- #71
subtillioN
Try again to understand what i said because you did not address it.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
All of science is derived from experience with physical reality. Try again.
Come on you can do better than that!
Try again to understand what i said because you did not address it.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Come on you can do better than that!
Probably. But all I wanted to demonstrate is that you have not learned them. I chose two concepts that are very fundamental to their respective subjects. If you knew more about these two subjects than the vivid imagry in layman's treatments of the topic, you would know what those two things are.
I have never taken a class in Relativity Theory nor have I taken a class in Quantum Mechanics so I have never learned the math. I have read extensively on the subjects however.
Isn't that a frusterating feeling?
I am used to it.
Anyways, I was using your definition to refute your previous assertion that modern physics is not causal.
Please go on. I am curious how you can derive that.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
(I highly doubt that whatever concept you have about "causal explanations" is something that should be considered a strike against any theory... but the definition you gave is certainly satisfied by modern physics)
I have never taken a class in Relativity Theory nor have I taken a class in Quantum Mechanics so I have never learned the math. I have read extensively on the subjects however.
Can you visualize how all the forces can be derived from one force?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
You don't have an understanding of the subjects, you merely know some things about them.
Layman's books don't give the full picture because the authors are necessarily trying to pigeonhole theories into layman language in an effort to inspire vivid imagry. Pop media is worse because they retranslate the translation and the description ecome even worse.
Yes. That doesn't mean my visualization is right.
Originally posted by subtillioN
I don't read layman's books because they are TOTALLY full of horse****. I read text-books and deeper level books.
Originally posted by ahrkron
So, summarizing your posts:
It is hard not to smile at this, subtillioN.
Look, physicsforums is a place for people to share knowledge about physics and to learn about it. So far, you seem only interested in pushing your own pet theory.
So far, it is pretty clear that
1. "Sorce theory" has no working mathematical model, and consists only of a few nice-sounding phrases without experimental support.
2. You have a poor understanding of QM and GR, based on non-math texts (if at all).
Such texts can, at most, leave you only a very limited understanding of these subjects, far short form the foundation anybody would need in order to build a better theory.
3. You are not interested on improving your understanding of "standard" physics
The forums can be an extremely good learning resource. Why don't you drop (at least for a while) your sorce theory advocacy, and spend some time learning about how the current models actually work in some more detail?
I'm sure you can contribute more to the forums than "my non-math theory is better than your ultra-precise infinite-dimensional math".
BACK IT UP! or give it up!
Originally posted by Eh
All right then. Here are some quotes that demonstrate that you have not studied the theories being attacked. Note that I only grabbed a few quotes from this thread here, and thread about the center of the universe. Though I am sure you have many more gems in other waiting for us in other threads.
(your explanation of what the Einstein equation is)It is the fudging of the classical concept of time to mathematically retro-fit the null-results of the M&M experiment.
How can nothingness be curved?
Ok, it (GR in this context) is useful for the Standard Model to explain the null-results of the M&M experiment, but it is rapidly becoming superfluous.
It claims that it is space itself that is expanding yet if space itself were expanding there would be no relative changes in distance whatsoever because EVERYTHING would be expanding at the same rate.
The new "quantum vacuum" fits this description rather well as it is essentially a "zero-energy superfluid
I know much about the equations at a more global level, but I have never needed to know the level of the actual equations themselves.
Is there not space within each and every atom? If so then why doesn't every atom expand with space
QM degutted the whole of physics and Relativity said that experiential reality is useless to understand the nature of space and time.
It is an ad hoc kludge-theory patching incorrect relativity theory with incomplete quantum theory. It has all these 32 some odd dimensions (which do not exist in reality) precisely because of the unnecessary and incompatable complexity in standard model.
If the standard model had the correct fundamental substrate (a single fluid-dynamic continuous and compressible fluid) instead of point-particles in a void this monstrous complexity would be rendered superfluous and the whole thing would be a single unified whole as in Sorce Theory for instance.
Right, I am not a QM or GR accountant nor am I an astro-navigator near a space-hole (which don't exist) so the equations are not as important as the deeper understanding itself.
Folks who have studied GR, QM and string theory don't make statements like those above. Stop pretending, because everyone is seeing right through you.
Originally posted by subtillioN
Hey! You picked my very best ones! Great aren't they?
These are simply statements that you disagree with. I stand by every single one of them. If you think they are incorrect then demonstrate HOW they are incorrect. Can you debate them?
Note: according to the standard model to which you subscribe, these statements OBVIOUSLY ARE incorrect.
