Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anonymous: on 11/9/13 at 18:44pm UTC, wrote Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search...

Anonymous: on 11/9/13 at 18:34pm UTC, wrote Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search...

JOE BLOGS: on 4/18/11 at 10:49am UTC, wrote Holy Trinity equation. 1/3 APPLE+1/3 oRANGE+1/3 oRANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE ...

JOE BLOGS: on 4/5/11 at 7:48am UTC, wrote Import random physics equations from the web using MATHS TYPE 6.6 Cut and...

JOE BLOGS: on 2/28/11 at 13:00pm UTC, wrote WHat came before the big bang. Steve Jeffreys Collary to the law of non...

JOE BLOGS: on 2/27/11 at 5:37am UTC, wrote Dear Phil, To make a theory of everything we have to have...

JOE BLOGS: on 2/27/11 at 5:36am UTC, wrote The best ideas for unification are ignored. ...

JOE BLOGS: on 2/27/11 at 5:29am UTC, wrote Convert a 360 day circular earth orbit in 11 dimensions to a 365 days...



FQXi FORUM
July 23, 2017

ARTICLE: The Quantum PlayStation [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 00:56 GMT
I learned and figured out to do with Linux a year ago, but the cost was a bit much. So I put the plan on hold. Now I am reinspired. I just looked on Craig's list and the price for used ps3s are coming within a price range where I can start getting my personal supercomputer up and running.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Jeffery Hart wrote on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 01:05 GMT
Is it not true that LQG is a highly speculative theory with no proof whatsoever?

Then why are they modeling it?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 09:30 GMT
To see if there's any merit to it, in a relatively cheap and easy way, perhaps?

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 03:35 GMT
LQG has its problems, but since it is based pretty closely to general relativity the idea can't be completely wrong.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


kev wrote on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 20:02 GMT
if they are looking to do it inexpensively, why use playstations running linux?

for half price you could build a far more powerful computer from off the shelf components.

hmmmm.

and regarding lqg not being completely wrong--are there other physical theories that are partly right and partly wrong? which part of lqg do you think is right? thanks!

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 19:04 GMT
Hi Kev

Interesting questions on which parts of LQG are right.

My guess is the first bit is all a bit loopy, only some teeny bits of the middle part are ok, but the last bit is quite weighty and deadly serious.

But more serious still, Other 'part right' theries? Almost all, including that there's intelligent life somewhere in our galaxy, and certainly the STR;

The postulates and principle are fine, but then we go making assumptions, which is where it all went wrong. So can we not tell the difference between two electrons or bunches of protons moving through the vacuum in an accelerator at different speeds? or Voyager 2's similarly impeded progress and disturbance when she left the Heliosphere into the galactic interstellar medium? 'Holy Cow'comes to mind!

Is that reasonable?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 03:36 GMT
Grand Unification?

Speaking of quantum gravity and SM unification with gravity, has anyone seen this attempt which is built upon the Mobius "Four Color Theorem ?? (URL below)

http://www.dharwadker.org/standard_model/

I have not seen a peer reviewed paper on this but there may be one.

It claims that the standard model is exactly implied as a physical interpretation of the four color (Riemann surface) construction, including all gravitational fields and a neutral Higgs. Speaking of the Higgs, the developer of the model has collaborated to predict the Higgs mass using the four color theorem in the following paper,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5189

It is interesting that the construction only allows for standard model particles and fields with Higgs and a gravity spectrum, nothing else. So it should be falsifiable quite soon by the LHC!

Would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts?!

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 13:22 GMT
KeV, you could make a mini-super computer with components. In fact if you use the Motorola chip employed in Macs as permutter that works with 2^n (n = 3,4, …) Pentium III (or similar level) chips you could have a decent machine. To do this you have to be prepared to do a lot of motherboard building. Parallel linking up PS3s is much easier. If you check Craig's list you can find used PS3s at a reasonable cost. In fact you could probably recover some of the cost if you then sell the controllers.

LQG is based on Ashtetkar's spinor approach to the ADM formalism of general relativity. That much of the theory is right on a classical level, for this is just a method for putting general relativity in a certain set of variables. The Hamiltonian is formed from the Gauss second fundamental form or extrinsic curvature of a spatial surface in a foliation. The Hamiltonian obeys the constraint NH = 0, for N = lapse function which tells how one spatial surface links to another. There is a similar momentum constraint N^iH_i = 0, for N^I the shift function telling how points are shifted between spatial surfaces. These are constraints which work in the lagrangian of the form

L = ∫π^{ij}dg_{ij} – NH – N^iH_i,

for g_{ij} the spatial metric and π^{ij} the momentum conjugate variable to g_{ij}. LQG then takes this and extends it into a quaternionic gauge-like theory of quantized variables. This part becomes a bit tricky, and there are variations on how this is done. This is then a way to construct the Wheeler DeWitt equation HΨ[g] = 0, for Ψ[g] the wave function(al) of spacetime.

So this is all too close to general relativity to be completely wrong, or to not have some bearing on quantum gravity. There are problems though with the whole idea, in particular the Immirzi-Barbero function or ambiguity with that. This leads to a computation of black hole entropy which is not correct. However, the whole scheme might in the future be shown to be some constraints which can “select” aspects of string theory appropriate for the universe we observe.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

kelly replied on Jul. 29, 2010 @ 18:52 GMT
"So this is all too close to general relativity to be completely wrong, or to not have some bearing on quantum gravity. "

but there is no such thing as quantum gravity.

what are the central equations of LQG and string theory?

what do they predict?

also, what novel physical characteristics do they represent?

thanks in advance!

and i have to agree with the above--why spend all that taxpayer money on playstations when a 1/4 of the funding would have bought more power without the playstation logo?

physics doth seem more and more of a dismal science, day by day.

report post as inappropriate


gregor wrote on Jul. 29, 2010 @ 20:41 GMT
pleaze forgive me as my anglas is not very goot.

but just because gener relativity is right does nots make lqg right also.

rather it makes general relativity right which is not quantized

lqg is quantized as q stands for quantum.

so lqg which is quantized cannot piggyback on gr which is nots quantized.

it is like saying that because a man can go into spase on a spase shuttle that the man can fly by flapping his wings.

no it is the spase shuttle that gets the man to spase and it is general relativity that flies also, not loop quantum gravity.

loop quantum gravity can flap its wings all it wants but it has not gotten us any sciense.

report post as inappropriate


gregor wrote on Jul. 29, 2010 @ 22:26 GMT
yah i am also puzzled by the need 4 expenisve playstion3 xbox type stations

in my country that would buy much food for physicists who work on real topics and not wild turkey chases that are over forty years old now.

it is as the elderly funders of wild turekey chases need to keep feeding the wild turkey even though it is not to be found ever.

one musts wonder what physics would be like if we did physics not dead turkies

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 30, 2010 @ 02:27 GMT
Gravity may not quantize effectively beyond the one or two-loop limit. Gravity on the quantum tree level, with internal graphs of order ħ is not at all hard to quantize. If this is done on the post-Newtonian level is not much different from quantizing Maxwell’s equation. I will say that I think fundamentally something else takes over from gravitation as the quantum field, but that is a bit of a long story. In this way quantum gravity is not some exponentially difficult nest of perturbative terms, but is a soliton dynamics. However, LQG may provide some answers for how quantum gravity should look at the O(ħ^2) level.

PS3’s are not that expensive. Building a mini-parallel processor or super computer with them is within a pretty modest budget.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

kelly replied on Jul. 30, 2010 @ 15:33 GMT
thanks lawrence,

you seem to write many thinsg without really signifying anything. for instance, you write:

"Gravity may not quantize effectively beyond the one or two-loop limit."

do you mean to see that

a) gravity has been quantized at the one loop limit

b) gravity has been quantized at the two loop limit

c) gravity has been *effectively* quantized at the one loop limit

d) gravity has been *effectively* quantized at the two loop limit

e) gravity has been quantized at the one loop limit but it has not *Effectively* been quantized at the one loop limit.

f) gravity has been quantized at the two loop limit but it has not *Effectively* been quantized at the two loop limit.

e) gravity has been *effectively* quantized at the one loop limit but it has not been quantized at the one loop limit.

f) gravity has been *effectively* quantized at the two loop limit but it has not been quantized at the two loop limit.

Gravity on the quantum tree level, with internal graphs of order ħ is not at all hard to quantize.

So do you mean that you have quantized gravity?

"If this is done on the post-Newtonian level is not much different from quantizing Maxwell’s equation."

What do you mean by post-Newtownian level? GR? How, if done on a different level, is it different from quantizing Maxwell's equations? When you say that it is " not much different from quantizing Maxwell’s equation," what are the differences?

"I will say that I think fundamentally something else takes over from gravitation as the quantum field, but that is a bit of a long story."

Where can I find this long story? What takes over from gravity? Have they measures/found this yet?

"In this way quantum gravity is not some exponentially difficult nest of perturbative terms, but is a soliton dynamics. However, LQG may provide some answers for how quantum gravity should look at the O(ħ^2) level."

You say that LQG "may provide some answers for how quantum gravity should look at the O(ħ^2) level."

What percentage chances would you ascribe to your use of "may." 10%, 50%. .0001%?

That would be great if you could please provide some equations to show that LQG quantizes gravity as after researching this on the web, it appears that LQG fails to quantize gravity in any way shape or form.

I would be happy to provide you links, if you could please provide me with definitive equations of LQG.

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Jul. 30, 2010 @ 16:30 GMT
hello again lawrence,

you write in a highly speculative, unscientific manner, so that makes it hard for us to understand anything you are saying.

for instance, consider your phraseology which i have capitalized to illustrated your non-committal obfuscation:

Gravity MAY NOT quantize EFFECTIVELY beyond the one or two-loop limit. Gravity on the quantum tree level, with internal graphs of order ħ is NOT AT ALL HARD TO quantize. IF THIS is done on the post-Newtonian level is NOT MUCH DIFFERENT from quantizing Maxwell’s equation. I WILL SAY that I THINK fundamentally SOMETHINGH ELSE takes over from gravitation as the quantum field, but that is A BIT OF A LONG STORY. IN THIS WAY quantum gravity is not SOME exponentially difficult nest of perturbative terms, but is a soliton dynamics. HOWEVER, LQG MAY PROVIDE some answers for how quantum gravity SHOULD LOOK at the O(ħ^2) level.

So you can see, Lawrence, that I will say that I think you may not have said anything of substance in your non-committally written, unscientific paragraph. "In this way, a bit of a long story may be told, while something else may provide how it all should look which is not all that hard to do and not much different from quantizing Maxwell's equations, if this is done on the proper level."

you write, "PS3’s are not that expensive. Building a mini-parallel processor or super computer with them is within a pretty modest budget."

yes but every penny counts when a nation is 15 trillion + in debt and the above posters' points was that there is no need to advertise for playstation but that the whole point of linux is that one can save thousands by using generic processors, especially when one's "science" consists of "In this way, a bit of a long story may be told, while something else may provide how it all should look which is not all that hard to do and not much different from quantizing Maxwell's equations, if this is done on the proper level."

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 30, 2010 @ 19:44 GMT
I think you are caviling too much over a short paragraph. By effective I am referring to effective theory. Perturbative quantum gravity is complicated and the number of graphs is enormous for anything beyond the two loop level. As for post Newtonian calculations, you can do the calculation with a metric expanded out to two orders beyond flat metric, and the Einstein field equations reduce to Maxwell's equations. Equivalently for g_{ab} = η_{ab} + h_{ab},

then for h’_{ab} = h_{ab} – tr(h)/2 a gravity wave is given by the linear wave equation

□h’_{ab} = 8πT_{ab}, □ = d’Alembertian

which is elementary to quantize if you are in a source free region with T_{ab} = 0. If you include the source then you have a perturbative theory in O(ħ^n) similar to QED. So this is a quantization of weak gravity where curvatures are small. For curvatures arbitrary perturbation approach to quantization out to O(ħ^2) has been performed, but not higher.

