=a^2+b^2-ab applies for all scales and represents a limitation or mathematical constraint. For example the inhabitants can't independently alter dimension c without changing the overall shape of the structure.

When Alpha comes along he discovers the limitation. He may have used logic, lateral thinking etc to derive the formula but it is still a discovery. If he invented the theorem he has also invented the limitation, in which case there was no limitation prior to the invention which of course is a logical contradiction.

There is no right or wrong in these type of discussions always a perpetual grey, it's why this debate has gone on for centuries.:):)

Regards

Steven

[bojan]

The flaw in this logic is that you (like many others before you) are (quietly) assuming a priori that there is something going on in the background and then you are trying to deduce that very thing using logic, which IMHO is wrong - with logic deductions, you can go forward starting from assumptions, but not backwards, trying to deduce assumptions. I can not see the contradiction that you are pointing at.

Pythagoras theorem is not a discovery, it is mathematical construct which is applicable to reality, but it does not necessarily follow from reality (like most of advanced mathematics). It does not exist without mind that invented it... Just because the idea is started by observing the reality does not mean it existed before it was formulated and proven as theorem.

[sjastro]

Oh come now!
If you want to go down this line of argument about logic flaws be very careful your own comments don't get caught up well.
Your comments are also based on assumptions.
Unlike you I don't see this discussion as a black or white issue but I do tend towards discovery instead of invention.



The reason why I used the Pythagorean Theorem was to draw parallels with scientific theory such as gravity, given that both were formulated on observation.

Did gravity exist before it was theorized?

Steven

[bojan]

Of course it did.
But the existence of gravity has nothing to do with mathematical model of gravity.
Model was developed based on observation, of course.

Newtonian formula F=m1*m2*g/r^2 is a model, applicable to the one behavioural aspect of gravity.
The same formula can be applied to many other natural phenomena but this does mean they are the related at all.



I am careful with my statements.... And I still do not see where you see the the contradiction in above.. maybe I am just dumb.. Please explain more clearly I am sure there are others who do not see it either but are afraid to ask ;)

[sjastro]

So was the Pythagorean theorem. So why should a mathematical theorem be treated any differently in this context.

That's not correct. F=m1*m2*G/r^2

G is the Gravitational constant. =6.67x10^-11 m^2/kg-sec^2.
g = acceleration = 9.8m/s^2.

I'm refering to g. How did apples fall off trees before Newton?
g is a mathematical vector field.






c^2 =a^2+b^2-ab

c is a dependant variable depending on a and b.
a and b are independant variables.

They can only build to the correct shape (but also at different scales) if the above equation is true. In other words if they vary the scale by having a and b at different dimensions, c will vary accordingly.

Even though the builders do not know what equation is because it hasn't been discovered yet (or your case invented) there is still a relationship between c, and a,b in order to build to the correct shape.

Alpha comes along and discovers (or invents) the equation.

If he discovered the equation there are no problems, he has simply derived the equation that shows the relationship between c and a,b.

If he has invented the equation there is a problem. By definition prior to the invention, the equation never existed. If the equation never existed then neither did relationship between c and a,b. If the relationship between c and a,b never existed then how could the builders build to the correct shape?

So therefore if the equation is invented then it was impossible for the builders prior to the invention to build to the correct shape. To suggest it is possible is a logical contradiction.

Steven

[bojan]

OK, mate, we are not cathching the typos here (g and G).. the shape of the formula is what counts. But let it be... 1:0 for you here, since I was not careful enough in that detail.

However, in my view, Pythagorean theorem did not exist before it was formulated, because it is just a model which describes how angles and sides of a right-angle triangle behave. This behaviour is one property of Euclidean space (mathematical model again) which, as it seems so far, is applicable to what we perceive as the space we live in, or at least to a small part of it. But, it is not a real thing, it is just a description we are using in our minds to try to understand the reality.
This reality, or rather, perception we have about reality is formed in our minds based on available inputs (sight, hearing touch etc), and it is again more or less accurate and self-consistent model (perfectly useful for our survival as species, but VERY limited.. I was always wandering what it would have been if we were living in completely different environment.. and what we would have been capable of understand or not in such a case), which we are trying to make more accurate and easier to communicate, using mathematics. But it is certainly not a reality.
So I can not accept your argumentation here, despite being apparently self-consistent (and I am still looking into this, it is not as simple as you presented it, something does not seem to be right about starting assumptions), because it does not fit the wider context, sorry.

