Topic: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration  (Read 48843 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #160 on: November 01, 2005, 10:07:15 am »
Quote
"Most physicists remain sceptical about the evidence for cosmic superstrings. If the case is to be strengthened, it will be necessary to find more candidates like CSL-1 and Q0957+561A,B. Alternatively, it will be necessary to detect the "gravitational waves" coming from a string. These are ripples in the fabric of space, much like the ripples which spread out on a pond from an impacting raindrop"

I concur with this...  Until the case is strenghtened I would be inclined to stick with the standard model, a proven theory that has been resistant to all and every attempt to falsify it and thats predictions have been so remarkably accurate it would be reckless to abandon it...
sure. but you asked for evidence. i provided it. according to the articles there is no other known expanation that covers what was observed in CSl-1 nad the two quasars.

Offline prometheus

  • Hot and Spicy
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3610
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #161 on: November 01, 2005, 03:44:21 pm »
Quote
"Most physicists remain sceptical about the evidence for cosmic superstrings. If the case is to be strengthened, it will be necessary to find more candidates like CSL-1 and Q0957+561A,B. Alternatively, it will be necessary to detect the "gravitational waves" coming from a string. These are ripples in the fabric of space, much like the ripples which spread out on a pond from an impacting raindrop"

I concur with this...  Until the case is strenghtened I would be inclined to stick with the standard model, a proven theory that has been resistant to all and every attempt to falsify it and thats predictions have been so remarkably accurate it would be reckless to abandon it...
sure. but you asked for evidence. i provided it. according to the articles there is no other known expanation that covers what was observed in CSl-1 nad the two quasars.

Well, I still would rather wait until there has been more research done and a stronger case built before I join the Church of the Latter Day String Theorists...  You know my manner by now... Always  cautious when it comes to paradigm shifts...


To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe!

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #162 on: November 01, 2005, 05:09:16 pm »
That is perfectly understandable. but what you aught not to do is say there is no evidence for it.  ;)

Offline prometheus

  • Hot and Spicy
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3610
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #163 on: November 02, 2005, 04:15:51 am »
That is perfectly understandable. but what you aught not to do is say there is no evidence for it.  ;)

Okay... No tangible evidence, or certainly nothing like enough to merit String Theory becoming String Law...  String Theory is a badly botched together concept based on several unproven notions, and even if by some stroke of blind fortune it turns out to be close to the truth, it would still be a bad theory that flailed onto reality more by luck than judgement.  Any theory that has the concept of an infinite number of permutuations as one of it's prime maxims has got to be considered suspect...

The Standard Model, on the other hand, is a good theory, despite being ugly and containing a number of arbitrary constants that serve no other purpose than to hold it togther, it describes reality in extremely exact detail and has really never been falsified in any detail.  The standard model does not rely on the Universe, out of an infinite number of possible variations, turning out the way it did by sheer blind luck.  String Theory stretches the credulity of even the most liberal theoretical scientist to the outer limits...


To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe!

Offline Dracho

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 18289
  • Gender: Male
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #164 on: November 02, 2005, 10:59:59 am »
So... what you are saying is...

String Theory looks like someone just...

Strung it together?

 :rofl:
The worst enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan.  - Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #165 on: November 02, 2005, 11:11:27 am »
That is perfectly understandable. but what you aught not to do is say there is no evidence for it.  ;)

Okay... No tangible evidence, or certainly nothing like enough to merit String Theory becoming String Law...  String Theory is a badly botched together concept based on several unproven notions, and even if by some stroke of blind fortune it turns out to be close to the truth, it would still be a bad theory that flailed onto reality more by luck than judgement.  Any theory that has the concept of an infinite number of permutuations as one of it's prime maxims has got to be considered suspect...