This is the whole point of an alternate theory. Statements that make sense in one interpretation simply don't make sense in another sufficiently alternate one. From your paradigm they are wrong, but from mine they are correct.
I'm going to have to disagree with that one. I think you CAN get a decent understanding of the theories by studying them conceptually only - as long as conceptual understanding is all you want or try to use. There is a vast amount that can be learned from (for example) "A Brief History of Time" - a book with but ONE equation. Sub has just chosen to reject and/or misrepresent (as shown in the previous post) the existing theories without basis for some unknown reason (though we can speculate).Originally posted by ahrkron
2. You have a poor understanding of QM and GR, based on non-math texts (if at all). Such texts can, at most, leave you only a very limited understanding of these subjects, far short form the foundation anybody would need in order to build a better theory.
Originally posted by Eh
For example, when asked for an explanation for the Einstein equation, you replied that is was "It is the fudging of the classical concept of time to mathematically retro-fit the null-results of the M&M experiment."
For example, GR does not say space is nothingness
, and it does not say locally bound objects (such as galaxies) will expand along with the flat space in between.
As well, QM does not claim the vacuum has zero energy
, or that particles are mere points floating in a void (they are also waves)
, nor even that the value of experimental evidence is to be discarded for a theory of spacetime.
In fact, the opposite is true, as without experimental success, no one would actually believe it to be true.
How would you know what model I subscribe to?
My only gripe with your posts have been your blatent misrepresentations of the current theories.
I realize that current theories are only approximations to the complete description of nature, and don't hold to any model like one would to a philosophical or religious position.
That is where you're confused. It has nothing to do with the alternatives - you are either misrepresenting a theory outright, or asking a question (explained by the theory) that displays that you haven't studied it. As I said before, it's like trying to think outside the box without actually knowing what the box is. [/B]
Originally posted by russ_watters
I'm going to have to disagree with that one. I think you CAN get a decent understanding of the theories by studying them conceptually only - as long as conceptual understanding is all you want or try to use. There is a vast amount that can be learned from (for example) "A Brief History of Time" - a book with but ONE equation.
What you CANNOT do without a deep understanding of the underlying math is go beyond the conceptualization of existing theories and complete your understanding of the theories, much less start to derive real proofs for these theories or build new ones.
Originally posted by subtillioN
Not knowing the actual equation I gave a description of what relativity theory actually is from my outside pov.
Einstein said that his "curved space" was meaningless without the conceprt of the ether and that the M&M experiments simply proved that the ether was dynamic and not classically solid.
The modern conception of the "quantum vacuum" is that it is made out of energy or vacuum fluctuations, both of which are abstractions for properties that the standard model can not causally explain. An abstraction is not a substance thus it is equivalent to nothingness. That was my point. To say that space is curved it must be made out of a substance, as Einstein had intuited.
Energy is not a substance and the Standard Model has no clue what energy actually is. Its definition is simply that energy is the ability to do work. So space is composed of the ability to do work? Come on, we humans can do better than that!
Right, this was my point. To say that space arbitrarily expands here but not there is to selectively use the definition of space to fit whatever they want. If the fabric of space-time is expanding then it is expanding and all objects embedded in it would expand with it.
I never said that it did. I said that one modern quantitative conception is that it is a "zero-energy superfluid".
Particles and waves existing paradoxically in a void which somehow (mathematically) can fluctuate. I never denied the wave-aspect to the point-particles.
I never said that it did. I said that experiential understanding (common sense or causality) must be abandoned in order to believe in it.
Ok, then try and have an open mind please and we can discuss this in a civil manner.
Again you have failed to prove that i don't know the theories that i am talking about.
You either missed or chose to ignore the last sentence in the paragraph. It was just as important as the ones you paid attention to.Originally posted by subtillioN
Amen! Finally someone understands the value of qualitative understanding.
Originally posted by Eh
Your outside pov is a cartoon version of relativity.
Not quite. See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
This is another aspect you're confusing. First off, Quantum theory does not say anything about what space is made of, nor is there any complete quantum theory of spacetime.
What you get from current quantum theory is that even in a vacuum, you'll necessarily have a non zero energy content. It says nothing about the space itself, nor that space it made of energy.
Second, you need to read up on the concept of fields. The gravitational field is not to be confused with localized fields (such as EM) that are distributed throughout the points spacetime, as it is spacetime.
At any rate, this field has many of the same properties that you would probably use to classify something as a substance, and calling it nothingness is silly.
See above. Quantum theory (nor GR) does not claim space is made of energy. I can why this confusion would arise, since there seems to be energy everywhere. But any serious look would reveal that GR is the only 1 of the 2 theories that is actually a theory about spacetime.
How is the difference in geometry between different spaces arbitrary? But wait, that would require the use of math, and specifically geometry. Since Einstein's general relativity is primarily a theory of geometry, to claim you understand it without knowing the geometry is ludicrous.
I think you're confusing the notion of zero point energy with zero-energy. No big deal, but it shouldn't have come up from someone who actually studied the concept of ZPE.
Your claim that points in a void are fundamental to the standard model is misleading, since the wave function is necessary.
The energy distribution fluctuates, and as I said above, quantum theory doesn't actually deal with the background of spacetime or the void itself.
Since when does experiemental understanding have anything to do with common sense in physics?
Certainly, as soon as you agree not to misrepresent or attack theories you clearly don't understand. That's when discussions can actually turn out to be useful.
I agree. You did.
Originally posted by russ_watters
You either missed or chose to ignore the last sentence in the paragraph. It was just as important as the ones you paid attention to.
And of course the qualitative understanding is only useful if its CORRECT.
Originally posted by subtillioN
"He clearly did not mean the kind of ``aether'' which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the nineteenth century"
This is what I am talkng about. Maxwell's ether was proven incorrect, but a substance is still necessary, according to Einstein, to explain "curved space".
The modern versions of Quantum theory say that space is filled with zero-point vacuum energy or vacuum fluctuations. Yet this quantum energy is filling the continuous "spacetime" of relativity. There is no standard understanding of how these items are related. From this abstract, mathematical "quantum vacuum" the theory is free to "borrow energy from the Universe" to create virtual particles exactly where the theory needs them. And yes there is no complete quantum theory of "spacetime". I simply NEVER said there was.
All of this confusion and incompatibility is rendered superfluous. ((I suppose you would consider this statement to be incorrect? Obviously you cannot see it's correctness if you do not know the theory.))
Subtle nit-picking. Ok so you are saying that space is made of what, then? Nothingness, or "curved-space" which is really some unknown substance with inadequate properties te explain the mechanism of the g-field and the superimposed "quantum vacuum"?
So the theory has these two overlapping fields one is quantized and the other is continuous. There is no known mechanism for uniting these fields.
First of all, relativistic spacetime is not made of points. It is a continuous field.
Secondly, the theory arbitrarily says that some fields are independent of "spacetime" and others are not.
There is no mechanism by which the standard model can unite the fields, but obviously this failure of the standard model does not prove that these fields are not indeed united. What about the higgs field? What about the electric fields inside the atom? If the electromagnetic fields of light expand with space then why not the electromagnetic energy and frequencies within the atom?
My sentiments exactly!
The geometry is used arbitrarily, even though it is quite formalized... and I do understand the geometry and the transformations. I simply can't do the math which is quite different.
It was you who brought ZPE into this picture. You thought I was talking about ZPE when I wasn't. The confusion is yours.
Originally posted by Eh
No, that is incorrect. Read the page again, as this curved spacetime does not fit the scientific definition of substance at all. Though it should have the properties to convince you that no such classification of "substance" is required.
You claimed quantum theory says spacetime is made of energy, when it doesn't deal with that spacetime at all. It assumes a fixed background that doesn't interact with matter - much like the classic background stage Newton believed in.
Do you see me attacking the theory I've never bothered to read about? Of course not, that would be downright stupid.
We've been through this. Space is the structural quality of the field, and the field is fundamental in GR. Asking what something fundamental is made of is silly. As well, what exactly the precise quantum nature of this fundamental field happens to be, is irrelevant.
What does that have to do with you not knowing that GR does not say space is nothingness?
Do you even have the slighest clue what it means to be continuous? Once again, geometry comes up.
Wow, a new discovery! Can you enlighten us as to which fields GR (or QM??) says are independent of spacetime?
Did you not read the exchange between you and Hurkyl
on this very subject in the thread re: the center of the universe? How many times does an explanation need to be repeated for you to read it? The explanation for why asymptotically flat space is all that expands requires some math.
I don't think you quite understand. My point is that your classification for a substance is unlikely to have anything to do with the scientific notion of substances.
The geometry is math. This isn't the easy world of Euclidean geometry with simple visual aids. To suggest you can understand non Euclidean geometry without math is absurd.
But then, I'm not the one calling the quantum vacuum a zero-energy substance.
Originally posted by subtillioN
That is what I thought. You ARE attacking it because my statements are correct within its framework about which you are ignorant. They simply don't make sense without the proper background, but does tht stop you from assuming that you understand them? Nope, you continue to make your ignorant assumptions.
I know what GR says space is and it does not have the properties required to explain the mechanism of gravity. Therefore I equate it with a mathematical abstraction which is not equivalent to a physical field, thus it is nothingness despite what GR claims it is.
I know geometry and the concept of continuous is quite basic indeed.
It was your point that the em fields are "local" and independent of the expansion of space.
Unlikely huh? Please do expand on that brilliant point.
It is simple stuff and I am not math illiterate as you assume.
Neither am I. These descriptions of the "quantum vacuum" as a "zero-energy superfluid" are a standard part of condensed matter physics. Maye you have some learning to do?
Originally posted by Eh
I've only criticized your pretending to understand the theories you're attacking.
You don't know the equations, and you aren't familiar with the concept of a field, you don't understand the physical meaning of curved spacetime having an effect on geodesics, yet you somehow are able to pass it off as a mere abstraction.
Then how do you explain your last statement? First of all, relativistic spacetime is not made of points. It is a continuous field.... From basic geometry, we've learned that volumes contain an infinite number of points. A continuous space is not discrete, but that hardly discounts the fact that it contains points.
Now you're making stuff up. And at any rate, your claim was that the theory arbitrarily says that some fields are independent of "spacetime" and others are not, showing once again you don't know what you're talking about.
Substances are results of atoms. There, that was easy.
Are you now claiming that you have studied and understand Non-Euclidean geometry? Sounds like an easy claim to test.
I'd wager no serious particle physicist is actually suggesting the vacuum is actually a superfluid, nor does the comparison to the vacuum imply they are essentially the same thing as you put it. I'd further wager you're just pulling quotes from content you don't even understand. What else is new?
You have made claims that you are attempting to justify
You don't know what I know and what I don't know. Why are you still wasting your time with these personal attacks and why am I still defending myself?
Mathematics IS an abstraction. You believe that it is physical reality, that is where physics went wrong and where you blindly follow.
An continuous field is simply not made of points. You are making the same mistake that Zeno made.
I am claiming that I have a good enough understanding of what it is all about to know how it is used and abused in physics.
Originally posted by Eh
I'd wager no serious particle physicist is actually suggesting the vacuum is actually a superfluid, nor does the comparison to the vacuum imply they are essentially the same thing as you put it. I'd further wager you're just pulling quotes from content you don't even understand. What else is new?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
You've gone wrong by presuming an abstraction is incapable of properly describing physical reality. You've also gone wrong by presuming science can do better than description.
Your first statement is correct, but merely because of compensating errors. Fields are essentially functions over spaces which means the field is made of point-value pairs, not points. Spaces are made of points and can most certainly be continuous. It's trivially obvious to anyone who understands geometric concepts.
You've merely claimed, not demonstrated, while we have well-refuted that claim. Anyways, Eh seems to have a particular test in mind for this one, I'll wait to see what he has to cook up on this point!
A continuum is only described and addressed by points. It is not MADE out of them.
That would be like saying that infinity is made out of numbers!
Oh, the herd mentality of the mob!
Get em' boys!
Originally posted by Hurkyl
No, a continuum is "addressed" by coordinates; specifically the coordinates of each point of the continuum.
An infinite set can most certainly be made out of numbers.
oh ok. point completely missed (no pun intended)
an infinite set is finite, at best transfinite. a mere symbol...
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Are you admitting this, or are you trying to imply something?
[?]
Care to explain? [/B]
Originally posted by Eh
Mitch,
Have a look at http://www.superstringtheory.com. The site has some nice tutorials on the basic ideas of the theory, and math is optional. It also has a very good forum (just ignore the spam bot kx21) where you can ask questions about aspects of the theory without crackpots hijacking your thread with their nonsense. Neat flash presentation of the big bang as well.
I am implying something that resides outside the boundaries of mathematics...
Mathematics is a symbol system. All symbol systems are finite. Mathematics represents infinity but it does not and cannot truly deal with the infinite.
A spam bot is a computer applet that generates spam in chat rooms. Much like...ah, nevermind.Originally posted by mitch bass
What is a spam bot kx21?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
How and why would something lie outside the boundaries of mathematics?
And if something does, do you understand the ramifications that implies to a logical understanding of that something?
You're making the same mistake Mr Parsons was making on the "infinity" thread.
Originally posted by mitch bass
Thank you.
What is a spam bot kx21?