Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: String Theory vs E8 and Quantum Gravity Research vs ?

  1. Top | #1
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    560
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,446
    Rep Power
    71

    String Theory vs E8 and Quantum Gravity Research vs ?

    Here is a recent video from "Quantum Gravity Research" (not much new information)

    (View video on YouTube)
    It criticises String Theory saying it has "kind of failed" (9:10) and has "never produced any successful predictions".

    It talks about E8 and their "friend" Garrett Lisi.... here is an E8 explorer he has been working on:

    (View video on YouTube)
    http://www.deferentialgeometry.org/epe/

    I think E8 predicts some particles.

    The founder of QGR, Klee Irwin,
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Klee_Irwin
    is said to be "a pseudoscience proponent and fraudster".

    QGR has 130 videos on Youtube
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUy...JPLCCh4oRNLzsQ


    and 10 staff members:
    https://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/about-quantum

    What do people here think about E8, String Theory, QGR and possible contenders for a theory of everything (or at least combine gravity with QM)?

  2. Top | #2
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    560
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,446
    Rep Power
    71
    I'm watching Klee Irwin's "Scientific Clues That We Are Living In the Matrix"


    So far I see a problem at 15:30

    It shows:


    Which comes from:
    https://blog.world-mysteries.com/sci...umbers-magick/

    In 15:50 he says based on Wikipedia it is 99.975% accurate "virtually 100%"
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. Top | #3
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    560
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,446
    Rep Power
    71
    Again,


    48:00 says "the universe has the topology of a neural network". Then talks about Bose Eintein condensates that are quantum entangled and communicate instantly (51:00). About "emergent collective universal consciousness", "I'm not saying it is like our consciousness".

    57:00 talks about Ouroboros. 58:10 "We didn't create God and Got didn't create us - we co-created one another".

    The video was for the San Francisco Theosophical Society - from what I know, I think Theosophy is nonsense. But maybe a lot of Klee's normal theories make sense.

  4. Top | #4
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,041
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,017
    Rep Power
    63
    I could only watch a few minutes of that video. I can only take a limited amount of hand waving BS. The presentations by Klee Irwin and Deepak Chopra are very similar in that they misrepresent (whether intentionally or lack of understanding?) the real physics to support their own personal beliefs. They just have different beliefs.

  5. Top | #5
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    560
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,446
    Rep Power
    71
    @skepticalbip

    What about the second video - the elementary particle explorer.... It is based on E8.

  6. Top | #6
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,924
    Rep Power
    12
    String theory looked promising at first, but it kept getting tangled up in knots.

  7. Top | #7
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,908
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,814
    Rep Power
    70
    Quantum theory and determinism

    ''In this paper, I reviewed the interpretations and the fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics, arguing that, contrary to a popular view, quantum theory can be considered as a deterministic theory describing Nature.

    The theory has two parts. The first part is physical, mathematical, the one to which I attach the words “ontological” or “ontic” (without attributing a distinction between them). It is a counterpart of the theory of particles and fields in classical physics. This is the part of a theory about what is in the physical Universe. Although I discussed several approaches, I find by far the best option to take the wave function of the Universe, and only it, as the ontology of the theory. Major part of the paper explains why I have this view. I also review numerous recent works on the subject pointing in this direction.

    The theory of the wave function is a deterministic theory without action at a distance. It is the theory about what is, irrespectively of us. Even quantum observables, like momentum, energy, spin, etc. which are frequently considered to be the starting point of quantum mechanics, are not considered ontological in this approach. Thus, various uncertainty relations between quantum variables do not lead to indeterminism.''

  8. Top | #8
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,179
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,392
    Rep Power
    54
    So take away time and choice or cause and what's left is QM?

  9. Top | #9
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,924
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quantum theory and determinism

    ''In this paper, I reviewed the interpretations and the fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics, arguing that, contrary to a popular view, quantum theory can be considered as a deterministic theory describing Nature.

    The theory has two parts. The first part is physical, mathematical, the one to which I attach the words “ontological” or “ontic” (without attributing a distinction between them). It is a counterpart of the theory of particles and fields in classical physics. This is the part of a theory about what is in the physical Universe. Although I discussed several approaches, I find by far the best option to take the wave function of the Universe, and only it, as the ontology of the theory. Major part of the paper explains why I have this view. I also review numerous recent works on the subject pointing in this direction.

    The theory of the wave function is a deterministic theory without action at a distance. It is the theory about what is, irrespectively of us. Even quantum observables, like momentum, energy, spin, etc. which are frequently considered to be the starting point of quantum mechanics, are not considered ontological in this approach. Thus, various uncertainty relations between quantum variables do not lead to indeterminism.''
    Philosophical babel. There is philosophical determinism and there are deterministic system.

    From my my most recent systems book the top level is chaotic. Under chaotic thee are deterministic and probabilistic system.

    A chaotic system is indeterminate due to required accuracy of variables for example. Deterministic is a limiting case of chaotic. Analogous to Newtonian gravity versus relativity. At all times local weather conforms causal to laws of physics. Yet long term predictions become increasing off due to lack of knowledge of variables.

    A deterministic system means you have a set of equations to which you plug in values and get a deterministic result. Computing distance from velocity and time is deterministic. For a set of inputs there is one and only one result.

    Probabilistic would be when a particles is emitted from radioactive material.

    Both deterministic and probabilistic are causal.

    QM says nothing about free will and predestiny in philosophy.

  10. Top | #10
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,908
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,814
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quantum theory and determinism

    ''In this paper, I reviewed the interpretations and the fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics, arguing that, contrary to a popular view, quantum theory can be considered as a deterministic theory describing Nature.

    The theory has two parts. The first part is physical, mathematical, the one to which I attach the words “ontological” or “ontic” (without attributing a distinction between them). It is a counterpart of the theory of particles and fields in classical physics. This is the part of a theory about what is in the physical Universe. Although I discussed several approaches, I find by far the best option to take the wave function of the Universe, and only it, as the ontology of the theory. Major part of the paper explains why I have this view. I also review numerous recent works on the subject pointing in this direction.

    The theory of the wave function is a deterministic theory without action at a distance. It is the theory about what is, irrespectively of us. Even quantum observables, like momentum, energy, spin, etc. which are frequently considered to be the starting point of quantum mechanics, are not considered ontological in this approach. Thus, various uncertainty relations between quantum variables do not lead to indeterminism.''
    Philosophical babel. There is philosophical determinism and there are deterministic system.

    From my my most recent systems book the top level is chaotic. Under chaotic thee are deterministic and probabilistic system.

    A chaotic system is indeterminate due to required accuracy of variables for example. Deterministic is a limiting case of chaotic. Analogous to Newtonian gravity versus relativity. At all times local weather conforms causal to laws of physics. Yet long term predictions become increasing off due to lack of knowledge of variables.

    A deterministic system means you have a set of equations to which you plug in values and get a deterministic result. Computing distance from velocity and time is deterministic. For a set of inputs there is one and only one result.

    Probabilistic would be when a particles is emitted from radioactive material.

    Both deterministic and probabilistic are causal.

    QM says nothing about free will and predestiny in philosophy.
    What you say doesn't necessarily disagree with the article. The article is another interpretation of quantum....there being at least ten if I recall correctly, some being probabilistic, others deterministic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •