Your posts in general lack all professionalism....and the nonsense from your political comments spillover......I'll leave it at that.
This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, claims physicist
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Sure I can, but I'm not open to the cynical demands from some god bothering religious type that is not open to any answers that does not fit in with his god of the gaps myth. Perhaps again your poor understanding is a reflection of english being your second language: Sure it doesn't mean they can exist, it also doesn't mean that they do not exist: Understand? That's why no physicist, has ever said categorically that they do not or cannot exist.......probably don't? sure! Maybe they do? Sure....probably do? sure again. Are you getting it yet?No I post reputable papers, as in this case, to deride the silly agenda driven claims of cranks and god botherers, who chose to disbelieve just about all of 21st century cosmology, yet offers nothing evidenced in return.
And of course an open mind is most certainly desirable, but not so open that your brains fall out.
And of course believing and accepting some almighty omnipotent magical spaghetti monster, is not having an open mind by any stretch of the imagination.
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
Real physicists let the science do the talking. The Quantum Theory and Relativity theory, plus the physical reality observations which science has recorded, all say categorically that the following things are unphysical and cannot form or exist in physical reality:
- 'negative' energy;
- 'separation' of two Black Holes and/or Stars;
- 'naked' singularities;
- 'mouths' of wormholes, and entanglement of same;
- wormholes (since they depend on 'negative' energy which science says categorically does not exist; and since Quantum Theory says any entanglement would collapse due to quantum perturbations; and since naked singularities do not exist; and since no two Black Holes and/or Stars can be 'separated' once merged; and since only unphysical "extensions" of the GR maths produce such unphysical 'solutions' based speculations having no actual scientific reality possibilities).
So, the irrelevant statement that "No physicist would categorically claim that wormholes etc do not exist", is just that, an irrelevance which a real physicist would not even consider making at all since they would let the real discovered science do the talking.
Only infotainment, pop-sci and sci-fi/fantasy and such like publish-or-perish and infotainment authors and their 'fans' would try to bring such irrelevant statement as an 'argument' against the existing scientifically categorical determination that the above unphysical things do not and cannot ever exist in physical reality.
Thanks. Best.
- 'negative' energy;
- 'separation' of two Black Holes and/or Stars;
- 'naked' singularities;
- 'mouths' of wormholes, and entanglement of same;
- wormholes (since they depend on 'negative' energy which science says categorically does not exist; and since Quantum Theory says any entanglement would collapse due to quantum perturbations; and since naked singularities do not exist; and since no two Black Holes and/or Stars can be 'separated' once merged; and since only unphysical "extensions" of the GR maths produce such unphysical 'solutions' based speculations having no actual scientific reality possibilities).
So, the irrelevant statement that "No physicist would categorically claim that wormholes etc do not exist", is just that, an irrelevance which a real physicist would not even consider making at all since they would let the real discovered science do the talking.
Only infotainment, pop-sci and sci-fi/fantasy and such like publish-or-perish and infotainment authors and their 'fans' would try to bring such irrelevant statement as an 'argument' against the existing scientifically categorical determination that the above unphysical things do not and cannot ever exist in physical reality.
Thanks. Best.
They certainly do and the fact remains that what you claim is a porky pie....
Again no physicist despite your obvious anguish, has ever said that worm holes categorically do not exist...sorry about that.
Let me take the time out to educate you some......All science starts out as speculative, do you understand that fact? Worm holes are a prediction of GR...Is that clear? They have as yet, never been observed...OK? But no physicists consequently has ever said that worm holes categorically do not exist.
That is the state of the game at this stage.
Yes, yes yes, that's also what many of our god bothering friends, cranks and anti science trolls often infest science forums with.And while these notable scientists like Professor's Thorne and Susskind, and Hawking, and Carroll are publishing and surviving by properly researching all possibilities, the cranks, god botherers, trolls etc, are perishing on forums such as this, open to any Tom, Dick, Harry, Jill, Mary, or Veronica. [just so I don't appear sexists in anyway
]Again no physicist has ever said that worm holes categorically do not exist.
Mods,
Can you ban this line at least future use in this thread should be restricted. In this thread this line must have been used at least 100 times...
Also can you add a guideline that frequent use of emojis in science forum be avoided.
Hav'nt you tried that silly strategy before?
Like here.....
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/moderation-or-no-moderation.152656/
and here
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/who-will-moderate-the-moderator.156076/
and here......
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/pm.157145/
In essence my statement that no physicist will ever categorically say that worm holes do not exist, stands as is.
It is mentioned as we have a couple of seemingly anti mainstream cosmology posters, who seem to have problems with all of 21st century cosmology, from cosmological redshift, to gravitational waves and BH's.
