Possibilities for Quantum Theory of Gravity (New Scientist Magazine)

There are some intriguing and attractive ideas in this article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.UcYTrfnVD6e

Ben:
There are some intriguing and attractive ideas in this article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nglement-solve
s-black-hole-paradox.html#.UcYTrfnVD6e

It begins with an explanation of what a wormhole *is* but wormholes are
not known to exist. Then it builds on that untested (and untestable)
conjecture. It's a bit reminiscent of string "theory." Turns out if you
know some math you can pick one of the 10E500 string theories and run
with it and no one can prove you right or wrong. Physicists so want
there to be a theory of quantum gravity, but they haven't yet found a
hint that there is such a theory outside of their own desires.

No, I'm not qualified to do this research myself. But I am sufficiently
science-savvy to recognize evidence when I see it, and to remain
skeptical when I don't see it.

*****

³As a conservative, I do not agree that a division of physics into
separate theories for large and small is unacceptable. I am happy with
the situation in which we have lived for the last 80 years, with
separate theories for the classical world of stars and planets and the
quantum world of atoms and electrons.² -- Freeman Dyson in a review of
Brian Greene¹s book The Fabric of the Cosmos.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

This is pure junk that has hindered the development of interpretation of observational astronomy for centuries,it may entertain a few mathematicians who live in their imaginations but this is in no way the result of higher reasoning but the end of it.A historical contemporary of the rise of the vicious strain of empiricism noted it -

"These are the imaginings of incomplete- notions-philosophers who make space an absolute reality. Such notions are apt to be fudged up by devotees of pure mathematics, whose whole subject- matter is the playthings of imagination, but they are destroyed by higher reasoning" Leibniz

The higher reasoning of which Leibniz spoke does not run out of questions nor answers,once an individual finds a growing satisfaction in investigating the cause and effects between planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects,the empirical script falls by the wayside and the genuine astronomers who have had their works temporarily obscured by mathematical voodoowill reappear once more in a world that badly needs it.




On Sunday, June 23, 2013 4:57:23 AM UTC+1, Davoud wrote:
Ben:

There are some intriguing and attractive ideas in this article:



http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nglement-solve

s-black-hole-paradox.html#.UcYTrfnVD6e



It begins with an explanation of what a wormhole *is* but wormholes are

not known to exist. Then it builds on that untested (and untestable)

conjecture. It's a bit reminiscent of string "theory." Turns out if you

know some math you can pick one of the 10E500 string theories and run

with it and no one can prove you right or wrong. Physicists so want

there to be a theory of quantum gravity, but they haven't yet found a

hint that there is such a theory outside of their own desires.



No, I'm not qualified to do this research myself. But I am sufficiently

science-savvy to recognize evidence when I see it, and to remain

skeptical when I don't see it.



*****



³As a conservative, I do not agree that a division of physics into

separate theories for large and small is unacceptable. I am happy with

the situation in which we have lived for the last 80 years, with

separate theories for the classical world of stars and planets and the

quantum world of atoms and electrons.² -- Freeman Dyson in a review of

Brian Greene¹s book The Fabric of the Cosmos.



--

I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that

you will say in your entire life.



usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 23/06/2013 04:57, Davoud wrote:
Ben:
There are some intriguing and attractive ideas in this article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nglement-solve
s-black-hole-paradox.html#.UcYTrfnVD6e

It begins with an explanation of what a wormhole *is* but wormholes are
not known to exist. Then it builds on that untested (and untestable)

It isn't in principle untestable although it would require engineering
well beyond anything that we can contemplate just to visit a large
enough black hole. Most theoretical physicists don't like the idea of
having a naked singularity from a maximally spinning black hole.

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

conjecture. It's a bit reminiscent of string "theory." Turns out if you
know some math you can pick one of the 10E500 string theories and run
with it and no one can prove you right or wrong. Physicists so want
there to be a theory of quantum gravity, but they haven't yet found a
hint that there is such a theory outside of their own desires.

String theory might be right. Who knows? Even the best mathematicians on
the planet can't actually make any useful or novel predictions with it
as yet that are amenable to experimental testing.

However, the observers and their instrumentation are getting better all
the time so we live in a golden age where observation evidence will rule
out some of the theorists' wilder flights of fancy pretty soon.

No, I'm not qualified to do this research myself. But I am sufficiently
science-savvy to recognize evidence when I see it, and to remain
skeptical when I don't see it.

*****

³As a conservative, I do not agree that a division of physics into
separate theories for large and small is unacceptable. I am happy with
the situation in which we have lived for the last 80 years, with
separate theories for the classical world of stars and planets and the
quantum world of atoms and electrons.² -- Freeman Dyson in a review of
Brian Greene¹s book The Fabric of the Cosmos.

It is extremely unsatisfactory to have two theories that are mutually
incompatible at the finest scales and highest energies. It is a strong
hint that there is an underlying more complete theory that we have yet
to find. Dysons approach is a council of despair. Give up on science
since what we have now is good enough for all terrestrial engineering
purposes (which is probably true, although you can never predict what
the side effects of extreme blue sky research will be).

High energy physicists and astrophysicists compare notes a lot more than
you might think at first sight. There is much more in common between the
two big science disciplines of ultra large and ultra small.

Who would have predicted 50 years ago when the very first laser was made
from a perfect synthetic ruby crystal lovingly polished and half
silvered and illuminated by a complex flash system that one day they
would find an important use at home in every consumer CD and DVD player.

You cannot tell in advance what theoretical developments in advanced
theories will lead to new insights and ways to manipulate nature.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Monday, June 24, 2013 9:07:46 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:

However, the observers and their instrumentation are getting better all

the time so we live in a golden age where observation evidence will rule

out some of the theorists' wilder flights of fancy pretty soon.


"These are the imaginings of incomplete- notions-philosophers who make space an
absolute reality. Such notions are apt to be fudged up by devotees of pure mathematics, whose whole subject- matter is the playthings of imagination, but they are destroyed by higher reasoning" Leibniz

Leibniz partly understood the damage mathematicians are capable of and they have since almost destroyed astronomy totally by turning the celestial arena into an imaginary theoretical junkyard.Far from being a golden age,the empirical cult has run out of things to say that interests the wider population but have moved into areas of mathematical modeling such as climate,financial markets with the idea that highly complex systems can be managed,captured and tamed.

This idea of 'predicting' outcomes with the most spurious inputs is a relatively new phenomena yet when there computer models go South they vary the hypothesis to maintain the conclusion - when the world didn't burst into flames they altered 'global warming' to 'climate change' and kept on with this disastrous path. It is nothing more than Galileo's experience with these breed of individuals who were once kept in check by people of common sense and intelligence -

"I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

It is a golden era for imaging yet astronomy is dominated by people who merely chant voodoo and have no interest whatsoever in making sense of what time lapse footage and sequential imaging presents.New innovations in imaging is the true extension of the works of Copernicus and Galileo,tangible objects with their motions,traits and effects from a moon to a galaxy that people can appreciate and use to connect with Universal things that are central to their daily lives.

Mathematical modelers imagine they can control complex systems such as human control over global temperatures and that is shocking in any era but what may be more shocking is the inability to react when these mathematical wreck havoc,even in civil matters such as the financial system -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...416477138.html

There are some stupid people out there who imagine that none of this matters,that as long as they get a cut and keep their jobs,houses and cars then who cares what happens to astronomy or terrestrial sciences but there are now a lot more people worried about what they have in the fridge tonight because this mathematical modeling had severe consequences when it invariably fails.I have dealt with the origins and core of this aggressive strain of empiricism which turned science from an interpretative enterprise into a speculative/predictive animal.

Ben:
There are some intriguing and attractive ideas in this article:


http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ntanglement-so
lve
s-black-hole-paradox.html#.UcYTrfnVD6e

Davoud:
It begins with an explanation of what a wormhole *is* but wormholes are
not known to exist. Then it builds on that untested (and untestable)

Martin Brown:
It isn't in principle untestable although it would require engineering
well beyond anything that we can contemplate just to visit a large
enough black hole. Most theoretical physicists don't like the idea of
having a naked singularity from a maximally spinning black hole.

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

conjecture. It's a bit reminiscent of string "theory." Turns out if you
know some math you can pick one of the 10E500 string theories and run
with it and no one can prove you right or wrong. Physicists so want
there to be a theory of quantum gravity, but they haven't yet found a
hint that there is such a theory outside of their own desires.

String theory might be right. Who knows? Even the best mathematicians on
the planet can't actually make any useful or novel predictions with it
as yet that are amenable to experimental testing.

That means that it's not a theory.

However, the observers and their instrumentation are getting better all
the time so we live in a golden age where observation evidence will rule
out some of the theorists' wilder flights of fancy pretty soon.

No, I'm not qualified to do this research myself. But I am sufficiently
science-savvy to recognize evidence when I see it, and to remain
skeptical when I don't see it.

*****

³As a conservative, I do not agree that a division of physics into
separate theories for large and small is unacceptable. I am happy with
the situation in which we have lived for the last 80 years, with
separate theories for the classical world of stars and planets and the
quantum world of atoms and electrons.² -- Freeman Dyson in a review of
Brian Greene¹s book The Fabric of the Cosmos.

It is extremely unsatisfactory to have two theories that are mutually
incompatible at the finest scales and highest energies. It is a strong
hint that there is an underlying more complete theory that we have yet
to find. Dysons approach is a council of despair. Give up on science
since what we have now is good enough for all terrestrial engineering
purposes (which is probably true, although you can never predict what
the side effects of extreme blue sky research will be).

I don't think it's possible at this time to say whether this is despair
or realism. We're approaching 100 years of trying to unite
GR--gravity-- with quantum theory, and we're no closer than we were at
the beginning; we have nothing that qualifies as a theory of quantum
gravity in the way that Newtonian mechanics, evolution, GR, the germ
theory of disease, et al. qualify as theories.

High energy physicists and astrophysicists compare notes a lot more than
you might think at first sight. There is much more in common between the
two big science disciplines of ultra large and ultra small.

No, not more than I might think. I don't know with any degree of
precision the extent of information exchange between various scientific
disciplines, but there is no extent that would surprise me.

Who would have predicted 50 years ago when the very first laser was made
from a perfect synthetic ruby crystal lovingly polished and half
silvered and illuminated by a complex flash system that one day they
would find an important use at home in every consumer CD and DVD player.

You cannot tell in advance what theoretical developments in advanced
theories will lead to new insights and ways to manipulate nature.

Theories. The laser was not a stab in the dark. It was the application
of well tested theory--as was the transistor before it. I'm sure that
the inventors of the transistor and the laser were pleased that it
worked, but I don't think that they were amazed.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 24/06/2013 12:44, Davoud wrote:
Ben:
There are some intriguing and attractive ideas in this article:


http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ntanglement-so
lve
s-black-hole-paradox.html#.UcYTrfnVD6e

Davoud:
It begins with an explanation of what a wormhole *is* but wormholes are
not known to exist. Then it builds on that untested (and untestable)

Martin Brown:
It isn't in principle untestable although it would require engineering
well beyond anything that we can contemplate just to visit a large
enough black hole. Most theoretical physicists don't like the idea of
having a naked singularity from a maximally spinning black hole.

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

conjecture. It's a bit reminiscent of string "theory." Turns out if you
know some math you can pick one of the 10E500 string theories and run
with it and no one can prove you right or wrong. Physicists so want
there to be a theory of quantum gravity, but they haven't yet found a
hint that there is such a theory outside of their own desires.

String theory might be right. Who knows? Even the best mathematicians on
the planet can't actually make any useful or novel predictions with it
as yet that are amenable to experimental testing.

That means that it's not a theory.

String conjecture is perhaps too much of a mouthful. The mathematics
might or might not describe our universe but you can still play around
with it to see if anything useful falls out.

ISTR they are not all that far off making predictions that could test
some of the specific big bang initial conditions and fluctuations as
different from conventional cosmology.

However, the observers and their instrumentation are getting better all
the time so we live in a golden age where observation evidence will rule
out some of the theorists' wilder flights of fancy pretty soon.

No, I'm not qualified to do this research myself. But I am sufficiently
science-savvy to recognize evidence when I see it, and to remain
skeptical when I don't see it.

*****

³As a conservative, I do not agree that a division of physics into
separate theories for large and small is unacceptable. I am happy with
the situation in which we have lived for the last 80 years, with
separate theories for the classical world of stars and planets and the
quantum world of atoms and electrons.² -- Freeman Dyson in a review of
Brian Greene¹s book The Fabric of the Cosmos.

It is extremely unsatisfactory to have two theories that are mutually
incompatible at the finest scales and highest energies. It is a strong
hint that there is an underlying more complete theory that we have yet
to find. Dysons approach is a council of despair. Give up on science
since what we have now is good enough for all terrestrial engineering
purposes (which is probably true, although you can never predict what
the side effects of extreme blue sky research will be).

I don't think it's possible at this time to say whether this is despair
or realism. We're approaching 100 years of trying to unite
GR--gravity-- with quantum theory, and we're no closer than we were at
the beginning; we have nothing that qualifies as a theory of quantum
gravity in the way that Newtonian mechanics, evolution, GR, the germ
theory of disease, et al. qualify as theories.

And it took over 2000 years to get from the Greek philosophers rough and
ready explanations of the universe to where we are now. You cannot
predict when the next great paradigm shift or breakthrough will be made.
It could be tomorrow or not for another hundred years or more.

No-one would have guessed at high temperature superconductors and we
still don't have any predictive theory for the maximum temperature at
which one can operate or how to construct one to order with a higher Tc.
Sometimes it requires experimentalists to suck it and see - just
occasionally they get lucky as with Magnesium Diboride in 2001 (which
drove a coach and horses through existing theoretical models)

http://www.superconductors.org/39K.htm

We may not even recognise it when it happens. Early quantum mechanics
was far too abstract an incomprehensible when first discovered to be
anything other than controversial. Today it is possible to teach a
simplified version of it at A level and a half decent formal
mathematical treatment of it to undergraduates. Times change and
knowledge increases.

High energy physicists and astrophysicists compare notes a lot more than
you might think at first sight. There is much more in common between the
two big science disciplines of ultra large and ultra small.

No, not more than I might think. I don't know with any degree of
precision the extent of information exchange between various scientific
disciplines, but there is no extent that would surprise me.

Who would have predicted 50 years ago when the very first laser was made
from a perfect synthetic ruby crystal lovingly polished and half
silvered and illuminated by a complex flash system that one day they
would find an important use at home in every consumer CD and DVD player.

You cannot tell in advance what theoretical developments in advanced
theories will lead to new insights and ways to manipulate nature.

Theories. The laser was not a stab in the dark. It was the application
of well tested theory--as was the transistor before it. I'm sure that
the inventors of the transistor and the laser were pleased that it
worked, but I don't think that they were amazed.

String theory may yet win out. I personally don't like them. I do know a
few top cosmologists including one practitioner. He is *very* bright and
so I do not rule out the possibility he might be right.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown:
String theory might be right. Who knows? Even the best mathematicians on
the planet can't actually make any useful or novel predictions with it
as yet that are amenable to experimental testing.

Davoud:
That means that it's not a theory.

Martin Brown:
String conjecture is perhaps too much of a mouthful. The mathematics
might or might not describe our universe but you can still play around
with it to see if anything useful falls out.

"String fantasy" has as many syllables as "string theory." How about
"string guess," "string dream," or "string religion?"

I don't think it's possible at this time to say whether this is despair
or realism. We're approaching 100 years of trying to unite
GR--gravity-- with quantum theory, and we're no closer than we were at
the beginning; we have nothing that qualifies as a theory of quantum
gravity in the way that Newtonian mechanics, evolution, GR, the germ
theory of disease, et al. qualify as theories.

And it took over 2000 years to get from the Greek philosophers rough and
ready explanations of the universe to where we are now. You cannot
predict when the next great paradigm shift or breakthrough will be made.
It could be tomorrow or not for another hundred years or more.

But today's investigators are not starting from the 1 BCE knowledge
base.

No-one would have guessed at high temperature superconductors...

Experimentalists at IBM and other places who were searching for
high-temperature superconductors were not making a stab in the dark;
they had some expectations of finding them. Not one experimentalist is
working on string fantasy because the fantasy presents no evidence to
be tested. That would support calling it "string religion." In the
course of 35 years of guesswork, there has been not one proposal of a
means of detecting any of the conjectured six curled-up dimensions of
space, e.g.

String theory may yet win out. I personally don't like them. I do know a
few top cosmologists including one practitioner. He is *very* bright and
so I do not rule out the possibility he might be right.

I couldn't say because you didn't name the art or science at which he
is a practitioner. I know it isn't string fantasy, though; at that he
can only be a guesser, a fantasist, or a priest.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Monday, June 24, 2013 1:28:01 PM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:

And it took over 2000 years to get from the Greek philosophers rough and

ready explanations of the universe to where we are now.

You are thumbsucking Brown and your days dominating astronomy are numbered..The Greeks designated the name 'planet' to objects that wandered against the stellar background as opposed to the Sun and motion which appeared to travel in a straightforward path.One of those Greeks even came close to identifying the Earth double motion using declination as a basis for orbital motion and daily rotation to account for the noon cycle -

"Only,” replied Lucius laughing, “do not bring an action for impiety against us, just as Cleanthes thought it right that the Greeks collectively should impeach Aristagoras the Stoic, of impiety, for overthrowing the altar of earth, because the fellow attempted to account for visible phenomena by supposing that the sky remains fixed, and that the earth rolls round down an oblique circle, turning at the same time upon its own axis."

http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Moon.html


The great innovation of Copernicus was identifying what the wandering motions of the planets are however now you may appreciate the difference between retrogrades of the inner and outer planets and their separate cause seen from a moving Earth -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=MdFrE7hWj0A

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/S...age%20flat.jpg

A simple motion by turning your screen 90 degrees and watching Mercury swing out from behind the Sun and now traveling back in is how astronomy is appreciated and practised.

Carry on chanting voodoo of dark matter,string theory and big bang,genuine astronomy is about to make a comeback in the most spectacular fashion.