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
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
If you can link it to QM then you are way beyond me. In fact if you can link it to QM you are ready for a Nobel Prize. That is one of the big tasks that physics has today.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
.
Bill #53741 02/10/15 03:01 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Bill G your answers were absolutely correct to each of Bill S proposal you made the realization there was nowhere for the energy to be lost in the classic physics world. Now even at your basic layman level it isn't hard QM INFORMATION IS ENERGY yet you fail to adhere to the same logic.

In 1905 Einstein published the paper which won him the 1921 Nobel prize .... so your stupid statement was correct ... you did give me a good laugh as it was past tense he won the Nobel Prize smile

try reading => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect it is the point in history that connects classical energy to QM energy.

I sometimes think you chose to be obtuse because you don't like the answers or perhaps just because it was my statement laugh

Bill S, QM is explicit in the theory that there are no hidden variables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory) and there is nowhere for the energy to hide. This was the point I was trying to get you to realize you are directly violating QM. If a Quantum Gravity theory exists (and Bill G's says it must it's in his "in" box) then the same argument holds and there is nothing "tricky" or hard about it.

So the memo is in any Quantum Gravity theory not a thing changes in that argument you would need to prove QM is wrong and hidden variables exist to make your argument work.

Bill S, if I could urge you to understand one thing it is that QM has central tenets as a theory in the same way classical physics has. Suggestions that contradict those tenets you need to look at very carefully, if only because of the vast number of supporting experiments to them.

Last edited by Orac; 02/10/15 04:04 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #53742 02/10/15 04:11 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Jester noted something most missed in discussions Planck/Bicep data that was the type of cosmic inflation favoured and relevant to your thread here if you can work it out.

Worth a read: http://resonaances.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/weekend-plot-inflation15.html

You might want to brush up reading on R^2 inflation.

Last edited by Orac; 02/10/15 04:11 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Orac, my qualification and background in adult education make me well aware that pointing students in the direction of information they can research for themselves is better than spoon-feeding. I appreciate what you are doing, but there is a down side. As you know, I lack the scientific/math background, so just following your links tends to involve quite a lot of fill-in work. At approaching 75, that work is slower than it would have been 50-60 years ago.

As the main carer for two disabled people I find that time is distinctly scarce, so I frequently leave the work undone. Whilst I am always happy to provide “a good laugh” (I’m too thick skinned to bother about that) I have to look for shortcuts if I am going to answer any of the multitude of questions in my head. Less riddles and more hard info would be greatly appreciated.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
If Orac can point us to a solid link between QM and GR nobody on the Nobel Committee has noticed it. Yes, there are problems with GR when you get into the QM range of lengths and energies. But nobody has been able to make reasonable predictions of GR phenomena using QM. They both work wonderfully in their respective areas. But there is still no way to bridge the gap between them, despite the fact that Orac seems to think that QM is the answer to everything. I figure one of these days somebody will come up with a testable solution that actually does work in both areas. Right now I have not heard of anything that actually seems to have much chance.

As far as giving links instead of hard info, I have been somewhat guilty of that myself. I have been having a conversation with monica1 over on the science section and have been posting links to wikipedia that I didn't bother to read myself. I suspect that monica would not have much success in deciphering them, based on the way she phrased her questions. It is awfully easy to get to doing that instead of working on figuring out how to say it myself. And as I said to monica, I am definitely not a teacher.

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
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Less riddles and more hard info would be greatly appreciated.

The safest way that cause me the least flak is to guide you by prompting rather than tell you ... you only have to look at the stupidity answer of Bill G to see the issue.

There is nothing magical or tricky about the energy involved in QM it can be measured, used and converted just like it's classical energy counterpart. The QM description of what is happening is complete in every sense and can be described by maths and equations. If you extend QM to a Quantum theory of gravity it has to obey all those same standards.

The alternate is that gravity is not related to QM in any way and then fine it could have different rules but you need to realize these two choices are mutually exclusive.

A quantum theory of gravity that violates the central tenant of QM is not a quantum theory at all it is the 2nd option ... is that blunt enough.

Our resident crazy and his theory of gravity is an example of the second option.

Last edited by Orac; 02/10/15 05:00 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill #53746 02/10/15 04:21 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
despite the fact that Orac seems to think that QM is the answer to everything.

And again how many times do you need me to tell you I don't think that at all before it comprehends to you ... or is this one of your obtuse Bill G moments again.

SO LETS REPEAT IT FOR ABOUT THE FIFTH TIME

QM PROVIDES NO ANSWERS AT ALL IN IT'S CURRENT FORM IT SIMPLY PROVIDES A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE UNIVERSE. IF YOU WANT ANSWERS YOU NEED A THEORY DEEPER AND CLOSER TO A THEORY OF EVERYTHING THAT EXPLAINS AND INCLUDES QM.


SO PLEASE DO NOT MISREPRESENT ME AND SAY THAT I THINK QM ANSWERS EVERYTHING .... THAT IS A BLATANT LIE AND COMPLETE RUBBISH

I try to not misrepresent your layman classic physics and beliefs and I would appreciate if you did the same with me. As this is not the first time you have made this wrong comment, it would be appreciated if you take time and let this sink in so you don't make the mistake again.

Last edited by Orac; 02/10/15 05:01 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #53747 02/10/15 05:55 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
The QM description of what is happening is complete in every sense and can be described by maths and equations. If you extend QM to a Quantum theory of gravity it has to obey all those same standards.

If QM is complete in every sense, then how does it apply to gravity? It seems that it must be incomplete if you can't explain gravity, in detail, using it. Therefore I don't see how you can claim that.

My claim is that neither QM or GR is completely correct and we need a new theory that encompasses both of them. Calling that theory quantum gravity seems to be a good thing to do, at least for now.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Orac #53748 02/10/15 11:37 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
The safest way that cause me the least flak is to guide you by prompting rather than tell you

Pointing the way is good, if it is done correctly. Unfortunately the way you are doing it is kind of like a swimming instructor who takes new students to the pool, throws them in the deep end and starts demonstrating the breast stroke. You need to start off with the basics. In swimming that would be how to float, how to breathe, and the basic strokes. In physics that would be the basics of physics, not the deeper math.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #53749 02/11/15 01:01 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
If QM is complete in every sense, then how does it apply to gravity? It seems that it must be incomplete if you can't explain gravity, in detail, using it. Therefore I don't see how you can claim that.

You have assumed QM has something to do with gravity, last I looked it appears nowhere in the theory smile

Following your logic, can I ask the question is the theory of evolution incomplete because it does not explain gravity?

Evolution is linked to gravity in about the same way as QM, I mean gravity acts on objects that are part of the theories doesn't it.

Originally Posted By: Bill
My claim is that neither QM or GR is completely correct and we need a new theory that encompasses both of them. Calling that theory quantum gravity seems to be a good thing to do, at least for now

That is your personal view but it is also just as likely wrong and both theories could be perfectly correct and simply merge in a currently not understood way smile

I have no problem with you calling it Quantum Gravity just don't claim such a thing is Quantum Mechanics. You can say it contains parts of QM or is based on QM etc but as you intimated you have to break something in QM for it to work.

So again I have given you the answer QM does not answer everything in the universe which was your rather stupid claim that I believed. I think it is entirely likely based on the current state of science that gravity has nothing to do with QM. String theory is/was the only contender to join the two theories and that has run into experimental failings thus far.

Last edited by Orac; 02/11/15 04:30 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill #53750 02/11/15 01:26 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
Pointing the way is good, if it is done correctly. Unfortunately the way you are doing it is kind of like a swimming instructor who takes new students to the pool, throws them in the deep end and starts demonstrating the breast stroke. You need to start off with the basics. In swimming that would be how to float, how to breathe, and the basic strokes. In physics that would be the basics of physics, not the deeper math.

The problem is the questions Bill S is asking are not shallow end of the pool questions. Using your analogy it is like going out into the middle of the Atlantic ocean and say teach me how to swim just like the shallow end of a pool smile

I know of no science communicator who can get answers to the questions Bill S is asking without Bill S needing to learn more. If you know someone please recommend them to him.

In the next 6 months there will be some rather interesting developments on black holes and gravity as a huge gas cloud called "G2" is heading straight for the black hole at the centre of the milky way. A lot of observatories will be watching what happens with keen interest and there is a possibility of new discoveries to do with black holes and perhaps his questions will be more direct observation answerable but it is a hope not a guarantee.

Last edited by Orac; 02/11/15 04:26 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #53751 02/11/15 02:37 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
You have assumed QM has something to do with gravity, last I looked it appears nowhere in the theory

But you are the one that started spouting about QM in the middle of a discussion of GR. So it appears that you think QM is an integral part of GR.

I was discussing GR with Bill S. when you came along with your attempts to "educate" Bill S. on QM subjects. Since what we were discussing was specifically related to the usual analogy between GR and a bowling ball on an elastic sheet I don't see what relevance your references to QM had to do with the discussion. They implied, as usual, that you are still on your QM is master kick.

Originally Posted By: Orac
I know of no science communicator who can get answers to the questions Bill S is asking without Bill S needing to learn more. If you know someone please recommend them to him.

