BenTheMan

This seems unlikely. I don't knwo what it means to ``stir space-time'', and I don't know if anything like this is possible. There is nothing special about light---it is just a particle that lives on space-time, and mediates the electromagnetic force.

No, Jack, you're completely wrong.

Photons are massless, and all massless particles travel at the speed of light.

Well, you use quite a lot of differential equations in Thermodynamics, and in solving reaction dynamics (have you taken physical chemistry yet?). The theory of ordinary differential equations relies pretty heavily on linear algebra. Also, if you ever take a quantum chemistry class, all of quantum mechanics is linear algebra.

What a joke. Farsight--- IF you would actually read that thread, you would see that I presented an argument invented by someone else as a point for discussion. In several places in that thread, I admitted that I didn't understand other approaches to Quantum Gravity. And from what Martin says, at least, Lee Smolin is pretty far disconnected from the field of Quantum Gravity. As for Lee Smolin's quote, it is clear (to me at least) that he is not advocating the abandonment of the Lorentz symmetry in the low energy effective field theory. He is simply saying that the Lorentz symmetry is not fundamental in Quanum Gravity. I'm not sure that this is entirely unexpected---Quantum Gravity, in general, does not respect ANY symmetries (just look at Hawking Radiation, if you don't believe me). Either way, I disagree with him, as most physicsts probably do. Well discuss then I showed you how your theory fails, and it is up to you to show me how it doesn't. If you can't do that, then you lose. This is how science is done, whether you like it or not. someguy---this is almost correct. Mass at a quantum level comes from a coupling to the higgs field. Photons are massless, so they don't couple to the higgs field. Electrons have mass, so they couple to the higs field. Farsight would have to explain why electrons have mass and photons don't, vis a vis the higgs mechanism.

Severian--- Parity and Time Reversal aren't continuously related to the identity---they are discrete symmetries of space-time. So I don't quite agree with saying ``The GWS lagrangian maximally violates CP, so the SM violates Lorentz Invariance''. I think I agree with Martin---Lorentz Invariance violations are generally taken to mean breaking the Lorentz Group itself.

Ah yes. This is much easier to say than to prove. What about quarks. Quarks can anihilate into photons. You would say that quarks are made of photons. But what about QCD interactions which give quarks to gluons? Are quarks made of gluons? (No.) How can quarks be made of photons AND gluons? Well, could gluons be made of photons? Absolutely not. Gluons carry color charge, and photons are color neutral. If photons were NOT color neutral, QCD would be spontaneously broken and there would be no neuclei, and (sadly, for some I guess) no Farsight. What about electroweak processes where electrons go to W and Z bosons? How can electrons be made of both W and Z bosons AND photons? And how do you give mass to the photons? We know quite well that the photons we observe are massless (the experimental limit is something like 10^-38 times the electron mass). What about processes like [math]\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma \gamma[/math] and [math]\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma \gamma \gamma[/math] and [math]\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma[/math] where [math]\gamma[/math] is a photon? How can neutral pions be made of two OR three OR four photons? So, yes, Farsight. I am a professional physicist. I have wasted my life learning how to distinguish bullshit (relativity -) from real physics. I have wasted my life learning about gauge invariance, Lorentz symmetries and the standard model. I spend my time trashing the ``competition'' because I am somehow deep down scared that you have stumbled onto the right answer and posted it on the internet. In the words of the late, great, Kurt Vonnegut, ``So it goes''.

Ah yes. This is much easier to say than to prove. What about quarks. Quarks can anihilate into photons. You would say that quarks are made of photons. But what about QCD interactions which give quarks to gluons? Are quarks made of gluons? (No.) How can quarks be made of photons AND gluons? Well, could gluons be made of photons? Absolutely not. Gluons carry color charge, and photons are color neutral. If photons were NOT color neutral, QCD would be spontaneously broken and there would be no neuclei, and (sadly, for some I guess) no Farsight. What about electroweak processes where electrons go to W and Z bosons? How can electrons be made of both W and Z bosons AND photons? And how do you give mass to the photons? We know quite well that the photons we observe are massless (the experimental limit is something like 10^-38 times the electron mass). What about processes like [math]\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma \gamma[/math] and [math]\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma \gamma \gamma[/math] and [math]\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma[/math] where [math]\gamma[/math] is a photon? How can neutral pions be made of two OR three OR four photons? So, yes, Farsight. I am a professional physicist. I have wasted my life learning how to distinguish bullshit (relativity -) from real physics. I have wasted my life learning about gauge invariance, Lorentz symmetries and the standard model. I spend my time trashing the ``competition'' because I am somehow deep down scared that you have stumbled onto the right answer and posted it on the internet. In the words of the late, great, Kurt Vonnegut, ``So it goes''.

I won't try to conceal it---Einstein stopped doing physics after he wrote down general relativity. He didn't even KNOW about the weak force because he more or less ignored what other people were doing. We now know that describing things geometrically doesn't work all that well (at least, in the way that Einstein tried to do things). So yes. Many formerly great scientists become slaves to their egos. The things that make them great sometimes bite them in their asses. I find it extremely odd that there is this Einstein worship cult---people who cite Einstein just because he was Einstein. I'm sure that he would feel the same way. So the fact that I am actually paid to do science somehow makes me less of an authority on the subject? The fact that I have spent a significant amount of time working to understand physics at a fundamental level means that I have no place to comment here? Let me ask you Farsight---do you have your housekeepers do your dental work? And since when are your bullshit essays ("Do you think you understand time? You don't. I do. It's easy if you tihnk like me...") are competition to string theory? Oh well. Have at it. I've said all that I can say to those who may not know any better.