The cost for PS3 parallel processing probably costs less than a single mission in Afghanistan, so I don’t see this as a budget breaker particularly.

Anyway, for most of these messages I try to keep them short.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Jul. 31, 2010 @ 06:42 GMT
thanks lc,

you keep igoring the elephant in the room--actually two elephants

1) nobody has ever seen any evidence for quantum gravity

2) gravity has never been successfully quantized in any theory

as quantum gravity epic fails on both a theoretical level and experimental level, i am not sure why you keep trumpeting it.

above you write, "So this is a quantization of weak gravity where curvatures are small."

actually, it isn't, as "where curvatures are small" is a subjective quality. unlike qed, gravity has never been successfully quantized.

you write, "The cost for PS3 parallel processing probably costs less than a single mission in Afghanistan, so I don’t see this as a budget breaker particularly."

yes this is true but you logic makes no sense. wasting money on war does not justify wasting money on playstations when far less expensive computers with more power could have been used to demonstrate i am not quite sure what, as loop quantum gravity has never quantized gravity nor ever made any predictions which could be tested experimentally.

best,

:) k

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 31, 2010 @ 12:19 GMT
I think you are simply negative. Quarks were postulated some years before they were confirmed, and Schwarzschild found a black hole solution decades before they were found. There are some indications of quantum gravity, in particular signatures of AdS-black hole physics at the RHIC.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Jul. 31, 2010 @ 17:15 GMT
hello lawrence,

yes both quarks and the black hole were *predicted* via rugged mathemantics, not by mere wishful thinking.

antimatter was predicted mathematically by dirac.

so it is that i am not as you say "being simply negative." i am simply statingwhat physics is and what physics has always been.

there is no working theory today that makes any physical prediction of quantum gravity.

there is no working theory today that makes any mathematical prediction of quantum gravity.

gravity has not been quantized.

there is no evidence for quantized gravity. please do not take this personally, but there just simply isn't.

these are merely facts, and i think you will agree that as physicists we must deal with facts not merely play with playstations all the time in fantasy worlds of groupthink where true physicits are labeled as "negative" and denied funding while all the cash goes to playstations simulating, in your words, non-theories that "In this way, a bit of a long story may be told, while something else may provide how it all should look which is not all that hard to do and not much different from quantizing Maxwell's equations, if this is done on the proper level.."

i hope that you do not h8 me for speaking of truth and facts.

best regards,

k :)

report post as inappropriate


jerry brightner wrote on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 01:59 GMT
mr. crowell states, "The cost for PS3 parallel processing probably costs less than a single mission in Afghanistan, so I don’t see this as a budget breaker particularly."

well, this is perhaps an apt comparison as the federal reserve funds both the afghanistan war and modern physics, which is why mr. crowell sounds like someobody working for the federal reserve, as opposed to, say, a physicist.

for instance, mr. alan greenpsan once said, “I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said.” :)

as lqg is alos funded by the fiat dollar, mr. crowell writes, "In this way, a bit of a long story may be told, while something else may provide how it all should look which is not all that hard to do and not much different from quantizing Maxwell's equations, if this is done on the proper level." :)

Greenspan wrote, “The Fact that our economical models at The Fed, the best in the world, have been wrong for fourteen straight quarters, does not mean they will not be right in the fifteenth quarter,” and this is pretty much the philosophy backing lqg at this point, except that lqg is supposed to be physics where hope and good intentions should never be allowed to trump physical reality.

As millions lose their jobs and homes, I guess it is good to see others getting playstations to support the fanatsy physics that has enriched the elders who sit atop forty+ years of unprecedented failure exceeded only by unprecedented funding an unparalleled egoes, which have displaced true physics from the academy.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 14:19 GMT
B-modes in the CMB are a prediction of gravitons in the early universe, so this is a prediction. There are also correlations with QCD and black hole or AdS physics. I don't think hammering on a keyboard much on this is a productive use of my time. I think you two are just negative.

Anyway, to use the economic arguments, why don't we just close out physics entirely? Come on. lets take all these speculative people in universities and throw them out on their butts? Let's close down mathematics departments while we are at it. After all, this is clearly a waste of money and is helping to keep so many millions of people out of work, right? But we gotta keep the wars on, and when the GOP comes roaring back it is possible we may get another war with Iran. Now that is a real productive use of our time and money.

It is people like you two who have a tendency to set the world into a dark age.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 15:54 GMT
hello lawrence,

actually lqg has noting to do with b-modes in the cmb. lqg makes no predictions, and like lqg "B-modes in the CMB are a prediction of gravitons in the early universe, so this is a prediction," is an unscientific, untestable prediction on par with "i predict that monkeys will fly out of your nose." speculative predictions do not a science make.

no need to politicize...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 19:27 GMT
This is not about cargo-cult science. That happens when people adamantly want a certain result to obtain, and are then willing to bend logic and reason to make it so.

The point about B-modes is this is a prediction concerning gravitons, whether that be string theory based, LQG or maybe some overlap of the two.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


patrick wrote on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 20:54 GMT
but lawrence, the above writers are right.

lqg and string theory make absolutely no scientific predictions.

you are aware of this, right?

have you read woit or somlin? do you disagree with them?

report post as inappropriate


patrick wrote on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 21:37 GMT
lawrence, you write, "The point about B-modes is this is a prediction concerning gravitons, whether that be string theory based, LQG or maybe some overlap of the two."

so you are saying that both string theory and lqg each independently predict B-modes?

and when you overlap them, they still predict B-modes?

how do you overlap them? do you take the right side of string theory equations and match them with the left side of lqg equations?

and speaking of equations, could you please write out the

1) string theory equation which predicts B-modes

2) lqg equating which predicts B-modes

3) the overlapped string theory/lqg equation which predicts B-modes

thanks in advance! :)

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 23:34 GMT
To start with Woit and Smolin are LQG guys. I am not much on Woit, for I think he is too reactionary. Smolin is an LQG guy who is open to stringy ideas.