The Standard Model, on the other hand, is a good theory, despite being ugly and containing a number of arbitrary constants that serve no other purpose than to hold it togther, it describes reality in extremely exact detail and has really never been falsified in any detail.  The standard model does not rely on the Universe, out of an infinite number of possible variations, turning out the way it did by sheer blind luck.  String Theory stretches the credulity of even the most liberal theoretical scientist to the outer limits...

there is evidence the standard model is flawed; that it either needs revision or abandoned. every thing you accuse the string theory of can equally be said of the standard model other than the string theory being far more elegant. you outlined some of the objections yourself; you say that the anthropomorphic principle is unbelievable yet you admit that the standard model is full of fudge factors to make it fit. in my view this amounts to the same objection. and if it is the case that these factors were added to make the standard model fit then it is the same thing as if the standard model has failed repeatedly.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #166 on: November 02, 2005, 11:17:18 am »
So... what you are saying is...

String Theory looks like someone just...

Strung it together?

 :rofl:

LOL. very funny! but actually it is more like someone "strung" the standard model together.

as far as strings go; it is likely that strings themselves represent multidimensional entities ('branes) poking into our dimensions. such strings being boundaries or crosssections of the intrusions that we interpret as "strings." that means that strings may not be the final theory of everything. otherwise the idea of squiggely strings being the building blocks of our universe is ludicrous.

Offline prometheus

  • Hot and Spicy
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3610
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #167 on: November 02, 2005, 12:02:38 pm »
there is evidence the standard model is flawed; that it either needs revision or abandoned. every thing you accuse the string theory of can equally be said of the standard model other than the string theory being far more elegant. you outlined some of the objections yourself; you say that the anthropomorphic principle is unbelievable yet you admit that the standard model is full of fudge factors to make it fit. in my view this amounts to the same objection. and if it is the case that these factors were added to make the standard model fit then it is the same thing as if the standard model has failed repeatedly.

You just hit the nail on the head...  The standard model is full of fudge factors (in the shape of nineteen arbitrary constants) used to make it fit experimental reality... 

The String Theory is full of a lot more fudge factors used to make it fit into a picture that we've invented...

String Theory predicts an infinite number of permutations in the forces we observe today, with no way to predict the outcome if we were to "reset" the Universe, while the standard model has predicited many particles with unprecedented accuracy...


To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe!

Offline prometheus

  • Hot and Spicy
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3610
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #168 on: November 02, 2005, 12:08:23 pm »
LOL. very funny! but actually it is more like someone "strung" the standard model together.

as far as strings go; it is likely that strings themselves represent multidimensional entities ('branes) poking into our dimensions. such strings being boundaries or crosssections of the intrusions that we interpret as "strings." that means that strings may not be the final theory of everything. otherwise the idea of squiggely strings being the building blocks of our universe is ludicrous.

I agree with the last sentence, but these "branes" are purely Star Trekesque conjecture, as are the boundaries, cross-sections and intrusions you speak of...  They are bryond science and are far more the domain of philosophers or mystics, and so they shall remain until we have made unforeseable leaps forward in our grasp of what space and time are...


To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe!

Offline prometheus

  • Hot and Spicy
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3610
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #169 on: November 02, 2005, 12:09:35 pm »
So... what you are saying is...

String Theory looks like someone just...

Strung it together?

 :rofl:

They are scientific proof of what results when theoretical physicists from the 1960's consume far too much LSD...  :P


To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe!

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #170 on: November 02, 2005, 12:33:53 pm »
So they were all *strung* out? ;D

Offline Dracho

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 18289
  • Gender: Male
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #171 on: November 02, 2005, 12:41:42 pm »
So they were all *strung* out? ;D

Oh.. you beat me to it.. that was so the next logical step in this string of events.   :-X
The worst enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan.  - Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #172 on: November 02, 2005, 12:45:18 pm »
Stormbringer note:  This wikipedia article outlines the more well known problems with the standard model. there are more recent findings which call the standard model into question. remember the scientific maxim; it takes but one contradiction to false a scientific theory.

Challenges to the Standard Model

Although the Standard Model has had great success in explaining experimental results, it has never been accepted as a complete theory of fundamental physics. This is because it has two important defects:

The model contains 19 free parameters, such as particle masses, which must be determined experimentally (plus another 10 for neutrino masses). These parameters cannot be independently calculated.
The model does not describe the gravitational interaction.
Since the completion of the Standard Model, many efforts have been made to address these problems.

One attempt to address the first defect is known as grand unification. The so-called grand unified theories (GUTs) hypothesized that the SU(3), SU(2), and U(1) groups are actually subgroups of a single large symmetry group. At high energies (far beyond the reach of current experiments), the symmetry of the unifying group is preserved; at low energies, it reduces to SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) by a process known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. The first theory of this kind was proposed in 1974 by Georgi and Glashow, using SU(5) as the unifying group. A distinguishing characteristic of these GUTs is that, unlike the Standard model, they predict the existence of proton decay. In 1999, the Super-Kamiokande neutrino observatory reported that it had not detected proton decay, establishing a lower limit on the proton half-life of 6.7× 1032 years. This and other experiments have falsified numerous GUTs, including SU(5). Another effort to address the first defect has been to develop Preon models which attempt to set forth a substructure of more fundamental particles than those set forth in the Standard Model.

In addition, there are cosmological reasons why the standard model is believed to be incomplete. Within it, matter and antimatter are symmetric. While the preponderance of matter in the universe can be explained by saying that the universe just started out this way, this explanation strikes most physicists as inelegant. Furthermore, the Standard Model provides no mechanism to generate the cosmic inflation that is believed to have occurred at the beginning of the universe, a consequence of its omission of gravity.

The Higgs boson, which is predicted by the Standard Model, has not been observed as of 2005 (though some phenomena were observed in the last days of the LEP collider that could be related to the Higgs; one of the reasons to build the LHC is that the increase in energy is expected to make the Higgs observable).

The first experimental deviation from the Standard Model came in 1998, when Super-Kamiokande published results indicating neutrino oscillation. This implied the existence of non-zero neutrino masses since massless particles travel at the speed of light and so do not experience the passage of time. The Standard Model did not accommodate massive neutrinos, because it assumed the existence of only "left-handed" neutrinos, which have spin aligned counter-clockwise to their axis of motion. If neutrinos have non-zero mass, they necessarily travel slower than the speed of light. Therefore, it would be possible to "overtake" a neutrino, choosing a reference frame in which its direction of motion is reversed without affecting its spin (making it right-handed). Since then, physicists have revised the Standard Model to allow neutrinos to have mass, which make up additional free parameters beyond the initial 19.

A further extension of the Standard Model can be found in the theory of supersymmetry, which proposes a massive supersymmetric "partner" for every particle in the conventional Standard Model. Supersymmetric particles have been suggested as a candidate for explaining dark matter. Although supersymmetric particles have not been observed experimentally to date, the theory is one of the most popular avenues of research in theoretical particle physics.

[edit]
See also
The theoretical formulation of the standard model
Weak interactions, Fermi theory of beta decay and electroweak theory
Strong interactions, flavour, quark model and quantum chromodynamics
For open questions, see quark matter, CP violation and neutrino masses



[edit]
References
[edit]
Textbooks
Griffiths, David J. (1987). Introduction to Elementary Particles, Wiley, John & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0471603864
[edit]
Journal Articles
Y. Hayato et al., Search for Proton Decay through p → νK+ in a Large Water Cherenkov Detector. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1529 (1999).
S.F. Novaes, Standard Model: An Introduction, hep-ph:0001283
[edit]
External links
New Scientist story: Standard Model may be found incomplete
The Universe Is A Strange Place, a lecture by Frank Wilczek
Observation of the Top Quark at Fermilab
MISN-0-305 The Standard Model of Fundamental Particles and Their Interactions (PDF file) by Mesgun Sebhatu for Project PHYSNET.
PostScript version of the Standard Model Lagrangian
The particle adventure.

Offline prometheus

  • Hot and Spicy
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3610
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #173 on: November 02, 2005, 10:43:01 pm »
In order to make this counter gambit in anyway fair, and indeed scientific, you are of course beholden to point out the flaws noted by Wikipedia in String Theory, as I, in fairness have acknowledged the 19 arbitary constants in the Standard Model...   You are not telling me anything I do not already know and acknoweldge about the Standard Model, and rubbishing it does not make String Theory appear to me anything less like a conversation between The Doctor and Seven Of Nine...

Whatever Wikipedia says is wrong with the Standard Model, multiply it by infinity (the potential permutations in String Theory), and you are approaching the standing that String Theory enjoys...