[Robh]

Consider this. As a pure mathematician, I derive theorems for right-angle triangles that allow me to find c (opposite the right-angle) for a plane, spherical and hyperbolic geometries. To derive these, I need have no recourse to the real world i.e I need not physically measure anything.
I transport to planet X on the other side of the Universe and, by luck, find the local Universe is flat and my measurements confirm the results of the plane geometry created on Earth. Alpha, on planet X, says he can beam me into parallel Universe U2. In U2, I find the geometry is spherical and my measurements for right-angle triangles confirms this. Getting back to planet X, Alpha tells me that there seems to be no hyperbolic parallel Universes.
So, on Earth, Pythagoras' Theorem is confirmed from measurement and was, truth be told, originally formulated from measurements. On Alpha, Pythagoras' Theorem is unknown but I can also confirm the theoretical geometry from measurements I make there. Back on Earth, one could say that the relationship described by Pythagoras' Theorem was discovered by measurement. However, the proof of the theorem is not so much a discovery but an exercise in logic.
But did I discover spherical geometry or create it- I can certainly confirm it in U2? But the mathematics for a hyperbolic Universe exists even though it seems such a Universe does not. Is it a creation or a discovery? It is not a physical discovery of the world we live in.

Regards, Rob.

[sjastro]

To take a leaf out of the book of relativity, an observer makes a measurement in his own frame of reference. The frame of reference doesn't have to be the Universe itself.

Mathematicians refer to objects being embedded in higher dimensional space. A triangle drawn on a sheet of paper is an example of a two dimensional object embedded in three dimensional space.

If I measure the dimensions of this triangle, my frame of reference is the surface the of paper not the Universe.

Therefore even if a hyperbolic Universe doesn't exist I can still construct a triangle on a hyperbolic surface (much like a horse saddle).

So I believe the hyperbolic geometry is a discovery.

Regards

Steven

[bojan]

Discovery of something that does not exist?
It looks like contradiction to me.

We have to first (re)define terms "discovery" and "invention" it seems...

[sjastro]

I thought I made it perfectly clear about objects embedded in space.
We live in a flat observable Universe but spheres exist. Correct?

[bojan]

Correct.
And so does contradiction (or I am really dumb).

[sjastro]

What exactly are you struggling with?

A triangle drawn on the surface of a sphere takes on a spherical geometry, not the geometry of the a Universe.

Or is it because the observable Universe the flat, a sphere and the resultant geometry must be an invention?

Steven

[bojan]

I am struggling with your assumptions and definitions of discovery and invention.
Starting from there, the end conclusion does not sit well into my understanding of what mathematics is all about (to me it is just a tool).
Lets say, the philosophical aspects or your conclusions are not acceptable to me.

[Nesti]

Ah yes, when the dialog reduces 'Détente' is near. :D

[sebastien]

thanks guys, some very interesting posts :thumbsup:

Regards, :)
Sebastien.

[sebastien]

Hey Oretis :thumbsup:

did you get my pm?? If so please tell me, if not well....tell me as well :)

Thanks again,
Sebastien.

[orestis]

Yes sebastien i have and replied.:thumbsup:.

[Vanda]

"Warp drive" - and I was/am a great fan of Startrek - remains a science fiction concept at the moment. We don't know yet if we will be ever able to create gravity by a machine let alone warp space with it.

This is very problematic for our species. We need gravity to stop our bones dissolving etc. We can mimic the effect of gravity (1G) by accelerating/breaking or by rotating a spacecraft at the correct speed - centrifigal force.

Sadly without some form of warp drive humankind is unlikely to see much of our immediate stellar vicinity within 10 light years let alone anything more distant. We will likely need to find the target planet before we leave. A good starting point for research.

Just because science fiction wants warp drive does not mean it will be possible some day. I think the 2nd law of thermodynamics becomes involved and may not be breakable. I hope it is though!

[orestis]

Hi vanda,

From what i know warp drive does not create gravity but alters it to their advantage:D.I don't how these kind of machines could do this but i've read that they use both negative and positive energy to amplify gravity waves which in turn warp spacetime.Also to create the warp bubble to protect the space ship.