That's OK, that's their perogative, but when they continually make those claims without any support or reputable link supporting their view, then it seems obvious where such posters are coming from.
Likewise worm holes. Worm holes are a solution of GR but remain speculative as none as yet have ever been observed. Many papers based on their hypothetical existence are available.
While certainly there are opposing views amongst the experts as to whether they believe they exist or not, the fact remains that none have categorically claimed they do not.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Paddoboy, your claim stands simply out of your personal qualities. In itself, the use of "categorically" makes it quite empty - scientists seldom use this word.
To start a serious discussion about the role of wormholes with you seems impossible. Simply because you ignore the scientific arguments completely. In #283 some have been mentioned. Reaction? None.
Then, the next problem is that even such energy conditions prevent nothing in a quantum theory. All what can be said in a quantum theory about the configuration is that it has a very small probability - but, whatever the configuration, the probability will be greater than zero.
To start a serious discussion about the role of wormholes with you seems impossible. Simply because you ignore the scientific arguments completely. In #283 some have been mentioned. Reaction? None.
The problem is that, first, with sufficiently fantastic dark matter (which can contain negative energy too) every metric can be made a solution of the Einstein equations. GR taken alone does not forbid anything. Only GR together with additional conditions (like positive energy and so on) allows to make nontrivial, falsifiable predictions.
Then, the next problem is that even such energy conditions prevent nothing in a quantum theory. All what can be said in a quantum theory about the configuration is that it has a very small probability - but, whatever the configuration, the probability will be greater than zero.
And yet you took time to actually write something rather intresting. i neither agre og disagree, and my own understanding of the concepts are still to small. could u elaborate on what you mean with "fixed background geometry"
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Hm, difficult to explain given that I don't know where to start.
Roughly, think about the interference picture in a simple double slit experiment. The mathematics to compute this picture consists of the following steps: Computing some amplitudes for paths of the particle going through the left resp. the right slit. Then, adding the amplitudes for the paths which end up at the same point. Then, the square the sum and this gives the probability of the particle appearing in this point.
This is a basic quantum rule, you can use it for all fields, the EM field, all the other fields of the SM. And if you use simply Newtonian gravity, it works for gravity too. Even supported by observation (of neutrons in the gravitational field of the Earth).
But for GR, it does not work. The problem is that GR does not define what would be the same point for different gravitational fields. If you have different solutions of GR, you do not have given them in the same system of coordinates. You have, say, solution 1 as $g_{mn}(x,y,z,t)$ and solution 2 as $g_{ab}(d,e,f,g)$. What is the same point as x,y,y,t in terms of d,e,f,g on solution 2? Nobody knows.
In all other theories, it is sufficient to define this for the initial values. At t=0, we have, say, d=x, e=y, f=z. (Ok, together with first derivatives or so.) Once this is given for the initial values, fine, we can compute everything else. And, in the simplest case, find out that d=x, e=y, f=z, g=t. Fine. With this information, we know what is is the same point as x,y,y,t in terms of d,e,f,g on solution 2. And we can use the standard rules of quantum theory to compute the interference patterns.
But GR does not allow to compute this. The GR equations are not sufficient for this. The reason is the equivalence principle, or the diffeomorphism invariance of the theory. You can choose another system of coordinates, transform the solution to this other system, and have another solution. And so you can construct different-looking solutions, even for the same initial values - the other system of coordinates may be the same at the initial values. It may be different from the original one only in some hole. This is the hole problem.
The hole problem is solved in classical GR, by reliance on observable effects only. In these two different-looking solutions for the same initial values, all what can be measured is nonetheless the same. Fine. But this does not solve the problem in the quantum case, where we need, to add the amplitudes of different solutions, the information what are the same points on different solutions.
This is some information which in classical theory is defined by absolute space. And even in special relativity, this is not problematic, the absolute Minkowski spacetime provides this information. In GR, nothing provides this information.
So, a fixed background geometry, which is independent of the different physical fields, would provide such a structure. In fact, simply to say "fixed background" would have been more accurate, because this background does not have to provide information about distances - it is sufficient that it provides information about which are the same points.
There you go again, being so unprofessional and really stupidly pedantic re the word "categorically"
Try then using "positively", or "100% sure", or a "zero probability"......
The point is that no physicist worth his salt has ever said that worm holes categorically do not exist, or any reasonable facsimile thereof.
Secondly, I really do not need to undergo any discussion with you re worm holes, as per the OP and following paper, they are at this time speculative and as such while still being solutions to GR, are open for research by noted reputable expert professionals. Most professionals and lay people like myself realize that:
Thirdly your point re me ignoring the scientific argument is ironic in the extreme, considering that both the OP article and reputable paper following as peer reviewed and published, make no qualms re the speculative nature of the current subject. So you are essentially claiming that the noted professionals and their paper [and subsequently myself for daring to post such] are not following the scientific argument?
