Topic: Van Den Broek's alcubierre metric variant warp space configuration

[Stormbringer]

OTOH if "gravitons are really emergent behavior as predicted by the holographic model then mass independant synthesis of gravity would be (might be) "easy (?)"

[prometheus]

I do see what you mean, but the Feynman diagrams don't have anstronomical numbers of possible permutations...

Superstrings at the moment are still a temple that has been built without foundations... 

under the hollographic model niether do strings. only certain permutations.

Aye, a hell of a lot of them...  Too many in fact for String Theory to be complete and viable...

[Stormbringer]

I do see what you mean, but the Feynman diagrams don't have anstronomical numbers of possible permutations...

Superstrings at the moment are still a temple that has been built without foundations... 

under the hollographic model niether do strings. only certain permutations.

Aye, a hell of a lot of them...  Too many in fact for String Theory to be complete and viable...

I did not get that understanding from reading the article on holographic theory. in fact i thought there were relatively few species of them. relatively speaking. somewhere in between one hundred and 200. but then it's been a while since i read it and i could have misremembered this part.

[prometheus]

Using relativity, gravitational models do not break down in black holes either, and relativity has been ratified by experiment...  It may be that there is no Quantum Theory of gravity because gravity doesn't have a Quanta, and that the last seventy years trying to find a model that allows one has been a red herring...

This may be why the Eötvös experiment hasn't been mentioned much in the last ten or so years... I guess the "lack of (anti)gravitons" may have removed the foundation for any of the more aggressive hypothesizing based on it.

Yeah, I agree...  The problem here I suppose is that not finding gravitons does not prove that they don't exist, it only proves that we can't find them...  

Curiosity: does anyone know what the received wisdom on what kind of properties we'd expect to find in gravitons?   Most of the information I have found on them is at best vague and at worst non existant...

[prometheus]

I do see what you mean, but the Feynman diagrams don't have anstronomical numbers of possible permutations...

Superstrings at the moment are still a temple that has been built without foundations... 

under the hollographic model niether do strings. only certain permutations.

Aye, a hell of a lot of them...  Too many in fact for String Theory to be complete and viable...

I did not get that understanding from reading the article on holographic theory. in fact i thought there were relatively few species of them. relatively speaking. somewhere in between one hundred and 200. but then it's been a while since i read it and i could have misremembered this part.

I've never read that particular brand of string theory...  To be honest, I used to love String Theory when I was younger, I thought it ws a kind of return to the music of the spheres, and I was known to use LSD back then, but as I've gotten more scientifically cyncial of way out cosmological theories, I've stopped even bothering to read any new slants on string theory...  To be honest, I will not entertain it or any variant of it until our fundamental understanding of space and time is changed in such a way that I'm forced to accept such a theory by a massive body of experimental evidence...

[Stormbringer]

Using relativity, gravitational models do not break down in black holes either, and relativity has been ratified by experiment...  It may be that there is no Quantum Theory of gravity because gravity doesn't have a Quanta, and that the last seventy years trying to find a model that allows one has been a red herring...

This may be why the Eötvös experiment hasn't been mentioned much in the last ten or so years... I guess the "lack of (anti)gravitons" may have removed the foundation for any of the more aggressive hypothesizing based on it.

Yeah, I agree...  The problem here I suppose is that not finding gravitons does not prove that they don't exist, it only proves that we can't find them...  

Curiosity: does anyone know what the received wisdom on what kind of properties we'd expect to find in gravitons?   Most of the information I have found on them is at best vague and at worst non existant...

According to the theory they are not particles in the ordinary sense but a configuration of a chain of gluons that mimic one. so i guess my question is what are the postulated properties for a gluon?

[prometheus]

Using relativity, gravitational models do not break down in black holes either, and relativity has been ratified by experiment...  It may be that there is no Quantum Theory of gravity because gravity doesn't have a Quanta, and that the last seventy years trying to find a model that allows one has been a red herring...

This may be why the Eötvös experiment hasn't been mentioned much in the last ten or so years... I guess the "lack of (anti)gravitons" may have removed the foundation for any of the more aggressive hypothesizing based on it.

Yeah, I agree...  The problem here I suppose is that not finding gravitons does not prove that they don't exist, it only proves that we can't find them...  

Curiosity: does anyone know what the received wisdom on what kind of properties we'd expect to find in gravitons?   Most of the information I have found on them is at best vague and at worst non existant...

According to the theory they are not particles in the ordinary sense but a configuration of a chain of gluons that mimic one. so i guess my question is what are the postulated properties for a gluon?

Surely this would make the Quantum Theory of gravity even more difficult to explain?  Gluons, if I remember my standard model correctly, have mass, ergo are even more (an oxymoron coming up here, I know) hard pushed if anyrhing to escape a black hole than photons?

[Stormbringer]

Yabut! thier domain takes them out of that trap the univers is treated as if it is two coterminous universes with behavior in one effecting the other as stuff on the interior manifests on the outer boundary layer.  what we see as particles at one place appears as strings in the other  but thier true nature is not a string but particles where we are. the exception is the graviton. which is an emergent phenomenon gravitonsa are only apparent but not (stritly speaking) real.

[prometheus]

Yabut! thier domain takes them out of that trap the univers is treated as if it is two coterminous universes with behavior in one effecting the other as stuff on the interior manifests on the outer boundary layer.  what we see as particles at one place appears as strings in the other  but thier true nature is not a string but particles where we are. the exception is the graviton. which is an emergent phenomenon gravitonsa are only apparent but not (stritly speaking) real.

Invoking another Universe to explain away a theoretical anomoly in this one definitely stretches credulity to breaking point...

[Stormbringer]

Yabut! thier domain takes them out of that trap the univers is treated as if it is two coterminous universes with behavior in one effecting the other as stuff on the interior manifests on the outer boundary layer.  what we see as particles at one place appears as strings in the other  but thier true nature is not a string but particles where we are. the exception is the graviton. which is an emergent phenomenon gravitonsa are only apparent but not (stritly speaking) real.

Invoking another Universe to explain away a theoretical anomoly in this one definitely stretches credulity to breaking point...

technically it is the same universe. i mispoke. the boundary area is in the same universe but it is a technical infinity away from the "interior. Anti de sitter space is not easy to visualize but then niether is de sitter space.

[Dracho]

Some advice I posted in another thread (and I think is funny enough to repeat):

The subtle difference between genius and stupidity is this: Genius is limited by the laws of physics.   

[prometheus]

technically it is the same universe. i mispoke. the boundary area is in the same universe but it is a technical infinity away from the "interior. Anti de sitter space is not easy to visualize but then niether is de sitter space.

That still sounds like an affront to some important scientific precepts to me, like Occam's Razor for one...

[Stormbringer]

How is it any moreso that the notion that our universe is infinite but bounded?

[E_Look]

Heyyy...

whaddaya tryin to infer here, Drac??

[Stormbringer]

He was just joking. but i disagree. i think the laws of (understanding of) physics are limited by genius. 

[Dracho]

Heyyy...

whaddaya tryin to infer here, Drac??

LOL.. actually nothing.. this just seems an appropriate thread for something limited by physics.   

[prometheus]

How is it any moreso that the notion that our universe is infinite but bounded?

Quite honestly, I see no proof of this assertion either...  We still do not know what the Universe is...

[Stormbringer]

But that is the generally accepted description amongst scientists.

[prometheus]

But that is the generally accepted description amongst scientists.

I don't think there is any hard and fast generally accepted description among scientists on what the Universe is...  From reading scientific journals, I've noticed there are as many ideas about what the Universe is as there are scientists...

It certainly looks like a 3 Space +1 time dimensional hypersphere, but only time (arf arf, no pun intended) will tell...

[Stormbringer]

I disagree. for decades the question was:   is there enough matter in the universe to render it closed? will there be a big crunch? or will the expansion go on for ever and die in ice rahter than fire? or is the mass ballanced with the expansion so at some point it will reach homeostasis and neither expand nor contract. each of these options dictated the universe have a certain shape. from a saddle to a torus to a sphere...Since they thought the universe was closed and would contract to a big crunch then that assosiated shape was the shape that scientist accepted by default if you will.