Your centrifugal force idea is great but can't we just make artificial gravity 1G. How does the ISS make 1G?:question:

One problem that i have found is that it will compress anything in front of the space craft and expand anything behind thus destroying everything In its path.
Unless we can make a clear highway.:lol:.Which is virtually imposible with our technology now.

It might just be posible one day.''If we do not destroy ourselfs we will one day venture to the STARS" [Carl Sagan]

orestis:thumbsup:

[sebastien]

Hi everyone again :)

Here is a quote from the book 'A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking (I am currently reading this book :) )

'In order to talk about the nature of the Universe and to discuss questions, such as does the universe have a beginning or an end, you have to be clear about what a scientific theory is. I shall take the simpleminded view that a theory is just a model of the Universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality. '

Thankyou, and hope that this helped :thumbsup:,
Sebastien.

[sjastro]

If we are going to start quoting individuals here is G.H Hardy one of the greatest Pure Mathematicians of the 20th century.

"... and there is no sort of agreement about the nature of mathematical reality among either mathematicians or philosophers. Some hold that it is 'mental' and that in some sense we construct it, others that it is outside and independent of us ... I believe that mathematical reality lies outside of us, that our function is to discover or observe it, and that the theorems which we prove, and which we describe grandiloquently as our 'creations', are simply our notes of our observations."

The whole point is that there is no definitive answer.

Steven

[shane.mcneil]

Well from my completely ignorant point of view: I always thought that the "mathematics of the universe" is a real thing waiting to be discovered, but how can you be sure that you have actually got it right? We may have a theory that seems right, but that doesn't mean that somehow someday it wont be contradicted. So we "invent maths" in the hope that we've worked out the real maths, but how do you know that you have found a fundamental truth/fact? So we just go with what we've worked out and change it as the need arises, never being quite sure. But it's better than sitting at home watching the grass grow. (Unless you really like grass that is)

I hope I just made sense.

Shane

[Robh]

Shane,

In physics, we might form an hypothesis based on our observations and measurements of the Universe at large.
A large enough body of evidence might upgrade the hypothesis to a theory. Continued confirmation from observation and measurement might lend further support to the theory, as might confirmation of any predictions made by the theory. Example, the Big Bang Theory. However, a real world observation that contradicts the theory will result in its modification or, possibly, its downfall. A theory can be proven false but it cannot be proven true.

Observation and measurement may lead us to discover a mathematical relationship in nature e.g. the relationship stated by Pythagoras' Theorem. However, the proof of any theorem is logically deduced from the axioms and defined rules of mathematics. In Euclidian (plane) geometry, every theorem can be proven from a small number of axioms. For example, we can prove Pythagoras' Theorem. It just so happens that our measurements confirm the theorem because the local geometry is flat. The relationship is not true for triangles drawn on a sphere.
Mathematical theorems do not depend on continued observations of the Universe to be upheld. A theorem is proven to be true.

Now, consider a new field of maths derived as a purely conceptual system. It may or may not have a practical application. Its theorems do not depend on the physical Universe for their truth. Example, the field of complex numbers was a creative concept long before it found any applications in physics.

Regards, Rob.

[xelasnave]

String theory is not theory it is no more than fancy..if not refer me to some experiments or other evidence called for before a hypothisis can be elevated to the high level of scientific theory.
Speculation is not science and string "ideas" are no more than high class speculation....in my humble view.
alex

[shane.mcneil]

Thanks for that explanation Rob. Yes I see that a mathematical theorem can be proven true. I guess I was more talking about the application of those theorems to the real world. As you said theories can be proven false but not true. I just find sometimes that ones tend to talk in absolutes whereas I tend to think in terms of "this appears to be the case..."

Just a question about maths in general though, the fact that mathematics works the way it does, is that a reflection of preexisting laws too? If the real world is a reflection of mathematical laws, are mathematical laws a reflection of something else?

Regards Shane

[Robh]

Well, that debate continues...
The views by G.H. Hardy and Stephen Hawking as quoted earlier by Steven and Sebastian (see posts 81 & 82) are two opposite extremes of this debate.

Regards, Rob.