Quantum Gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 12 May 2005 06:31 cjcountess wrote: > My name is Conrad Countess > > I am an independent researcher With what background knowledge? > who is convinced that he has unified > quantum and general relativity theories. Looking at what you wrote below: you have done nothing like that. You are in need of a thorough physics education instead. And: there are probably hundreds of people around on the internet who are convinced of that. Try looking at <www.crank.net>. BTW, do you even know what "theory" actually means in science? > As it turns out matter is > curved space-time even on the quantum level. Feel free to support that assertion with evidence. > Quantum Gravity in 3 steps > > 1. Assuming that energy is more basic than matter, if we first start > with a field of energy in its ground state Do you know what "field" actually means in physics? What do you mean with the term "ground state of a field of energy"? > it may be below frequency What is that supposed to mean? > and hard to detect. This can be dark energy or the Higgs field. The two are totally different. Make up your mind. > 2. Next if we assume that this energy field permeates or is > indistinguishable from space and moves at the velocity of c Fields don't move. Thanks for demonstrating that you do *not* know what "field" means in physics. > because it is energy Err, how do you get from "it is energy" to "it moves at c"? > we have set the stage. > 3. Next, just as added energy causes an increase in frequency for > electromagnetic waves Are you talking about the formula E = h f? > but no increase in speed beyond c along the light > path, any disturbance or increase in energy to this background dark > energy field or Higgs field, causes waves of frequency to churn up > within it. That does not follow from the first half of your sentence. BTW, what are "waves of frequency"? > These waves of frequency are accelerated motion of centripal > force of gravity that at c2 attains rest mass. What does "accelerate motion of centripetal force" mean? What does "at c2" mean? Judging from what you write below "c2" apparently means "c x c", or c^2, or c**2 (all mean the same thing). But what does it mean to say that a wave of frequency does something "at c^2"? How can waves "attain" mass? > This is because no speed can be added to it in the centrifugal > direction What is the "centrifugal direction"? > sense it is already moving at c and so any added energy > causes centripetal force of waves What are "centripetal force of waves"? > that increase with frequency. *What* increases with frequency? The waves? The force? Both makes no sense. > The frequency of these waves increase with an increase in energy, Again, apparently E = h f. > mass, momentum, inertia, Mass, momentum and inertia of what? > and centripetal force of gravity. The frequency of these waves increases with an increase in gravity??? > At a critical frequency of c2 "c2" is not a frequency. Wrong units! > the speed of light in the right angle frequency direction What is the "right angle frequency direction"? > equals the speed of light in the forward direction, this is > c2 or c x c. c2 is the speed of light *squared*, not the speed of light! > This should result in rest mass for at least two reasons. > > 1. First because the centripetal speed of the cycles per sec What is the "centripetal speed of the cycles per sec"? > equals and > balances out the centrifugal speed of the wave along the light path What is the "centrifugal speed of the wave along the light path"? > resulting in something analogous to "the speed of light in uniform > circular motion", in a clasical sense. Incomprehensible. > I am involking the principal of correspondence here. What does that principle say, in your opinion? > 2. Second, because the background energy field limits the speed along > the light path Why? How? > and in the right angle frequency directions to c. Again, what is the "right angle frequency direction"? > Thus the speed limit of electromagnetism imposed by the background > energy field is what gives rise to waves Why? How? > and shapes them into a rest > mass particle at the speed of c2. Why? How? > This rest mass particle itself can be > said to be curved space if this space is indistinguishable from the > energy field that gave rise to it. Non sequitur. You have no clue what "curved space" actually means, right? > This makes the ultra violet > catastrophe question, which depends on frequency speed being infinite > non-existent because frequency speed is also limited to c at this > level. What is "frequency speed", and how does this solve the ultraviolet catastrophe? (which was already solved 105 years ago, BTW) > It instead introducces rest mass particles as the next step up in > the electromagnetic spectrum. Why? How? > Cosmic rays which are rest mass particles Cosmic rays also contain a lot of photons. > were once considered to occupy this space. Which space? > This also eliminates the > need for anti matter to come into existence along with every rest mass > particle, Why? How? Try reading up on "conservation laws". And explain why every observation so far shows that this indeed happens, if there is no need for that. > which answers the question of why there is not