String theory and Loop Quantum theory combined?

[ajb]

Considering that it is only PROVEN through math,it is necessary...

 

Proven is not the right word. The aim is to construct a mathematical model, one then has to relate this to nature.

 

... but to try to do tests one may only need the knowledge of how it works but not at a mathematical level,...

 

Then one would not be able to make predictions with the model nor relate the experimental data with the model. (Assuming we have a meaning to the phrase "how it works" without mathematics)

 

...but if one were to apply these to actual technology, math would DEFINATELY be necessary

 

of course, but string or loop quantum technology is long into the future.

[JonathanSchmold]

Proven is not the right word. The aim is to construct a mathematical model, one then has to relate this to nature.

 

 

 

Then one would not be able to make predictions with the model nor relate the experimental data with the model. (Assuming we have a meaning to the phrase "how it works" without mathematics)

 

 

 

of course, but string or loop quantum technology is long into the future.

 

Ok here you win xD I guess math is required since a battery has NOTHING to do with physics but it was atleast a good suggestion correct?

[ajb]

Ok here you win xD I guess math is required since a battery has NOTHING to do with physics but it was atleast a good suggestion correct?

 

This is a moot point. You don't need mathematics to use or construct a battery, but if you want to understand how it works then you will.

 

If you want to contribute to string theory or loop quantum gravity then some mathematics is needed

[JonathanSchmold]

But still... I propose that a combination of people on the forum (Excluding me because I am only 14 and have not learned that math yet) try to do it? Maybe? Then it could be a combined effort in proposing it to a proffesional university and/or research/study lab?

[ajb]

But still... I propose that a combination of people on the forum (Excluding me because I am only 14 and have not learned that math yet) try to do it? Maybe? Then it could be a combined effort in proposing it to a proffesional university and/or research/study lab?

 

Well, most of us have other things we are working on.

 

It is an interesting question, but one I feel requires very deep knowledge of strings and loops, well beyond what I believe anyone posting here knows.

[JonathanSchmold]

True which brings me back to my original question of proposing it to a more professional environment??

[ajb]

True which brings me back to my original question of proposing it to a more professional environment??

 

You will get a similar response. If you get a response at all! For exactly the reasons I have stated.

[JonathanSchmold]

You will get a similar response. If you get a response at all! For exactly the reasons I have stated.

 

Yes but its worth a try?

[ajb]

Well, given your age and lack of formal training I expect the reply you get will be very similar to mine.

 

Unless you really do offer some deep insight. I am not sure what your idea is?

 

A spin network represents a quantum state of the gravitational field. In a particle language the graviton states, though I think this would not quite be correct as gravitons are a perturbative feature.

 

You want to give this another interpretation? Or consider spin networks based on other compact Lie groups?

[JonathanSchmold]

Its still a possibility hence the "theoretical" part in theoretical physics and I do not have the skills to prove this but I was wondering if someone could possibly think about this and help me instead of just giving up and being useless without attempting to try a very well stated hypothesis that needs help proving to become a theory

Edited June 27, 2010 by JonathanSchmold

[ajb]

I did not mean to cut you down as such. Theoretical physics is a mathematical pursuit, this is unavoidable. "Theoretical" in theoretical physics does not mean "anything is possible". It means you are using mathematical models to understand part of nature.

 

The honest advice would be to get a degree in physics or mathematics and then a PhD in theoretical physics, mathematical physics, or something related.

 

Now, it you want to combine string theory with loop quantum gravity how would you do this? One though is that you could think about string theory on a loop quantum gravity background. This I think would be very hard, if at all possible. String theory on curved classical background is tough.

 

A better thing would be to see if the two are in some way related. If one could make a clear relation between string networks and spin networks then one could be onto something. This to me seems the closest to what you have been saying. I expect this too would be very hard, if at all possible.

 

Maybe looking a relation can be found via noncommuative geometry.

 

Anyway, whatever you do will be very hard and require lots of mathematics, physical intuition and lots of physical interpretations.

 

Good luck with it all.

[JonathanSchmold]

Ok... here is my point... Since everything is a "fine network" as stated in wiki, the individual strings as stated in string theory could very well be contributing to the network as described in LQG BUT they work together "hand-in-hand" to prove a theory... thats what I am trying to get at

[AaronSichewski]

anything being possible also means that at the same time people may be able to combine the two of them and keep them completely seperate causing a new form like a string loop quantum theory or something like that.

[ajb]

Ok... here is my point... Since everything is a "fine network" as stated in wiki, the individual strings as stated in string theory could very well be contributing to the network as described in LQG BUT they work together "hand-in-hand" to prove a theory... thats what I am trying to get at

 

Well, you can't take Wikipedia at face value. I like it, but it is not enough to educate yourself. It is a great starting place.

 

OK, this sounds like you want to understand sting networks and if you can relate them to spin networks or in some other way combine the two.