B-modes are due to the decoupling of gravitons in the early universe. There is some work to ferret this out with respect to tuning the cosmological constant with D-brane transversals, e-folds and so forth. To be honest I don’t track the LQG stuff as closely, but I don’t discredit the work. Through additional research closer bounds on the strength of B-modes and other aspects of CMB anisotropies can be worked and tested. The gravitons are stretched into very long wavelength gravity waves that stretch across the length of the CMB. This amounts to using the CMB as a “detector” of the universe far earlier than the end of the radiation dominated period.

As for some connections with particle physics, there are signatures of extra large dimensions at the RHIC. This paper by Nastase AdS-CFT and the RHIC fireball indicates signatures of AdS ~ BTZ physics with holography and, well quantum gravity.

The problem I see is that this seems to be a deluge of anti-intellectualism. The problem is not going to be solved in the next 5 years, and experimental or observational evidence is going to be rather oblique and difficult. This is a long term process. Remember that gravity is very weak, and further with quantization the scales are quite extreme. We are a bit like the ancient peoples who had speculations about atoms, yet the question is whether we will fail to push things, just as the ancients failed to observe atoms. These problems are hard enough, but it is disappointing to see people putting a lot of negativity on the problem.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


patrick wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 00:22 GMT
thanks lc,

actually woit is not an lqg guy at all. and lee smolin has never falsely claimed that lqg predicts anything. neither of them, unlike you, has ever claimed that lqg makes predictions.

but above you explain, "To be honest I don’t track the LQG stuff as closely, but I don’t discredit the work."

so basically you are claiming you know nothing about it, really, other...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


patrick wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 00:40 GMT
LC--you write, "As for some connections with particle physics, there are signatures of extra large dimensions at the RHIC. This paper by Nastase AdS-CFT and the RHIC fireball indicates signatures of AdS ~ BTZ physics with holography and, well quantum gravity."

So you are now saying that leading scientists accept both 1) extra dimensions and 2) quantum gravity?

I do not believe this to be the case at all. Perhaps you can name a prominent scientist or two who sees extra dimensions and quantum gravity as facts of physical reality? I would love to confer with them!

Thanks in advance for their names! :)

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 00:54 GMT
Gravitons are what predict B-modes. String theory and LQG are theories which predict gravitons. This is all that I am saying. So it will require further research to work out the physics in greater detail. This is all I am saying. I don’t know why this fire storm by you (who I suspect is the same person as all the previous wogs writing about this) is about.

As for LQG, I know the basic stuff about it. I just don’t follow publications that closely though.

As for quantum gravity and extra large dimensions there are a range of people who work on this, Randall, Carroll, Witten, Green, and far more. I am a bit player in the business, but I have my fun with it.

I am beginning to think you are just an insulting troll.

LC

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 04:43 GMT
hello LC,

do you really think that everyone who disagrees with you is one person? i can assure you we are not one person.

you write, "String theory and LQG are theories which predict gravitons." string theory and lqg do not actually predict anything, as they are not theories. above someone asks you to provide their fundamental equations, but yet you fail to do so. instead, you engage in namecalling, conspiracy theories, and ad hominem attacks.

please, LC, to save your reputation, please just post the fundamental equations of lqg and string theory.

please do not 1) call me names.

please do not 2) call me a troll.

please do not 3) say that i am the same person as others above, although i agree wtith them.

please LC, i think that all we are doing here is asking you to post the simple equations of lqg or string theory, and then to post those equations which you think predict gravitons.

please do not take this an insulting, as that would be unfair.

i cannot speak for others, but all i am doing is asking with a genuine curiosity, "what are the equations of string theory and lqg which predict gravitons?" or, if you would simply like to start with the equations of string theory and lqg which predict anything, that would be great too.

you say you know "basic stuff" about lqg. might this include knowledge of its "basic equations?" i should hope so! for instance if one boasted of knowing the basics of relativity or quantum mechanics, and if that person was a physicist, generally they would know the schodenger equation and the lorentz transformation, or at least e=mc^2. so what are the basic lqg equations?

please, lc, do not take this honest question as an insult.

if anything, i am insulting myself as i am saying i am ignorant of lqg's fundamental equations, as well as the equations which predict gravitons.

please do share.

please do no inovke conspiracy theories nor call me nor other posters names nor engage in insulting ad hominem attacks. we're all physicists here, so please just share the physics. thanks! :)

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 14:18 GMT
Hi all,

I beleive the same, strings,lqg,extradimensions, reversibilities of time,mathematical decoherences,...and all these stupidities are just a joke to imply confusions because sometimes the truth is not liked by all.

These systems posses teams, jobs, ....thus you can understand why it exists strategies of these stupidities.

All that is an ocean of consfusions without real objective physicality and its intrinsic laws.

Our Universe doesn't play at dices ,please respect the uniqueness...some people shall understand better the foundamentals and our limits simply.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 15:54 GMT
thanks steve,

yes it speaks volumes is that all i asked for were the equations for lqg or string theory, and i was called negative, a troll, and i was accused of being a part of a conspiracy theory.

sheeesh!

all i really want to see are the equations of lqg or string theory which predict something.

please do not call me names, nor say i am negative, nor accuse me of trolling, nor partaking in conspiracies. i am not insulting anyone, but merely asking questions. please just share the equations... thanks!!

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 16:01 GMT
To Kelly et al, or et unum

The constraints of ADM relativity give the Wheeler DeWitt equations NHΨ[g] = 0, N^iH_iΨ[g] = 0, which in the Ashtekar-Sen variables or connections is the basis for LQG. As for some string stuff I wrote the post

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/651

on modular functions and string.

I am not jumping through your hoops. The similarity in language use makes me suspect you are also Patrick and . . . .