And no decent teacher tries to teach a student the advanced material without first leading him/her through the preliminary steps. If Bill S. needs to know more he needs to be given the basic knowledge that he needs to understand the advanced material. In other words work through his questions, and help him understand, don't just say here study all this advanced material and then you will be able to answer the question yourself.

I have been trying to help Bill S. see just how the bowling ball analogy fails by taking his questions one at a time, as he brings them up. I don't think he needs to have a complete understanding of either QM or GR, he just wants some help in figuring out how to view them. I doubt if he is interested in getting a PHD at his age.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
With regard to the swimming analogy: I am self taught, and my first “lesson” came when, as a child, I fell overboard at sea; real deep end stuff.

Orac, I have probably given the wrong impression about links and background learning. The problem arises when I ask a question, you give a link that at first sight seems unconnected, and add a cryptic comment. I look at the link and the comment and think “this must somehow relate to my question, but I don’t know how; I’ll come back to it when I have time.” Chances are I never get back to it. Perhaps a link with a clear indication as to how it is relevant would be most valuable.

It may be that you suspect some of my questions are deeper than they are. For example, Bill's contributions to the gravity/force/energy provided the impetus for me to sort out the thoughts that were responsible for my OP.


There never was nothing.
Bill #53753 02/11/15 03:14 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
But you are the one that started spouting about QM in the middle of a discussion of GR. So it appears that you think QM is an integral part of GR.

Again another blatant lie ... at least have the decency to go back and read what was written.

Basically you have got your bee in a bonnet with me (like your 3rd world science mag reader mate) and are now getting continually caught out because you are inserting lies and claiming I said them smile

So we are clear I am explicitly saying QM has nothing to do with GR. You can however show they are mathematically consistent with certain assumptions which was done as part of string theory research.

You are the one who keeps bringing up this place holder you want to call "Quantum Gravity" whatever that pink elephant is. Mysteriously you believe in it but are unable to enlighten us as to what and how it is going to work.

Originally Posted By: Bill
I have been trying to help Bill S. see just how the bowling ball analogy fails by taking his questions one at a time, as he brings them up. I don't think he needs to have a complete understanding of either QM or GR, he just wants some help in figuring out how to view them. I doubt if he is interested in getting a PHD at his age.

The problem is you aren't helping him you are telling him complete garbage by repeating science media trash that is either so far out of date or just plain wrong. Unfortunately the quality of most of the "science writers" is very topical this week with many launching broadsides at them with them promoting complete crackpot low quality papers that struggled to get published and many suggested should not have been.

So let me be clear as it stands today there is no known connection at all between gravity and QM. String theory was and remains the only player that can encompass that connection and so for most scientists the possible connection relies on their belief in string theory. There are no observations and no experimental results that can seperate the two theories.

This week the current record for the sensitivity for looking for a difference was done here is the layman write-up
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-michelson-morley-electrons-quantum-information-techniques-explore.html

The short version memo is QM/GR remain consistent down to that level which is now the new limit they have been tested.

Last edited by Orac; 02/11/15 03:18 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
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
For example, Bill's contributions to the gravity/force/energy provided the impetus for me to sort out the thoughts that were responsible for my OP.

I have no issue with that and as I said Bill G's initial answers were also correct.

As we had discussed the only constant you have to reference everything is energy, I even gave you the steps to follow

Originally Posted By: Orac
Hopefully you can now join the whole lot together by reading about planks constant. Initially try to skip around the quantum mechanics and follow it's history back into classical physics and the "fixation section" at the end should help with understanding all the connections.

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

If you make the connections you should now see you have a complete framework referenced to energy via planks constant but the whole system has a small issue can you see what it is

Did you manage to make the connections and see the problem?

This is sort of why I took exception to Bill G and his lies and rubbish because I actually tried my hardest to keep QM out of it.

Hint to problem as quoted in article:
Quote:
The numerical value of the Planck constant depends entirely on the system of units used to measure it.

Quote:
As mentioned above, the numerical value of the Planck constant depends on the system of units used to describe it. Its value in SI units is known to 50 parts per billion but its value in atomic units is known exactly, because of the way the scale of atomic units is defined.


If still stuck read the Newtonian section in this and we will discuss:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker_metric

I am hoping it will help you seeing universe inflation shown in purely classical newtonian terms.

Last edited by Orac; 02/11/15 04:33 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #53755 02/11/15 07:22 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
So we are clear I am explicitly saying QM has nothing to do with GR. You can however show they are mathematically consistent with certain assumptions which was done as part of string theory research.

I have never claimed that you did say it. I do claim that everytime we start a discussion of GR you bring in QM, even though it doesn't have anything to do with the particular application of GR that we are discussing.
Originally Posted By: Orac

You are the one who keeps bringing up this place holder you want to call "Quantum Gravity" whatever that pink elephant is. Mysteriously you believe in it but are unable to enlighten us as to what and how it is going to work.

