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 (), 74 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 10 1 2 3 4 9 10
Orac #54162 07/12/15 05:08 PM
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Acion without reaction !
[b]F1 = F2 = Gm*M/ R^2 ?




mass M was in past in point p1..p2..p3..
How small m is able give the same reactions to big M ???



EN https://youtu.be/tEv6GxLPJRA

PL - https://youtu.be/vMJjuYJSxDA

Last edited by newton; 07/12/15 05:13 PM.
.
Orac #54164 07/12/15 08:51 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Orac, perhaps we should examine my earlier post a bit more closely.

1. QM indicates that zero is not a possible value of electromagnetic energy.
2. QM tells us that matter particles behave as waves.
3. This is sometimes interpreted as saying that matter might be composed of wavelike energy, with particles appearing as disturbances in the energy field.
4. This matter/energy duality accords with the concepts of relativity – E=mc2.
5. If statement 1 is correct the vacuum always has non-zero energy, which takes the form of (virtual) particles and waves.
6. Relativity indicates that space and time are linked in such a way that they cannot be thought of as individual entities.
6. This leads us towards a scenario in which a qualitative similarity appears to exist between matter/energy, on the one hand, and space/time on the other.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #54165 07/13/15 03:20 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I agree with everything except the last statement

In general I agree with you to a points 1-5 about QM. However QM is not clear about the structure of spacetime other than Space and time are continuous. QM research has considered the possibility that space or even time are discrete but such theories are inevitably inconsistent.

In fact there are two alternate ways to deal with spacetime in QM which contrast to position space you are familiar with in classic physics.

a) Momentum space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_and_momentum_space)
b) Phase space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space_formulation)

So sometimes for ease of analysis spacetime is turned into something classically we would not recognize but the treatments are valid under QM.

People view this many different ways from a simply mathematical thing to it is implying something physical and I leave that as an exercise for you if interested and I am happy to answer questions.

Statement 6 directly link space and time in GR correctly.

So I can't in good faith say I agree with the last statement (which should be 7) because whether the two concepts smoothly join is not clear at least to me.

However this is not about me, if you are happy that all connects I won't strenuously object and lets see where you go next.

Last edited by Orac; 07/13/15 03:31 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54166 07/13/15 05:04 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
....and lets see where you go next.


I wish I knew! smile Possibly good to get this distraction out of the way first.

QED describes the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces in terms of exchanges of messenger particles. It seems reasonable, therefore, to use the same description for gravity, although the graviton, which would be the messenger particle, has not yet been found.

A quantum theory of gravity would necessitate the reality of gravitational waves which, like gravitons, have not yet been observed. There is indirect evidence of the existence of gravitational waves, and if they exist, it is reasonable to consider the graviton as an excitation of a wave in the gravitational field.

An electron is considered as being surrounded by a retinue of virtual photons, constantly appearing and disappearing, and the energy of this combination is calculated as going to infinity in the case of each electron. In the same way, every matter particle must be considered as having a similar retinue of gravitons, the energy of which would go to infinity.

A serious consideration here is that, unlike photons, gravitons would interact with other gravitons. This means that any situation involving loops escalates into multiple loops-within-loops. The energy of each of these loops goes to infinity, so in each case infinities are multiplied - infinitely.

Is this an impediment to finding a quantum theory of gravity?

Renormalization is the standard method of dealing with infinities in these calculations, but that is nothing more than the dubious practice of dividing “both sides” by infinity. As a non-mathematician I can do no more than acknowledge that renormalization seems to work, and is valuable in making progress, but how far can that progress go?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #54169 07/14/15 04:14 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
QED describes the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces in terms of exchanges of messenger particles.

Yes it's a Quantum field theory and so that is how it works.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
It seems reasonable, therefore, to use the same description for gravity, although the graviton, which would be the messenger particle, has not yet been found.

Yes but nature may not care to be reasonable smile

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
A quantum theory of gravity would necessitate the reality of gravitational waves which, like gravitons, have not yet been observed. There is indirect evidence of the existence of gravitational waves, and if they exist, it is reasonable to consider the graviton as an excitation of a wave in the gravitational field.

Ok you are mixing up things here a gravitation wave is a ripple in spacetime metrics in GR theory.
A graviton is particle or virtual particle in a gravitational field theory.

So we have seen indirect evidence of a gravity wave but no indirect evidence of a graviton.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
An electron is considered as being surrounded by a retinue of virtual photons, constantly appearing and disappearing, and the energy of this combination is calculated as going to infinity in the case of each electron. In the same way, every matter particle must be considered as having a similar retinue of gravitons, the energy of which would go to infinity.

Yes, No, Maybe you have so many different concepts mixed up it's hard to work smile

Lets start with what a Field theory says, so start here
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-higgs-faq-2-0/

The key points as Matt underlines

a) A field is present everywhere in space and time,
b) The field can be, on average, zero or not zero, and
c) Can have waves in it.
d) And if it is a quantum field, its waves are made from particles.

So a GR gravity wave is (c) while a graviton is (d) if that helps above.

He further distinguishes by referring back to earlier articles that a "virtual particle" is simply a disturbance in the field, a "real particle" is a resonant wave that persists in the field. There are other tricky things about virtual particles that they do not have to precisely obey particle behaviour because they are short lived
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...-what-are-they/

So under a Quantum field theory your whole statement is misguided and/or wrong the correct field version he expresses as

Originally Posted By: Prof Matt Strassler
Even to say a particle like an electron is a ripple purely in the electron field is an approximate statement, and sometimes the fact that it is not exactly true matters.

It turns out that since electrons carry electric charge, their very presence disturbs the electromagnetic field around them, and so electrons spend some of their time as a combination of two disturbances, one in in the electron field and one in the electromagnetic field. The disturbance in the electron field is not an electron particle, and the disturbance in the photon field is not a photon particle. However, the combination of the two is just such as to be a nice ripple, with a well-defined energy and momentum, and with an electron’s mass.

In itself the statement won't cause you any issue as a layman, until I point out you and your entire classical universe is therefore nothing more than resonant waves in the fields in spacetime. At which point you usually run for the door, you saw the movie Matrix and didn't like it smile.

So no quantum field theories dispose of classic physics and are very different to the concept of considering virtual particles as real (classical objects) and popping in and out of existence. You do that and then try to borrow calculations from QM field theory, and put simply you can't. You either accept your classical world is gone (IE we have a quantum universe) or rework your theory/ideas from scratch with classical objects and new classical calculations. You are not alone Bill G/Rede struggle a lot with the same issue.

Quote:
Renormalization is the standard method of dealing with infinities in these calculations, but that is nothing more than the dubious practice of dividing “both sides” by infinity. As a non-mathematician I can do no more than acknowledge that renormalization seems to work, and is valuable in making progress, but how far can that progress go?

That is not what renormalization is but it probably isn't important if you get the message above about mixing different ideas.

Sorry for length I tried to shorten responses up as much as possible.

Last edited by Orac; 07/14/15 05:12 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54170 07/14/15 05:45 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I debated whether to discuss real vs virtual particles in QFT so I will put this bit as a new post, it may interest you.

In a practical sense deciding if a particle is real or not is very problematic especially to try and do it classically.
Wikipedia does a terrible job, there is some discussions going to try and clean it up and it ends up at this statement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Quote:
However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes. As such, there is no absolute distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. In practice, the lifetime of "ordinary" particles is far longer than the lifetime of the virtual particles that contribute to processes in particle physics, and as such the distinction is useful to make.

They have done what you did combined many different ideas and tried to join them into an encompassing statement.

Under Quantum Field Theory that statement is blatantly wrong there is a clear definition like so
Quote:
Virtual particles can violate special relativity as they are not real and special relativity only puts restrictions on real particles. These violations by virtual particles is explained by the uncertainty principle.

You can actually prove the statement by a rather long calculation.

So QFT puts a clear definition under the decision, you find a particle violating SR and it is virtual or just a disturbance in the field using Matt's terminology.

In this regard QFT is unique in that is explains why and what Virtual Particles are.

Last edited by Orac; 07/14/15 05:54 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54172 07/14/15 08:03 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Ok you are mixing up things here a gravitation wave is a ripple in spacetime metrics in GR theory.
A graviton is particle or virtual particle in a gravitational field theory.


In order to move towards a QT of gravity, would we not have to consider what Strassler refers to as “quantum waves” in a gravitational field?
How else would we explain gravitons, which would seem to be essential to quantum gravity?


There never was nothing.
Orac #54173 07/14/15 08:20 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
In itself the statement won't cause you any issue as a layman, until I point out you and your entire classical universe is therefore nothing more than resonant waves in the fields in spacetime. At which point you usually run for the door, you saw the movie Matrix and didn't like it .


I saw all the Matrix films, and enjoyed them. smile

The idea that the “classical universe is therefore nothing more than resonant waves in the fields in spacetime” certainly doesn’t cause me to run for the door. It fits beautifully into my ideas about infinity, but let’s not go there! :P

BTW, I’ve read Matt Strassler’s article about virtual particles a couple of times; it’s probably time to read it again.

I'm very happy with long posts, as long as they say something, which (in this thread) yours do.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #54175 07/15/15 02:05 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
In order to move towards a QT of gravity, would we not have to consider what Strassler refers to as “quantum waves” in a gravitational field?
How else would we explain gravitons, which would seem to be essential to quantum gravity?

Yes everyone has tried but there are some very obvious problems and the reasons.
I will offer a general view on the underlying issues, consider it personal not a science consensus view.

QM mathematics and formulation is very exact and there is only one solution you saw that in above discussion.
However the issue is the solution doesn't resemble the classic world so it cause interpretation issues with the classical world.
You just ran thru that above where the world under QFT looks very different to our perceived world.

GR unfortunately is not so exact there are actually many solutions to it's equations.
I would strongly recommend you looking at exact solutions to GR article
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_solutions_in_general_relativity)
The point is that GR may be considered a kind of compatibility condition not a specific solution.

I was trying to get you to look at the stress-energy-tensor because it shows you the problem of multiple solutions.
It isn't well covered in science media and the same with dark energy, I think largely due to resistance to GR in the past.
You can have fun with those who rely on Science magazines and don't know the background if you are mean smile
I was hard on Bill G/Rede because they made out what they said was scientific and it simply wasn't, it was more like Marosz.
I may have been brutal to someone else over infinity smile

If you want a comparison here is a list of the current wiki exact solutions in QM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quantum-mechanical_systems_with_analytical_solutions
There are probably many more in literature and on the internet.

QM can not be refined it gives just one answer, GR gives many and in a nutshell that is the problem to me.
So to me we are only going to progress by finding the exact solution to GR or some observation pops up to show us the way.
QM science can and does construct many theories that are compatible with GR but it would come down to luck in finding the right one.
I think string theory is an expression of that and why it offers seeming limitless candidates.

It's up to you but armed with that background it might be interesting to look at traditional GR gravity waves under different stress-energy tensors.

Last edited by Orac; 07/15/15 07:00 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54176 07/15/15 12:26 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
I may have been brutal to someone else over infinity smile


I can't imagine who that would have been. If he even noticed he probably thought "What does he know about infinity?" laugh


There never was nothing.
Orac #54177 07/15/15 12:33 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
It's up to you but armed with that background it might be interesting to look at traditional GR gravity waves under different stress-energy tensors.


I would probably need some very basic background on tensors before I could do much with that.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #54180 07/15/15 04:15 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
You are over thinking it .. start where we all started including Einstein smile

You have a perfect fluid consider the pressure on an individual molecule in the fluid.

http://www.zweigmedia.com/diff_geom/Sec12.html

You don't even have to really follow the mathematics just follow they are describing the pressure at a specific point and trust there mathematics.

The key point here is it is a calculation in general you can never actually measure but it doesn't mean it's useless smile

In the real world the fluid would be less than ideal so it may compress, change viscosity etc which is the reason the calculation was first done.
Do you remember the post I calculated the pressure at the centre of the earth ... very similar smile
I smile because good luck ever measuring it.

To make electomagnetism relativistic you give it the same treatment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress-energy_tensor

You will see it ends up having the same properties smile

What we are dealing with has a scientific name called a body force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_force

Quote:
A body force is a force that acts throughout the volume of a body, in contrast to contact forces. Gravity and electromagnetic forces are examples of body forces. Inertial spin forces such as the Centrifugal force, Euler force, and the Coriolis effect are also examples of body forces.

It's that issue that leads to most of the complications from what many did with contact forces at school.
When you throw the frame of reference stuff in on top it gets very complicated.

Last edited by Orac; 07/15/15 04:57 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54181 07/16/15 09:21 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
As we have strayed into fields and particles, I think this would be a good point at which to check some of my thoughts/questions on that subject.

1. So far, what I think I have is that fields permeate the cosmos. (Is this theory, or is there any way in which it has been/could be established?)
2. On average, fields may be measured as zero or non-zero, at any point in space. (Is that their energy?)
3. We detect fields by observing disturbances in them.
4. I assume this also applies to the gravitational field, because, although gravity waves have not yet been observed directly, we can detect it only because it is disturbed by the presence of matter and/or energy.
5. The normal form taken by disturbances is that of waves.
6. In quantum field theory the waves are [also] particles. (Are there any fields that cannot be described as quantum fields?)
7. All particles are associated with fields, but only at quantum level is this of significance in the present state of our knowledge.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #54185 07/17/15 03:24 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
That is all pretty much spot on what science says, I will expand a couple of points.

1. So far, what I think I have is that fields permeate the cosmos. (Is this theory, or is there any way in which it has been/could be established?)

QFT goes a little further and says fields make spacetime and consider it to be a physical entity.
GR doesn't go that path because it is based on a classic field in it's inception.

Originally Posted By: John Archibald Wheeler
In the modern framework of the quantum theory of fields, even without referring to a test particle, a field occupies space, contains energy, and its presence eliminates a true vacuum. The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy makes it very real... a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have. If a particle is real then a field must be considered equally real.

Do you see the subtlety you can expand/contract spacetime, and there is an outside spacetime.
So QFT definitely takes an approach some other areas of science might not agree with.
You may want to consider your favourite infinity under that.

2. On average, fields may be measured as zero or non-zero, at any point in space. (Is that their energy?)
Agreed

3. We detect fields by observing disturbances in them.
Agree and science detected the higgs field in exactly that way.
If you produce a certain collision it reacts with the field and you see the disturbance as a
short lived virtual particle we call the Higgs boson.

4. I assume this also applies to the gravitational field, because, although gravity waves have not yet been observed directly, we can detect it only because it is disturbed by the presence of matter and/or energy.
Agreed and science is uncertain yet if gravity is a quantum field or a classic field.

5. The normal form taken by disturbances is that of waves.
Agree and extend.
The waves are the exchange of energy and the maximum speed of the waves is the speed of light.

6. In quantum field theory the waves are [also] particles. (Are there any fields that cannot be described as quantum fields?)
Agree and gravity may not be a quantum field.
Our current best theory to described gravity is a classic field theory.
Ultimately if gravity is quantum it would follow the normal QFT transformation done on other fields.

7. All particles are associated with fields, but only at quantum level is this of significance in the present state of our knowledge.
[/quote]

Disagree even in a classic sense you have a problem of the chicken and egg scenario, I sort of bought this up with the electron.
So an isolated electron produces and has a field around it at school you may have drawn it like this



See the problem is the electron producing the field or merely visible because of the field.

Classic physics assumes the electron is producing the field and it radiates out to infinity.
QFT says the field was always there you just made it visible by putting a particle at a point.
QFT also says it is correct because of the discovery of the higgs you can't see or even deduce that field in classic physics.
So science answered the chicken and egg question conclusively .. classic physics lost smile

However definitions on "the universe" got a little more interesting didn't they smile
You may care to think of a particle moving vast distances without losing energy in that scheme smile
Which scheme does QM entanglement make more sense in smile

If you ever wanted in a nutshell why classic physics is incompatable with QM there it is.
Bill G doesn't like it but classic physics can lead to really wrong answers ... like above smile
You see classic physics isn't approximately giving the right answer or understanding, and we are going to need to rethink teaching this stuff.

The take home memo is we are never going back to classic physics and QM is never going to disappear, the higgs told you smile

Last edited by Orac; 07/17/15 04:57 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54186 07/17/15 06:06 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Here is your classic physics smile


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54187 07/17/15 06:30 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
On cue for you today the announcement of the discovery of the Weyl fermion by two different groups

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-year-massless-particle-next-generation-electronics.html
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-weyl-years.html
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semic...ter-electronics

Background how the Weyl fermion fits into QFT.

http://www.quora.com/Quantum-Field-Theory/What-is-a-Weyl-fermion

They have long been sought after because they give you the equivalent to superconductivity at room temperature.

There is no indication of whether these things are likely to show up in the wider universe.
Everyone is hassling the experts in the "standard model and beyond" for that answer as it is outside the realm of QFT/QCD smile

Lubos Motl covered it superficially back in an article in 2010
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/beauty-of-dirac-equation-and-its.html

Quote:
The Weyl fermion interpretation is preferred if we want to preserve the symmetry that rotates the phases of the left-handed and right-handed fermions differently; such a symmetry prohibits the Majorana mass terms.

Watch what insights the theorists can give but in general massless particles must be massless for a reason and of coarse there are versions of string theory that predict it, which will get a lot of interest now.

Using the tools of QFT it was always known you could not show that massless charged fermions did not exist and hence the search so a hint of physics beyond the standard model.

Given you know the basics as a layman now, I would be interested in your evaluation of the different science media articles on it.

Last edited by Orac; 07/17/15 07:46 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54189 07/17/15 01:45 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Interesting looking links, all I need now is time to read them.

In the meantime, I assume you know about the pentaquark.

http://www.nature.com/news/forsaken-pent...=NzIxOTI5MjIzS0


There never was nothing.
Orac #54190 07/17/15 01:51 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
My apologies, AR11, I,ve just realised you beat me to the pentaquark.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #54195 07/19/15 11:12 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
So a small challenge Bill S. Using your new understanding describe the good and bad in this article

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/embracing-your-fifth-dimension-2e02d9a0572c

Do you think it successfully portraits an accurate representation of science?

My personal view is it basically comes across as an anti-string rant, which isn't really even relevant to many holographic theories. It then tries to put together a mumbo jumbo argument around what it refers to as a bulk spacetime which actually it doesn't ever define. I know what a spacetime bulk is in string theory but it doesn't make sense in this article which basically tries to avoid the stringy stuff.

The key point is it completely misses the fact in physics we are now forced to treat particles as excited states of an underlying physical field that is always already there. That is what makes it look holographic and is at complete odds to the classic physics where the field arise and expand out into space. Many people who don't believe in string theory accept and believe in a holographic scheme.

You said it yourself under QFT you are forced to see an electron or any "real" particle in classic physics as a sort of hologram of the field (Matrix like) ... it's not complicated and nothing to do with string theory or space bulk or the rest of the trash in the article.

Again it looks like another one of those situations that is an article by someone completely out of there depth. If I was being honest it looks like a case of google "holographic principle" and try and write an article using lots of catch phrases and google only picks up the story when the idea is formalized into string theory.

The article as written should have been called AdS/CFT correspondence and basically follows this story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence

Perhaps had they googled a little better they would have found
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/31/is-the-cosmos-just-a-big-hologram.html

Quote:
The holographic principle isn’t a theory that describes our Universe yet: it’s more a fascinating conjecture that might let us solve some thorny problems in fundamental physics someday. However, a few researchers think we might be able to detect some discrepancies between the three dimensions of space we perceive and a lower-dimensional hologram in the structure of spacetime on the very microscopic level.

You will also find conflicting claims of who created the concept of holographic principle. The earliest reading I know of the claim is 1947 by Denis Gabor who actually invented Holography and want a guess what made him think of the idea smile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Gabor

Perhaps I could suggest a reasonable read
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/...amp;redir_esc=y

I graded the article D- as misdirected or misunderstanding.

Last edited by Orac; 07/19/15 03:43 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54196 07/19/15 03:56 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
BTW Bill S if you want a funny read on holographic principle without string theory

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1285

Solves the whole thing in only 9 pages and 7 formulas smile

I love this bit
Quote:
I am not saying that string theory is dead. What I am saying is, that string theory cannot be a theory of the fundamental gravitational interaction, since there is no fundamental gravitational interaction.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 2 of 10 1 2 3 4 9 10

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 UsokĀž»­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