This is very well understood by smart companies---look at how American automakers are scrambling to keep from losing their asses to the Japanese, who spent time learning how to build more fuel efficient cars, as opposed to bigger ones. This is not a concern if we let the market drive industrial R and D.

We should all be very clear that this is 100% wrong: This is at the heart of his ideas, and it is just wrong. It is not how time is understood physically. I want to point out that Farsight is not speaking form a position of any authority, and ``Relativity+'' in and of itself is a crackpot theory. If you don't believe me, I can link you to another forum where he posted this bullshit and the ensuing discussion where he couldn't answer simple questions.

why is this thread still in the science section?

There have been lots of people working on a ``theory of everything''...in fact, sometimes it seems that the word has lost its meaning because people throw it around so freely. Einstein tried to understand electromagnetism as an emergent phenomenon from gravity, in terms of geometry. This was a completely wrong approach---Einstein was brilliant for a few years, and then he kind of stopped doing physics.

Martin--- I cannot claim to have read and understood that paper (I am working on this one : http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1651v1.pdf, which ALMOST scooped a project I am working on), but it seems that this scentence: says that the answer depends on the regularization scheme. This is pretty troubling, because one would hope that a fundamental theory didn't depend on the regularization scheme (like QFT answers do). Further, it seems that the stronger statement: directly contradicts the quote from Smolin's ``Invitation'', no? (He claims that the discreteness is a concrete prediction of the theory.)

hypercube--- what else would a negative times a negative equal?

Depends on the physicist. Many physicsts like to think about these things because there are technically possible, and physically relaizable solutions to Einstein's equations which allow things like wormholes and time travel. Remember the guys who you went to high school with who memorized stats about how many photon torpedos the starship Enterprise carried? Well they all became physicsts. Few people actually WORK in this area, though. Mostly because it isn't taken THAT seriously by other physicists. I think the thing that got under my skin in this thread is people saying things like this: This really sounds like someone smoked about a quarter ounce of good, sticky weed and then went to posting random thoughts on the internet.

no worries.

We should be very clear about what we are discussing. Industry has a vested interest in research that can increase its profits. This is why companies like drugs like Viagra---old dudes will pay to have sex with their wives, the companies can charge just about as much as they want, and they can still turn tremendous profit. Industry has an interest in pushing certain lines of research, and that's what they do, sometimes quite effectively. foodchain seemed to frame his question in an academic environment. In academia, the government (NSF and DOE in America) funds research for the sake of funding research. The big grants are very competitive, but only competitive inasmuch as there are alot of smart people all trying to get the same money. So if he is talking about industry, then he is (trivially) right---by definition industrial R and D is ``coorporate''. If he is talking about academia, then he is completely wrong.

foodchain---you criticizing science for being ``too coorporate'' is necessarily an outsider's opinion. Athiest was exactly correct. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear with my definitions, but I assumed that one who criticized science for being ``too corporate'' wasn't talking about childeren watching ants. I will try to be more clear in the future. The point is that scientists are scientists because they wouldn't do anything else. No one becomes a researcher for the money. Nobody spends 5-10 years in grad school, working 80 hour weeks for the hell of it. This is why there are huge scandals when people cheat---remember the Korean professor who faked a bunch of data, or the cold fusion people? The comments you made in the original post made it quite clear that you don't know very many scientists. My advisor is sixty years old, and you should see how excited he gets when he talks about proton decay. And apologies it you get insulted by me calling you an outsider. But you are, and untill you have spent a significant amount of time doing science in an academic or industrial environment, you won't be able to speak with authority on the subject.

I don't quite understand this. Let me try to start from the beginning. Two detectors one light year apart are both set up to measure an EPR pair. Both detectors measure the spins of the particle (presumably at the same time). Detector A sends a message to Detector B and vice versa. So how can A possibly receive B's message at the same time it makes the measurement? What am I missing?

Sorry if I didn't read your biography. I just pointed out that you're not a scientist, so whatever view you have is an outsider's opinion. If your point is ``People who don't work in science don't understand how science works'', then I would say that I proved your point very nicely.

general relativity

How many green ones do you have? foodchain---I think you are trying to make big leaps in understanding. First of all, the way quantum mechanics works in the very early universe is just not known. This would require knowledge of how gravity behaves at a quantum level, and this is something that nobody knows. Why we have quarks is another question that no one understands. Second of all---don't try to make such huge leaps. Quantum systems are not deterministic, this is true, however, statistical treatments of such systems are still possible. I gave you several examples of such systems---an ideal gas, for example. Either I am completely misunderstanding the question, or you aren't reading my posts.

ugh. Can we talk about physics?

foodchain---it is my guess that you are not an actual scientist, or that you have just finished reading Lee Smolin's book. I can't really speak for all fields, but in physics (specifically high energy theory), this isn't really a problem. One must remember that there are thousands (millions?) of young and eager graduate students, who would just LOVE to show how some famous scientist was wrong. I am such a young(ish) and eager grad student. I really think that we are past the point of people throwing their weight around in the scientific community. If you want to know how a real scientist should think, you should read Feynmann's books. His father sold uniforms, and taught him from an early age that ``authority figures'' were only authorities as long as they had their uniforms on. Other than that, they were just like everyone else.