And all this time I thought that any scientific theory was always at one time speculative!
It's rather relevant at this point to mention how this paper and OP is now the subject of many hotly contested debates, in professional circles, as compared to the lingering, near lost, speculative ether paper that you yourself published.
I would also surmise that your rather unprofessional approach [as I detailed] is more driven by your previously stated abhorrence to string theory and/or any of its many derivitives that both the scientists in the OP and following paper are involved in.
Last edited:
Briefly, the OP and following paper is speculating that a worm hole, or an ERB, is the spacetime equivalent of quantum entanglement.
That link may help unite QM and GR in a long sort after QGT. A goal well worth obtaining for many reasons.
The following article puts that in rather simplistic language.......
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/entanglement-gravitys-long-distance-connection
extracts:
Physicists have high hopes for where this entanglement-spacetime connection will lead them. General relativity brilliantly describes how spacetime works; this new research may reveal where spacetime comes from and what it looks like at the small scales governed by quantum mechanics. Entanglement could be the secret ingredient that unifies these supposedly incompatible views into a theory of quantum gravity, enabling physicists to understand conditions inside black holes and in the very first moments after the Big Bang.
QUANTUM SKEPTICS A New York Times article on May 4, 1935, highlighted Einstein’s concerns about quantum mechanics, especially its feature now known as entanglement. Today physicists are exploring links between entanglement and Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
That link may help unite QM and GR in a long sort after QGT. A goal well worth obtaining for many reasons.
The following article puts that in rather simplistic language.......
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/entanglement-gravitys-long-distance-connection
extracts:
Physicists have high hopes for where this entanglement-spacetime connection will lead them. General relativity brilliantly describes how spacetime works; this new research may reveal where spacetime comes from and what it looks like at the small scales governed by quantum mechanics. Entanglement could be the secret ingredient that unifies these supposedly incompatible views into a theory of quantum gravity, enabling physicists to understand conditions inside black holes and in the very first moments after the Big Bang.
QUANTUM SKEPTICS A New York Times article on May 4, 1935, highlighted Einstein’s concerns about quantum mechanics, especially its feature now known as entanglement. Today physicists are exploring links between entanglement and Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
Last edited:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10714-010-1034-0
Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement:
Abstract:
In this essay, we argue that the emergence of classically connected spacetimes is intimately related to the quantum entanglement of degrees of freedom in a non-perturbative description of quantum gravity. Disentangling the degrees of freedom associated with two regions of spacetime results in these regions pulling apart and pinching off from each other in a way that can be quantified by standard measures of entanglement.
Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement:
Abstract:
In this essay, we argue that the emergence of classically connected spacetimes is intimately related to the quantum entanglement of degrees of freedom in a non-perturbative description of quantum gravity. Disentangling the degrees of freedom associated with two regions of spacetime results in these regions pulling apart and pinching off from each other in a way that can be quantified by standard measures of entanglement.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The really funny point is that you cannot resist to repeat your .... boldface. The critical argument - that "categorically" is not a word a real scientist would use in such a context - you prefer to ignore (as usual). Your answer is instead, a personal attack - "unprofessional". As usual, without any evidence.
I have said nothing about your beloved "noted professionals". I have made a comment about your behavior. My point about the content of ER=EPR is, btw, not that it is speculative. It is that it is bad speculation.
You may think it is relevant. I don't think so. Science is not democracy. So, what is fashionable today does not count. What counts are results. ER=EPR has yet to deliver. My theory has delivered.
Of course, this is part of the reason I think it is a completely hopeless speculation. But let's note that this is a speculation which, even if the authors use some string theory vocabulary, is far away from the original string theory. Which is a standard quantum theory. ER=EPR is something very different, something the same string theorists would have rejected out of hand 20 years ago.
Your continued argument that "categorically" is not a word that scientists use, is the height of pedantry and stupidity, and imho, reflects an unprofessional attitude.
Obviously Professor Susskind is certainly more note worthy then yourself [fact]And your sarcasm with the use of the word "beloved" with regards to professionals, says something else.
With regards to your view of a "personal attack" again, I'm attacking your own ether hypothesis, yet you categorically [ooops sorry,
] dismiss this paper following the OP, when no body involved has claimed anything different other than it is speculative: Now you say bad speculation. That's your opinion and possibly you maybe right, just as you maybe wrong about your own speculative ether theory. You seem very thin skinned, while approaching others, me here and your adversaries in the political forum, with plenty of vigour.Need I say more?
That's your right and privilege to think what you want, as wrong as it obviously is: As I said, this subject is being hotly debated...your ether theory?
ER=EPR has yet to deliver? Correct!!! So? Do not all scientific theories start out as speculative? hmmm?
Tomorrow it may reveal the QGT scientists have been seeking.
An Einstein also rejected part of GR in the early part of GR, so again, So?
String theory and its many derivitives has progressed...You reject it...that's your right...many do not reject it and are still conducting research.
Sure you do! Just as Schmelzer does!
and the same sense of saying they 100% do not exist, or the certainly do not exist.Back onto relevant material......
I see the existence or otherwise of worm holes, summed up in the paper I recently linked to......
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05295v2.pdf
Cosmological wormholes in f(R) theories of gravity:
Abstract:
Motivated by recent proposals of possible wormhole existence in galactic halos, we analyse the cosmological evolution of wormhole solutions in modified f(R) gravity. We construct a dynamical wormhole that asymptotically approaches FLRW universe, with supporting material going to the perfect isotropic fluid described by the equation of state for radiation and matter dominated universe respectively. Our analysis is based on an approximation of a small wormhole - a wormhole that can be treated as matched with the FLRW metric at some radial coordinate much smaller than the Hubble radius, so that cosmological boundary conditions are satisfied. With a special interest in viable wormhole solutions, we refer to the results of reconstruction procedure and use f(R) functions which lead to the experimentally confirmed ΛCDM expansion history of the universe. Solutions we find imply no need for exotic matter near the throat of considered wormholes, while in the limit of f(R) = R this need is always present during radiation and matter dominated epoch.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Wrong. Science looks, from a layman's point of view, often very pedantic. If a reviewer finds in a scientific paper even a minor point which is wrong, this is sufficient to reject it or, at least, to require modification. So, professional behavior often looks pedantic. If my objection is stupid is another claim, and, given that you give no evidence, it is simply name-calling.
LOL, you think the worth of a theoretical scientist can be established before the theories he proposes have been supported by scientific evidence? As far, nor ER=EPR as my ether theory have not been supported by sufficient empirical evidence. From theoretical evaluation, my ether theory solves serious problems of modern physics, but, once it is ignored, you cannot find nor arguments supporting this, nor arguments against it, so, you are unable to decide about this.
You have not attacked my ether theory, simply because you are unable to do it. All you do is to repeat the trivial point that ether theories are not fashionable today. If I would be thin-skinned, I would not visit such forums like this where personal attacks are somehow part of the typical communication.I'm attacking your own ether hypothesis, yet you categorically [ooops sorry,
Need I say more?
You have, possibly, heard about Popper's criterion of demarcation which distinguishes an empirical, scientific theory from other things? They have to make falsifiable predictions. ER=EPR does not make any such predictions. My ether model predicts the fermions and gauge fields of the SM, which is a very nontrivial falsifiable prediction. This is an essential difference between the two approaches. Here, ER=EPR has yet to deliver.
Maybe. But before experimentators even start to think about testing ER=EPR, Susskind and Co have yet to work a lot, and to deliver at least a falsifiable theory.
String theorists too have yet to deliver a falsifiable theory.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
That's not fair, the "so worm holes must exist" conclusion I have not seen from paddoboy. If he has made such a claim, link please.
Of course, to cry "No scientist worth his salt has categorically denied existence of Worm Holes" is quite meaningless, given that the variant "No scientist worth his salt has categorically claimed existence of Worm Holes" has not been rejected too. So, it makes sense to ask what would be the point of this claim, if it is not to suggest that wormholes exist. But this is another question.
Of course, to cry "No scientist worth his salt has categorically denied existence of Worm Holes" is quite meaningless, given that the variant "No scientist worth his salt has categorically claimed existence of Worm Holes" has not been rejected too. So, it makes sense to ask what would be the point of this claim, if it is not to suggest that wormholes exist. But this is another question.
While true in cases of experimental and observational data, it most definitely is not true with the silly semantics re the word "categorically" that you have stooped to. Whether physicists use the word or not [and they certainly would despite your claims otherwise] the meaning is readily defined.
"No physicist will ever say that worm holes categorically do not exist".
The worth of the scientists involved, have been established for decades, and the potential of their speculative research, demands that it be continued, not withstanding rather obtuse, semantic debates on a public forum.
Your ether hypothetical remains without citation in oblivion.
ER=EPR is being researched, discussed and debated in professional circles at this time. My remark re your "thin skin" stems from your rather hypocritical defining of adhoms when applied to your adversaries, as compared to your own,
Yep, that's science. And the research will continue until success is achieved, and/or another promising avenue opens up.