AWT is invalid because:
1. It violates the Ives-Stilwell experiment. Zephir, the proponent of AWT would not and could not demonstrate that AWT passes Ives-Stilwell
2. Zephir would not and could not show the calculations how AWT passes :
a. Michelson-Morley
b. Kennedy-Thorndike
c. Pound-Rebka
c. The light bending by massive objects
Until Zephir shows his calculations, AWT remains null and void, an invalid theory.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 22 2006, 04:36 PM)
Until Zephir shows his calculations, AWT remains null and void, an invalid theory.
At the first glance, thank you for creating the special forum, dedicated to review of AWT. I consider each the critique and feedback very useful, but I'm not very sure, most of people are really interested about long altercations in the topic dedicated the Aether Wave theory (AWT). So I welcome the creating of special topic for such purposes.
The AWT significance for physic is quite ambivalent. From one perspective its a quite new and fundamental view, which can connect both the mainstream theories (i.e. the relativity theory and quantum mechanic) into single unitary theory and it can change and simplify whole view of contemporary physic.
From the another perspective the AWT is just a very subtle extrapolation based on trivial combination of two commonly known and widely used equations, the wave equation
and the mass-energy equivalence principle 
with limited practical significance. As both these equations are having solid physical meaning, I can see a quite improbable, the common solution of both of them has no relevance for physic at all, but the whole development of AWT depends on scientific community. It can be solely joint action, and the public peer review is the first step.
at the first glance, the AWT should be proven by some math model of common experiment with known result, the unknown experiment prediction the better. The true is, till now I have any formal calculus derived yet. I've made just a few steps of numerical solution, so every claim about AWT is just an extrapolation, based on Boolean logic, not the quantitative math. Nevertheless, the Boolean logic is part of formal math to, co I can try to explain, why I suppose, the Pupamancur objections are irrelevant.
Thanks the Pupamancur for kind introduction of his stance...
I hope, it will not be just the lonely dialog of two people - all the others members of this forum are hearty welcomed too, if you're interested about this topic.
At the first glance, thank you for creating the special forum, dedicated to review of AWT. I consider each the critique and feedback very useful, but I'm not very sure, most of people are really interested about long altercations in the topic dedicated the Aether Wave theory (AWT). So I welcome the creating of special topic for such purposes.
The AWT significance for physic is quite ambivalent. From one perspective its a quite new and fundamental view, which can connect both the mainstream theories (i.e. the relativity theory and quantum mechanic) into single unitary theory and it can change and simplify whole view of contemporary physic.
From the another perspective the AWT is just a very subtle extrapolation based on trivial combination of two commonly known and widely used equations, the wave equation
and the mass-energy equivalence principle with limited practical significance. As both these equations are having solid physical meaning, I can see a quite improbable, the common solution of both of them has no relevance for physic at all, but the whole development of AWT depends on scientific community. It can be solely joint action, and the public peer review is the first step. at the first glance, the AWT should be proven by some math model of common experiment with known result, the unknown experiment prediction the better. The true is, till now I have any formal calculus derived yet. I've made just a few steps of numerical solution, so every claim about AWT is just an extrapolation, based on Boolean logic, not the quantitative math. Nevertheless, the Boolean logic is part of formal math to, co I can try to explain, why I suppose, the Pupamancur objections are irrelevant.
Thanks the Pupamancur for kind introduction of his stance...
I hope, it will not be just the lonely dialog of two people - all the others members of this forum are hearty welcomed too, if you're interested about this topic.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 22 2006, 04:36 PM)
Until Zephir shows his calculations, AWT remains null and void, an invalid theory.
It's not the simple. The introductory postulates of AWT are well known and defined. From this point of view, the introductory position of AWT is much better, than the position of alternative theories, like the M-theory or LQG, when such postulates are defined in much more vague way. Such theories can claim virtually anything and so they cannot be even easily disproved.
The refutability is the important characteristic of scientific theory, the non refutable theories are just a hypothesis, no less, no more. So we can say, the AWT is refutable theory at least, because it has very well defined the postulate base.
The another crucial point is, whether the AWT is void and empty theory. I'm sure, it's not the true. The system of the introductory equations, is definitely solvable and it describes the undulations of the hypothetical string, the density of which is proportional the energy density in each moment and time location. The time evolution of such system was tested by numerical way in two dimensions and it is depicted to the animation bellow.
It's not clear, whether such solution has some physical meaning, but the system of these two equations definitely has mathematical meaning, so it can serve for predictions. From this point of view the AWT is definitely not the void theory. It predicts something, we just don't know, whether the result can have some physical meaning - thats all.
The last stance, the AWT is invalid theory is the most problematic one. In fact, it contradicts the stance, the AWT is the void theory. If the AWT would be a null theory, it cannot be wrong, of course - it would have simply no meaning. But as we know, the AWT has a certain meaning, so it cannot be empty. But it can be wrong with the respect of point, it doesn't describe the physical reality. From such perspective is important, the AWT is solely based onto equations, which are having a solid, robust and well proven physical meaning. The parallel solution of such equations should have some physical meaning too, at least at certain range - or something will be wrong with the whole physical formalism, which uses such extrapolations and combinations too.
So we cannot say, the AWT is solely wrong, it can be just wrong outside the scope of validity of both the, equations. We should try the reason, why such equations cannot be combined at first to be able to postulate such claim.
It's not the simple. The introductory postulates of AWT are well known and defined. From this point of view, the introductory position of AWT is much better, than the position of alternative theories, like the M-theory or LQG, when such postulates are defined in much more vague way. Such theories can claim virtually anything and so they cannot be even easily disproved.
The refutability is the important characteristic of scientific theory, the non refutable theories are just a hypothesis, no less, no more. So we can say, the AWT is refutable theory at least, because it has very well defined the postulate base.
The another crucial point is, whether the AWT is void and empty theory. I'm sure, it's not the true. The system of the introductory equations
, is definitely solvable and it describes the undulations of the hypothetical string, the density of which is proportional the energy density in each moment and time location. The time evolution of such system was tested by numerical way in two dimensions and it is depicted to the animation bellow.It's not clear, whether such solution has some physical meaning, but the system of these two equations definitely has mathematical meaning, so it can serve for predictions. From this point of view the AWT is definitely not the void theory. It predicts something, we just don't know, whether the result can have some physical meaning - thats all.
The last stance, the AWT is invalid theory is the most problematic one. In fact, it contradicts the stance, the AWT is the void theory. If the AWT would be a null theory, it cannot be wrong, of course - it would have simply no meaning. But as we know, the AWT has a certain meaning, so it cannot be empty. But it can be wrong with the respect of point, it doesn't describe the physical reality. From such perspective is important, the AWT is solely based onto equations, which are having a solid, robust and well proven physical meaning. The parallel solution of such equations should have some physical meaning too, at least at certain range - or something will be wrong with the whole physical formalism, which uses such extrapolations and combinations too.
So we cannot say, the AWT is solely wrong, it can be just wrong outside the scope of validity of both the
, equations. We should try the reason, why such equations cannot be combined at first to be able to postulate such claim.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 22 2006, 04:50 PM)
<nonsense snipped>
So we cannot say, the AWT is solely wrong, it can be just wrong outside the scope of validity of both the, equations. We should try the reason, why such equations cannot be combined at first to be able to postulate such claim.
<more nonsense snipped>
The AWT is BEYOND wrong, it is INVALID from the very beginning.
It stays invalid until you manage to show that it passes the experiments listed above.
So we cannot say, the AWT is solely wrong, it can be just wrong outside the scope of validity of both the
, equations. We should try the reason, why such equations cannot be combined at first to be able to postulate such claim.<more nonsense snipped>
The AWT is BEYOND wrong, it is INVALID from the very beginning.
It stays invalid until you manage to show that it passes the experiments listed above.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 01:19 AM)
It stays invalid until you manage to show that it passes the experiments listed above.
It stays unconfirmed/unproven, not invalid. This is the difference.
It stays unconfirmed/unproven, not invalid. This is the difference.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 22 2006, 10:22 PM)
It stays unconfirmed/unproven, not invalid. This is the difference.
AWT is beyond unproven/unconfirmed. It is INVALID. Because you CANNOT show that it passes the experimental tests. If you could, you would have done it by now instead of wasting your time in thousands of posts. This is the first thing a proponent of a new theory does: it proves that the new thory passes experiment. You CANNOT do that, therefore AWT is INVALID.
AWT is beyond unproven/unconfirmed. It is INVALID. Because you CANNOT show that it passes the experimental tests. If you could, you would have done it by now instead of wasting your time in thousands of posts. This is the first thing a proponent of a new theory does: it proves that the new thory passes experiment. You CANNOT do that, therefore AWT is INVALID.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 01:24 AM)
AWT is ... INVALID. Because you CANNOT show that it passes the experimental tests.
Wake up - what I can or not is solely irrelevant. I can be dead at the moment of reading of this sentence...
This doesn't affect the validity of some theory - mine or whatever else.
Wake up - what I can or not is solely irrelevant. I can be dead at the moment of reading of this sentence...
This doesn't affect the validity of some theory - mine or whatever else.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 22 2006, 10:32 PM)
Wake up - what I can or not is solely irrelevant. I can be dead at this moment of reading this sentence...
we would be saved from your daily dose of spam promoting AWT.
we would be saved from your daily dose of spam promoting AWT.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 01:33 AM)
we would be saved from your daily dose of spam.
Try to imagine, somebody would find the AWT written on the wall of some prehistoric cave as a message of ancient civilization.
I suppose, this cave would be full of scientists and journalists at this moment. This is somewhat strange, isn't it?
Try to imagine, somebody would find the AWT written on the wall of some prehistoric cave as a message of ancient civilization.
I suppose, this cave would be full of scientists and journalists at this moment. This is somewhat strange, isn't it?
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 22 2006, 10:39 PM)
Try to imagine, somebody would find the AWT written on the wall of some prehistoric cave as a message of ancient civilization.
I suppose, this cave would be full of scientists and journalists at this moment. This is somewhat strange, isn't it?
Well yes, in terms of value it does date back from the 1800's , not quite prehistoric but antique.
maybe you should start transfering the AWT cartoons on the walls of the closest cave. How will you do the animations?
I suppose, this cave would be full of scientists and journalists at this moment. This is somewhat strange, isn't it?
Well yes, in terms of value it does date back from the 1800's , not quite prehistoric but antique.
maybe you should start transfering the AWT cartoons on the walls of the closest cave. How will you do the animations?
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 01:42 AM)
How will you do the animations?
Let me think about it....
I'll explain you, how the AWT should deal with the experiments listed above later, don't affraid.
Let me think about it....
I'll explain you, how the AWT should deal with the experiments listed above later, don't affraid.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 22 2006, 04:50 PM)
The system of the introductory equations , is definitely solvable and it describes the undulations of the hypothetical string, the density of which is proportional the energy density in each moment and time location.
Do you even realize that when you crib the d'Alembertian from MathWorld: Wave Equation you are just taking a shorthand expression for
where v = c. It's hard to see why you call these undulations in a string (which is 1-dimensional and finite) when the solutions are N-dimensional waves which propagate to infinity at constant velocity. Also, is INDEPENDENT of any value in the solution of the first equation. That's because there are no m terms or E terms in the first equation or its solutions. It's very typically of people who have sloganized E=mc^2 to fail to grasp it's context in modern physics, as the expression for the Lorentz-Invariant rest mass. (mc^2)^2 = E^2 - (pc)^2 where p is momentum.
