Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Wow that's amazing!

Now, if we could just figure out quantum gravity...

That's pretty neat actually, thanks for this Bic.

Originally posted by Liberator
That's pretty neat actually, thanks for this Bic.

Agreed

so, is this the official death of the graviton? or could it still play some role in gravity?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, is this the official death of the graviton? or could it still play some role in gravity?

Of course it isn't.....and of course it might.

Why would it be the death of the graviton?

if gravity acts through the warping of spacetime, and not through the transfer of energy through a sub atomic particle, this would be the end of the graviton.

afaik, they are mutually exclusive theories...

I could have wiki'd it myself, and that hardly answers my question

if you could, how would the two work together?

Originally posted by inimalist
I could have wiki'd it myself, and that hardly answers my question

if you could, how would the two work together?

A Quantum or string explanation of gravity might reconcile the two.

For instance the background radiation supports both a big bang and a string creation collision.

Evidence one way does not have to exclude another theory. It may even be both are going on and the particles are an expression of warped spacetime.

...

so this could very well be the end of the graviton?

EDIT: string theory isn't even scientific...

Originally posted by inimalist
...

so this could very well be the end of the graviton?

EDIT: string theory isn't even scientific...

Hmm, actually it is the theory of membrane space and 11 dimensions is as scientific as many other things.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Hmm, actually it is the theory of membrane space and 11 dimensions is as scientific as many other things.

not unless it predicts experimental results, which as of 2008 it had not...

unless there has been some fundamental change in the theory, it isn't science...

Originally posted by inimalist
not unless it predicts experimental results, which as of 2008 it had not...

unless there has been some fundamental change in the theory, it isn't science...

In that sense no it doesn't, however most new ways of looking at things require a while for evidence to be gathered, sometimes we simply don't have the tech to gather that evidence at the time of the theory.

More like General Theory of Stupid.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
In that sense no it doesn't, however most new ways of looking at things require a while for evidence to be gathered,

thats my point though. In science, evidence is gathered by predicting what results you would expect if your theory were true.

String theory has absolutely no way to collect any such evidence because it makes no testable predictions. At best it could be called a "proto-science", but it suffers from what is called "unfalsifiability", meaning, there would be no way to prove the idea wrong.

as of now, there is as much reason to believe in string theory as there is to believe in unicorns, save the fact that it is really smart and qualified people who talk about string theory

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
sometimes we simply don't have the tech to gather that evidence at the time of the theory.

true, that doesn't make the idea any more scientific

EDIT: that being said, I've never heard someone phrase the string theory problem in terms of tech. The problem is the strings exist in different dimensions that we have no ability to access. might tech solve this? sure, but this isn't JUST a tech problem

Originally posted by inimalist
as of now, there is as much reason to believe in string theory as there is to believe in unicorns, save the fact that it is really smart and qualified people who talk about string theory Once you through 'Science!' behind anything, it becomes rational and feasible. Bill Nye preached it for a reason.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Once you through 'Science!' behind anything, it becomes rational and feasible. Bill Nye preached it for a reason.

lol

I'm just jealous of how much attention physicists get

Originally posted by inimalist
thats my point though. In science, evidence is gathered by predicting what results you would expect if your theory were true.

String theory has absolutely no way to collect any such evidence because it makes no testable predictions. At best it could be called a "proto-science", but it suffers from what is called "unfalsifiability", meaning, there would be no way to prove the idea wrong.

as of now, there is as much reason to believe in string theory as there is to believe in unicorns, save the fact that it is really smart and qualified people who talk about string theory



true, that doesn't make the idea any more scientific

EDIT: that being said, I've never heard someone phrase the string theory problem in terms of tech. The problem is the strings exist in different dimensions that we have no ability to access. might tech solve this? sure, but this isn't JUST a tech problem

You've actually made a fair point; however, it might be said that the inability to look beyond the membrane of our own Universe is a technological one. The thing is M theory has some evidence to support it, but the evidence that supports it also supports the big bang... There might be ways our technology will be able to prove or disprove string in relation to the formation of the Universe via tech etc. It's probably the best bet at observation. We also need a way of observing the affects of micro dimensions on the 4 we are aware of again a tech issue.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
You've actually made a fair point; however, it might be said that the inability to look beyond the membrane of our own Universe is a technological one. The thing is M theory has some evidence to support it, but the evidence that supports it also supports the big bang... There might be ways our technology will be able to prove or disprove string in relation to the formation of the Universe via tech etc. It's probably the best bet at observation. We also need a way of observing the affects of micro dimensions on the 4 we are aware of again a tech issue.

no, totally

I'm not trying to say string theory isn't right or that we can't someday figure it out...

I guess it really is just envy of physics. Stuff that is like what some guy would write on a napkin gets books and media coverage... who even knows what an fMRI is?

Originally posted by inimalist
no, totally

I'm not trying to say string theory isn't right or that we can't someday figure it out...

I guess it really is just envy of physics. Stuff that is like what some guy would write on a napkin gets books and media coverage... who even knows what an fMRI is?

I do, but then my degree 20 years ago was in Biotech.

Originally posted by inimalist
as of now, there is as much reason to believe in string theory as there is to believe in unicorns, save the fact that it is really smart and qualified people who talk about string theory

In a certain sense there is less reason. We know what we're looking for when it comes to unicorns. If we see hoofprints in a place where unicorns are supposed to be hiding we know to follow it. String theory currently has an infinite number of solutions which have been narrowed down to "just" 10^500 solutions that match the basic rules we see in the universe but are all wildly different in what they predict. To extend the metaphor: paw prints are also count as a sign of unicorns, so human prints, bear tracks, train tracks, even nothing at all.

String "Neat Idea" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In a certain sense there is less reason. We know what we're looking for when it comes to unicorns. If we see hoofprints in a place where unicorns are supposed to be hiding we know to follow it. String theory currently has an infinite number of solutions which have been narrowed down to "just" 10^500 solutions that match the basic rules we see in the universe but are all wildly different in what they predict. To extend the metaphor: paw prints are also count as a sign of unicorns, so human prints, bear tracks, train tracks, even nothing at all.

String "Neat Idea" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

I lol'd for real

I tend to put a little more faith in something that the physics community takes seriously, but I hear you

String "neat idea", ha!

Thing is though, World is round is a neat idea, Earth goes round sun is a neat idea, mice come from grain and old cloth (I kid you not), is a neat idea.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Thing is though, World is round is a neat idea, Earth goes round sun is a neat idea, mice come from grain and old cloth (I kid you not), is a neat idea.

Yes, they absolutely were. I'm not saying String Theory should be abandoned (I'm sure there was a reason for the original supposition its based on) just that its ridiculously overblown. The idea that "the world is round" was meaningful when it was proposed. Presently the idea that "String Theory is true" is not.

Originally posted by inimalist
if gravity acts through the warping of spacetime, and not through the transfer of energy through a sub atomic particle, this would be the end of the graviton.

afaik, they are mutually exclusive theories... This is why quantum gravity is the Holy Grail.

If relativity says gravity is warped spacetime, and quantum mechanics says gravity can be quantized, the implication is that spacetime itself can be quantized, and I think herein lies the difficulty integrating the two theories...at least, this is how I conceive it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, they absolutely were. I'm not saying String Theory should be abandoned (I'm sure there was a reason for the original supposition its based on) just that its ridiculously overblown. The idea that "the world is round" was meaningful when it was proposed. Presently the idea that "String Theory is true" is not.

It does integrate nicely lots of other ideas. I do like frameworks.

Originally posted by Mindship
This is why quantum gravity is the Holy Grail.

If relativity says gravity is warped spacetime, and quantum mechanics says gravity can be quantized, the implication is that spacetime itself can be quantized, and I think herein lies the difficulty integrating the two theories...at least, this is how I conceive it.

Basically, yeah, I agree.

Originally posted by Mindship
This is why quantum gravity is the Holy Grail.

If relativity says gravity is warped spacetime, and quantum mechanics says gravity can be quantized, the implication is that spacetime itself can be quantized, and I think herein lies the difficulty integrating the two theories...at least, this is how I conceive it.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooh

ok, thanks

what evidence is there for this quantized "quantum gravity"?

Originally posted by Liberator
That's pretty neat actually, thanks for this Bic.

Glad to see that other people can appreciate this, most people I talk to about these subjects tend to give me odd empty glares of "wtf is he on about"

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
More like General Theory of Stupid.

Its quiet clever really when you think about it, I suppose the question is will it have an effect on our lives at all knowing this sort of thing.

Originally posted by inimalist
what evidence is there for this quantized "quantum gravity"? Experimentally? Afaik: '0'. Just theory. I believe this is where all the string stuff comes in.

Originally posted by Mindship
Experimentally? Afaik: '0'. Just theory. I believe this is where all the string stuff comes in.

I guess my question was more like, "why can't warped spacetime be responsible for 'quantum gravity'?"

Cuz that'll upset a few episodes of Star Trek?

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess my question was more like, "why can't warped spacetime be responsible for 'quantum gravity'?" Ah. In that case, if I may, I think the proper question might be: What is the equation which explains gravity on the quantum scale? In other words: there is no 'conceptual' reason why gravity -- spacetime -- can't be quantized; just WTH is the equation for it??

Numbiz, man. It's all numbiz.

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess my question was more like, "why can't warped spacetime be responsible for 'quantum gravity'?"

Because in quantum mechanics all fundamental forces are mediated by particles, or at least the equations work out in such a way that particles are the best description. Apparently this doesn't currently work out for gravity.

hmmmm

an interesting situation where our equations and our observations seem a little at odds...

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
More like General Theory of Stupid. Give this man a beer.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
More like General Theory of Stupid.

Originally posted by Mindset
Give this man a beer.

If your rewarding beer for this sort of thing, this chap needs a crate of beer I got blocked by the way for daring to question his logic.

tmbCGtyiD5M

I do like that Einstein used a pen and paper to come up with his theory and NASA spent almost a billion dollars to double check it.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/teaching_physics.png