The Big Bang and parallel universes

[Klaynos]

Please try and tone down the attitude, if you feel someone has broken the rules in some way report the post.

 

Did you know that quantum theorys don't apply to macrocosmic observations? If you say yes they do THEN YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PHYSICS. So, since BOTH Quantum mechanics AND Classical mechanics don't work both for macrocosmic and microcosic solutions .... then you are saying that just Classical mechanics is wrong?? LOOOOLL amigo do you realize people are reading what you are saying and they are going to evaluate your education on what you said lol? I really don't get why me proving by using the Copenhagen Interpretation that Quantum physics has not solved the Bell Inequalities and therefore is still no better than Classical mechanics AND THUS PROVING MY POINT THAT BOTH SYSTEMS ARE NOT ANY BETTER OR WORSE THAN EACH OTHER STILL HASN'T BEEN GRASPED BY YOU

 

If you properly apply quantum mechanics to a classical system the equations simplify to give you the same answer as classical mechanics.

 

Have a look at:

 

Legrangian mechanics.

Hamilton mechanics

Hamilton-Jacobi mechanics

And how this transforms into quantum mechanics. It's a very interesting transition.

 

In the wiki on Heisenburg Uncertainty principle it says the HUD and Observer Effect are mixed up all the time because OBVIOUSLY they are so similiar in wording. We know everyone but you knew I was referring to the HUD since it clearly is about how ALL math systems can't be perfect which was obviously my point but I'm glad you needed to argue some technicality that had no bearing on the topic whatsoever.

 

The uncertainty principle is a physical principle, not a mathematical one...

 

Are you familiar with it in it's more fundamental form?

 

If we know the commutator of two operators, we can calculate the minimum value of the product of the uncertainties associated with series of measurements represented by each of them, on a system whose wavefunction is Psi before each measurement.

 

Or more accurately:

 

[math]\Delta q\Delta r \ge \frac{1}{2} \left | \left \langle [\hat{Q},\hat{R}] \right \rangle \right |[/math]

[GF]

FOLKS, I'VE USED THE HEISENBURG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE TO CLEARLY SHOW THAT NO MATH SYSTEM CAN BE PERFECT AND I ALSO USED THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION TO SHOW THAT QUANTUM MECHANICS IS NOT PERFECT ONLY TO PROVE MY POINT THAT CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS ARE EQUAL YET I NOW HAVE FOUND 3 PEOPLE THAT CAN'T GRASP THAT SIMPLE POINT AND KEEP DISCUSSING COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND POINTLESS ARGUMENTS.

 

 

Klaynos ... I see what you found wrong in my post - I editted it because I forgot to put in the word PERFECT. I know Quantum physics can be seen in macrocosmic observations - just like Classical laws can be seen in microcosmic observations - I was trying to say that NEITHER WORK PERFECTLY FOR BOTH SO WHY SAY QUANTUM PHYSICS IS BETTER WHEN IT IS JUST AS INFALLIBLE AS CLASSICAL?

 

 

 

Are you going to tell me the Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong lol? Are you going to tell me the Theory of Relativity is wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

Folks, all these Quantum magicians do is try to talk you into illusions. If you want to blame anyone or anything ... blame zero ..... it's the cause of pretty much all the problems and paradoxes we find in math. Quantum physicists think they can defeat zero but I have found only the most intelligent on the internet know the difference between illusion and fact. Only the most intelligent recognize a relative argument when they see one.

Edited October 24, 2009 by GF

[Klaynos]

It is not complete, I am not sure what you mean by "not perfect" could you please explain exactly what that means, do you mean that you cannot know everything there is to know about a system using quantum mechanics? That is a limitation of reality not of the theory.

 

Classical mechanics is not complete, quantum mechanics does not replace classical mechanics it adds something to it. For macroscopic systems it reproduces exactly the same results and equations used in classical mechanics, see hamilton-jacobi.

[GF]

I'm in shock. It took almost 6 of my posts to get someone to finally see BOTH SYSTEMS ARE EQUAL. Every point I made was to prove BOTH SYSTEMS are not infallible and therefore "not a perfect system". NOT ONCE did I say Quantum physics was wrong. Infact, I should just restate again I AM ONLY TRYING TO SHOW YOU THAT ARGUING WHETHER QUANTUM PHYSICS IS BETTER THAN CLASSICAL IS A POINTLESS AND RELATIVE ARGUMENT.

 

 

I'm glad Klaynos now understood what I was saying.

 

 

As far as Quantum physics goes, most don't realize that some things are physically impossible so please don't consider every new theory as "empirical".

 

 

 

Again philosophically, the quantum dimension is not a real dimension. We live between the 4th (time) and 5th(quantum/ether) dimension. Reality works the way it does because it sets limits. Once you start to believe things that are impossible, your grasp of the material world will slip away.

Edited October 24, 2009 by GF

[Klaynos]

I'm in shock. It took almost 6 of my posts to get someone to finally see BOTH SYSTEMS ARE EQUAL. Every point I made was to prove BOTH SYSTEMS are not infallible and therefore "not a perfect system". NOT ONCE did I say Quantum physics was wrong. Infact, I should just restate again I AM ONLY TRYING TO SHOW YOU THAT ARGUING WHETHER QUANTUM PHYSICS IS BETTER THAN CLASSICAL IS A POINTLESS AND RELATIVE ARGUMENT.

 

 

I'm glad Klaynos now understood what I was saying.

 

 

As far as Quantum physics goes, most don't realize that some things are physically impossible so please don't consider every new theory as "empirical".

 

 

 

Again philosophically, the quantum dimension is not a real dimension. We live between the 4th (time) and 5th(quantum/ether) dimension. Reality works the way it does because it sets limits. Once you start to believe things that are impossible, your grasp of the material world will slip away.

 

I don't think anyone ever claimed QM was perfect... but anyway, we are a science forum not a philosophy forum. Your last paragraph is pretty much meaningless without some mathematical basis, QM is a theory that uses 4 dimensions as classical or relativistic theories both do.

[ajb]

 

ajp - I could explain how the Higgs, Graviton, and Tachyon are all the same USING CLASSICAL MECHANICS but that would be an enormous task and require a few pages (not that I'm not up for the challenge). I thought maybe you would see very clearly all the similiarities in those particles by my THREE links showing this but you do need to be able to simplify (good 'ol Occams Razor - another philosophers staple) and think relatively. *hint - they all equal zero.

 

I really think its possible but sorry I'm not in the mood today to solve all of maths toughest paradoxs... but I will try eventually soon!

 

 

So what is the claim?

 

You state that what are classically equivalent? The actions, the equations of motion what?

 

I may be I am being thick here...

[GF]

I'm hypothesizing that a particle that gives MASS (Higgs) and the particle that gives GRAVITY (graviton) WHICH ARE BOTH HYPOTHETICAL, THAT YA THEY COULD POSSIBLY HAVE THE SAME QUALITIES. Do you see how MASS and GRAVITY could possibly be the same thing or is this just too complex a thought? Personally, I think gravity is simply a direction (or end result) and has no power whatsoever other than philosophically being "a final destination" ... but that lecture is yet to be written and not a priority for me to expand on right now).

 

I'm saying that gravity is one of the most fundamentally debated qualities of reality EVER discussed, It's not good practice to assume that we know what gravity is ajb SINCE ITS ONE OF THE MOST DEBATED AND THEORIZED FORCES OF WHICH NOONE HAS MADE ABSOLUTE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT YET.

 

The tachyon happens to also be hypothetical and so assuming that its propertys are what you think they are is also, ofcourse, conjecture.

 

All I'm saying is I feel Occams Razor (the simplest solution prevails) is needed and I think we have over-complicated phyiscs today with too many particles and I feel it is possible to explain all the fundamental forces by eliminating a graviton and a tachyon. Thats all I said but I want to atleast applaud you ajb for finding questions to ask without provoking confrontation.

 

I know when a person comes to a forum with confidence and theorys that we can expect debate, I just hope that when that person "sticks to his guns" because he strongly believes his position that you people don't become frustrated and abusive because you cannot change that persons mind.

 

Use all opportunitys to learn whether you feel they are legitimate or not and I promise you that you will benefit more often than not.

 

I only post on one vid game forum regularly. I won't be a regular here because I just made the occasional post out of boredom here if something caught my eye. Anyways, what happened to the author of this thread? I'd like to hear his further comments.

 

OH, and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE Dr. Who ajb !

[Klaynos]

But they have completely different theoretical properties... Saying they are theoretical doesn't mean people have come up with names and gone "that could be it" it means there is a sound mathematical model for what each of the particles will behave like. For these two particles these models are completely different.

[GF]

Well I'm not alone ....

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon_condensation

 

 

"In particular, tachyon condensation is such a process which eliminates the tachyon which many physicists believe does not exist."

 

 

 

 

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/50304

 

 

"Gravitons cannot exist in reality, because they would represent a paradox, and violate the Law of Non-Contradiction."

 

 

 

 

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-327621.html

 

 

"Higgs Boson = Graviton ?"

 

 

 

 

http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~rudolf/GUT.pdf

 

 

"Stop looking for gravitons"

 

 

 

 

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=25335.0

 

 

"Gravity as a separate force is wrong"

 

 

 

 

http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-482.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OHH AND CHECK THIS OUT;

 

 

 

 

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/94759-gravitons.html

 

 

"Einstein considered gravity a warping of spacetime not a force."

 

 

 

Wow, I just pondered that very same thought my very last post - I like that Einstein fellow

 

 

Also, I can easily eliminate the tachyon and graviton in my mind, and I said they may be one and the same as the Higgs boson but one complication from that idea is the fact there are more than one Higgs boson ... there are 5 ... so again this is all just speculation but I am saying we should not be over-complicating things.

Edited November 6, 2009 by GF

[ajb]

So, as at this stage both the Higgs and graviton are "hypothetical" you can only discuss then in the context of a theory. So we should do that...

 

According to the standard model and general relativity* the Higgs and the graviton have different properties. Unless, we have some other theoretical model to investigate in which there is an analogue of the Higgs and graviton combined.

 

 

* Quantum general relativity can be discussed at tree one loop level as an effective theory. So, we have an ok notion of a graviton. However, we will ignore the full perturbative theory and the (expected) UV fixed point of the nonperturbative theory.

[swansont]

I'm hypothesizing that a particle that gives MASS (Higgs) and the particle that gives GRAVITY (graviton) WHICH ARE BOTH HYPOTHETICAL, THAT YA THEY COULD POSSIBLY HAVE THE SAME QUALITIES.

 

But they are not hypothetical. They are theoretical, in the sense that they cannot have just any properties whatsoever; rather the theory predicts what properties they will have. Knowing those properties tells the physicists where to look for them. The Higgs is spin-0 and has mass. The graviton is spin-2 and massless. They are different.

 

———

 

Bulletin boards and blog posts are not really references to which one gives much weight, unless one can actually establish the credibility of the source. And when you post links to discussion that contradict your position, one might question why you'd even bother.

[GF]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_neutral_particle

 

 

"In physics, a real neutral particle is a particle that is its own antiparticle. Examples are the photon, the Z boson, the neutral pion, the hypothetical Higgs boson, the hypothetical neutralino, hypothetical sterile neutrinos, and the hypothetical graviton."

 

Anyways, we are talking about the most complicated and hypothesized topics known to man so don't expect us to make any progress until further experiments are done or a better physical model of the mechanics of matter is proposed

[ajb]

Anyways, we are talking about the most complicated and hypothesized topics known to man so don't expect us to make any progress until further experiments are done or a better physical model of the mechanics of matter is proposed

 

We can be guided by mathematical constructions of theoretical models. When discussing the Higgs and gravitons (and really any other particles) we do have models. The experiments and observations will either show mathematical constructions to be not very well related to nature or may well give further clues how to refine the models.

 

You should no pooh-pooh the efforts of theoretical physicists so easily.

[GF]

and you shouldn't accept a hypothetical theory as fact so easily

[mooeypoo]

and you shouldn't accept a hypothetical theory as fact so easily

No one said it's a fact, it was said that it fits the mathematical model, and reality will either show the math needs refining, or the math is right.

 

That's not the same as accepting something as fact.

[ajb]

and you shouldn't accept a hypothetical theory as fact so easily

 

It is very subtle issue to decide if a theory is "fact or not". It is not really how you should question the validity of a physical theory. The question is "how well does it relate to nature?".

 

Anyway, as mooeypoo has stated my comments that one has to refer to a physical theory in order to discuss the nature of particles does not mean that I necessarily believe that the models relate well to nature.

 

Right now, it appears that the Higg's mechanism is the best way to give mass to particles and maybe realised in nature. However, other mechanisms have been proposed (like technicolor). Nature will have the final say on this. There could be something we have not thought of yet.

 

 

Gravitons at present are best understood in terms of linearising general relativity. Gravitons are to general relativity as photons are to electromagnetism. However, general relativity is not perturbatively renormalisable. We can only really discuss gravitions in quantum general relativity as an effective theory.

 

You should be aware that general relativity probably has a UV fixed point. That is, quantum general relativity (maybe with extra curvature terms) may not be a theory of gravitions.

 

In the context of the standard model of particle physics and quantum general relativity (effective) the graviton and the Higgs have different properties. They cannot be the same particle. This is irrespective of nature realising either.

[GF]

Wow, I just re-read that Technicolor information and do you realize EVEN IT DISMISSES A HIGGS BOSON/MECHANISM ... lol so I guess your Technicolor suggestion not only doesn't require a graviton or tachyon, but it ALSO DOESN'T NEED A HIGGS.

 

Funny, but isn't that exactly what I have been saying?

 

Sure, literally the hypothetical particles called a graviton and a tachyon act different than the other BUT that is only direction/orientation which I never ever claimed to have any relevance since the real issue IS WHETHER THEY EXIST.

 

I, as a classical physicist, consider something as non-existent until it can be proven to be real. If you give the Technicolor theory any credibility then you'd see what I have been trying to say about eliminating all these extra hypothetical particles.

 

 

 

 

 

You should be aware that general relativity probably has a UV fixed point. That is, quantum general relativity (maybe with extra curvature terms) may not be a theory of gravitions.

 

 

Yes, but it has nothing to do with the fact I'm saying that the Higgs/Higgs Mechanism IS THE ONLY PARTICLE that COULD be required to complete a system of physical laws that satisfy all known particle qualities. I am saying that we do not need a graviton (remember Einstein doen't even consider gravity a force) or a tachyon or even possibly a Higgs if we consider that perhaps the fermion condesate can represent the vacuum expectation value ( where the technifermion condensate is renormalized at the ETC boson mass scale) as the Technicolor theorys are proposing!

[ajb]

Wow, I just re-read that Technicolor information and do you realize EVEN IT DISMISSES A HIGGS BOSON/MECHANISM ... lol so I guess your Technicolor suggestion not only doesn't require a graviton or tachyon, but it ALSO DOESN'T NEED A HIGGS.

 

Funny, but isn't that exactly what I have been saying?

 

Technicolor is a possible set up that gives mass without a Higgs. It is based on previous work on QCD. The theory says nothing about a gravition.

 

I do not recall you stating that the Higgs' mechanism may not be realised in nature. The claim was the the Higgs and graviton can be identified and that both are tachyonic.

 

I must point out I have not worked on technicolor theories at all. I have not looked into "proper particle theory" for a little while.

 

Sure, literally the hypothetical particles called a graviton and a tachyon act different than the other BUT that is only direction/orientation which I never ever claimed to have any relevance since the real issue IS WHETHER THEY EXIST.

 

Tachyons are quantum mechanically unstable and are thus thought not to exist in nature. As you know, there are is no experimental evidence for the graviton in nature.

 

This does not change the fact that we can discuss all kinds if particles and fields within the context of relativistic quantum field theory.

 

I, as a classical physicist, consider something as non-existent until it can be proven to be real. If you give the Technicolor theory any credibility then you'd see what I have been trying to say about eliminating all these extra hypothetical particles.

 

You need extra fermions in the theory of technicolor.

 

What is a classical physicist?

 

 

Yes, but it has nothing to do with the fact I'm saying that the Higgs/Higgs Mechanism IS THE ONLY PARTICLE that COULD be required to complete a system of physical laws that satisfy all known particle qualities. I am saying that we do not need a graviton (remember Einstein doen't even consider gravity a force) or a tachyon or even possibly a Higgs if we consider that perhaps the fermion condesate can represent the vacuum expectation value ( where the technifermion condensate is renormalized at the ETC boson mass scale) as the Technicolor theorys are proposing!

 

Well, fermion condensates in technicolor theories could explain mass in gauge theories.

 

 

I do not see that this has much to do with elementary quantum gravity. Enlighten me.

[GF]

When I said classical physicist I mean Classical Mechanics.

 

Gravitons aren't needed in Technicolor because I believe as Einstein did that gravity isn't a force and the Technicolor model seems to me the most simplistic and uncomplicated model in my opinion

[ajb]

When I said classical physicist I mean Classical Mechanics.

 

Gravitons aren't needed in Technicolor because I believe as Einstein did that gravity isn't a force and the Technicolor model seems to me the most simplistic and uncomplicated model in my opinion

 

 

Classical mechanics has been shown many times over not to be sufficient to explain many phenomena, particularly on the atomic and subatomic.

 

Gravitons are not needed in (usual) technicolor theories as such theories do not attempt to describe gravitation. They deal with electroweak symmetry breaking and the acquisition of mass.

 

I agree that technicolor theories look more elegant and natural as compared to bolting on a Higgs fields to the standard model.