Quantum Field Theory tells a tale about the Wave Equation, and calls it the equation of a free (non-interacting) massless spin-0 particle. Since matter does interact with itself, and the solutions to your wave equation are linearly superimposable without interaction terms, then your theory must predict no forces.
This is non-physical.
, is definitely solvable and it describes the undulations of the hypothetical string, the density of which is proportional the energy density in each moment and time location. Do you even realize that when you crib the d'Alembertian from MathWorld: Wave Equation you are just taking a shorthand expression for
where v = c. It's hard to see why you call these undulations in a string (which is 1-dimensional and finite) when the solutions are N-dimensional waves which propagate to infinity at constant velocity. Also, is INDEPENDENT of any value in the solution of the first equation. That's because there are no m terms or E terms in the first equation or its solutions. It's very typically of people who have sloganized E=mc^2 to fail to grasp it's context in modern physics, as the expression for the Lorentz-Invariant rest mass. (mc^2)^2 = E^2 - (pc)^2 where p is momentum. Quantum Field Theory tells a tale about the Wave Equation, and calls it the equation of a free (non-interacting) massless spin-0 particle. Since matter does interact with itself, and the solutions to your wave equation are linearly superimposable without interaction terms, then your theory must predict no forces.
This is non-physical.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 22 2006, 11:02 PM)
Do you even realize that when you crib the d'Alembertian from MathWorld: Wave Equation you are just taking a shorthand expression for where v = c. It's hard to see why you call these undulations a string when the solutions are N-dimensional waves which propagate to infinity at constant velocity. Also, is INDEPENDENT of any value in the solution of the first equation. That's because there are no m terms or E terms in the first equation or its solutions. It's very typically of people who have sloganized E=mc^2 to fail to grasp it's context in modern physics, as the expression for the Lorentz-Invariant rest mass. (mc^2)^2 = E^2 - (pc)^2 where p is momentum.
Quantum Field Theory tells a tale about the Wave Equation, and calls it the equation of a free (non-interacting) massless spin-0 particle. Since matter does interact with itself, and the solutions to your wave equation are linearly superimposable without interaction terms, then your theory must predict no forces.
This is non-physical.
dang! He was going to explain how AWT deals with the listed experiments :-)
where v = c. It's hard to see why you call these undulations a string when the solutions are N-dimensional waves which propagate to infinity at constant velocity. Also, is INDEPENDENT of any value in the solution of the first equation. That's because there are no m terms or E terms in the first equation or its solutions. It's very typically of people who have sloganized E=mc^2 to fail to grasp it's context in modern physics, as the expression for the Lorentz-Invariant rest mass. (mc^2)^2 = E^2 - (pc)^2 where p is momentum. Quantum Field Theory tells a tale about the Wave Equation, and calls it the equation of a free (non-interacting) massless spin-0 particle. Since matter does interact with itself, and the solutions to your wave equation are linearly superimposable without interaction terms, then your theory must predict no forces.
This is non-physical.
dang! He was going to explain how AWT deals with the listed experiments :-)
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 23 2006, 02:02 AM)
It's hard to see why you call these undulations in a string (which is 1-dimensional and finite) when the solutions are N-dimensional waves which propagate to infinity at constant velocity.
I don't know, why the string theory calls these 11D elements the strings - but the d'Alambertian operator doesn't contain some particular number of dimensions. The string is simply a piece of inertial elastic matter from such perspective.
The c^2 = string tension / string mass density. Both the tension, both the mass density are related to energy density via E=mc^2.
I don't know, why the string theory calls these 11D elements the strings - but the d'Alambertian operator doesn't contain some particular number of dimensions. The string is simply a piece of inertial elastic matter from such perspective.
The c^2 = string tension / string mass density. Both the tension, both the mass density are related to energy density via E=mc^2.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 23 2006, 02:02 AM)
..people who have sloganized E=mc^2 to fail to grasp it's context in modern physics, as the expression for the Lorentz-Invariant rest mass....
At the first glance, the AWT doesn't care about some rest mass, because all the elements are in perpetual motion. The rest mass is simply redundant concept here. Therefore the AWT uses just the dynamic (relativistic) mass.
At the first glance, the AWT doesn't care about some rest mass, because all the elements are in perpetual motion. The rest mass is simply redundant concept here. Therefore the AWT uses just the dynamic (relativistic) mass.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 23 2006, 02:02 AM)
..Quantum Field Theory tells a tale about the Wave Equation, and calls it the equation of a free (non-interacting) massless spin-0 particle....
That's all right, but the AWT uses the relativistic wave equation, where the mass density is proportional to energy density. Such equation becomes strongly nonlinear and leads to the asymptotic, non-steady state solution. Just try to imagine it: even the infinitesimal impulse on such string generates some undulations and some energy density, thus increases the mass density of such string, thus in turn increases the energy density even more by avalanche like process.
When such process will stop? Well, it will not stop at all - it will continue forever...
That's all right, but the AWT uses the relativistic wave equation, where the mass density is proportional to energy density. Such equation becomes strongly nonlinear and leads to the asymptotic, non-steady state solution. Just try to imagine it: even the infinitesimal impulse on such string generates some undulations and some energy density, thus increases the mass density of such string, thus in turn increases the energy density even more by avalanche like process.
When such process will stop? Well, it will not stop at all - it will continue forever...
The surprising thing is, even such simple system is somewhat over-parametrized. The collapse of string will never stop, but it slovens with time, as the string becomes more dense. Furthermore, here are less or more stable states, when the energy density decreases with the gravitational pressure. At this situation, the solution becomes a quasi-stable and it will lead to the famous foamy behavior.
Now we can imagine, how the E=mc^2 is really working: whenever you introduce some energy into such undulation foam, the bubbles of such foam will become vibrating at the higher pitch. As the result, the bubble membranes will contract and the density of bubbles will increase. The density of bubbles corresponds the matter density of Aether, by such way we can see, the matter density is proportional to energy density - even without E=mc^2 postulate!
This is really great, because it enables us to eliminate the E=mc^2 formula from solution and to derive the c^2 constant just from geometry of solution (which in turn follows from such dependence implicitly).
Unfortunately, such derivation appears too difficult for me, being deeply implicit function. It just shows the way, how all the fundamental constants of our universe can be derived just by patient iterations of wave equation solution. It's not all, because I suppose, such implicit solution can be simplified even more to the diffusion equation, but I haven't such concept formalized yet. But it seams, whole the universe is just a single huge complex fluctuation of fluctuations of fluctuations controlled just by the diffusional gradients and waves....
Now we can imagine, how the E=mc^2 is really working: whenever you introduce some energy into such undulation foam, the bubbles of such foam will become vibrating at the higher pitch. As the result, the bubble membranes will contract and the density of bubbles will increase. The density of bubbles corresponds the matter density of Aether, by such way we can see, the matter density is proportional to energy density - even without E=mc^2 postulate!
This is really great, because it enables us to eliminate the E=mc^2 formula from solution and to derive the c^2 constant just from geometry of solution (which in turn follows from such dependence implicitly).
Unfortunately, such derivation appears too difficult for me, being deeply implicit function. It just shows the way, how all the fundamental constants of our universe can be derived just by patient iterations of wave equation solution. It's not all, because I suppose, such implicit solution can be simplified even more to the diffusion equation, but I haven't such concept formalized yet. But it seams, whole the universe is just a single huge complex fluctuation of fluctuations of fluctuations controlled just by the diffusional gradients and waves....
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 22 2006, 10:56 PM)
Let me think about it....
I'll explain you, how the AWT should deal with the experiments listed above later, don't affraid.
How about you stopped posting nonsense about your INVALID AWT and you made good on showing the equations that describe how AWT passes the listed experiments.
No one can be fooled by your snow jobs anymore, so try to prove how your theory passes the tests.
Until then, your theory stays dismissed as void and null.
I'll explain you, how the AWT should deal with the experiments listed above later, don't affraid.
How about you stopped posting nonsense about your INVALID AWT and you made good on showing the equations that describe how AWT passes the listed experiments.
No one can be fooled by your snow jobs anymore, so try to prove how your theory passes the tests.
Until then, your theory stays dismissed as void and null.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 05:14 AM)
Until then, your theory stays dismissed as void and null.
LOL, the validity of theory doesn't depend on some appreciation, the appreciation of yours the less...
Or do you believe, the relativity was valid just after it was passed the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959?
Nope, it was valid from it's very beginning.
LOL, the validity of theory doesn't depend on some appreciation, the appreciation of yours the less...
Or do you believe, the relativity was valid just after it was passed the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959?
Nope, it was valid from it's very beginning.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 02:22 AM)
LOL, the validity of theory doesn't depend on some appreciation, the appreciation of yours the less...
Or do you believe, the relativity was valid just after it was passed the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959?
Nope, it was valid from it's very beginning
Well, your AWT is invalid until you keep your previous promise and demonstrate with equations that it passes the standard tests. Relativity passes them, AWT doesn't. So, until you show your equations, AWT stays INVALID.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=125525
Or do you believe, the relativity was valid just after it was passed the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959?
Nope, it was valid from it's very beginning
Well, your AWT is invalid until you keep your previous promise and demonstrate with equations that it passes the standard tests. Relativity passes them, AWT doesn't. So, until you show your equations, AWT stays INVALID.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=125525
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 05:26 AM)
So, until you show your equations, AWT stays INVALID....
By such "logic", the LQG/M-theory or Heim theory are INVALID too... I've no problems with this.
By such "logic", the LQG/M-theory or Heim theory are INVALID too...
I've no problems with this.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 02:37 AM)
By such "logic", the LQG/M-theory or Heim theory are INVALID too... I've no problems with this.
The theory in discussion is YOUR theory , AWT. See the title of the thread? It is called "AWT - invalid theory".
AWT is null and void since you cannot explain how it passes the tests.
BTW, the string theories that you mention, all pass, they are written by professional physicists , not by ignorant diletantes, so you missed on that one as well. Start reading, stop posting because you are posting only emabarassing mistakes
I've no problems with this. The theory in discussion is YOUR theory , AWT. See the title of the thread? It is called "AWT - invalid theory".
AWT is null and void since you cannot explain how it passes the tests.
BTW, the string theories that you mention, all pass, they are written by professional physicists , not by ignorant diletantes, so you missed on that one as well. Start reading, stop posting because you are posting only emabarassing mistakes
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 05:42 AM)
AWT is null and void since you cannot explain how it passes the tests...
Can you explain, how the LQG/M-theory or Heim theory passes your tests? Just asking for sure...
Can you explain, how the LQG/M-theory or Heim theory passes your tests? Just asking for sure...
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 05:42 AM)
..the string theories that you mention, all pass......
LOL, how you can prove this claim?
Characteristics of Pathological skepticism:
1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. The making of judgements without full inquiry
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks
6. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
7. Pejorative labelling of proponents as "promoters", "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science."
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
12. Tendency to dismiss all evidence
13. Organized skepticism tends to be automatically pathological
LOL, how you can prove this claim?
Characteristics of Pathological skepticism:
1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. The making of judgements without full inquiry
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks
6. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
7. Pejorative labelling of proponents as "promoters", "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science."
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
12. Tendency to dismiss all evidence
13. Organized skepticism tends to be automatically pathological
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 02:52 AM)
<deflection snipped>
The theory in discussion is YOUR theory , AWT. See the title of the thread? It is called "AWT - INVALID theory".
AWT is null and void since you cannot explain how it passes the tests.
BTW, the string theories that you mention, all pass, they are written by professional physicists , not by ignorant diletantes, so you missed on that one as well. It was explained to you, SEVERAL TIMES that string theories INCORPORATE relativity,they are not aether theory like your AWT , so they pass the tests that AWT FAILS. Start reading, stop posting because you are posting only emabarassing mistakes
The theory in discussion is YOUR theory , AWT. See the title of the thread? It is called "AWT - INVALID theory".
AWT is null and void since you cannot explain how it passes the tests.
BTW, the string theories that you mention, all pass, they are written by professional physicists , not by ignorant diletantes, so you missed on that one as well. It was explained to you, SEVERAL TIMES that string theories INCORPORATE relativity,they are not aether theory like your AWT , so they pass the tests that AWT FAILS. Start reading, stop posting because you are posting only emabarassing mistakes
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 06:03 AM)
The theory in discussion is YOUR theory, AWT.
Why do you mean, the criterion of validity are depending on the authorship of theory?
If you're proposing some criteria of validity, I'd expect, they will be universally applicable.
Why do you mean, the criterion of validity are depending on the authorship of theory?
If you're proposing some criteria of validity, I'd expect, they will be universally applicable.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 06:03 AM)
the string theories that you mention, all pass
Just prove it - we'll see...
Without proof I can say the same as well about AWT... 
Just prove it - we'll see...
Without proof I can say the same as well about AWT...
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 03:07 AM)
Why do you mean, the criterion of validity are depending on the authorship of theory?
No, it depends on the theory ability to pass tests. Your AWT fails. Unless you can prove with equations that it passes (in the next lifetime). Until you do that, AWT is null and void.
If you're proposing some criteria of validity, I'd expect, they will be universally applicable.
They are universal, the tests that I listed for you. The other theories pass. You cannot prove that AWT passes. I challenge you to do it, stop stalling and start cranking on equations.
No, it depends on the theory ability to pass tests. Your AWT fails. Unless you can prove with equations that it passes (in the next lifetime). Until you do that, AWT is null and void.
QUOTE
If you're proposing some criteria of validity, I'd expect, they will be universally applicable.
They are universal, the tests that I listed for you. The other theories pass. You cannot prove that AWT passes. I challenge you to do it, stop stalling and start cranking on equations.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 06:10 AM)
Unless you can prove with equations that it passes (in the next lifetime). Until you do that, AWT is null and void.
By such "logic", the LQG/M-theory or Heim theory are NULL and VOID, too... I've no problems with this.
By such "logic", the LQG/M-theory or Heim theory are NULL and VOID, too...
I've no problems with this.QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 06:10 AM)
..They are universal, the tests that I listed for you. The other theories pass. ...
This is just a belief of yours. Only relativity theory passed these tests.
This is just a belief of yours. Only relativity theory passed these tests.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 03:14 AM)
By such "logic", the LQG/M-theory or Heim theory are NULL and VOID, too... I've no problems with this.
In discussion is the validity of AWT, not the others.
AWT is INVALID until you stop weasiling and you start defending it by showing how it passes all the tests.
Rpenner showed you that your theory is not physical (i.e. the equations that you picked at random to represnt AWT do not form a consistent system). I told you the same thing before. What is even worse, is that, as a consequence, you cannot explain how AWT would pass the set of critical tests.
I've no problems with this. In discussion is the validity of AWT, not the others.
AWT is INVALID until you stop weasiling and you start defending it by showing how it passes all the tests.
Rpenner showed you that your theory is not physical (i.e. the equations that you picked at random to represnt AWT do not form a consistent system). I told you the same thing before. What is even worse, is that, as a consequence, you cannot explain how AWT would pass the set of critical tests.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 06:16 AM)
AWT is INVALID...
It's just a personal stance of yours. You can never know without tests, whether some theory is valid or not.
Everything, what you can say is, such theory is UNTESTED.
It's just a personal stance of yours. You can never know without tests, whether some theory is valid or not.
Everything, what you can say is, such theory is UNTESTED.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 06:16 AM)
Rpenner showed you that your theory is not physical ...
How can be the theory based on these two equations and ?
Are you sure you know, what are you talking about?
How can be the theory based on these two equations
and ?Are you sure you know, what are you talking about?
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 03:14 AM)
Only relativity theory passed these tests.
You've been told, the string theories incorporate relativity.
You've been told, the string theories incorporate relativity.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 03:21 AM)
It's just a personal stance of yours. You can never know without tests, whether some theory is valid or not.
Everything, what you can say is, such theory is UNTESTED.
So prove me wrong. I challenged you to write the equations that show how AWT passes the tests. Stop weaseling, start cracking.
Everything, what you can say is, such theory is UNTESTED.
So prove me wrong. I challenged you to write the equations that show how AWT passes the tests. Stop weaseling, start cracking.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 06:22 AM)
You've been told, the string theories incorporate relativity.
The AWT incorporates the relativity too...
The AWT incorporates the relativity too...
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 06:22 AM)
challenged you to write the equations that show how AWT passes the tests.
So prove at first, your criteria of validity are universal and valid, too. Show me, how you can apply it on some theory, which is known as not null and not void, like the M-theory.
Until you prove it, I'd consider you implications as unsubstantial. So prove me wrong.
So prove at first, your criteria of validity are universal and valid, too. Show me, how you can apply it on some theory, which is known as not null and not void, like the M-theory.
Until you prove it, I'd consider you implications as unsubstantial. So prove me wrong.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 03:24 AM)
The AWT incorporates the relativity too.
Ha,ha,ha.
AWT is an aether theory, have you forgotten?
Come on , Zeph, stop weaseling, start cracking on those equations, I challenge you to show all of us how AWT passes the tests. Otherwise it sits naked in the rain, exposed as a hoax.
Ha,ha,ha.
AWT is an aether theory, have you forgotten?
Come on , Zeph, stop weaseling, start cracking on those equations, I challenge you to show all of us how AWT passes the tests. Otherwise it sits naked in the rain, exposed as a hoax.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 06:27 AM)
I challenge you to show all of us how AWT passes the tests....
Easy, man.... I'm not obliged you/payed for solution of some equations, the equations of yours the less - especially at the situation, you didn't prove, some other alternative theory has solved it too.
You cannot dictate me, what I should to do - am I true or not? Please consider, next similar attempt will be reported without warning.
Easy, man....
I'm not obliged you/payed for solution of some equations, the equations of yours the less - especially at the situation, you didn't prove, some other alternative theory has solved it too.You cannot dictate me, what I should to do - am I true or not? Please consider, next similar attempt will be reported without warning.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 03:39 AM)
Easy, man.... I'm not obliged you/payed for solution of some equations, the equations of yours the less - especially at the situation, you didn't prove, some other alternative theory has solved it too.
You cannot dictate me, what I should to do - am I true or not? Please consider, next similar attempt will be reported without warning.
I'm not dictating, it is in your interest to defend poor naked, exposed, invalidated AWT sitting in the rain. No equations , no validity. Day one of the challenge passed, you posted hundreds of posts but your theory remains invalid.
I'm not obliged you/payed for solution of some equations, the equations of yours the less - especially at the situation, you didn't prove, some other alternative theory has solved it too.You cannot dictate me, what I should to do - am I true or not? Please consider, next similar attempt will be reported without warning.
I'm not dictating, it is in your interest to defend poor naked, exposed, invalidated AWT sitting in the rain. No equations , no validity. Day one of the challenge passed, you posted hundreds of posts but your theory remains invalid.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 07:19 AM)
No equations, no validity.
I can say the same about LQG/M-theory easily, after than...
I can say the same about LQG/M-theory easily, after than...
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 05:20 AM)
I can say the same about LQG/M-theory easily, after than...
Doesn't change anything, the subject is AWT.
Doesn't help anything, AWT is invalid. Will remain invalid until you manage to write up the equations (meaning probably never)
Doesn't change anything, the subject is AWT.
Doesn't help anything, AWT is invalid. Will remain invalid until you manage to write up the equations (meaning probably never)
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 08:25 AM)
...AWT is invalid. Will remain invalid until you manage to write up the equations...
The equations as such are irrelevant for validity of scientific theory. The Ptolemaic epicycles were supported by equations for more than thousand years, the string theory piles equations for nearly forty years - and the result is commonly known and supported by mainstream theorists.
As you can clearly see, the equations means nothing for validity of scientific theory, if they're based on invalid postulates & assumptions.
The equations as such are irrelevant for validity of scientific theory. The Ptolemaic epicycles were supported by equations for more than thousand years, the string theory piles equations for nearly forty years - and the result is commonly known and supported by mainstream theorists.
As you can clearly see, the equations means nothing for validity of scientific theory, if they're based on invalid postulates & assumptions.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 05:32 AM)
The equations as such are irrelevant for validity of scientific theory. The Ptolemaic epicycles were supported by equations for more than thousand years, the string theory piles equations for nearly forty years - and the result is commonly known and supported by mainstream theorists.
As you can clearly see, the equations means nothing for validity of scientific theory, if they're based on invalid postulates & assumptions.
The challenged theory in discussion is AWT, not the other ones. Remember, until you produce the valid proof that AWT passes the experiments, the title of this thread stands as :" AWT - invalid theory".
Until you write the equations that prove that it can pass the experiments described at the start of the thread, AWT remains invalid. See here as a reminder to the challenge:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=125525
As you can clearly see, the equations means nothing for validity of scientific theory, if they're based on invalid postulates & assumptions.
The challenged theory in discussion is AWT, not the other ones. Remember, until you produce the valid proof that AWT passes the experiments, the title of this thread stands as :" AWT - invalid theory".
Until you write the equations that prove that it can pass the experiments described at the start of the thread, AWT remains invalid. See here as a reminder to the challenge:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=125525
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 08:49 AM)
The challenged theory in discussion is AWT, not the other ones.
Please let me decide, what about I will talk with you or not You're proposing some criteria of validity, so I'm validating these criteria against the other theories to prove, whether they're relevant or not.
Without valid criteria you cannot determine the status of any theory correctly. Do you have something against such approach?
Please let me decide, what about I will talk with you or not
You're proposing some criteria of validity, so I'm validating these criteria against the other theories to prove, whether they're relevant or not. Without valid criteria you cannot determine the status of any theory correctly. Do you have something against such approach?
AWT is not a complete theory. It is just a direction of the investigation now. String Theory is much different now then 30 years ago. LQG and Heim solve some problems but they are not complete too. String theory changed into M-theory but is not complete and many people even say its is a wrong direction of the investigation.
Every theory needs a discussion to find the wrong statement and correct it.
We need you Pupamancur to develope AWT.
Every theory needs a discussion to find the wrong statement and correct it.
We need you Pupamancur to develope AWT.
The AWT is based on a magical ether which has whatever properties Zephir feels it ought to have on the day. In the tradition of story telling it is (in Zephir's mind) acquiring many of the properties of a 'real' scientific theory. The same story every time is the AWT equivalent of an equation which gives the same result every time. The problem is compounded by Zephir's belief that each story could be turned into formal mathematics if only he knew how. For Zephir any test of the AWT can be reduced to a test of his faith in the AWT. It may be an uncrackable combination.
-C2.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Sep 23 2006, 11:19 AM)
The AWT is based on a magical ether
Nope, the AWT is based on the belief in universality of mass-energy equivalence principle E=mc^2. If some different theories are speaking about Higgs lattice, vacuum condensate, quantum foam, Dirac's sea or space-time fabric with certain energy, it simply means, such environment should have some mass and inertial properties too - or the whole Einstein equation is invalid.
