Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: A Blessed Easter to all of you !

By: Fiz in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (0)
Mon, 10 Apr 23 5:06 PM | 55 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board 		Msg. 41719 of 58576
(This msg. is a reply to 41713 by Decomposed)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

There are many open-questions in all the theories I've heard of. If you search for a Penrose video or two you will find one where he discusses the problems he has with string theory and, in particular, the Multi-verse idea (which is an outgrowth of string theory, specifically, I think). I've posted a few of his video interviews in the past.

The problem with STRING THEORY (and thus, I believe, with Multiverse which, as I said, apparently relies on String Theory) is that the universes are so separated that there not only is no obvious way to test for it - it appears to be IMPOSSIBLE to ever prove it, at all, as a precondition of string theory!

BTW, there are MANY unresolved issues in physics. I thought we were talking about possible theories for the origin of the universe ... which is pretty much tantamount to origin of the Big Bang, at this point (aka, what came BEFORE the "Bang").

I don't think Copenhagen Theory addresses the origin question, does it?

Again, I am not a physicist, just a lay person interested in the topic quite a bit and for some time.

Penrose admits that his "theory" is more of a hypothesis at this time, and needs someone else to work out the math (he is in his nineties now). What it DOES have going for it, is that if there were "prior" universes as he hypothesizes, they WOULD be expected to leave a clear signal in our own "Big Bang". And so, indeed, when the microwave background radiation was recently measured:

The background was NOT uniform. What does that matter?
(1) String/Multiverse says it should have been uniform.
(2) Penrose's hypothesis says it would NOT be uniform, as prior gravition in any previous universe would affect the starting conditions IN ACCORD WITH HIS HYPOTHESIS.


 - - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: A Blessed Easter to all of you !
By: Decomposed in 6TH POPE
Mon, 10 Apr 23 9:19 AM 		Msg. 41713 of 58576

fizzy:

Re: “Neither of your other hypotheses have a SHRED of physical evidence to back them up...”There's a ton of evidence. It's just that the "dots" can't be pieced together in a way that everyone accepts. It's rather like walking outside one day and seeing your car smashed in. There's physical evidence that something hit it but that doesn't tell us how... or why... or who.

"Many worlds" and "Copenhagen" both encapsulate all of quantum reality, but neither tries to fully account for "why" such behavior happens or even allow for experiments that might distinguish one theory from the other. In that sense, the two theories are incomplete and unsatisfying. So, does the Penrose theory paint as broad a picture while explaining some things that the other two do not?

There IS room for a better theory. For instance, quantum electrodynamics (QED) provides a model for strong nuclear interaction. The theory's results are perfect and give physicists everything they could wish. The trouble is, the math depends on a constant, known electron mass, but electron mass is absolutely unknowable due to the clouds of virtual particles that surround them, particles which constantly swim in and out of existence. Attempts to account for that in the math lead to the division of infinity by infinity, making the results meaningless. So physicists just ignore the reality and plug in the electron mass they wish electrons had - which works splendidly even though un-fudged math says the theory is wrong.

Does Penrose's theory account for baffling defects - like that one - in the other two, while continuing to support ALL the quantum weirdnesses that have been identified? (They're in the categories of: • Uncertainty, • Complementarity, • Probability, and • The disturbance of the system being observed by the observer.) If so, I'd definitely like to learn more.

BTW, I'll own up to the fact that my 'knowledge' is from a forty year old (but still very good) book. My impression though is that advances in quantum theory slowed substantially with the cold war and never recovered. In other words, I hope most of the flaws that existed in 1984 have now been eliminated, but I kind of doubt it.

« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next