 

Maybe, but from what I know this has not been achieved. It is not really understood how string networks are related to spin networks. I think it would be very nice it this were known. From there a combination of networks maybe possible.

 

It would require a lot of work to get a handle on this, if it is at all possible.

[JonathanSchmold]

Possibly one could exist inside another?

[ajb]

Possibly one could exist inside another?

 

As a subnetwork. I doubt it would be so easy. Not that I am very familiar with these networks.

[Bignose]

Jonathan, I think that biggest problem here is that what you are suggesting isn't as simple as just getting enough people together and talking about it. It's not like a weekend hacker party where everyone brings their computer and everyone writes some code and at the end of the weekend you have a working program.

 

It is something that literally would take years to get started. And, you'd have to have enough people with the requisite knowledge. As ajb wrote, this means several people with doctorates in theoretical physics. And doctorates alone are not enough (there are several members of this forum who have earned that degree, but they also have to have the knowledge in the specific areas, strings and quantum gravity loops.

 

It takes years just to catch up and read the current literature before one can understand it all and learn how to add something that hasn't been done before.

 

This isn't to say it isn't a worthy goal, it is just something that cannot be done over a forum and on a part-time basis. To do this write, you have to collect the right people together, and get grants written and given so that those people can work on it and get salaries for several years.

 

It isn't something that can be done on a forum, or with a letter to a physics professor, or with a single meeting with a professor at a nearby university. And, as ajb said, unless you can offer something really profound (including the requisite mathematical description) or maybe several millions of dollars as a grant, it will be difficult to get someone to take you seriously.

 

If you want to be part of this, it is going to take many, many years of the technical schooling and training, to become an expert in the area, publish papers in the areas and become known as an expert.

 

It is not impossible for an outsider to bring up something new, but it is very difficult. Without a mathematical description, all you end up doing is telling a story. It may be a good story, but you can't use stories to make predictions about the physical universe. Mathematics is needed so as make very specific objective predictions. Such as "If I cause an electron and a proton to collide at velocity x, the collision will cause y to happen" where y may be emission of specific sub-particles, release of a specific amount of energy, etc. The prediction of exactly what y is comes from the mathematics.

 

Without that kind of info, no one who is doing that kind of work (i.e. scientists) are going to be very interested. Because story telling is not science. Story telling may be in the first steps on the way to accomplishing science -- inspiration is a very funny thing -- but the first steps are not equal to the finished product. And, in this case, the finished product would take many years of hard work.

[JonathanSchmold]

Thanks for answering all my remaining questions in one post I still think there is a possibility of it working that way but then again, I wish I could back it up But could you atleast see if there is a way for it to be incorporated? There have been books on something similar to my own hypothesis correct?

[ajb]

It is not impossible for an outsider to bring up something new, but it is very difficult.

 

I was talking to a friend of mine about just this. We both think that it is virtually impossible for an "amateur" (we defined as a non-PhD holder) to make any serious contribution today. This is despite the fact that it should be easier today as we have the arXiv and open access online journals.

 

The main reason is that most people outside do not know how reserach works nor what is really involved.

 

I hope we can be proved wrong and an "outsider" can make useful contributions. We could not find recent examples.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There have been books on something similar to my own hypothesis correct?

 

Find the book by Smolin "Three roads to quantum gravity". I think that is the best place for you to start. You may well have to look up things in the book elsewhere, but that is what life is like.

 

Good luck.

[JonathanSchmold]

I guess its safe to assume that just because someone does not have a PHD in an environment very advanced they know nothing? Don't forget your place as a scientist and that a masters is one below you and a bachelors is (even I agree) well just pathetically low... I am only 14 so why is it expected I have to have a PHD to make a contribution? And just because you have a PHD doesn't mean you are a higher life form! You are just a human and since we are all very pathetic organisms with a primitive need for power, you are asserting yourself in the way that a PHD makes you higher in rank, while someone with a masters could very well have more experience than you, and picked up the knowledge required for a PHD but did not have sufficient funding for a PHD... A PHD just signifies that you are passionate about the topic studied, not that you are a higher lifeform so please don't be so arrogant and choose how you word your sentences if offense was not intended ok?

[Bignose]

Jonathan, I think that you took that way the wrong way. It is very hard to read tone over a medium like a forum, and I did not get any of the implications that I think you read into it from ajb's posts.

 

The simple truth is that it takes so much time to read and understand all the modern literature about a well-developed subject that most people don't have the time or inclination to do it, unless they are doing it for a living. That is, while one is receiving a stipend or grant or scholarship to go to school. Also, you have to be near a facility that has the literature or can get the literature you need to read with ease -- like a university literature. You will not find any modern journals of physics in the city library.

 

So, it isn't so much that you have to have a PhD to contribute. But, you do have to have the background and understanding of someone who has done much of the same work as a PhD. You have to know the current theory because you have to make sure that what you are doing isn't just a repeat. You have to know the past theory, so that you don't repeat past mistakes. And, then you have to be able to add something new -- again, per previous threads, probably including some rather advanced mathematics.