The simple analogy with water surface waves (where whole the underwater is virtually undetectable by such mechanical waves for observation) learns us about mechanism, haw such energy manifests itself into reality and how the energy and mass are mutually related with respect of the position/role of observer (i.e. the fact, whether he's formed by such environment, or not).
Nope, the AWT is based on the belief in universality of mass-energy equivalence principle E=mc^2. If some different theories are speaking about Higgs lattice, vacuum condensate, quantum foam, Dirac's sea or space-time fabric with certain energy, it simply means, such environment should have some mass and inertial properties too - or the whole Einstein equation is invalid.
The simple analogy with water surface waves (where whole the underwater is virtually undetectable by such mechanical waves for observation) learns us about mechanism, haw such energy manifests itself into reality and how the energy and mass are mutually related with respect of the position/role of observer (i.e. the fact, whether he's formed by such environment, or not).
QUOTE (Confused2+Sep 23 2006, 11:19 AM)
We need you Pupamancur to develop AWT.
Frankly, I'm not sure, the Pupamancur is able to develop anything. But the development of scientific theory becomes a matter of specialization, obviously. The development of theories just by mathematicians is obviously ineffective. They should be always consulted by the people with the intuitive insight into physical reality and vice-versa. Both these sort of peoples are having so different way of thinking, so its virtually impossible to expect, some genius will solve all the problems of civilization alone.
Unfortunately it seems, currently both these groups of people are highly competitive. One group doesn't believes the other one mutually. The intuitive people are having insight and new ideas, the formal people the tools, how to introduce it into reality. We can see the analogy with
AWT dualities again. The future is in close cooperation of such people.
Frankly, I'm not sure, the Pupamancur is able to develop anything. But the development of scientific theory becomes a matter of specialization, obviously. The development of theories just by mathematicians is obviously ineffective. They should be always consulted by the people with the intuitive insight into physical reality and vice-versa. Both these sort of peoples are having so different way of thinking, so its virtually impossible to expect, some genius will solve all the problems of civilization alone.
Unfortunately it seems, currently both these groups of people are highly competitive. One group doesn't believes the other one mutually. The intuitive people are having insight and new ideas, the formal people the tools, how to introduce it into reality. We can see the analogy with
AWT dualities again. The future is in close cooperation of such people.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 10:48 AM)
Nope, the AWT is based on the belief in universality of mass-energy equivalence principle E=mc^2.
It is the weakest point (quantitave estimations at this level aside) in your otherwise very inteligent efforts. Namely, Space is kind of aether (mostly choice of words), but that "principle" has to be the consequence of its dynamics where you assume it. So, there is at least one step "deeper" level of cosmic understanding.
Regards
It is the weakest point (quantitave estimations at this level aside) in your otherwise very inteligent efforts. Namely, Space is kind of aether (mostly choice of words), but that "principle" has to be the consequence of its dynamics where you assume it. So, there is at least one step "deeper" level of cosmic understanding.
Regards
QUOTE (Turanyanin+Sep 23 2006, 02:36 PM)
It is the weakest point (quantitative estimations at this level aside) in your otherwise very intelligent efforts.
The fundamental model of AWT is quite quantitative, though. The model of string, where the mass density correspond the energy density has solid & robust physical meaning and it can be subject of numerical modeling easily. It has even the practical consequences in real physic of thermodynamical system - for example, I've never met with the model of supercritical condensation into foam and droplet. I can't understand, why it is so - it's quite real system, supposedly more simpler, then turbulence. The only explanation can be, it has no practical application so far - who cares about some droplets in supercritical vapor? But I believe, the solution of such system can bring a progress into understanding of Aether topology. The increasing of practical significance of Bose-Einstein condensates can accelerate the solution of this problem.
Furthermore it's obvious, even the solely quantitative theories, like the LQG/M-theory aren't able to compute/predict something useful/meaningful with quantitative approach as well. So where is an advantage? The adherence on formal models solvable by analytical way is rather brake of development by now, because whole the contemporary praxis is based on numerical models and even the formal models must be evaluated numerically to be feasible. The recursive nature of reality leads to very implicit and recursive schemes, which cannot be described by formal math easily, to solve the less. But as a biggest problem of formal approach I can see the fact, it cuts as from the intuitive understanding of physical reality. It quite unnecessary, because the nature of reality is recursive like fractal: if you understand the one bit, you can understand the others without problem on the analogy basis. With compare of it, the math formalism becomes just more and more complex, until it becomes unmaintainable - the situation of superstring theory clearly demonstrates such problem.
It's like the attempt to illustrate the pixel photography by using of just math of vector graphic. Bellow certain level of detail understanding such approach will become simply ineffective. The best approach so far is to use a sort of fractal compression. As an another example can serve the mathematical description of turbulence by using of Navier-Stokes Equations. Here is evident gap between the possibilities of formal approach and the numerical solution of reality. We have equations, but no ways, how to solve them analytically, although the numeric solution can be fast, easy and efficient.. The AWT situation is the very same - and please consider, the system of two equations and is only heavily simplified problem. As I've proposed previously, the requirement of the E=mc^2 can be removed from postulate list of AWT too be involving of the knowledge about recursive geometry of system.
The fundamental model of AWT is quite quantitative, though. The model of string, where the mass density correspond the energy density has solid & robust physical meaning and it can be subject of numerical modeling easily. It has even the practical consequences in real physic of thermodynamical system - for example, I've never met with the model of supercritical condensation into foam and droplet. I can't understand, why it is so - it's quite real system, supposedly more simpler, then turbulence. The only explanation can be, it has no practical application so far - who cares about some droplets in supercritical vapor? But I believe, the solution of such system can bring a progress into understanding of Aether topology. The increasing of practical significance of Bose-Einstein condensates can accelerate the solution of this problem.
Furthermore it's obvious, even the solely quantitative theories, like the LQG/M-theory aren't able to compute/predict something useful/meaningful with quantitative approach as well. So where is an advantage? The adherence on formal models solvable by analytical way is rather brake of development by now, because whole the contemporary praxis is based on numerical models and even the formal models must be evaluated numerically to be feasible. The recursive nature of reality leads to very implicit and recursive schemes, which cannot be described by formal math easily, to solve the less. But as a biggest problem of formal approach I can see the fact, it cuts as from the intuitive understanding of physical reality. It quite unnecessary, because the nature of reality is recursive like fractal: if you understand the one bit, you can understand the others without problem on the analogy basis. With compare of it, the math formalism becomes just more and more complex, until it becomes unmaintainable - the situation of superstring theory clearly demonstrates such problem.
It's like the attempt to illustrate the pixel photography by using of just math of vector graphic. Bellow certain level of detail understanding such approach will become simply ineffective. The best approach so far is to use a sort of fractal compression. As an another example can serve the mathematical description of turbulence by using of Navier-Stokes Equations. Here is evident gap between the possibilities of formal approach and the numerical solution of reality. We have equations, but no ways, how to solve them analytically, although the numeric solution can be fast, easy and efficient.. The AWT situation is the very same - and please consider, the system of two equations
and is only heavily simplified problem. As I've proposed previously, the requirement of the E=mc^2 can be removed from postulate list of AWT too be involving of the knowledge about recursive geometry of system.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 06:02 AM)
Please let me decide, what about I will talk with you or not You're proposing some criteria of validity, so I'm validating these criteria against the other theories to prove, whether they're relevant or not.
Without valid criteria you cannot determine the status of any theory correctly. Do you have something against such approach?
The valid criteria rea experiments. Here are one more time the experiments that you need to explain:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=125525
Until you do so, AWT is invalid.
You're proposing some criteria of validity, so I'm validating these criteria against the other theories to prove, whether they're relevant or not. Without valid criteria you cannot determine the status of any theory correctly. Do you have something against such approach?
The valid criteria rea experiments. Here are one more time the experiments that you need to explain:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=125525
Until you do so, AWT is invalid.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 12:24 AM)
I don't know, why the string theory calls these 11D elements the strings - but the d'Alambertian operator doesn't contain some particular number of dimensions. The string is simply a piece of inertial elastic matter from such perspective.
It doesn't. String theory described 1 dimensional objects (strings) which move in 11 dimensions. An 11 dimensional object would be known as a 'brane', short from membrane. Usually (though it can depend on specific boundary conditions) an N dimensional object in String/M theory is called an N-brane, or a D-N-brane, so a string is a D1-brane.
If the object is not 1 dimensional, it's not a string, it cannot be by definition. Wikipedia has a couple of good pages on explaining the ideas of Dp-branes.
It doesn't. String theory described 1 dimensional objects (strings) which move in 11 dimensions. An 11 dimensional object would be known as a 'brane', short from membrane. Usually (though it can depend on specific boundary conditions) an N dimensional object in String/M theory is called an N-brane, or a D-N-brane, so a string is a D1-brane.
If the object is not 1 dimensional, it's not a string, it cannot be by definition. Wikipedia has a couple of good pages on explaining the ideas of Dp-branes.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 12:24 AM)
The c^2 = string tension / string mass density. Both the tension, both the mass density are related to energy density via E=mc^2.
As already pointed out, E=mc^2 is over hyped by 'introductions to relativity' books, most notably pop science books and so this gives those people who haven't already studied relativity in any kind of depth (even special relativity) the false impression E=mc^2 is a hugely pivotal equation. While on some fronts it is, if you're going to describe anything dynamical you'll be needing the full form of the equation which takes into account momentum. To do otherwise is to attempt to describe a dynamic system without the notion of motion!
Also, just because wave velocity in a string is related to tension and density doesn't mean having a velocity term in an equation gives you the other two. Two numbers multiply to give you 10, what are they? You don't know. That same idea applies here.
As already pointed out, E=mc^2 is over hyped by 'introductions to relativity' books, most notably pop science books and so this gives those people who haven't already studied relativity in any kind of depth (even special relativity) the false impression E=mc^2 is a hugely pivotal equation. While on some fronts it is, if you're going to describe anything dynamical you'll be needing the full form of the equation which takes into account momentum. To do otherwise is to attempt to describe a dynamic system without the notion of motion!
Also, just because wave velocity in a string is related to tension and density doesn't mean having a velocity term in an equation gives you the other two. Two numbers multiply to give you 10, what are they? You don't know. That same idea applies here.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 12:24 AM)
Such equation becomes strongly nonlinear and leads to the asymptotic, non-steady state solution.
Show me (and others) the maths you've done to get the fact the solutions are strongly non-linear (also, define what strongly nonlinear means when compared to just 'nonlinear') and asymptotic, non-steady states.
If you're trying to solve the wave equation, you've got linear solutions, because there is no mixing of terms like qq' (q being the string state) which are non-linear. Just looking at the equation tells you that, never mind sitting down and crunching boundary conditions.
Show me (and others) the maths you've done to get the fact the solutions are strongly non-linear (also, define what strongly nonlinear means when compared to just 'nonlinear') and asymptotic, non-steady states.
If you're trying to solve the wave equation, you've got linear solutions, because there is no mixing of terms like qq' (q being the string state) which are non-linear. Just looking at the equation tells you that, never mind sitting down and crunching boundary conditions.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 12:24 AM)
Just try to imagine it: even the infinitesimal impulse on such string generates some undulations and some energy density, thus increases the mass density of such string, thus in turn increases the energy density even more by avalanche like process.
It would depend on the strength of the impulse applied related to the initial energy density of the string. Given you'd be conserving total energy, it's likely the energy would ripple out dispersing itself over the entire string in an (averaged over a time frame) uniform manner. There's be no 'avalanche of energy density' because where's the energy come from? It can't just keep growing and growing.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 23 2006, 08:10 PM)
Usually ... an N dimensional object in String/M theory is called an N-brane, or a D-N-brane, so a string is a D1-brane.
Unfortunately here's no constraint for string denomination - compare for example here "Four Dimensional String/String/String Triality". The denomination like the "heterotic string", "solitonic string", etc. implies, the string theory has no constraint to the string denomination with respect of dimensionality. After all, just the simple bionic S(0) string can be unidimensional, all the strings and even denomination super string implies a more complex model implicitly involving super symmetry concept. The Bran's are 2D dimensional string, the dualities are manifolds, not string (for example T-duality is toroidal duality).
Unfortunately here's no constraint for string denomination - compare for example here "Four Dimensional String/String/String Triality". The denomination like the "heterotic string", "solitonic string", etc. implies, the string theory has no constraint to the string denomination with respect of dimensionality. After all, just the simple bionic S(0) string can be unidimensional, all the strings and even denomination super string implies a more complex model implicitly involving super symmetry concept. The Bran's are 2D dimensional string, the dualities are manifolds, not string (for example T-duality is toroidal duality).
QUOTE (Alphanumeric+Seep 23 2006, 08:10 PM)
...just because wave velocity in a string is related to tension and density doesn't mean having a velocity term in an equation gives you the other two...
As I've explained you, all the parameters are mutually dependent each other in this model. The E=MC^2 can be replaced by the foamy structure of solution, so you needn't mass density, the force constant can be derived from energy density. Please consider, the string theory is over-parametrized by such way, it's not able to compute/predict anything meaningless at all, and nobody has problem with this over forty years.
As I've explained you, all the parameters are mutually dependent each other in this model. The E=MC^2 can be replaced by the foamy structure of solution, so you needn't mass density, the force constant can be derived from energy density. Please consider, the string theory is over-parametrized by such way, it's not able to compute/predict anything meaningless at all, and nobody has problem with this over forty years.
QUOTE (Alphanumeric+Seep 23 2006, 08:10 PM)
...Just looking at the equation tells you that, never mind sitting down and crunching boundary conditions...
The boundary conditions aren't required here - the boundary conditions are forming the boundary of the whole universe. For practical purposes you can neglected it at all.
The boundary conditions aren't required here - the boundary conditions are forming the boundary of the whole universe. For practical purposes you can neglected it at all.
QUOTE (Alphanumeric+Seep 23 2006, 08:10 PM)
...Show me (and others) the maths you've done to get the fact the solutions are strongly non-linear...
The oscillations of string where the density is constant are linear, steady state. All the other solutions involving further conditions will be nonlinear, no math is required for such understanding. The solution of AWT is highly nonlinear, because it leads to the phase transforms in system and spontaneous symmetry breaking.
The oscillations of string where the density is constant are linear, steady state. All the other solutions involving further conditions will be nonlinear, no math is required for such understanding. The solution of AWT is highly nonlinear, because it leads to the phase transforms in system and spontaneous symmetry breaking.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 06:02 AM)
Please let me decide, what about I will talk with you or not You're proposing some criteria of validity, so I'm validating these criteria against the other theories to prove, whether they're relevant or not.
Without valid criteria you cannot determine the status of any theory correctly. Do you have something against such approach?
The formulas you cite are verified in the framework of OTHER theories, not AWT.
The formulas themselves are valid, it is just AWT that is INVALID:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=125525
You can combine valid formulas and get an invalid theory, this is exactly what you did. AWT is a prime example of such a mishmash.
You're proposing some criteria of validity, so I'm validating these criteria against the other theories to prove, whether they're relevant or not. Without valid criteria you cannot determine the status of any theory correctly. Do you have something against such approach?
The formulas you cite are verified in the framework of OTHER theories, not AWT.
The formulas themselves are valid, it is just AWT that is INVALID:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=125525
You can combine valid formulas and get an invalid theory, this is exactly what you did. AWT is a prime example of such a mishmash.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 23 2006, 10:13 PM)
The formulas you cite are verified in the framework of OTHER theories, not AWT.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 06:25 PM)
Unfortunately here's no constraint for string denomination - compare for example here "Four Dimensional String/String/String Triality".
Somehow I doubt you're well enough versed in the specifics of string theory, compactified dimensions and dualities on such space-time configurations to understand much, if any, of the paper (or it's abstract) you've linked to.
I'm well aware of such names as 'heteroic string' or IIB strings, it was part of my 4th year dissertation to discuss their interrelations in 10 dimensional space-time and how they are linked under an 11 dimensional viewpoint.
I was countering your comment " why the string theory calls these 11D elements the strings" because it doesn't. Just because something can move in N dimensions doesn't mean it's N dimensional. A point particle can move in 3 (or 3+1) dimensions but is zero dimensional itself. Names like heteroic and solitonic relate to something else. A soliton is a wave which is localised in time, it does not dissipate (the KdV equation being a very nice example of such a system). Heteroic string theory involves compactifying a dimension onto a finite interval if memory serves.
Somehow I doubt you're well enough versed in the specifics of string theory, compactified dimensions and dualities on such space-time configurations to understand much, if any, of the paper (or it's abstract) you've linked to.
I'm well aware of such names as 'heteroic string' or IIB strings, it was part of my 4th year dissertation to discuss their interrelations in 10 dimensional space-time and how they are linked under an 11 dimensional viewpoint.
I was countering your comment " why the string theory calls these 11D elements the strings" because it doesn't. Just because something can move in N dimensions doesn't mean it's N dimensional. A point particle can move in 3 (or 3+1) dimensions but is zero dimensional itself. Names like heteroic and solitonic relate to something else. A soliton is a wave which is localised in time, it does not dissipate (the KdV equation being a very nice example of such a system). Heteroic string theory involves compactifying a dimension onto a finite interval if memory serves.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 06:25 PM)
all the parameters are mutually dependent each other in this model.
Contradictory. If you claim a system has 2 parameters, then say "They are dependent on one another" then you only actually have 1 parameter. So either you've 1 parameter or a bunch of parameters which aren't dependent on one another.
Contradictory. If you claim a system has 2 parameters, then say "They are dependent on one another" then you only actually have 1 parameter. So either you've 1 parameter or a bunch of parameters which aren't dependent on one another.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 06:25 PM)
The E=MC^2 can be replaced by the foamy structure of solution
Care to explain? An equation can be replaced by foam?
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 06:25 PM)
lease consider, the string theory is over-parametrized by such way, it's not able to compute/predict anything meaningless at all, and nobody has problem with this over forty years.
You mean apart from relativity?
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 06:25 PM)
The boundary conditions aren't required here - the boundary conditions are forming the boundary of the whole universe. For practical purposes you can neglected it at all.
You utterly missed my point. The wave equation is linear, you cannot get nonlinear answers, that is a mathematical fact. If q(x,t) and p(x,t) are solutions to the wave equation then so is r(x,t) = q(x,t) + p(x,t). Boundary conditions or not, that is a fact, so I can agree boundary conditions can be neglected, because they play no part in the fundamental structure of the solutions when it comes to linearity. If you doubt this, then I suggest you pick up a 'First Course in Calculus' book and start reading, but then if you doubt this, you know so little about dynamical mathematics nothing you claim about the type of solutions your 'theory' predicts can be trusted at all.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 06:25 PM)
The oscillations of string where the density is constant are linear, steady state. All the other solutions involving further conditions will be nonlinear, no math is required for such understanding. The solution of AWT is highly nonlinear, because it leads to the phase transforms in system and spontaneous symmetry breaking.
So that's a no then, you cannot show me. Given you didn't understand my response about the linearity of solutions to the wave equation, I don't think you really understand anything you're saying about phase transitions, symmetry breaking or non-linearity because they require a much better understanding, not just of ordinary differential equations, but partial differential equations and in the case of SSB, groups.
To say "No maths is required for understanding" when you're using specific mathematical statements like "non-linear" is silly. How can you use a mathematical word when you're ignorant of it's meaning? You didn't explain the difference between just 'nonlinear' and 'strongly nonlinear' so I'm guessing you actually are managing to use mathematical words without understanding their full implication. There's a reason high level physics isn't taught to students until they've done 6~10 courses in mathematics, it's because you can't do it without a lot of maths knowledge!
To say "No maths is required for understanding" when you're using specific mathematical statements like "non-linear" is silly. How can you use a mathematical word when you're ignorant of it's meaning? You didn't explain the difference between just 'nonlinear' and 'strongly nonlinear' so I'm guessing you actually are managing to use mathematical words without understanding their full implication. There's a reason high level physics isn't taught to students until they've done 6~10 courses in mathematics, it's because you can't do it without a lot of maths knowledge!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 23 2006, 11:25 PM)
Care to explain? An equation can be replaced by foam?
Yes, a I wrote here, whenever you introduce some energy into such undulation foam, the bubbles of such foam will become vibrating at the higher pitch. As the result, the bubble membranes will contract and the density of bubbles will increase. The density of bubbles corresponds the matter density of Aether, by such way we can see, the matter density is proportional to energy density - even without E=mc^2 postulate!
This is really great, because it enables us to eliminate the E=mc^2 formula from solution and to derive the c^2 constant just from geometry of solution (which in turn follows from such dependence implicitly).
Yes, a I wrote here, whenever you introduce some energy into such undulation foam, the bubbles of such foam will become vibrating at the higher pitch. As the result, the bubble membranes will contract and the density of bubbles will increase. The density of bubbles corresponds the matter density of Aether, by such way we can see, the matter density is proportional to energy density - even without E=mc^2 postulate!
This is really great, because it enables us to eliminate the E=mc^2 formula from solution and to derive the c^2 constant just from geometry of solution (which in turn follows from such dependence implicitly).
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 23 2006, 11:25 PM)
..You mean apart from relativity?..
What I'm really interested about is the list of introductional postulates of superstring theory and the derivation of, say, the light speed invariance, by using it.
What I'm really interested about is the list of introductional postulates of superstring theory and the derivation of, say, the light speed invariance, by using it.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 23 2006, 11:25 PM)
..The wave equation is linear, you cannot get nonlinear answers, that is a mathematical fact..
Of course not, if for example the mass density of string is function of energy density.
Of course not, if for example the mass density of string is function of energy density.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 23 2006, 11:25 PM)
..So that's a no then, you cannot show me. Given you didn't understand my response about the linearity of solutions to the wave equation?..
Of course I can - have look to the solution of such equation in 1D.
Does such solution appear linear? I don't think so...
Of course I can - have look to the solution of such equation in 1D.
Does such solution appear linear? I don't think so...
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 23 2006, 11:25 PM)
..You didn't explain the difference between just 'nonlinear' and 'strongly nonlinear' so I'm guessing you actually are managing to use mathematical words without understanding their full implication.
Try to explain me, what it means exactly. It's evident, you've never met with such denomination till now, but it's quite commongly used without exact definition, what it really means. So, why I cannot use it too?
Try to explain me, what it means exactly. It's evident, you've never met with such denomination till now, but it's quite commongly used without exact definition, what it really means. So, why I cannot use it too?
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 09:43 PM)
Yes, a I wrote here, whenever you introduce some energy into such undulation foam, the bubbles of such foam will become vibrating at the higher pitch. As the result, the bubble membranes will contract and the density of bubbles will increase. The density of bubbles corresponds the matter density of Aether, by such way we can see, the matter density is proportional to energy density - even without E=mc^2 postulate!
All I see is a bunch of words and animation, no derivation, no mathematics. You cannot give specific statements about how things behave. Sure, sometimes generalities are possible, but considering the fact you've talking about almost phase-change like systems precision is essential since tiny variations initially can have huge results (ie a chaotic system).
You explained nothing other than just repeating "This is what I think happens" with no evidence or derivation.
You explained nothing other than just repeating "This is what I think happens" with no evidence or derivation.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 09:43 PM)
What I'm really interested about is the list of introductional postulates of superstring theory and the derivation of, say, the light speed invariance, by using it.
Then I suggest you pick up books on string theory by either Polchinski or Zweiberg or Witten, Schwarz & Green. In them you'll find the derivation of general relativity's Einstein Action form from initial postulates.
Then I suggest you pick up books on string theory by either Polchinski or Zweiberg or Witten, Schwarz & Green. In them you'll find the derivation of general relativity's Einstein Action form from initial postulates.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 09:43 PM)
Of course not, if for example the mass density of string is function of energy density.
Then you are not using the wave equation, you are using something else, unless the tension and mass density change so that the wave velocity is constant always. If they aren't always T*d = v, then you're using a completely different governing equation to 'normal waves'.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 09:43 PM)
Does such solution appear linear? I don't think so...
Nice way of putting your foot in it. Firstly, you use no maths, just hand drawn pictures (yeah, that's accurate ) than claim it's not linear because it's wiggly. Secondly, the solution has nothing to do with the linearity of the governing equation. f(x-vt) is ALWAYS a solutionof the wave equation, no matter the function f (provided twice differentiable), it's the argument of the function which makes it a solution. Similarly for g(x+vt). But then you'd know that if you'd picked up a single book on basic PDEs, of which the wave equation is always given as an example (and proving f(x-vt) satisfies it is almost always either a worked example or given as exercise). Thirdly, just having a wiggly, complicated function doesn't mean it's nonlinear, look up Bessell Functions here. They're extremely wiggly, but are solutions of a LINEAR differential equation.
) than claim it's not linear because it's wiggly. Secondly, the solution has nothing to do with the linearity of the governing equation. f(x-vt) is ALWAYS a solutionof the wave equation, no matter the function f (provided twice differentiable), it's the argument of the function which makes it a solution. Similarly for g(x+vt). But then you'd know that if you'd picked up a single book on basic PDEs, of which the wave equation is always given as an example (and proving f(x-vt) satisfies it is almost always either a worked example or given as exercise). Thirdly, just having a wiggly, complicated function doesn't mean it's nonlinear, look up Bessell Functions here. They're extremely wiggly, but are solutions of a LINEAR differential equation.QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 09:43 PM)
Try to explain me, what it means exactly. It's evident, you've never met with such denomination till now, but it's quite commongly used without exact definition, what it really means. So, why cannot use it too?
I have met them before. My 3rd year lecturer on 'Integrable Systems' used to talk about such systems all the time (his standard phrase was "This is hhhiiigghhhllllyyy non-linear", due to his Greek accent), I was asking you to explain it rather than just throw words around.
Considering you consider a wiggly function to mean it's nonlinear, you'll forgive me if I don't think your use of such adjectives is particularly well placed.
Considering you consider a wiggly function to mean it's nonlinear, you'll forgive me if I don't think your use of such adjectives is particularly well placed.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 07:39 PM)
You have no proof, the AWT is invalid theory. If the formulas are valid at the scope of other theories, they must be valid at the scope of AWT, too. You're funny childish shouts are permanently out of logic and they cannot serve as the relevant arguments for anything.
It is the other way around, you cannot provide any proof that AWT is valid. Until you do so, AWT remains INVALID. The arithmetic addition formulas are valid, it doesn't mean that you know how to use them in AWT.
If you did, you would have shown by now how AWT passes experiment. It doesn't pass any of the standard experiments, therefore it is invalid. See here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=125525
It is the other way around, you cannot provide any proof that AWT is valid. Until you do so, AWT remains INVALID. The arithmetic addition formulas are valid, it doesn't mean that you know how to use them in AWT.
If you did, you would have shown by now how AWT passes experiment. It doesn't pass any of the standard experiments, therefore it is invalid. See here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=125525
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 12:08 AM)
..You cannot give specific statements about how things behave. Sure, sometimes generalities are possible, but considering the fact you've talking about almost phase-change like systems precision is essential since tiny variations initially can have huge results (ie a chaotic system)....
Well - such model is mostly conceptual, nevertheless surprisingly effective if we consider, what is able to predict/explain for example by using of superstring theory, to compute the less.
Well - such model is mostly conceptual, nevertheless surprisingly effective if we consider, what is able to predict/explain for example by using of superstring theory, to compute the less.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 12:08 AM)
..You explained nothing other than just repeating "This is what I think happens" with no evidence or derivation....
It's not so critical. For example, if we consider, the mass density of string is proportional the energy density of its undulation, its quite easy to explain the behavior of wave packets, quantum effects and particle formation. I have no further ambitions, of course if somebody interested, it can use such model for quantitative modeling of reality.
It's not so critical. For example, if we consider, the mass density of string is proportional the energy density of its undulation, its quite easy to explain the behavior of wave packets, quantum effects and particle formation. I have no further ambitions, of course if somebody interested, it can use such model for quantitative modeling of reality.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 12:08 AM)
..In them you'll find the derivation of general relativity's Einstein Action form from initial postulates.....
I'm just want to see the list of initial postulates of super-string theory.
I'm just want to see the list of initial postulates of super-string theory.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 12:08 AM)
..Then you are not using the wave equation, you are using something else.....
I'm not saying I'm using a wave equation, I'm just using the system of equations, where the wave equation is involved. After all, did you heard about quantum wave equation or Rayleigh wave equation, for example?
I'm not saying I'm using a wave equation, I'm just using the system of equations, where the wave equation is involved. After all, did you heard about quantum wave equation or Rayleigh wave equation, for example?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 12:08 AM)
.. Firstly, you use no maths, just hand drawn pictures (yeah, that's accurate.....
At zero, I'm using/linking an DHTML applet with complete code, the picture is just a screenshot of them.
At zero, I'm using/linking an DHTML applet with complete code, the picture is just a screenshot of them.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 12:08 AM)
.. Thirdly, just having a wiggly, complicated function doesn't mean it's nonlinear, look up Bessel Functions here.....
Don't mix a terms of linear PDE and linear solution of PDE.
Don't mix a terms of linear PDE and linear solution of PDE.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 12:08 AM)
.. I was asking you to explain it rather than just throw words around......
Nope, my dear - you don't just ask me, you've a lot of impertinences at the same time - so don't be so surprised, you'll obtain the same response, occasionally. For example, if you say "You didn't explain the difference between just 'nonlinear' and 'strongly nonlinear' so I'm guessing you actually are managing to use mathematical words without understanding their full implication", it has nothing to do with some question - it's just an impertinent claim, which is even more stupid in connection with the fact, such denomination is commonly used even without exact specification in technical literature (you just don't know about it, so it appear strange for you).
Nope, my dear - you don't just ask me, you've a lot of impertinences at the same time - so don't be so surprised, you'll obtain the same response, occasionally. For example, if you say "You didn't explain the difference between just 'nonlinear' and 'strongly nonlinear' so I'm guessing you actually are managing to use mathematical words without understanding their full implication", it has nothing to do with some question - it's just an impertinent claim, which is even more stupid in connection with the fact, such denomination is commonly used even without exact specification in technical literature (you just don't know about it, so it appear strange for you).
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 11:04 PM)
Well - such model is mostly conceptual, nevertheless surprisingly effective if we consider, what is able to predict/explain for example by using of superstring theory, to compute the less.
How is a model with no predictions, no lining up with experiments, infact totally devoid of any precision 'effective'?
How is a model with no predictions, no lining up with experiments, infact totally devoid of any precision 'effective'?
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 11:04 PM)
It's not so critical. For example, if we consider, the mass density of string is proportional the energy density of its undulation, its quite easy to explain the behavior of wave packets, quantum effects and particle formation.
How is it easy? You have no precision so cannot say "It explains particle formation easily" when you have done NOTHING to see where your initial maths takes you.
It's like me saying "2+2=4. From this, relativity is easily derived." Yes, it might be used in relativity but it certainly doesn't give relativity with little or no effort.
How is it easy? You have no precision so cannot say "It explains particle formation easily" when you have done NOTHING to see where your initial maths takes you.
It's like me saying "2+2=4. From this, relativity is easily derived." Yes, it might be used in relativity but it certainly doesn't give relativity with little or no effort.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 11:04 PM)
I'm just want to see the list of initial postulates of super-string theory.
The short form would be :
Consider an oscillating 1d object/field with usual action form
Quantise it with dirac delta function commutation relations between position and conjugate momentum fields
Consider a second field.
Quantise it with dirac delta function ANTIcommutation relations between position and conjugate momentum fields.
See what structures you get
Obviously a bit more is involved but going through that gives a suprisingly large amount of the basic framework of super string theory. If you want the specifics I suggest you get your hands on books authored by the people I mentioned, since typing out the specifics would (oddly enough) amount to several chapters worth of material.
Consider an oscillating 1d object/field with usual action form
Quantise it with dirac delta function commutation relations between position and conjugate momentum fields
Consider a second field.
Quantise it with dirac delta function ANTIcommutation relations between position and conjugate momentum fields.
See what structures you get
Obviously a bit more is involved but going through that gives a suprisingly large amount of the basic framework of super string theory. If you want the specifics I suggest you get your hands on books authored by the people I mentioned, since typing out the specifics would (oddly enough) amount to several chapters worth of material.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 11:04 PM)
After all, did you heard about quantum wave equation or Rayleigh wave equation, for example?
Yes, but when someone says "The wave equation" and posts the picture that isn't the quantum wave equation or anything else, but the standard wave equation. If you post that and then claim you're talking about the Dirac wave equation or a Rayleigh wave you're just talking rubbish because you are talking about different things.
that isn't the quantum wave equation or anything else, but the standard wave equation. If you post that and then claim you're talking about the Dirac wave equation or a Rayleigh wave you're just talking rubbish because you are talking about different things.QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 11:04 PM)
At zero, I'm using/linking an DHTML applet with complete code, the picture is just a screenshot of them.
So what equations are you using to general such plots?
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 11:04 PM)
(you just don't know about it, so it appear strange for you).
I do know about them, as mentioned I've done lecture courses on them. My point of asking you was to see if you could elaborate more on what you were talking about. You can have a difference between them if the distinction is required, plus you neglected to explain how you attained the mathematical result of the system asymptoting to a non-steady state without doing any maths.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 01:40 AM)
How is a model with no predictions, no lining up with experiments, infarct totally devoid of any precision 'effective'?
wake up, the string theory has no testable prediction, the experiments the less after nearly forty years of development by thousands of people. With respect of this fact, I'm not even obliged to explain you, which predictions the AWT has. So you keep simply such remarks for yourself.
Without constructive stance, I can use all your arguments against you easily and it will help to anybody. You can found the list of AWT predictions bellow each link to AWT, in case you didn't notice it.
wake up, the string theory has no testable prediction, the experiments the less after nearly forty years of development by thousands of people. With respect of this fact, I'm not even obliged to explain you, which predictions the AWT has. So you keep simply such remarks for yourself.
Without constructive stance, I can use all your arguments against you easily and it will help to anybody. You can found the list of AWT predictions bellow each link to AWT, in case you didn't notice it.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 01:40 AM)
You have no precision so cannot say "It explains particle formation easily" when you have done NOTHING to see where your initial maths takes you.
I can show you an easy example. Suppose the energy wave spreads in inertial environment by laws of wave mechanic.
For example, if the wave appears inside the dense blob of matter, it starts to reflect from internal walls of such blob like inside of glass sphere. If we suppose, the density of this blob is proportional to energy density of such standing wave, try to estimate what will happen next? Do we need some deep math model for such prediction?
I can show you an easy example. Suppose the energy wave spreads in inertial environment by laws of wave mechanic.
For example, if the wave appears inside the dense blob of matter, it starts to reflect from internal walls of such blob like inside of glass sphere. If we suppose, the density of this blob is proportional to energy density of such standing wave, try to estimate what will happen next? Do we need some deep math model for such prediction?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 01:40 AM)
The short form would be :
Consider an oscillating 1d object/field with usual action form
Quantize it with dirac delta function commutation relations between position and conjugate momentum fields
Consider a second field.
Quantize it with dirac delta function ANTIcommutation relations between position and conjugate momentum fields.
See what structures you get.
If I understand you well, the second field is vacuum? So whole the superstring theory depends on quantum mechanic theory? From where these dirac delta function commutation operators appears?
Consider an oscillating 1d object/field with usual action form
Quantize it with dirac delta function commutation relations between position and conjugate momentum fields
Consider a second field.
Quantize it with dirac delta function ANTIcommutation relations between position and conjugate momentum fields.
See what structures you get.
If I understand you well, the second field is vacuum? So whole the superstring theory depends on quantum mechanic theory? From where these dirac delta function commutation operators appears?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 01:40 AM)
you neglected to explain how you attained the mathematical result of the system asymptoting to a non-steady state without doing any maths
Consider the string where the mass density is proportional to energy density. If you increase the energy density, it will increase the mass density. The more dense string has a greater energy density, which is logical. It increases the matter density again and so on. Here's no obvious limit for such avalanche like process.
Consider the string where the mass density is proportional to energy density. If you increase the energy density, it will increase the mass density. The more dense string has a greater energy density, which is logical. It increases the matter density again and so on. Here's no obvious limit for such avalanche like process.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 22 2006, 01:36 PM)
AWT is invalid because:
1. It violates the Ives-Stilwell experiment. Zephir, the proponent of AWT would not and could not demonstrate that AWT passes Ives-Stilwell
2. Zephir would not and could not show the calculations how AWT passes :
a. Michelson-Morley
b. Kennedy-Thorndike
c. Pound-Rebka
c. The light bending by massive objects
Until Zephir shows his calculations, AWT remains null and void, an invalid theory.
michelson-morley experiment do not prove that aether do not exist
it proves only that light is not vibration of aether
i do not believe aether exist at all, but m&m experiment is not prove for that
1. It violates the Ives-Stilwell experiment. Zephir, the proponent of AWT would not and could not demonstrate that AWT passes Ives-Stilwell
2. Zephir would not and could not show the calculations how AWT passes :
a. Michelson-Morley
b. Kennedy-Thorndike
c. Pound-Rebka
c. The light bending by massive objects
Until Zephir shows his calculations, AWT remains null and void, an invalid theory.
michelson-morley experiment do not prove that aether do not exist
it proves only that light is not vibration of aether
i do not believe aether exist at all, but m&m experiment is not prove for that
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 11:52 PM)
wake up, the string theory has no testable prediction, the experiments the less after nearly forty years of development by thousands of people.
At least string theory spewed out relativity.
At least string theory spewed out relativity.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 11:52 PM)
The experiments the less after nearly forty years of development by thousands of people. With respect of this fact, I'm not even obliged to explain you, which predictions the AWT has. So you keep simply such remarks for yourself.
So because one theory isn't giving predictions, you're not going to either?
That's like saying "Other people steal, so I think it's okay for me to steal". Just because others are poor doesn't mean you can use that to excuse yourself of lack of results.
My question stands, how can you claim a theory is effective when you've no quantifiable predictions? That's totally apart from the state of string theory or quantum gravity or Heim theory, it's a question you should be able to answer.
That's like saying "Other people steal, so I think it's okay for me to steal". Just because others are poor doesn't mean you can use that to excuse yourself of lack of results.
My question stands, how can you claim a theory is effective when you've no quantifiable predictions? That's totally apart from the state of string theory or quantum gravity or Heim theory, it's a question you should be able to answer.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 11:52 PM)
You can found the list of AWT predictions bellow each link to AWT, in case you didn't notice it.
How did you come by those predictions, if you didn't use maths? Guessing? 'Common sense' (often a poor guide in high energy physics!)? Without maths, none of your predictions count for anything because you can't be sure you've followed your initial assumptions in a logical manner (logical does NOT mean the same as 'common sensical').
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 11:52 PM)
For example, if the wave appears inside the dense blob od matter, it starts to reflect from internal walls of such blob like inside of glass sphere. If we suppose, the density of this blob is proportional to energy density of such standing wave, try to estimate what will happen next? Do we need some deep math model for such prediction?
If you want to make actual testable predictions, you'll need SOME maths. Depending on where the first bit of maths takes you, you might need some very deep maths.
Quantum field theory started out using well established mathematics but rapidly developed into a theory of such depth the physicists had to come up with new mathematical methods to solve the physics problems, so deep maths was required even though initially it wasn't thought so. Unless you do the maths, you have no idea how deep an understanding is required. You're guessing.
Quantum field theory started out using well established mathematics but rapidly developed into a theory of such depth the physicists had to come up with new mathematical methods to solve the physics problems, so deep maths was required even though initially it wasn't thought so. Unless you do the maths, you have no idea how deep an understanding is required. You're guessing.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 11:52 PM)
If I understand you well, the second field is vacuum?
Another strike for you. If you were familar with quantum field theories of any kind you'd know anticommutation relations are the calling card of a fermionic field. How can you claim AWT lines up with all previous theories (but goes further) when you aren't familiar with an integral part of current theories?
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 11:52 PM)
Consider the string where the mass density is proportional to energy density. If you increase the energy density, it will increase the mass density. The more dense string has a greater energy density, which is logical. It increases the matter density again and so on. Here's no obvious limit for such avalanche like process.
No avalanche effect occurs. If you add a set amount of energy to a string you don't spontaneously get it producing more and more energy. Where does this energy come from? Yes, adding energy increases mass density, thats it. When you stop adding energy, mass density stops increasing. The total amount of energy then remains constant.
QUOTE (amrit+Sep 24 2006, 02:03 AM)
i do not believe aether exist at all, but m&m experiment is not prove for that
Great - at least we can see a certain progress with you after few month of hard work...
So, which other experiment is able to disprove the Aether concept by you?
Great - at least we can see a certain progress with you after few month of hard work...
So, which other experiment is able to disprove the Aether concept by you?
Aether is beyond any physical concept zeph. It doesn't have to do with not existing.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 02:16 AM)
At least string theory spewed out relativity...
Please consider, the Dirac operator comes from relativistic form of quantum equations. So it's nothing strange about the fact, the superstring theory fulfills both the relativity, both the quantum theory, but such conclusion is trivial - it's sort of decomposition. If you derive some equation by using of Pythagorean theorem, it's nothing strange, the result "spews out" the Pythagorean theorem.
To be able to claim, the superstring theory is more fundamental theory, than both the quantum mechanic, both the relativity theory, it shouldn't use any concepts, which follows from these two theories implicitly and they cannot be derived without knowledge of both these theories.
Please consider, the Dirac operator comes from relativistic form of quantum equations. So it's nothing strange about the fact, the superstring theory fulfills both the relativity, both the quantum theory, but such conclusion is trivial - it's sort of decomposition. If you derive some equation by using of Pythagorean theorem, it's nothing strange, the result "spews out" the Pythagorean theorem.
To be able to claim, the superstring theory is more fundamental theory, than both the quantum mechanic, both the relativity theory, it shouldn't use any concepts, which follows from these two theories implicitly and they cannot be derived without knowledge of both these theories.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 24 2006, 02:26 AM)
Aether is beyond any physical concept zeph. It doesn't have to do with not existing.
You said before week, you're believing in Aether. Does it mean, you're believing in things, which doesn't exist at all?
It seems, you're truly complex and religius personality...
You said before week, you're believing in Aether. Does it mean, you're believing in things, which doesn't exist at all?
It seems, you're truly complex and religius personality...
String theory is not just QED and GR cobbled together. It begins in a similar manner to QFT by quantising something and uses some of the premises of special relativity (but then so does QED and that is at odds with GR) but yet ends up producing the same results as GR.
No more relativity is put in the begining of string theory than was put in QFT, yet QFT has no GR and string theory does.
If you bothered to pick up a textbook and learn some string theory (if it's within your knowledge to grasp the mathematics, which I don't think so given your utter lack of maths display so far) you'd see why what you're saying is a mixture of twisted half truths and flat out errors.
String theory was begun as a new way of considering quantised entities other than points. From that it developed into a quantum field theory which includes general relativity, something both unlooked for initially and unexpected. The GR in string theory was derived without being put in apriory, NOT what you said, " they cannot be derived without knowledge of both these theories.".
No more relativity is put in the begining of string theory than was put in QFT, yet QFT has no GR and string theory does.
If you bothered to pick up a textbook and learn some string theory (if it's within your knowledge to grasp the mathematics, which I don't think so given your utter lack of maths display so far) you'd see why what you're saying is a mixture of twisted half truths and flat out errors.
String theory was begun as a new way of considering quantised entities other than points. From that it developed into a quantum field theory which includes general relativity, something both unlooked for initially and unexpected. The GR in string theory was derived without being put in apriory, NOT what you said, " they cannot be derived without knowledge of both these theories.".
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 02:16 AM)
Just because others are poor doesn't mean you can use that to excuse yourself of lack of results.
Nope - it just means, you cannot say, my theory is meaningless just because it behaves by the same way like the superstring theory with respect of testable predictions. What you're saying is: because you steeled something, I'll kill you. Does it mean, you're believe, all the thieves should be executed immediately? If yes, why you didn't executed the superstring theory from the same reason?
Did I missed something? Be consistent, at least.
Nope - it just means, you cannot say, my theory is meaningless just because it behaves by the same way like the superstring theory with respect of testable predictions. What you're saying is: because you steeled something, I'll kill you. Does it mean, you're believe, all the thieves should be executed immediately? If yes, why you didn't executed the superstring theory from the same reason?
Did I missed something? Be consistent, at least.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 02:16 AM)
If you want to make actual testable predictions, you'll need SOME maths.
Nope, if I need some qualitative testable predictions, I needn't to compute anything, I need just the binary logic. After all, the binary logic is part of math.
Nope, if I need some qualitative testable predictions, I needn't to compute anything, I need just the binary logic. After all, the binary logic is part of math.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 02:16 AM)
The GR in string theory was derived without being put in apriory, NOT what you said.
I don't understand. You're using an Dirac's operator in superstring theory and you're saying, the relativity wasn't put in it apriory? From which you've derived such Dirac operator?
The very same situation is in relativity theory and aether theory. From Aether theory (the model of transversal waves in massive environment) is possible to derive the the light speed invariance. Now the relativity theory is using such postulate and everybody believes, the Aether theory is incompatible with relativity theory.
What I should think about it? Are all the people idiots or just me is idiot?
I don't understand. You're using an Dirac's operator in superstring theory and you're saying, the relativity wasn't put in it apriory? From which you've derived such Dirac operator?
The very same situation is in relativity theory and aether theory. From Aether theory (the model of transversal waves in massive environment) is possible to derive the the light speed invariance. Now the relativity theory is using such postulate and everybody believes, the Aether theory is incompatible with relativity theory.
What I should think about it? Are all the people idiots or just me is idiot?
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 24 2006, 12:52 AM)
Nope - it just means, you cannot say, my theory is meaningless just because it behaves by the same way like the superstring theory with respect of testable predictions.
Show how your theory derives the Mercury perehelion advance. Since GR, at least a weak field version, exists in string theory, string theory predicts that. Show how yours does.
Show how your theory derives the Mercury perehelion advance. Since GR, at least a weak field version, exists in string theory, string theory predicts that. Show how yours does.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 24 2006, 12:52 AM)
What you're saying is: because you stealed something, I'll kill you. Does it mean, you're believe, all the thieves should be excecuted immediatelly? If yes, why you didn't excecuted the superstring theory from the same reason?
What the heck are you talking about? I was saying that just because you have criticisms of string theory doesn't mean you should be lazy and then allow the same criticisms of your 'theory'. Besides, string theory has got something going for it and doesn't claim to predict more than it can do qualatively. You're claiming a huge amount of things you've no proof of at all.
String theory at least is edging its way towards things. It has supersymmetry. It has GR. It predicts a spin 2 particle, the graviton. Where does your theory do any of those other than you saying "It does"? How does your theory incorporate supersymmetry if you've no maths?
String theory at least is edging its way towards things. It has supersymmetry. It has GR. It predicts a spin 2 particle, the graviton. Where does your theory do any of those other than you saying "It does"? How does your theory incorporate supersymmetry if you've no maths?
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 24 2006, 12:52 AM)
Nope, if I need some qualitative testable predictions, I needn't to compute anything, I need just the binary logic. After all, the binary logic is part of math.
Explain (or rather, do in detail) how you'd predict the value of Mercury's perehelion shift using binary logic.
Just because something is maths doesn't mean it's going to be needed. You don't need Markov chains for QFT, but Markov chains are still maths.
Sure, string theory isn't perfect, but has some things going for it. Your 'theory' doesn't even have those things going for it, just "Because I say so" from your opinion.
Just because something is maths doesn't mean it's going to be needed. You don't need Markov chains for QFT, but Markov chains are still maths.
Sure, string theory isn't perfect, but has some things going for it. Your 'theory' doesn't even have those things going for it, just "Because I say so" from your opinion.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 24 2006, 12:52 AM)
I don't understand. You're using an Dirac's operator in superstring theory and you're saying, the relativity wasn't put in it apriory? From which you've derived such Dirac operator?
Dirac FUNCTION. Look up it's definition. It's nothing to do with general relativity (it was infact developed for quantum field theory specifically). The Dirac operator I didn't even mention.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 24 2006, 12:52 AM)
Are all the people idiots or just me is idiot?
Some of us have actually read a lot on string theory, quantum field theory and general relativity, including attending postgraduate lecture courses by people whose names appear in textbooks quite often and passed exams on those subjects, plus gone to plenty of mathematical methods courses. If I didn't at least have a decent understanding of this material I'd not be starting a PhD on it in 6 days!
Where did you get all your maths and physics knowledge you do generously share with us?
Where did you get all your maths and physics knowledge you do generously share with us?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 03:00 AM)
Show how your theory derives the Mercury perehelion advance. Since GR, at least a weak field version, exists in string theory, string theory predicts that. Show how yours does.
It's just a math game. If you're using a relativistic operators in superstring theory, is nothing strange about the fact, the superstring theory is able to derive the relativistic aberation.
From where the Dirac delta function did come into physic? Why we cannot use for example Zeta function instead? From where the superstring theory takes its equations? Is it guessing?
I can say easily by the same way: i can derive the size of photon. Show me such derivation by using of superstring theory. If not, whole the superstring theory is nonsence.
It's just a math game. If you're using a relativistic operators in superstring theory, is nothing strange about the fact, the superstring theory is able to derive the relativistic aberation.
From where the Dirac delta function did come into physic? Why we cannot use for example Zeta function instead? From where the superstring theory takes its equations? Is it guessing?
I can say easily by the same way: i can derive the size of photon. Show me such derivation by using of superstring theory. If not, whole the superstring theory is nonsence.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 03:00 AM)
String theory at least is edging its way towards things. It has supersymmetry.
The supersymetry wasn't never proved, no superpartners have been found so far. The lightest SUSY particles are believed to be in the mass range ~ 1 TeV or below. What if no superpartners will be found at all?
The supersymetry wasn't never proved, no superpartners have been found so far. The lightest SUSY particles are believed to be in the mass range ~ 1 TeV or below. What if no superpartners will be found at all?
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 24 2006, 01:07 AM)
It's just a math game. If you're using a relativistic operators in superstring theory, is nothing strange about the fact, the superstring theory is able to derive the relativistic aberation.
No, but it is strange that without being put in string theory contains general relativity.
Shall I say it again?
String theory was started using quantum field theory and special relativity notions. General relativity was produced automatically within the theory. Hence, without being specifically made to do so, string theory predicts Mercury's advance.
That IS suprising and very good news for people working in string theory.
No, but it is strange that without being put in string theory contains general relativity.
Shall I say it again?
String theory was started using quantum field theory and special relativity notions. General relativity was produced automatically within the theory. Hence, without being specifically made to do so, string theory predicts Mercury's advance.
That IS suprising and very good news for people working in string theory.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 24 2006, 01:07 AM)
From where the Dirac delta function did come into physic?
If you have to ask that then you've clearly never bothered to learn any quantum field theory, so my faith in your claims about current theories is reduced even more....
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 24 2006, 01:07 AM)
I can say easily by the same way: i can derive the size of photon. Show me such derivation by using of superstring theory. If not, whole the superstring theory is nonsence.
Define what you mean by the size of a proton. The distance seperating the quarks? Then show me the derivation.
I'll admit I don't know enough string theory to be able to do it, but since you're saying you can, I'd like to see it.
I'll admit I don't know enough string theory to be able to do it, but since you're saying you can, I'd like to see it.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 03:19 AM)
String theory was started using quantum field theory and special relativity notions
Please consider, the Dirac function was introduced into quantum field theory in connection with general relativity. It's nothing strange, the result is compatible with it. The explanation of relativistic aberation in context of AWT is trivial. The vacuum is formed by Aether, the particles and inertial bodies are all formed by more dense Aether too. As the Aether is elastic, it collapses slightly around dense bodies, making itself a more dense too. Such dense blob of Aether around massive bodies is source of optical lensing effect, known as relativistic aberation.
Please consider, the Dirac function was introduced into quantum field theory in connection with general relativity. It's nothing strange, the result is compatible with it. The explanation of relativistic aberation in context of AWT is trivial. The vacuum is formed by Aether, the particles and inertial bodies are all formed by more dense Aether too. As the Aether is elastic, it collapses slightly around dense bodies, making itself a more dense too. Such dense blob of Aether around massive bodies is source of optical lensing effect, known as relativistic aberation.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 03:19 AM)
Define what you mean by the size of a proton.
Im talking about photon. As we know, the short-wavelength photons are difracted onto atom nuclei, wheres the longer not. So the photons should have some size. Such size has nothing to do with wavelenght of light, which is a much more larger. Try to explan the photon formation and its size by using of superstring theory.
Im talking about photon. As we know, the short-wavelength photons are difracted onto atom nuclei, wheres the longer not. So the photons should have some size. Such size has nothing to do with wavelenght of light, which is a much more larger. Try to explan the photon formation and its size by using of superstring theory.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 24 2006, 01:29 AM)
Please consider, the Dirac function was introduced into quantum field theory in connection with general relativity. It's nothing strange, the result is compatible with it.
No, the Dirac Delta Function was created by Dirac in relation to quantum field theory, which incorporates SPECIAL relativity, not general. It is a continous version of the Kroneker Delta.
As for your explaination, I see nothing more than "Because I say so". Even Newton's theory predicts some precesion, how can you be sure your theory predicts the right amount and not a different amount if you haven't done the numbers? Again, you're guessing.
No, the Dirac Delta Function was created by Dirac in relation to quantum field theory, which incorporates SPECIAL relativity, not general. It is a continous version of the Kroneker Delta.
As for your explaination, I see nothing more than "Because I say so". Even Newton's theory predicts some precesion, how can you be sure your theory predicts the right amount and not a different amount if you haven't done the numbers? Again, you're guessing.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 24 2006, 01:29 AM)
s we know, the short-wavelength photons are difracted onto atom nuclei, wheres the longer not. So the photons should have some size. Such size has nothing to do with wavelenght of light, which is a much more larger. Try to explan the photon formation and its size by using of superstring theory.
How big is a photon then by your theory? Photon scattering can be computed in string theory I think, at least in principle, though my familiarity with it isn't enough (unlike you, I'm not claiming to be an expert of a unifying theory).
Also, just because photons scatter doesn't mean the theory says they have size. Quantum electrodynamics predicts photon scattering brilliantly, yet models the photon and electron as points. Again, you're guessing without realising your conclusions aren't the only possible ones.
Also, just because photons scatter doesn't mean the theory says they have size. Quantum electrodynamics predicts photon scattering brilliantly, yet models the photon and electron as points. Again, you're guessing without realising your conclusions aren't the only possible ones.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 03:38 AM)
...Dirac Delta Function was created by Dirac in relation to quantum field theory, which incorporates SPECIAL relativity...
OK, you may be right. I'll check it later.
OK, you may be right. I'll check it later.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 03:38 AM)
...Even Newton's theory predicts some precesion...
We're talking about relativistic aberration - or not? The Newton theory predicts no aberration.
We're talking about relativistic aberration - or not? The Newton theory predicts no aberration.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 03:38 AM)
...Quantum electrodynamics predicts photon scattering brilliantly..
The true is, the quantum electrodynamics doesn't even explain, what the photon is. For example, we have an dipole radiating electromagnetic waves of spherical shape. By what mechanism I can detect these continuous waves as a photons of EM radiation?
The true is, the quantum electrodynamics doesn't even explain, what the photon is. For example, we have an dipole radiating electromagnetic waves of spherical shape. By what mechanism I can detect these continuous waves as a photons of EM radiation?
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 24 2006, 01:42 AM)
We're talking about relativistic aberration - or not? The Newton theory predicts no aberration.
Any kind of precession. As here explains, there is a precession which is almost, but not quite, explained by Newtonian theory, with relativity giving the extra little correction. How do you know if your theory predicts 5557 arcseconds per century or 5600 arcseconds? If you don't do the maths, you've no idea. It might predict 6000 or 2000 or 0. You're just guessing if you don't do the maths.
Any kind of precession. As here explains, there is a precession which is almost, but not quite, explained by Newtonian theory, with relativity giving the extra little correction. How do you know if your theory predicts 5557 arcseconds per century or 5600 arcseconds? If you don't do the maths, you've no idea. It might predict 6000 or 2000 or 0. You're just guessing if you don't do the maths.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 24 2006, 01:42 AM)
The true is, the quantum electrodynamics doesn't even explain, what the photon is. For example, we have an dipole radiating electromagnetic waves of spherical shape. By what mechanism I can detect these continuous waves as a photons of EM radiation?
Then you're moving more into philosophy. Besides, there is no 'continous radiation' in quantum field theory, by it's very name quantum theories involve discrete disturbances.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 24 2006, 03:52 AM)
If you don't do the maths, you've no idea. It might predict 6000 or 2000 or 0. You're just guessing if you don't do the maths.