Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Behold The Emergence Of Quantum Gravity...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mark on October 1, 2001 06:03:42 UTC

It has been a long sought after theory of physics.... A theory capable of describing both the very small and massless (almost), and the very large and massive ... all in one full sweep.

Had the cosmos been formulated on the grounds of two completely separate and even noncooperative foundational theories, (one for the big and one for the small), the very beauty of the mathematical descriptions of nature, would be at stake. Why should "one cosmos" be created out of two completely different "recipes"? Although General Relativity accurately describes nature on the "vast distance" and "large mass" end of the spectrum, one could reasonably argue that this is simply a "large scale approximation" to the conglomeration of NUMEROUS quantum processes. Therefore one theory should suffice! What a disappointment if the contrary were true.

Let me restate what I just said in the form of an analogy... We have sociological theories on the behaviors of large groups of people. One could say for instance, that theoretically, people tend to "act braver" when they are a member of a large group, (for example a Dad in the presence of his son... emersed in a crowd in the stands at a baseball game, may be more privy to yelling "YOU SUCK!" at the pitcher (acceptable social behavior), than he would be if he were in a room of ten people or less and the same pitcher were present (unacceptable social misconduct and a bad parental example)). So what we have here in terms of physics, is an example of altered behavior, when more and more mass (people in bigger and bigger crowds) is observed. Viewed from a statistical vantage point, if 1% of all people who go to a baseball games get in a fight, then we could expect a stadium of 100,000 to have about 1,000 fights (give or take an uncertainty of say, 5 fights). But as we narrow down the group, the chances of predicting the amount of fights becomes more and more uncertain. In fact, if we narrow the group down to less than a hundred, we're no longer sure if we'll even have a singal fight. There is a chance, but it's not certain. We have entered the realm of "indeterminism", or in other words "probabilistic causality". Either an event will take place or it won't. As we continue to narrow the crowd down, we soon realize that we'll reach a limiting point of one individual. Could this be called the "quanta" of the crowd?, for which any successive decrements in the number of individuals would bear no physical significance (a half a person)?... We seemed to have reached the quantum realm of "classical sociology". The behavior of crowds has now become spontaneous and erratic, as we have narrowed the "mass" of the crowd to one individual "quanta". The behavior of an individual is unpredictable and can only be described in terms of probability, (there is a 1/100th of a chance that we have chosen a fighter, and if we observed the interaction of two "particles" (people) the is no certainty that they will even fight). Where we were once sure of a fight (and could even somewhat accurately predict the number of them), we are now only left to guessing. But to make the point from above become evident ... we don't need two separate theories to explain the crowd and the individual. The large and massive, is simply the collection of a bunch a small individual particles with their own "personalities". Quantum physics should be able to account for gravity ... so far it doesn't. There must be something missing, where have physicists gone wrong? Even though crowds behave different than individuals, are not crowds just collections of individuals?, deserving of the same set of rules and laws?

I propose a theory where there is no longer any such thing as a point in space. All we can speak of is regions in space where the point would be located, but the exact coordinates are forever lost within the confines of this region. There is a major uncertainty in coordinate geometry, as points have dissolved into "probable locations". The metric that Joseph referred to as >>>"It is only the relative positions of world points, disclosed by experiment, which impose a geometry with a definite metric upon it." There is more to my theory above as far as how mass and energy come into play. That was a quick run through of the basic principle. I'd love to hear Luis' theory on his sponge model, we could compare and debate....

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins