Witch theory do you think is the best unification of general reletivity and quantum mechanics?
Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!
|
After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself, or visit the forum index. If you need any help registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.
|
|
| Guest Message © 2012 DevFuse | |
Page 1 of 1
Loop Quantum Gravity or String Theory/M-Theory? Are you stringy or loopy?
#3 6 October 2011 - 01:40 AM
tachyon, on 5 October 2011 - 11:27 PM, said:
Witch theory do you think is the best unification of general reletivity and quantum mechanics?
Neither one has been clearly, rigorously and umambiguously formulated. Neither has yet made a new verifiable prediction.
Nobody knows what M theory really is -- that is the most important open problem in M-theory.
Your question is very premature.
- Posts: 1,571 | Joined: 09-February 11
Reply
#4 6 October 2011 - 07:56 AM
DrRocket, on 6 October 2011 - 01:40 AM, said:
Neither has yet made a new verifiable prediction.
And as far as I am aware either string theory and loop quantum gravity agree with each other or they cannot tackle the same questions. For example, both can be used to get Hawking's black hole entropy, both suggest a noncommutaive level to space-time and so on. I don't think there is really any calculation that has been done today that clearly puts one ahead of the other as far as quantum gravity is really concerned.
That said I side with string theory generally.
DrRocket, on 6 October 2011 - 01:40 AM, said:
Your question is very premature.
It is an interesting question, but I agree it is really premature.
Mystery111, on 6 October 2011 - 01:09 AM, said:
The most promising attempt is quantum cosmology, the application of quantum rules on cosmological scales.
Of course, one should not rule out other attempts at quantum gravity. Even of they do not quite work, or are in low dimension they can shed lots of light on the general problem.
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.
My homepage.
My homepage.
- Posts: 4,446 | Joined: 04-June 06
Reply
#5 15 October 2011 - 04:55 PM
I like a model that has strings evolving (or decaying if you like) into loops that evolve into membranes that decay into charge that decays into time that decays into relativity and that all particles evolve from the overlapping of, or existence of, these energy spectrums and the relative accelerations of their infinite expansion planes. Ofcourse the model is insanely wierd and wacky like me
- Posts: 290 | Joined: 15-December 10
Reply
#6 15 October 2011 - 05:26 PM
36grit, on 15 October 2011 - 04:55 PM, said:
I like a model that has strings evolving (or decaying if you like) into loops...
People do study models consisting of a gas of interacting strings. Indeed open strings can interact to form closed strings.
36grit, on 15 October 2011 - 04:55 PM, said:
that evolve into membranes....
This you will need to explain. I am not aware of how this could happen. Also, what sort of branes are you thinking of here?
36grit, on 15 October 2011 - 04:55 PM, said:
that decay into charge...
Charge is a property of things rather than a fundamental object in its own right. Also what charges do you have in mind?
36grit, on 15 October 2011 - 04:55 PM, said:
that decays into time that decays into relativity and that all particles evolve from the overlapping of, or existence of, these energy spectrums and the relative accelerations of their infinite expansion planes.
Now I am totally lost.
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.
My homepage.
My homepage.
- Posts: 4,446 | Joined: 04-June 06
Reply
#7 18 October 2011 - 10:31 AM
tachyon, on 5 October 2011 - 11:27 PM, said:
Witch theory do you think is the best unification of general reletivity and quantum mechanics?
One were general relativity and quantum mechanics make sense of gravity as being a psuedoforce without a mediator and is analogue to the corriolis force.
My reason for stating this is because I think physicists have given curvature (and the mediation of gravity via the graviton) as being erreneous from the start, simply because all matter is self-consistent when explaining the curvature of spacetime. A proton curved space around it, as much as any other elementary particle. Gravitational force exchange is a property of all matter through curvilinear distortions as they deform the metric.
A graviton won't be needed, but this is a bit of a speculation, but it's not wholey without evidence. (I may have some people come down on me using this theory, but I am a sucker for a good quantum-gravitational relativistic debate.
ajb, on 15 October 2011 - 05:26 PM, said:
Now I am totally lost.
You were lost... my brain hurt trying to understand his sentance!
- Posts: 349 | Joined: 29-August 11
Reply
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1

Help
Sign In »
Register Now!