To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe!

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #174 on: November 02, 2005, 10:55:15 pm »
i was seeking some of the newer articles i have read on it in the last several years and used the wiki article because it summarised what is known concisely. however I do not think your infinite permutations equal infinite flaws is fair of strings. The same problem exists in the standard model with the everet and copenhagen interpretations of the wave function.

Offline prometheus

  • Hot and Spicy
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3610
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #175 on: November 03, 2005, 05:13:11 am »
i was seeking some of the newer articles i have read on it in the last several years and used the wiki article because it summarised what is known concisely. however I do not think your infinite permutations equal infinite flaws is fair of strings. The same problem exists in the standard model with the everet and copenhagen interpretations of the wave function.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Everett Interpretation suffers certain Demarcation problems in the shape of a crippling amount of metaphysical baggage, or that the Copenhagen interpretation is incomplete.  Personally, I feel that Quantum Mechanics illustrates the limitation in human perception...  We are not Gods and we are never going to understand the Universe, pick it apart and put it together again as if it was an interanl combustion engine... 

Hell, it's very difficult to visualise three dimensional space and impossible to visualise four dimensional space.  Here's a good thought experiment...  Try to visualise two hands holding up ten fingers.  Easy.  Try to visualise four hands holding up twenty fingers.  Still Easy.   Try to visualise ten hands holding up a hundred fingers.  Very difficult.  Now try to visualise 100,000 hands holding up a million fingers.  Utterly beyond human capability.  And a million is an insignificant number in astronomical terms...

I'm quite sure that my assertion that human beings do not possess infinite regression, and therefore have limitations will earn me the title pessimist.  That is just silly.  I accept we have limitations, I believe we are capable of mindboggling achievements and hellish nightmares, but understanding what the fundamental building blocks of the Universe are is a long ways away, and even when we do, it will be an abstract mathematical construct that a few specialists will each be able to understand bits and pieces of.  The rest of us will be able to learn the implications of it, but no human will be able to visualise it or hold it in their minds, ever... 


To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe!

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #176 on: November 03, 2005, 11:38:13 am »
Perhaps. but perhaps not. They said the same of Einstein's theories. only a few people... etc. anyway the idea of the final theory is the one principle behind everything. by definition the elemental is always more simple than that which it composes. That is why neither of these theories can be considered final.

on the idea of imagining a multitude (complexity) can one imagine the individual atoms in a block of substance? is it necessary to visualize every atom to say we grasp chemistry, metalurgy, sculpting etc?

Offline prometheus

  • Hot and Spicy
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3610
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #177 on: November 03, 2005, 12:36:53 pm »
Einstein's theory of relativity was vindicated by experiments done with Caesium clocks, and if String Theory is vindicated by solid scientific experiment, I shall, of course, change my position and admit the truth in it...  Until then, I shall reserve judgement on it...

Metallurgy is all very well, being able to manipulate quantum theory is all very well, but that is different from having a complete understanding of the most fundamental structure of the Universe...


To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe!

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #178 on: November 03, 2005, 12:45:14 pm »
No i referred to Einstein because it was said at the time only 6 people in the world could understand it; that it was to complex for all but the most hyper intelligent and hyper educated elite. Now it is quite common to run into someone who not only thinks they do but in fact actually do understand it. it's not that difficult.

Offline prometheus

  • Hot and Spicy
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3610
Re: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration
« Reply #179 on: November 03, 2005, 07:19:31 pm »
No i referred to Einstein because it was said at the time only 6 people in the world could understand it; that it was to complex for all but the most hyper intelligent and hyper educated elite. Now it is quite common to run into someone who not only thinks they do but in fact actually do understand it. it's not that difficult.

Since relativity is so simple, then perhaps you can help me resolve this paradox?

When a massive object undergoes gravitational collapse and is crushed into a black hole, inside the Schwarzchild radius, nothing, not even particles with zero rest energy can escape...  This means that no quanta can escape the Schwarchild Radius, including gravitons, since space time within that distance from the singularity is curved right back inwards towards the singularity... 

Since Gravitons cannot escape, why does the black hole behave as a massive object with a powerful gravity field?


To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe!