Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Why we cannot understand Quantum Physics.

The problem is that physicists draw the Quantum Physics
with ‘ math point-particle’ and therefore they ‘kill the picture
of ultimate reality.’
Of course, physicists know very well that the particle isn’t a
math point, but any another model of particle brought difficult
which they could not solve. Therefore physicists preferred
to think about particle as a structureless point
===.
At last from 1968 physicists decided that instead of a
‘point particle’ they will use ‘a string – particle’ and developed
‘ string theory’. The problem is that there are 5 or 6 ‘ string
theories’ in 10 or 11 dimensions .One theory is better than
other one. And they decided to unite them in one
‘ M-string theory’ . This theory is still in a cultivation.
=.
So, now we don’t know what elementary particle is and
therefore we don’t have the Philosophy of Physics.
=.
Is my opinion difficult to understand , is it ‘an unintelligent garbage’ ?
=.
Socratus

.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: socratus
One theory is better than other one. And they decided to unite them in one ‘ M-string theory’.

It was realized that the various former string theories were mutually compatible descriptions of an 11 dimensional reality.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: socratus
At last from 1968 physicists decided that instead of a
‘point particle’ they will use ‘a string – particle’ and developed
‘ string theory’.

You say 'physicists'. The fact is that some theoretical physicists have been working on string theory. Others have been working on other theories. There are a number of candidates for the final theory, and none of them is really well developed.

When I say that none of the candidates is well developed I am exempting QM, and GR. They are both well developed and work extremely well.

And of course it has been a long time since physics considered particles to be point objects. QM has been developed based on the idea that particles are wave functions, not points. In some areas particles can be considered to be points for ease of computation, but there are getting to be fewer of those places all the time.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I am sorry Socratus as the two above have explained your information is almost 20 years out of date.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory)

Quote:

M-theory attempts to unify the five string theories by examining certain identifications and dualities. Thus each of the five string theories become special cases of M-theory.


SO there is only ONE string theory now and it is certainly NOT accepted as the mainstream physics view.

Infact it is under seige from QM and the results from the Higgs.

As we said if you care to discuss things we can perhaps explain things because you have got so many basic things wrong.

You might try asking simple questions rather than posting long quotes that are garbled from multiple sources. If you are trying to look like you understand WE KNOW YOU DON'T because you keep making a mess of the quotes.

So your title is wrong YOU may not understand QM but that is not true of science.

Last edited by Orac; 07/31/12 05:40 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Oh for Red and Bill S.

Tommaso has just put up the latest details from ATLAS which includes the WW channel data analysis.

The 126 GEV Higgs has grown to 5.9 Sigma

(http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/atlas_59_sigma_126_gev_higgs-92640)


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5