sci.physics.research Google Group

Re: Your thoughts on idea that may kill string theory.

2009-11-24T11:48:12Z

We can't falsify it by not discovering them, true, unless they are
firmly predicted at a certain energy or whatever. One the other hand,
if they are discovered, the confidence in the theory will increase.
Something similar happened with proton half-lives. Each failed
prediction which is "saved" by some epicycle decreases faith in the

Re: Your thoughts on idea that may kill string theory.

2009-11-24T10:36:34Z

========= Moderator's note ============================== ================
This posting is borderline of being unscientific since it contains unjustified
claims. I've let it through since I think we could have an interesting discussion
on the foundation and empirical status of the Standard Model of elementary particles

Re: Your thoughts on idea that may kill string theory.

2009-11-24T09:25:49Z

On Nov 22, 2:51 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
I was not clear, this is not my work, it is the work of Christoph
Schiller. If I understood this idea better I might be able to address
your concerns. I find this idea intriguing and though others might as
well, requires more study on my part.

Re: Your thoughts on idea that may kill string theory.

2009-11-24T09:25:46Z

In article
<a5bc6bcf-36cf-4c1c-9703-38122 3172...@p28g2000vbi.googlegrou ps.com>,
Many of the predictions are of this type. While not necessarily wrong,
they do not distinguish between theories. In other words, we don't know
if we haven't found the Higgs because it doesn't exist or because we
haven't found it yet. So, predictions that essentially say that we

Re: relation between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics

2009-11-24T09:15:09Z

Ulf Klein wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:16:09 -0500:
Above statements are rather right. There is some important details to be
worked out (the problem of classicality is still open), however.
The approach I like more is to start from the basic quantum equation (the
Schrödinger equation is a special case of this equation)

Re: Your thoughts on idea that may kill string theory.

2009-11-24T08:57:28Z

On 22 Nov., 08:51, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
Copy-paste from [link]
Some predictions of the model (with their timing), made before
conclusive experiments (at the LHC, on neutrinos, on electric dipole
moments, about QCD, and in astrophysics):

Re: relation between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics

2009-11-24T08:57:28Z

Re: What would be the field element for Path Integation of the

2009-11-24T08:57:28Z

This result cannot be correct, for elementary reasons. One is the
obvious fact that your right hand side depends on g_ab, which you have
supposedly integrated out. The second reason, is that you can only get
a (generalized) delta function from an integration such as above if
the argument of the exponent is linear in the quantity you are

Re: relation between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics

2009-11-22T20:14:01Z

There is more than one 'classical limit'. First
there is the limit hbar -> 0. This is a purely
formal limit - hbar is a fixed physical constant.
In this limit there is indeed, as you suggest,
a classical statistical theory, described by
the fields rho and S on configuration space.
This doesn't really make the second statement

Re: Planetary drift

2009-11-22T20:14:02Z

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> schreef in
bericht news:7mesjsF3he821U1@mid.individual.net...
I have a problem with your question in general:
How can you answer a question when the words used are not clear ?
What means: "quantum randomness ""
What means: "non deterministic randomness"

Re: What would be the field element for Path Integation of the Einstein - Hilbert Action!

2009-11-22T09:08:53Z

That's false. What is known is that, as Steve Carlip pointed out, does
not reproduce the desired Einstein equations.
You make an elementary mistake between equations (1.13) and (1.15).
Your substitution of the Ricci scalar for the stress-energy trace is
illegitimate. That is only allowed on shell (for particular solutions

Re: Quantum Field Theory: The Big, Simple Picture?

2009-11-22T09:08:44Z

After several false starts where I tried to mess around with the L_m
in the Einstein-Hilbert action, I think I may finally be able to show,
mathematically, how to evaluate the path integral:
Z=${-oo to +oo}Dg exp[i $d^4x sqrt(-g)((1/2k)R+L_m)] (1)
for the E-H action, without any messing around. This is at the link

Discussion of Horava-Lifshitz gravity?

2009-11-22T09:08:36Z

Hi ,
I am surprised there has not been a single post on Horava-Lifshitz
gravity on this forum. What do people (esp. steve Carlip, Tom Roberts,
John Baez, Jonathan Thornburg etc) think about this?
There was a whole conference at Perimeter devoted to this
[link]

Re: What would be the field element for Path Integation of the Einstein - Hilbert Action?

2009-11-22T07:51:16Z

I stand corrected. Equation (1) above is wrong, because as Dr.
Carlip pointed out to me privately, the traceless EM field would
contribute nothing in (1), which is physically incorrect. The specific
mathematical error in the derivation I posted yesterday, was that even
though the trace of the Einstein equation kT=R, I was applying this in a

Re: Your thoughts on idea that may kill string theory.

2009-11-22T07:51:16Z

How about giving us details on one or two definitive predictions,
which are:
Feasible
Prior to the tests
Unique to the theory being tested
Quantitative
NON-ADJUSTABLE
Thanks,
RLO
[link]