I agree that Quantum Gravity is a place holder. It happens that the term makes an excellent place holder.

Originally Posted By: Orac
The problem is you aren't helping him you are telling him complete garbage by repeating science media trash that is either so far out of date or just plain wrong. Unfortunately the quality of most of the "science writers" is very topical this week with many launching broadsides at them with them promoting complete crackpot low quality papers that struggled to get published and many suggested should not have been.

Good, then tell us what is the 'correct' garbage. I have not seen anything new that changes what I have been saying.
Originally Posted By: Orac
So let me be clear as it stands today there is no known connection at all between gravity and QM. String theory was and remains the only player that can encompass that connection and so for most scientists the possible connection relies on their belief in string theory. There are no observations and no experimental results that can seperate the two theories.

And of course for a lot of people string theory is highly suspect. So I agree that QM and GR are separate. They do work together in that effects of one will affect the other. For example GR tells us how clumps of matter formed in the early universe. QM tells us how those clumps of matter became stars.

Originally Posted By: Orac

This week the current record for the sensitivity for looking for a difference was done here is the layman write-up
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-michelson-morley-electrons-quantum-information-techniques-explore.html

The short version memo is QM/GR remain consistent down to that level which is now the new limit they have been tested.

I'm not sure just how that consistency leads to anything different from what I have been saying. Yes, there appear to be universal laws that are active in both QM and GR, but that doesn't change anything I have said about the special case of GR concerning a bowling ball on an elastic sheet.

Then you throw in Planck's constant. I'm not sure what this has to do with the bowling ball. Nothing I said approaches the Planck level.

Then you say there is a problem and ask Bill S. and by reference me and all of our other readers to figure it out. We can't do that. You need to explicitly explain that for all of us dumb stupid people that believe that scientific knowledge evolves but that the basics stay the same, unless you have a major break through like Einstein.

And then down at the end you bring in the inflationary universe. I can think of nothing that that has to do with the OP, which was about the bowling ball and the elastic sheet.

So Orac, if you are going to comment, please provide clear concise statements that answer the questions asked. Don't go off on tangents that just seem to show that you aren't really interested in telling us how the world works, you just want to show off how smart you are.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #53756 02/12/15 01:25 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
Then you throw in Planck's constant. I'm not sure what this has to do with the bowling ball. Nothing I said approaches the Planck level.

Well then you might try and work it out hey, who knows you may learn something ... this is all 1905 to 1930 stuff.

So lets give the history lesson shall we.

1905 Einstein connects energies via the PhotoElectric effect.
1915 Einstein publishes General Relativity
1920-1930 People actually try to calculate if the energy is compatible between those two

We name the calc after the 4 people who independently calculated it in different ways. It is called then Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker_metric.

It is the very thing that Bill S is asking does the energy conserve and you with you layman basic examples are trying to answer but without being able to put any equations together.

You will note it covers a static universe, an expanding universe and a contracting universe and shows the energy relationships between them according tor your pet GR.

I believe that is the bit Bill S was trying to understand was it not?

You will also note there are some assumptions to the calculation which Bill S may or may not decide are valid I leave it up to him.

The assumptions are

1.) The universe has homogeneity or so called isotropy
2.) Energy has negative pressure, equal in magnitude to its (positive) energy density

Number 1 you will be probably able to talk your way around. Number 2 is going to give you some problems so I would like you to deal with that please. Maybe scientists randomly made that up so perhaps you would enlighten us how that bit works.

I know you don't understand the connections and your layman ignorance caught you out yet again smile

This stuff is stock standard cosmology Bill G, pretty much as main stream as you can get laugh

Last edited by Orac; 02/12/15 01:56 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #53758 02/12/15 03:53 AM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Ok, now you have told us all the problems we have. No explain them to us in words that we can understand. And also explain clearly how they affect my explanation of the bowling ball on the rubber sheet Bill S. and I have been discussing.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #53759 02/12/15 07:31 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Bill S was asking about deformation energy and in that he at least realized the rubber sheet example is very very limited. If either of you had turned the problem to a bowling ball on a water bed at least conceptually you would be closer to the reality.

Basically you might as well discuss the whole thing properly at that point ... oh but this is SAGG I forgot sorry.

So yeah I apoligize for trying to discuss any actual real world physics with you ... my mistake won't happen again and I will leave you with it smile

Last edited by Orac; 02/12/15 10:02 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #53760 02/12/15 02:20 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
If you don't know how to explain what you claim to know why don't you just admit it?

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

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