Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Math Science

Quantum Gravity Will Be Just Fine Without String Theory 62

StartsWithABang writes: It's a difficult fact to accept: our two most fundamental theories that describe reality, General Relativity for gravitation and the Standard Model / Quantum Field Theory for the other three forces, are fundamentally incompatible with one another. When an electron moves through a double slit, for example, its gravitational field can't move through both slits, at least not without a quantum theory of gravity. String Theory is often touted as the only game in town as far as formulating a quantum theory of gravity is concerned, but in fact there are five viable options, each with different pros, cons, and approaches to the problem. Many of them, in fact, have undergone significant developments in the past 5-10 years, something String Theory cannot claim.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Quantum Gravity Will Be Just Fine Without String Theory

Comments Filter:
  • This near-automatic re-posting of Ethan's blog postings is becoming annoying. For sure, it popularizes science and may hence be argued to be stuff that matters. It can, however, certainly be proved to not be news for nerds.
    • by Inyu ( 919458 )
      I don't like medium.com content, the images on it distracts from reading.
    • I enjoy this blog, I like that fact that slashdot is carrying them and I find them educational. So speak for your self.
      • Since you have the link to his blog and given you great interest into its content, cannot you simply visit it regularily or even subscribe to it without /. reporting every new bit from it? I mean, are you an adult or do you really need someone taking you hand to the blog?
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's an OK blog, but it's being posted too often. Slashdot needs a wider science blog coverage.

        The main problem here is that SWAB is probably one of the only science bloggers submitting their stories to the submission queue. Submission and their selection is a long standing problem at Slashdot but I don't care enough about this site anymore to go further into that.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      StartsWithABang [slashdot.org] has 15 slashdot submissions since May 21st, all of them links to medium.com. It's probably just someone at medium.com gaming the system. They can always hide behind the "well they get upvoted people must like them", unfortunately. They're not all Ethan either, it's a variety of people although his articles were used the most.

    • I long for the good old days when regular contributor Bennett Haselton could be relied on to provide frequent, lengthy pieces full of length and frequency.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    without the endless error-ridden blogposts on unreadable hipster website clickbait spam, thanks.

  • Bye Slashdot.
    I'm sick of the videos and silly new poll positioning and STARTS WITH A BANG.

    Any recommendations for other tech news sites?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    There are sites offering an alternative view to the internals of the electron. Not sure how controversial it is.
    You may want to take a look at Blaze Labs Research.
    http://blazelabs.com/index.htm

  • Even he couldn't figure out how to make it explain things.
  • by koan ( 80826 )

    Has anyone told Sheldon yet?

  • by doug141 ( 863552 ) on Saturday June 06, 2015 @11:49AM (#49856533)

    http://link.springer.com/artic... [springer.com]
    Abstract
    It is shown here that Newton’s gravity law can be derived from the uncertainty principle. The idea is that as the distance between two bodies in mutual orbit decreases, their uncertainty of position decreases, so their momentum and hence the force on them must increase to satisfy the uncertainty principle. When this result is summed over all the possible interactions between the Planck masses in the two bodies, Newton’s gravity law is obtained. This model predicts that masses less than the Planck mass will be unaffected by gravity and so it may be tested by looking for an abrupt decrease in the density of space dust, for masses above the Planck mass.

    • by Viadd ( 173388 )

      This immediately fails because masses less than the Planck mass are affected by gravity.

      Examples of varying familiarity (to physicists) include the drops in the Millikan Oil Drop Experiment, Bose Einstein Condensates, and slow neutrons.

  • How about a theory that connects classical physics, electrodynamics, special relativity and gravity, and explains everything from the stability of atoms and molecules to the accelerated expansion of the universe? http://blacklightpower.wikia.c... [wikia.com]
    • GUTCP predicts electron g factor.
    • How about a theory that connects classical physics, electrodynamics, special relativity and gravity, and explains everything from the stability of atoms and molecules to the accelerated expansion of the universe?

      Yay, Time Cube!

  • by The Raven ( 30575 ) on Saturday June 06, 2015 @12:53PM (#49856867) Homepage

    Because it can be mangled to fit any observation. It's not disprovable [columbia.edu]. All of the alternatives are better because they are actually disprovable via experimentation.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    have to do with gravity? I have never heard of this interpretation ever, and I've been reading about it for 30 years.

    Please provide a link that shows the double-slit experiment has anything to do with an electron's gravity.

    • I would be delighted for any link that shows an electron in fact is affected by gravity. We've only ever measured its inertial mass and assume gravitational mass is the same

    • According to Mills Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, the *free* electron does not have gravitational mass, whereas the bound electron does. http://www.blacklightpower.com... [blacklightpower.com]
  • by Vitriol+Angst ( 458300 ) on Saturday June 06, 2015 @03:53PM (#49857733)

    The Double-Slit experiment is easy to explain if we consider that EM fields ride on a substrate or carrier wave, or dark matter or let's just call it "The Aether". It's a concept that Space was a thing, and along with bad ideas, Einstein threw this baby out with the bath water.

    Now we've got physicists who want everything to be a particle and they can't say "Aether", so they'll invent dark matter or something else to fill the void, rather than saying the void is already filled.

    EM fields don't have gravity, do they? So the extra interfering slit is a resonance set up by space itself. Gravity is the phenomena of particles (I think they are 8 dimensional resonating fields -- but whatever to avoid argument with current ideas) pushing out on Space. When their motions are organized (such as in a magnetic field or resonating with kinetic energy/heat) we can get EM fields. Gravity is many times more powerful than the standard model -- it's just not aimed at matter and we drift around and clump together based on the pressure of Gravity pushing on Space (like corks on the ocean).

    Well anyway, that's just the way I see things. It sounds a bit like m-theory or the Quantum Gravity, but it's just easier to use a clean slate and figure out how we get what we observe with the fewest forces possible. So to me, it's resolvable with the Push of Gravity, the Pull of EM fields, folded space (particles) that have positive or negative charges in various degrees (created by Time potential), and we have space which allow these things to interact and interfere with each other. Gravity is created by Space/Time coming out of the folded space/time (particles). All you need is a medium and a Universe can be created merely by the interference.

  • I'm crazy enough to believe I have found a path to unification that is actually quite simple: add a new relativity principle that states that laws of physics must be the same irrespective of the measurement instrument we use. Here is a parallel:

    - Special relativity states that the laws of physics must be the same irrespective of your state of motion. So a complete description of an experiment must include which referential you are using. There is no absolute space, no absolute time, no aether. And we need t

The party adjourned to a hot tub, yes. Fully clothed, I might add. -- IBM employee, testifying in California State Supreme Court

Working...