Demystifying Quantum Physics

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Oh, right. (Gasp, I've atually read one of the sources you're citing. ) I got the impression from your post that the claim was unbelievable for some reason, but the idea of "Everything is really quantum" seems entirely reasonable.

Cox describes it as unbelievable- sort of. He even says it sounds mystical (but is not):
"We need not stop there – protons and neutrons are fermions too, and so every proton knows about every other proton and every neutron knows about every other neutron. There is an intimacy between the particles that make up our Universe that extends across the entire Universe. It is ephemeral in the sense that for particles that are far apart the different energies are so close to each other as to make no discernible difference to our daily lives.
This is one of the weirdest-sounding conclusions we’ve been led to so far in the book. Saying that every atom in the Universe is connected to every other atom might seem like an orifice through which all sorts of holistic drivel can seep. But there is nothing here that we haven’t met before."

Hence the original context from which you quoted my reference to Cox.

 

[godnotgod]

GR is not inconsistent. The problem is of a different kind. It's only if you plug in the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian into QFT that you get infinities that no one has been able to get rid off. And the main reason would be that this equation is non-linear: in terms of the physics, it means that gravitons will interact with each other, producing more gravitons, which in turn produce more gravitons, and so on... IOW, you get a runaway process to infinity.

Right. I watched the video again, and the first sequence of calculations by Kaku are Einstein's alone, which result in Kaku declaring that physics has broken down. This is prior to his marrying GR to QFT in the second sequence of calculations. From what you've said, I gather that GR is not the right approach to black holes to begin with? Is that the problem?

 

[zaybu]

Right. I watched the video again, and the first sequence of calculations by Kaku are Einstein's alone, which result in Kaku declaring that physics has broken down. This is prior to his marrying GR to QFT in the second sequence of calculations. From what you've said, I gather that GR is not the right approach to black holes to begin with? Is that the problem?

At 4:35, Kaku points to a singularity at r=0. But As I said in my previous post, this a is a mathematical problem, which Kaku should have said and then stopped from speculating what this means in physical terms. At this point, the theory can only give nonsensical conclusions. Why enumerate them, when there are two possibilities:

(1) the theory is being misapplied -- we need new concepts to move forward,
(2) if (1) fails, then it's back to the drawing board, and we must try to develop a new theory from a different starting point.

Now, it's not the first time we get singularities in our theories. QFT was plagued with them from its inception. But within a span of 40 years ( app. 1930-1970)we were able to devise mathematical schemes to get around them. However, in the case of GR + QFT, it is more than just a mathematical obstacle, it is a physical one as I have explained before, as it leads to a runaway process. This strongly indicates that GR+QFT is not the right approach.

But I wish Kaku would calm down. Physics is not about to collapse.

 

[godnotgod]

At 4:35, Kaku points to a singularity at r=0. But As I said in my previous post, this a is a mathematical problem, which Kaku should have said and then stopped from speculating what this means in physical terms. At this point, the theory can only give nonsensical conclusions. Why enumerate them, when there are two possibilities:

(1) the theory is being misapplied -- we need new concepts to move forward,
(2) if (1) fails, then it's back to the drawing board, and we must try to develop a new theory from a different starting point.

Now, it's not the first time we get singularities in our theories. QFT was plagued with them from its inception. But within a span of 40 years ( app. 1930-1970)we were able to devise mathematical schemes to get around them. However, in the case of GR + QFT, it is more than just a mathematical obstacle, it is a physical one as I have explained before, as it leads to a runaway process. This strongly indicates that GR+QFT is not the right approach.

But I wish Kaku would calm down. Physics is not about to collapse.

I was focusing on the calculations he did prior to his introduction of QFT. He was applying only Einstein's math at that point, right after which he declared that physics is breaking down. THEN he introduced QFT. What I'm trying to get at, is whether he is establishing that Einstein was clearly wrong, as he claims a couple of times. Am I making sense?

 

[zaybu]

I was focusing on the calculations he did prior to his introduction of QFT. He was applying only Einstein's math at that point, right after which he declared that physics is breaking down. THEN he introduced QFT. What I'm trying to get at, is whether he is establishing that Einstein was clearly wrong, as he claims a couple of times. Am I making sense?

Yes he does make that claim that Einstein is wrong. But as I said, Kaku draws conclusions from GR that aren't justified. For the record: Einstein is right; Kaku is on crack.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes he does make that claim that Einstein is wrong. But as I said, Kaku draws conclusions from GR that aren't justified. For the record: Einstein is right; Kaku is on crack.

Well that's just a bit more than interesting, since, (as I understand it), Kaku has devoted his life's work to Einstein, and that Kaku is the one who first proposed String Theory (?).

Are the conclusions that you say Kaku draws from GR unjustified prior to plugging in QFT, or after?

 

[zaybu]

Well that's just a bit more than interesting, since, (as I understand it), Kaku has devoted his life's work to Einstein, and that Kaku is the one who first proposed String Theory (?).

His work on ST was done in the 1980's. A lot can happen in a span of more than 30 years. As I said, he is now on the speaking circuit, on TV and other media. He's a known personality. How much of a scientist is he today is questionable.

Are the conclusions that you say Kaku draws from GR unjustified prior to plugging in QFT, or after?

At about 4:10, when it is said that Einstein's equations spiral out of control... too much drama, hard to listen to.

 

[idav]

I gather that GR is not the right approach to black holes to begin with? Is that the problem? [/COLOR]

On that video Kaku was having issues once the equations had to divide by zero, presumably that would be the value as you go into a black hole, not sure. It's my opinion that it would never be zero in the first place, perhaps but as you approach the denser mass of the black hole it would be something like .0000000000000000000001 and that can go infinitely so you never have a zero. There is always something rather than nothing no matter how infinitely small. He claimed nothing is unstable and that nothing just keeps creating big bangs. Doesn't sound like nothing.

 

[PolyHedral]

On that video Kaku was having issues once the equations had to divide by zero, presumably that would be the value as you go into a black hole, not sure. It's my opinion that it would never be zero in the first place, perhaps but as you approach the denser mass of the black hole it would be something like .0000000000000000000001 and that can go infinitely so you never have a zero. There is always something rather than nothing no matter how infinitely small. He claimed nothing is unstable and that nothing just keeps creating big bangs. Doesn't sound like nothing.

There is no known force in the universe that would prevent a black hole reaching an infinite (not merely 'arbitarily large') density, and thus "zero" size. However, since QM forbids zero-size objects, we know we're missing something in that regard.

 

[zaybu]

There is no known force in the universe that would prevent a black hole reaching an infinite (not merely 'arbitarily large') density, and thus "zero" size. However, since QM forbids zero-size objects, we know we're missing something in that regard.

That's one problem. Another problem is that if we add mass to a black hole, its surface will increase (entropy increase), but its temperature goes down (Inversely proportional to the mass). This will attract more matter, which will speed up this process. So a black hole is never in equilibrium with its environment.

The other process is Hawking radiation, in which a pair of particle/anti-particles can pop out of the vacuum near the black hole horizon, and the anti-particle is trapped into the BH, and the particle radiates to infinity (Hawking radiation). This will have the effect of decreasing the mass of the BH, and will eventually completely evaporate.

 

[jasson]

Surely if none locality exists then it follows that locality must exist in any terms time and space wise inside of nolocality.nonlocality would be sizelessness in terms of energy timespace.so the event of energy timespace would fit nicely into nonlocality where energy and time space happen.therefor nonlocality is a never happened fact with a relative fictional energy time space event in it.

 

[PolyHedral]

That's one problem. Another problem is that if we add mass to a black hole, its surface will increase (entropy increase), but its temperature goes down (Inversely proportional to the mass). This will attract more matter, which will speed up this process. So a black hole is never in equilibrium with its environment.

Do elaborate. Just because the black hole gets heavier doesn't mean it'll never in equillibrium.

 

[zaybu]

Do elaborate. Just because the black hole gets heavier doesn't mean it'll never in equillibrium.

It's not in equilibrium with its environment. IOW, if there is matter nearby, some will get attract, causing the BH to increase in size and attraction, which means more matter will be attracted, and so on. Of course if there's no matter nearby, this won't happen. This runaway process does not happen with stars like our sun, where there is an equilibrium between the nuclear reaction creating an outward thrust and gravity pulling inward. If there is matter absorbed by the sun, these two forces will rearrange the new material to reach another point of equilibrium.

 

[idav]

There is no known force in the universe that would prevent a black hole reaching an infinite (not merely 'arbitarily large') density, and thus "zero" size. However, since QM forbids zero-size objects, we know we're missing something in that regard.

Yeah just insert the equation for creation.

 

[zaybu]

There is no known force in the universe that would prevent a black hole reaching an infinite (not merely 'arbitarily large') density, and thus "zero" size. However, since QM forbids zero-size objects, we know we're missing something in that regard.

Yeah just insert the equation for creation.

Just the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle will suffice.

 

[godnotgod]

Hmmm.....here we are at 34 pages, and I don't see that QM is any more 'demystified' than at the beginning. In fact.....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hmmm.....here we are at 34 pages, and I don't see that QM is any more 'demystified' than at the beginning. In fact.....

Yes. Unfortunately, I cannot prevent those who do not know what they are talking about from posting on this thread and arguing with each other ad nauseum. I can only say my piece, and rely on the better judgment of the readers.

 

[Straw Dog]

I've had powerful mystical experiences and still don't feel justified in speculating about metaphysics. I don't even know the first thing about quantum mechanics, other than certitude of my ignorance.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I've had powerful mystical experiences and still don't feel justified in speculating about metaphysics. I don't even know the first thing about quantum mechanics, other than certitude of my ignorance.

Like Socrates, you are much wiser in your honest ignorance than others are in their pretended wisdom. Bravo. :clap

 

[Straw Dog]

Like Socrates, you are much wiser in your honest ignorance than others are in their pretended wisdom.

I can definitely understand why the temptation is there however.