 

It is certainly possible for an amateur to have all that -- but you have to agree that it is rather unlikely.

 

This is just a result of how mature science in general has become. 100 to 150 years ago, one could claim one's profession as "scientist" and be reasonably accurate. That is, 150 years ago, one could stay reasonably up to date with almost every major discovery in science and make contributions in a wide variety of fields. One could make contributions in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. After that, one couldn't really keep up with a wide variety of sciences anymore, one had to become a "chemist" or "biologist" or "physicist". The amount of literature in each field was just too vast. Today, one cannot even call oneself a "physicist" anymore. One person cannot keep up with the entire field of physics. As ajb alluded to above, you have to specialize in the field -- string theorist, etc. And, many of the fields are like that today. One cannot just be a "chemist" anymore or a "biologist" or any of the other big fields -- each field has its own specialists in each little subject.

 

In another thread a while back, I estimated that it would probably take a person an entire lifetime to read all of the scientific publications that are put out in any one month this year. The paper database that I use for search, Web of Science, catalogs over 10,000 journals. Most of those release an issue every single month (there are a few quarterlies, and a few that release 2 or 3 issue a month, but monthly is a good average). Each issue has between 5 and 15 articles. That would be around 100,000 scientific articles released per month right now.

 

Now, that is all disciplines, but that is just to give you an idea of how much science is being published at this time. And why it literally takes people several years to catch up on the literature in their chosen specialty in their field before they even have an idea of what the history and the current state is, and what original contributions they may be able to make.

 

So, again, it isn't that a PhD is required, but the way the vast majority of people have the opportunity to gain the requisite knowledge is in earning their doctorate.

[JonathanSchmold]

I took into account that he could've not mean't offense but I wasn't fully directing it towards him... There are many people who are looked down upon because they have a lower than a PhD education, but are still a pure genius, and like I said, he should re-word his sentence, as to not cause any offense But still... I did not realize that there was that much literature to catch up on! xD But its still besides the point... If a hacker wanted to make hacks for a video game, an external source can get him started on something correct? Same with alot of other professions including physics. I could merely start a topic with my opinion and possibly start theoretical physicists on something new to put out there correct? If I were to start a trail, but someone else were to finish it, I still may have helped correct? I could have (metaphorically speaking) made the hacker have something new to start on

[ajb]

I think all I have done is made a statement of fact, based on what I see around me. Sorry, if it was taken as offensive. The question you posed is a good one, but a very hard one that involves a lot of mathematical ideas that I expect you have not been exposed to.

 

The PhD is really training in doing research. Without this experience I believe it is difficult for anyone to add much to science. Not impossible, but I am not aware of any recent examples, maybe modulo undergraduates or masters students that have been supervised closely. It is all about getting exposed to the ideas and the details.

 

Please, don't let this put you off. Read all you can, do well in school and get to university.

 

It has been nice conversing with you via this forum

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So, again, it isn't that a PhD is required, but the way the vast majority of people have the opportunity to gain the requisite knowledge is in earning their doctorate.

 

Culturally it is seen as "a right of passage" within the scientific community. I have noticed that since I got my PhD more experienced researchers talk to me in a different way. It is hard to explain, but now people seem to listen and ask my opinion. Not that I claim to have any profound insight into anything!

[Bignose]

Culturally it is seen as "a right of passage" within the scientific community. I have noticed that since I got my PhD more experienced researchers talk to me in a different way. It is hard to explain, but now people seem to listen and ask my opinion. Not that I claim to have any profound insight into anything!

 

And I think that it is fair to say that this isn't quite "right". As above, it is not impossible for someone to be able to contribute meaningfully without a PhD, though unlikely.

 

Any group of people that share a significant accomplishment are similar. Runners treat people who run marathons differently than people who just jog for 2o mins after work. Bicyclists who have completed "a century" are treated differently that people who just zip around town and campus. Mountain climbers are always asked "how high have you been?" Golfers who have scratch handicaps are treated differently than weekend duffers. (all I can think of are sports analogies at the moment...) etc. etc.

 

Completing a PhD is similar. Everyone else who has done it understands -- they went through the same process. They have made the same sacrifices -- in time and potential income for love of a subject.

 

I think one important difference is that very often completion of a PhD includes publications of at least one paper to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The peer-reviewed part is really important, because you have other anonymous reviewers who judge the work and when the paper is accepted, you know that the community considers it a worthwhile contribution. Being able to claim that is "joining the club".

[ajb]

I like the analogies.

 

Completing a PhD is similar. Everyone else who has done it understands -- they went through the same process. They have made the same sacrifices -- in time and potential income for love of a subject.

 

I guess this is really what I mean by "right of passage". Again, the analogies work well here.

 

 

Being able to claim that is "joining the club".

 

I agree with this.