LC

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 16:53 GMT
LC,

i can assure you i am not patrick! yes--we both write in english. :)

please do not blame your failure to provide equations from string theory or lqg which predict gravitons, or anything else, on some strange conspiracy theory.

everyone can see that after being unable to provide any equations for lqg or string theory which predict gravitons or anything else, you descended into ad hominem attacks, conspiracy theories, namecalling, and labeling honset curiosity as being "negative."

perhaps you need more time to find the equations for lqg or sting theory which you claim predict gravitons?

how long might you need?

i am happy to wait patiently.

and please know that the wheeler-dewitt equation Wheeler DeWitt equations NHΨ[g] = 0, N^iH_iΨ[g] = 0 is completely 100% indpendent and precedent to string theory and lqg. :) you might as well claim maxwell's equations and F=ma as being equations of string theory and lqg.

perhaps you need more time to find the equations for lqg or sting theory which you claim predict gravitons?

how long might you need?

i am happy to wait patiently.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 18:05 GMT
The WD equation in Ashtekar variables and Sen connection is the starting point for LQG. As for deriving gravitons, well I am not going to write huge posts here. Just take the string in the target spacetime

X = x + pt + sum_n a_n exp(in(x - t)) + HC

expand this in a perturbation of the string length, take to second order and you can get gravity. A similar weak field expansion can be done with WD eqn or LQG, where you can expand the Sen connection out to get a pp-wave. These are 2-4 page deriviations. Do them yourself or look them up. I am not going to pound a keyboard for the next 3 hours.

As for language, I mean language use --- similar phraseology, tendecy to list with quotes, similar redudant word usage and so forth.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Jeffery Hart wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 18:23 GMT
LC: "As for deriving gravitons, well I am not going to write huge posts here."

HAHA!

Translation: "LQG and String Theory have no physical equations which predict anything, and I am just going to keep wasting your time, ducking, dodging and weaving, ejaculating random equations, and saying "you do the math i promise it is all there please take my word for it" while I get cash to torment honorable physicists and critics of my master's cash-cows and blame my inability to answer basic questions on conspiracy theories."

Ridiculous & hilarious!! And quite telling! Thanks for the good laugh! Shining a bright light on the black hole of deception and the debauchery of big-money "playstation" fantasy physics!

JH

report post as inappropriate


Jeffery Hart wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 18:34 GMT
Please, could anyone please help out our good friend JC with ST's & LQG's equations? Would be fun to see!

Sincerley,

JH

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 19:46 GMT
To Jefkelpatgrejerry,

Again, I am not spending hours writing a long post for you entertainment. In fact I am trying to get you to waste more time than I by writing more than I do. So far it seems to work.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Jeffery Hart wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 19:58 GMT
Hello LC,

This is hilarious.

Why would you have to write a long post when all that was requested is the simple equations of LQG and String Theory? Are you suggesting that they do not yet exist, and that you would have to drive them?

Why do you try and circumvent your basic lack of honor and knowledge by implying everyone in the world who questions the snarky, content-free, groupthink handwaving of ST and LQG are one person?

Why are you trying to play games instead of answering basic questions? Why do you write, "In fact I am trying to get you to waste more time than I by writing more than I do."

That seems to be a dishonorable pursuit, and for what purpose?

Why not just share the fundamental equations of ST and LQG?

I sincerely hope that you join us on the higher plain of discourse, rather than staying in the cave of your childish, mean-spirited games and juvenile banter.

Please now, enlighten all by sharing the equations or even just a link to the page containing them.

The world awaits your scholarship.

Best Regards,

JH

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 20:49 GMT
You wrote 189 words to my previous 43. It is working.

What equations? Physics is not about writing down equations. For what anyway? I am not going to write a whole treatise here. I do have other things to do. All of this over a minor defense on my part of the research presented here? WTF!?

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Jeffery Hart wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 20:54 GMT
This, sir, is hilarious.

No wonder we all quote you as we can't make this stuff up!

Lawrence B. Crowell: "Physics is not about writing down equations."

Lawrence B. Crowell: "Physics is not about writing down equations. For what anyway?"

Mr. Crowell has no time to write down equations as he is too busy playing childish games, counting words, sneering, and snarking, while coming up with fabulous new definitions of physics: "Physics is not about writing down equations. For what anyway?"

Newsflash for Mr. Crowell: Physics is defined by equations!!

No equation = no physics = ST & LQG. :)

Sincerely, JH

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 21:13 GMT
I wrote 58 words, you wrote 102.

LC

report post as inappropriate


Jeffery Hart wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 22:09 GMT
So here is the summary of what happens when people ask for the equations of loop quantum gravity.

1) Lawrence B. Crowell, in defending LQG's (supposed) "quantization" of gravity, writes: "In this way, a bit of a long story may be told, while something else may provide how it all should look which is not all that hard to do and not much different from quantizing Maxwell's equations, if this is done on the proper level."

2) When reminded that that is not really an equation, Lawrence B. Crowell writes the Wheeler-Dewitt equation which came long before LQG & ST.

3) When told this, Lawrence B. Crowell redefines physics with, "Physics is not about writing down equations. For what anyway?"

4) He also waves his hands repeatedly, says "you do the math," and states that he has not the time to write down the simple equations (but only count words and play little boy games).

5) He then comes up with bizarre conspiracy theories and launches into ad hominem attacks, accusing others of being insulting for questioning his thesis that, "Physics is not about writing down equations. For what anyway?"

6) Finally, he resorts to childish games of counting words while sneering and jeering from behind his funding for physics-free physics.

Could someone please help Mr. Crowell out? Could someone--anyone--please provide the basic equations of ST & LQG?

That would rock!

JH :)

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 00:40 GMT
Cool, you wrote 235 words, I wrote 8. If this keeps up these ratios will be like a stereographic projection of a sphere. Oops, too many words!

LC

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 01:24 GMT
yes indeed please would someone post the equations for string theory or lqg?

from LC's childish, puerile antics it seems that there aren't any.

thanks!

kelly

report post as inappropriate


Robert "Bobby" Sziliardo wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 18:23 GMT
Maybe I can Help. The gravitons you are looking for can be found using punnett squares. Often overlooked - this simple tool used to determine genetic probabilities can also verify a space-condensed wavefunction. Of course, with gravity it is admittedly a little different because other force carriers exist in space while the graviton is a manifestation of space itself.

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 16:35 GMT
could someone please provide the lqg equations the playstations are simulating?

without equations, what exactly are the playstations simulating?

lawrence crowell writes, "Physics is not about writing down equations. For what anyway?" but without equations, what does the networked playstation computer do?

please, as this is a community, could someone please educated us as to the equations it is simulating? do not academics have to share their research?

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 17:16 GMT
The lqg and the strings are a joke.

They imply any foundamentals.

Never a string has been found, never a lqg will be found.The extradimensions and the pub of E1..3...8...x are strategy of "business sciences"(curses given in specialized universities where the capitals are so olds,it's important indeed to keep the capital of families.Well,the sciences aren't that, the sciences are the universality and the respect of all things, objectives and reals.

Let's Consider What this "business sciences" is an under sciences where the monney is the main driving force.But be sure they are competents and even machiavelics.

I pray for them,indeed They fear to loose their jobs, thus they are ready to invent stupidities and even ready to continue stupidities even when they know it's false.

Incredible NO???? It's the Earth and its ironies.

Soon dear Scientists, dear friends, we shall pay our Oxygen, yes we shall pay the air,after all we pay already the water and the fire.Incredible this Earth planet,Oh my God ,it's serious there.

What arethese systems behind that.

It's time to begin rational there.The sciences must implant solutions,I regret but never these strings extradimensionally stupids in the multiverses shall be a reality.

I beleive frankly what some universities and strategists of marketing confound a little the research for the humanity.

They search their monney yes,and their vanity, that's all.

It's sad to see that simply at the planetary vue and global.

Scientists of all over the world......we are in a circus where the truth is forgotten for the pleazsure of opulences.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 16:35 GMT
Wow. I haven't visited this forum, because I am a pencil and paper guy with not much direct interest in experimentation.

It's a bit jarring, though, to see the vitriol from anonymous posters (or poster) on everything from a few dollars spent on computers to irrational criticism of a leading edge theory. It is unimportant whether loop quantum gravity is right or wrong -- it is a serious attempt to wed general relativity with quantum rules without need for extra dimensions. Can it be done?

In fact, there is an irony here. Neither Lawrence nor I believe that it can be done without extra dimensions. LQG does, however, have at least two important foundational properties:

1. Background independence and

2. Nonperturbative results

Anyone who doesn't know this would have to be completely ignorant of Lee Smoiln's work, and the previous literature, in which case one wonders why they would hold forth in a public forum on the subject of LQG. (OTOH, anonymous posters don't actually risk anything, do they?)

In any case, if we are to have a nonperturbative, background independent theory, we have to rule out some models to make way for others.

Personally, I hold for string theory, which Smolin criticizes for not being background independent. I think the criticism is not valid (string theory is background independent) as -- I believe -- does leading string theorist Joseph Polchinski, IIRC.

And BTW, physics really _isn't_ about writing down equations. Even mathematics is not about writing down equations.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 17:14 GMT
thanks tom,

yes, i was also jarred and dismayed, like you, to see lawrence crowell's handwaving, namecalling, and ad hominem attacks. :( so sad.

i note that you say that you say "physics really _isn't_ about writing down equations. Even mathematics is not about writing down equations."

what, in your estimate are physics and mathematics about?

could have newton, bohr, einstein, dirac, pauli, feynman, heisenberg, or maxwell been physicists without having written down equations? perhaps they could have been lqgers or sting theorists, but probably not physics.

E = mc^2 and F = ma are cool equatsions of Einstein and Newton.

What are the equations of st and lqg?

Please do share.

i agree that physics is more than just writing down equations, but without equations, it isn't really physics.

and thanks for intervening and asking mr. crowell to tone down the childish games, vitriol, namecalling, and ad hominem attacks.

now that'd be great to see some physcial lqg/st theory equations and hear what they represent!

let's get this forum back on track after mr. crowell's childish antics and red herrings.

:)

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 17:48 GMT
Physics and mathematics are not _about_ anything. One does physics and mathematics and only draws one's conclusions in the precise symbolic language we call equations.

Thus, E = mc^2 comes at the end of Einstein's theory of special relativity, that after 20 or so less impressive equations capturing the observed physical properties of electromagnetic phenomena, leads to the equivalence between rest energy and the kinetic energy of accelerated mass. I expect Newton's f = ma is similarly derived, from experimental results, though I don't know the history.

For string theory, you can go to texts by Polchinksi among others, whose titles I can't bring to mind and am not going to look up, or try Barton Zwiebach, _A First Course in String Theory_. For LQG, google Lee Smolin and see if that gets you what you want.

So far as I know, Michael Faraday did physics without equations, and Richard Feynman despised formalism, inventing diagrams to describe results of particle experiments. Perhaps a similar method would suit LQG, I don't know.

If you want to carry on a civil discussion -- even debate -- you'll find it here if you want to identify yourself and actually risk being shown wrong.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 18:03 GMT
Hello Tom,

do not the fqxi judges retain their anonimity? are you asking them to reveal themeselves? i hope so!

you write, "So far as I know, Michael Faraday did physics without equations, and Richard Feynman despised formalism, inventing diagrams to describe results of particle experiments. Perhaps a similar method would suit LQG, I don't know."

this is simply laughable. feynman was one of the best mathematical physicists, and most formal, of all time! sure his formalisms were different and creative, but they were entirely formal! have you ever read his disseration? 100% formal, as well as all his research! so what are you talking about, pray tell?

indeed bohr and faraday used lots of words, thoughts, and ideas reflecting physical reality, but lqg and string theory also lack these, as they do not look towards physical reality. for instance there is no experimental evidence of strings nor loops, nor quantum gravity. both bohr and farady were very loyal to physical reality and experiemnt, as was feynman. and at the end of the day, they all used math to express the final forms of their research.

but today both lqg and string theory reject experimental evidence and physical reality as there is no evidence for quantum gravity whatsoever. both lqg and string theory also reject maths, as there exist no equations for either "hunch."

it is hilarious, and quite telling, that you write, "Perhaps a similar method would suit LQG, I don't know." so all they need to do now is draw smolin diagrams? if they mimic faraday, they will have to turn themselves towards sketching physical reality and experiments, which the playstations won't help with.