that much anti > matter waiting around to annihilate the matter in the universe. That question also has been answered already (almost completely). > Gravity might be said to be the result of any added motion to the > centrifugal speed limit What's that, and how does gravity result from that? > of electromagnetism or c of the background dark > energy field which may also be the Higgs field which causes waves of > centripetal force to churn up, increase in mass, momentum, and inertia > with frequency in quantum increments and attain rest mass at c2. Any > deviation from the centrifugal speed limit of c of the background > energy field is accelerated motion Why??? > and results in centripetal force of energy What's that? > or gravity. Why? How? > There is no need for a graviton or a Higgs boson at > this point Feel free to explain the electroweak theory (which is nicely consistent with experimental tests) without a Higgs boson. But you don't even know what the "electroweak theory" actually is, right? > but if we assume that electromagnetic waves can be broken > down further just as water waves can be broken down further into water > molecules Why should we assume that? And what makes you think that if one "breaks down" water waves, one obtains water molecules? > then we may still have gravitons and or Higgs bosons at that > level. How does that follow? > A more complete account is offered at www.emcsquare.net. No, thanks. > Could you please tell me what you think? You have not the *faintest* clue what you are talking about. Bye, Bjoern
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 12 May 2005 06:43 cjcountess wrote: > Hi this is cj > > Sometimes things are simpler than one thinks. But most often, they are far more complicated than one thinks. > We don't need alot of > math just E=mc2 reversed as m=Ec2, E=mc^2 is reversed not m=Ec^2, but m = E/c^2. Can't you do even the most simple math? And how on earth do you plan to be able to make quantitative predictions with your theory, if it contains no math beyond that? You *do* know that one of the hallmarks of a scientific theory is that it is able to make quantitative predictions, don't you? > logic and imagination. What about a knowledge of basic physics, such as "c^2 is neither a speed nor a frequency"? > This idea is based on the fact that if you treat a photon in a > classical manner as a particle What exactly *is* the classical manner to treat something, in your opinion? > and factor in its frequency motion What's that? > as it orbits the light path, What makes you think that photons "orbit" the light path? Do you think of a motion in a spiral, or what? If yes, where does the necessary force come from? > one could conclude that as frequency increases, > not only does energy, momentum, and relative mass increase, but so does > speed, How exactly could one conclude that? > and that at C2 What does "at C2" (at c^2) mean? > a photon attains rest mass? How does that follow? > A photon traveling at C in the forward direction, times C in the right > angle frequency direction, What does it mean to say that something travels at C in one direction times at C in another direction? Why on earth should one *multiply* the speeds in the two perpendicular directions? Have you never heard of "vector addition"? And how is the "forward" direction defined? By the direction of the beam of light, or what? > is energy traveling at the speed of light squared "traveling at the speed of light squared" makes no sense, since c^2 is not a speed. It's a speed *squared*. > or Ec2 and should equal m as in m=Ec2, the reverse of E=mc2. Wrong, see above. > m in this case refers to rest mass. Why should it? In the formula E=mc^2, m refers to the *relativistic* mass, not the rest mass. > After all what does c squared mean anyway? Godd question. Hint: it's not a speed. > I am betting that it realy means the speed of light in the > forward direction times the speed of light in the right angle frequency > direction, This makes absolutely no sense. Again: velocities in two different directions are *not* multiplied with each other!!! > resulting in something analogous to "the speed of light in > uniform circular motion." Non sequitur. > I am not convinced that c2 is just a > mathmatical expression without a corresponding geometric reality. Bad for you. Wake up and face reality. Learn some *basics* physics, such as vector addition of velocities. As long as you don't even manage to get classical mechanics right, you shouldn't try to mess around with quantum gravity! > I am not a mathmitition "mathematician"? > but I do have an imagination Yes, that's clear. Hint: that does not suffice in physics. > and I do have confidence that I am correct in this. But you aren't. <http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html> You will probably take this as an insult. Please don't. In contrast, please *think* a bit about your attitude. Think about why it is necessary to study physics for *years* until one can become a researcher. Think about if your level of knowledge of physics really qualifies you to invent models on your own. > Later I came to the conclusion > that it was the background energy field that gave rise to and shaped > these energy waves and rest mass particles. How did you come to that conclusion? > I do not mind if the > responces to this idea are at first negative and it take me a while to > prove it. Because I believe that I can. Suggestion: give your ideas up before you have invented too much time in them. They are utterly wrong, and show only that you fail to grasp even the most basic things in physics. Again, you will probably take this as an insult. Don't. Bye, Bjoern
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 12 May 2005 06:52 cjcountess wrote: > Hey Uncle Al > I was trying to think of what to say to you after that idiot remark. That's his way of treating anyone who comes along proposing a new "theory" while showing simultaneously that he does not understand basic physics. > But that's ok. Obviously you are a very educated person with very > complex theories. Indeed. > That is ok because education and complexity have > their place. But I do not think that quantum gravity is that complex. If you can explain all observation *quantitatively* without complexity, feel free to show your work. So far, all you presented was a lot of rhetoric, assertions which are trivially false, an inability to do the most basic math, and an utter lack of knowledge of the meaning of the terms you use. Oh, and a lot of confidence in your ideas nevertheless. <http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html> > Wouldn't it be something if quantum gravity turned out to be like > Einstein and Stephen Hawking said that the ultimate theory might be, > simple enough that average people and even children can understand? It would be news to me that they said something like that. Quotes, please. > And wouldn't it be something if a simple person, "me" were the one to > discover it? Possible, but with a probability that's not worth thinking of. Someone who says that c^2 is a speed and/or a frequency is not in the position to make revolutionary discoveries in physics. > Your remarks only make me more determined to prove my theory. Lesson 1: in science, theories are not proved (although one often reads statements to that effect in *popular* science sources). > But lets be civil to each other. Sorry, but it is *not* civil to not even bother learning what the physical terms you use actually mean before trying to talk about physics. It is *also* not very civil to assert right from the start that you are brilliant enough to have found a solution to a problem on which thousands of *educated*, *brilliant* people have worked for decades now, although you don't even have knowledge of the most basic physics. > To be honest with you, before > now I have never heard of the thinks that you spoke about. Hint: there are *thousands* of more things you never heard about, and all of those have to be addressed by a proper quantum gravity theory. > And I really > don't think that I have to integrate them into my framework in order > to prove it. Then you think wrong. The questions which Uncle Al posed *have* to be addressed by a proper quantum gravity theory. > But I will look into them out of respect for the subject > of physics and the search for truth and you. If you really respected physics and the search for truth, you would first get a decent education in physics before coming up with your own strange ideas. Bye, Bjoern
From: cjcountess on 12 May 2005 07:04 Thank you both for understanding. I am so glad that there are principles like the one that you both mentioned that guide true teachers and students, prevents people from abusing authority based on title or degrees and gives evidence itself prime authority. Follow the evidence with a scientific objective open mind and I think that truth will be revealed to us including who's overcomplicating it. There is a principle in science called Occam's razor, and one variation says "one should not increase beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." cjcountess
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 12 May 2005 08:43
cjcountess wrote: > Thank you both for understanding. Hint: Nick is one of the worst crackpots around here, with no understanding of physics whatever. Judging from the few things I've read of OsherD so far, he is not much better. > I am so glad that there are > principles like the one that you both mentioned that guide true > teachers and students, Both are not in the position to judge what principles should guide teachers and students. > prevents people from abusing authority based on > title or degrees and gives evidence itself prime authority. Fine. I'm all for giving evidence itself prime authority, and against abusing authority. When will you start to address the evidence? When will you even start to learn what the evidence actually is? > Follow the > evidence with a scientific objective open mind and I think that truth > will be revealed to us including who's overcomplicating it. Indeed. When will you start? > There is > a principle in science called Occam's razor, and one variation says > "one should not increase beyond what is necessary, the number of > entities required to explain anything." Agreed. Feel free to explain why the current theories in physics are *not* necessary to explain the observations. I.e. feel free to explain how one could explain the observations *without* such complex theories. Be quantitative, please. Bye, Bjoern |