:)

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 18:31 GMT
Oh, so you're an FQXi judge, are you?

And path integral pictures are formalisms. Okay.

And string theory and loop quantum gravity lack "words, thoughts, and ideas reflecting physical reality"

I don't have time for this nonsense.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 19:11 GMT
Tom,

I thought I'd check to see what transpired here since Monday. Who ever this person is they are not worth trying to reason with. For some reason all he wants is some list of LaTex'd up equations or something, and releases has all these barbed comments. This is not DiMeglio at least. Though I notice he and his sock puppets are filling up the "recent blog comment" sidebar. I suppose he wants to give the impression that in talking to himself he is at the hub of a serious conversation.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 18:44 GMT
hello tom,

well, please do share what words, ideas, and thoughts lqg and string theory have refelcting *physical* reality. bear in mind that there is no empirical nor physical evidence whatsoever for tiny, vibrating strings or little loops. please do share though!

you already admitted that st & lqg lack postualtes and equations, and without words, ideas, and thoughts representing physical reality, one has to ask "where's the physics?"

please do enlighten us all.

thanks. :)

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 20:05 GMT
Lawrence,

Yeah. Small though annoying price for an open society, I guess.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 21:03 GMT
"Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation ... Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." --R.P, Feynman

why all these bizarre accusations of being a sock puppet? it is quite obvious that numerous peopke are posting in this thread. why all this evasion of simply posting either the simeple thoughts, ideas, and physical realities that string theory and lqg represent, and/or their simple mathematical equations?

why are you guys ganging up in your butter vinidictiveness?

i'm not demanding any laytex. even a simple link to he page containing the equations of lqg and/or st would be great! certainly that would take a second or two.

the great feynman stated that in science one must always question the experts. and as you guys are experts in lqg and string theory, i am asking you...

i do hope that the greater community does not find your bizarre, dismissive, ad hominem-attacking, namecalling behavior representitive. and yet it must concern everyone.

"Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible."

— Richard P. Feynman

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

— Richard P. Feynman

please do not castigate, impugn, and try to shut down my curiosity:

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity." Albert Einstein

report post as inappropriate


"Bobby" wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 21:14 GMT
...which may or may not be my real name. I will say this: I am not a physicist, but I have a bilogy background as you might have guessed from my previous post. In any event, I have been trying to play catch-up the past 2 or 3 years with aspects of physics, string theory being one of them. I personally think string theory is junk science. Although many noted physicists share this sentiment, they are still apparently in the minority.

I can't "prove" string theory is wrong but an important point is that the community's enthusiasm for it - is extremely disproportioniate with its likelihood of ever being falsified or verified. Time to move on guys!

In evolution and genetics, we have been dealing with a similar enthusiasm for alternative, outlandish theories. They are called creation science and intelligent design.

I can't speak much about LQG, but with regard to string theory, I can confidently say that you have got nothing! Never did, never will.

If you have anything other than the endorsement of your heroes - then why don't you put that kelly blogger out of his misery and prove him wrong???

If it is easy as you stringers claim - then that will also be a "small annoying price" for communicating with an open society.

report post as inappropriate


gregor wrote on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 01:34 GMT
i find some exceellent sensical postings at dr. peter woit's blog about the tragedy of string theory and lqg and how it has destoryed opportunity for young honorable physics whiel creating opportunity for political lapdog useful imbecile pseudo-physicist student of elite failed guard of elders who seek to please not truth and passion and curiosity and honorable quest for truthful physics, but politics and polemicals of elder moneys regiments:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=30
77#comments

#

Bruno Galileo says:

August 3, 2010 at 11:12 pm

In the history of all of science, has a hunch such as string theory ever received so much attention and funding?

Truly, string theory and its handwaving ethos shped physics over the past twenty-thirty years. Even LQG adopted some of its tenor and tone, often stating in its own defense, “hey if string theory can be not even wrong then we have every right to be not even wrong too!”

One must wonder about all the lost opportunities. What physicists were shut out from the academy and funding? How many bright young minds were lead down a seemingly dead-end street? How many gained tenure not by science, but by politics?

As Witten was an undergraduate history/politics major, it would have been interesting to hear his take on how string theory politicized and polemicized science.

Best,

Bruno Galileo

#

CNX says:

August 5, 2010 at 7:00 am

As Thomas Kuhn stated in his book about Scientific Revolutions, in many cases new ideas/theories do not just replace the old ones by being more successful, but they simply outlive them: they only get established when the older generation of supporters for the one theory gradually die out and the younger generation prefers the new theory. I think this is the most likely scenario how String theory will fade out, if it does at all, and this can take a very long time(Too long for middle-aged people to witness?). However, if the theory continues to win the souls of the younger physics students, whether by its rosy prospects(?), virility(?) or career pressure from its established, influential practitioners, then it may still be able to survive many more generations. In that case, even during the entire lifetime of a younger person such as me fundamental theoretical physics may continue in its current shape, monopolized by one seemingly promising theory which does not live up to its huge expectations.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p
=3077#comments

please you all reads and this speaks like truth, no?

courage i wish upon you all to stand for goodness,

gregor

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 03:28 GMT
thanks gregor and bobby,

yes it it quite amazing the lengths that lc crowell and tom th ray will go to defend non-theories -- lacking postulates, equations, and physically meaningul models -- the very opposite of physics.

bu i sense a paradigm shift, as both tom th ray and lb crowell are looking foolish, engaging in little word counting games and going so far as to say that physics is not about equations, nor anything really. this is the party line that gets one funding it seems.

but it seems their gig is almost up, as how many young physicsts are going to follow third-generation, meaninghless handwaving consisting of neither equations nore ideas nor anything else. it is just not sexy to follow blind, politicized and polemicized regimes whcih are physics-free. what does it offer the soul and ruggged physicist whose highest payment is not money, but truth?

both tom and crowell are making quite a display, lamenting the fact that we live in an open and free society, which they would want to change, to keep out those who question the experts of failed regimes.

keep up the good work all!

time is on science's and freedom's side!

kelly

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 20:45 GMT
hi all ,

Who???

Kel= nat.... from......latitue east ?????

just curious....

Steve

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 8, 2010 @ 14:41 GMT
Perhaps we can let the Great Physicists resolve the disagreements here--saw this on woit's blog:

Guiding principles from the great physicists to take us beyond the standard model!

Perhaps if we focus on the common philosophy of the great physicists as to what physics is and ought be, expressed in their simple words reflecting infinite wisdom, we will be better prepared to advance...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Joe Blogs wrote on Dec. 23, 2010 @ 09:55 GMT
The secret of the big crunch is that mass is four states in one and the four forces are a superforce which is repulsive.

That is prior to the big bang.

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Jan. 17, 2011 @ 16:38 GMT
The cyclical universe is like a bouncing ball with each big bang/big crunch energy is lost due to entropy.

And for a bouncing ball 2+2 does not equal 4 over 4 cycles..........

To make the universal energy equation equal mass must increase and the speed of light must incease as you cycle back in time.

With endless time mass becomes infinite.

WHich EInstein thought was a paradox and a dealbreaker..........

This fudge of mass increasing does balance 2+2=4 exactly but leaves us with the problem of a begining of infinite mass..............

Model this on the PS2.

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 04:42 GMT
Here is a program for the quantum playstation.

Hawking imagines 10^500 different universes each with different rules.

There is no need to imagine.

Import physics equations QM and GR from the net with MATHS TYPE 6.

And import them into a spreadsheet where they are added with EInsteins dice 1 ODD+1 EVEN= 2 ODD and 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 4 EVEN.

Print out millions of equations using a dot matrix printer.

And add them all up with 1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE.

So get one equation for millions of equations...

SIMPLE ELEGANT STUPID. SES.

Steve

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS. wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 06:05 GMT
What came before the big bang.?

OPPOSITE PARTICLES X AND Y CANNOT BE IN THE SAME STATE AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME PLACE EXCEPT BEFORE THE BIG BANG..........

Four states become one prior to the big bang and as a result the four forces are also one.

You can consider this a mechanism for the big bang four states in one become four states and one superforce gives rise to four forces.

Potentional energy stored in the big crunch is converted to kenetic energy in the big bang.

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 10:57 GMT
You can convert a 360 day circular earth orbit in 10 dimensions to a 365 day eliptical earth orbit in three dimensions plus one.

And reverse the equation to convert EInsteins space time to ten dimensions............

Import physics equations from the net QM AND GR using MATHS TYPE 6.

And write a program in C that adds QM to GR 1 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 2 ODD.

and 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN=4 EVEN.

Print out millions of combinations of equations adding apples to oranges to get fruit.

And use a dot matrix printer

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 05:29 GMT
Convert a 360 day circular earth orbit in 11 dimensions to a 365 days eliptical earth orbit in 3 dimensions plus one of time.

And reverse the equation to convert Einsteins space/time to 11 dimesions.

If you can't convert 4D space time to 11 dimensions then string theory is not right.

attachments: 2_simple_clk7.zip, clock.swf

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 05:36 GMT
The best ideas for unification are ignored.

Steve

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 05:37 GMT
Dear Phil,

To make a theory of everything we have to have determinism.

De Grogel said does God cheat at dice and his equations for quantum mechanics were deterministic.

Program a supercomputer with De Grogels eqautions and Einsteisn dice instead of ordinary random dice.

So that everything in this virtual computer universe is determined at least on computer.

Then you can compare and contrast it with the real world with ordinary dice.........

This quantum universe means that the end is determined from the begining of the universe.

The end of the universe is already determined from the big bang........................

You will have fun with Einsteins dice playing over 100 possible dice games and also you will be able to use them for serious study...............

After you have tried programming them into a superomputer let me know the result.

Steve..

EINSTEINS STRING THEORY OF EVERYTHING.

Convert a 360 day circular earth orbit in higher dimensions ( 10 or 11) to a 365 day eliptical earth orbit in three dimensions plus one of time.

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 13:00 GMT
WHat came before the big bang.

Steve Jeffreys Collary to the law of non contradiction.

Opposite particles X and Y cannot be in the same place at the same time in the same state exception prior to the big bang.............

Four states are one and this results in four forces being one one is dependant on the other...................

Try it on the playstation.

The mechanism for the big bang is potential energy converted to kenetic............

Steve.

So I have answered your question.

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Apr. 5, 2011 @ 07:48 GMT
Import random physics equations from the web using MATHS TYPE 6.6

Cut and paste QM and GR equations into a spreadhseet.

Add them 1/3 APPLE| 1/3 oRANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE (BIRDS AND THE BEES EQUATION.).

The print out thousands of combinations of equations using a dot matrix printer and plenty of paper.

Study the output of a years processing in a loop.

Looking for random rules to 10^500 different Hawking multiverses.............

Put this program into the playstation it is cheaper than CERN at 13.7 billion euros you can run it on an IBM 486 running C.

Comments please from people who have tried to program computers in this way.

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 10:49 GMT
Holy Trinity equation.

1/3 APPLE+1/3 oRANGE+1/3 oRANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE

1+1=2

1 odd+ 1 Even= 2 ODD.

2+2=4

2 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 4 EVEN

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 9, 2013 @ 18:34 GMT
Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search For Scientific Truth] and even more spot-on Unzicker-Jones[Bankrupting Physics: How Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility] critiques shame physics’ shameless rock-star media-hype P.R. spin-doctoring veracity-abandoning touting sci-fi “show-biz” trending viral exacerbated by online social networks...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 9, 2013 @ 18:44 GMT
Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search For Scientific Truth] and even more spot-on Unzicker-Jones[Bankrupting Physics: How Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility] critiques shame physics’ shameless rock-star media-hype P.R. spin-doctoring veracity-abandoning touting sci-fi “show-biz” trending viral exacerbated by online social networks...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.