Jump to content
Joshpantera

Why String Theory is Wrong

Recommended Posts

I'll have to watch later, but string theory to me has always been in my "interesting idea, but come back when you have evidence" box.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's detailing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the video indicates, string theory appears to be wrong on many fronts and for many reasons. But, the discussion leaves open the possibility that there could be some merit to it which might surface in the future. This conclusion of the video is also the general consensus of mainstream physics today.

 

IMO what we now refer to as modern physics went terribly wrong more than a hundred years ago at its beginning. At that time Einstein proposed the theory of Special Relativity. In this theory he proposed the non-existence of a background field previously known as an aether. Since that time scientists discovered what is now known as the Zero Point Field, a known type of background field, as well as the recently claiming existence of the Higgs field, another supposed background field, along with many other claimed background fields. In 1915 Einstein first published his theory of General Relativity, his new theory of gravity. The logical basis of this theory was warped space, a concept Einstein invented but which has never been observed. Observations instead have been to the contrary. Einstein had a number of observations which he used to develop the equations of General Relativity. The two most well-known of these were the variations in the orbit of the planet Mercury,  and the other the extent that gravity bends light. Both observations were confirmed by Einstein's equations, but were predicted differently by Newtonian physics which was the accepted theory of gravity at that time. Therefore General Relativity (GR) became the accepted theory of gravity. But the basis of the equations of GR were observational and did nothing to provide evidence for the "speculation" and possibly illogical concept of warped space.

 

The next "u-turn" in modern physics was Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics (QM) was based upon many decades of observation and its predictive equations were developed by a number of different individuals. But there was no consensus version of Quantum Theory, the supposed logical basis for the equations of Quantum Mechanics. Today there are dozens of different Quantum Theories with no consensus as to the possible validity of any of them.

 

IMO the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics have led modern physics away from logic and redirected efforts to theoretical physics instead. The related theoretical physics of today are totally mathematical. The objective seems to be to find a way to fit the accepted mathematics of GR and QM together, and if they think they have done this, afterwards see if they can find any verbal logic to it. This was the basis for the development of String Theory. One of its main goals was to incorporate the equations of GR with QM. In the case of String Theory, however, there was no observational basis for it as there was for GR and QM. And many would also conclude that there is no logical basis for String Theory, or its perspective, M theory. String theory IMO is an example of what happens when one tries to fit two conceptually wrong theories together into a single wrong model. String theory doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria necessary to rightfully be called a theory.

 

Physicists of the last century would likely be very disappointed with some of today's strictly mathematical approaches to physics, separate from considerations of both observation and logic  -- IMO much of which is worthless, string theory being a prime example of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Pantheory.

 

I'm not about to argue with you, but I was just curious about your claim that the gravitational warping of space-time by gravity has never been observed.

 

 In 1915 Einstein first published his theory of General Relativity, his new theory of gravity. The logical basis of this theory was warped space, a concept Einstein invented but which has never been observed.

 

If that's so, could you please give me your explanation for what is happening in the image on this Wiki page?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My cats are disappointed that string theory is wrong...

 

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 3:03 PM, WalterP said:

Hello Pantheory.

 

I'm not about to argue with you, but I was just curious about your claim that the gravitational warping of space-time by gravity has never been observed.

 

 In 1915 Einstein first published his theory of General Relativity, his new theory of gravity. The logical basis of this theory was warped space, a concept Einstein invented but which has never been observed.

 

If that's so, could you please give me your explanation for what is happening in the image on this Wiki page?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

What they are showing is called gravitational lensing as explained by the link. Gravitational lensing was predicted by both Newton and Einstein,  but the Newtonian bending of light was predicted to a lesser extent. The idea is that gravity according to both models bends light. Instead of light from a source traveling in a straight line (in three dimensions), it is bent by the presence of a massive body. What is known as an Einstein Ring, shown in the link, is a special case of gravitational lensing caused by the exact alignment of the source, lens, and observer. This results in symmetry around the lens, causing a ring-like appearance. Accordingly light moves toward and can encircle a center of gravity just like matter does.

 

Yes, Newtonian gravity also predicts the bending of light but to a lesser extent. "In fact, using Newtonian theory only, a geologist in 1783 noted that if the sun were 500 times larger in diameter but with the same density, light would not be able to escape it. That is, it would be a black hole."

 

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTa17O3dqsp5xKX_LzDZmvV9J6zEw%3A1571973777735&source=hp&ei=kWqyXZ7oKovz-gTXqJS4Dw&q=newtonian+gravity+and+the+bending+of+light&oq=newtonian+gravity+and+the+bending+of+light&gs_l=psy-ab.12...1675.13076..14949...0.0..0.140.3692.32j10......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0j35i39j0i22i30j33i22i29i30j33i299j33i160.jMIt6JTKHmY&ved=0ahUKEwje9PbUurblAhWLuZ4KHVcUBfcQ4dUDCAs

 

All mass moves relative to other mass; motion is relative. The idea that space and time should sometimes be considered a single entity spacetime was Einstein's concept because of the relative motion of all matter to all other matter. To define any point in space mathematically in a defined coordinate system one has to also specify the time of the observation to enable any objects relative position to the arbitrary center of the coordinate system because of the relative motion of matter to other matter, and to the background of light much further away. In other words there is no such thing as an absolute spatial position.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Pantheory.

 

So, if Newtonian gravity allows massive objects to warp space, does it also allow massive objects to slow down time?

 

Thanks.

 

Walter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WalterP said:

Thank you Pantheory.

 

So, if Newtonian gravity allows massive objects to warp space, does it also allow massive objects to slow down time?

 

Thanks.

 

Walter.

 

Remember, the idea of warped space was Einstein's idea. Like I said before, this concept has never been verified.

 

Of course Newton's gravity would slow time, gravity is gravity. Newton's gravity equation (the inverse square law) varied from Einstein's equations only slightly according to direction (curved lines of travel) and sometimes strength predictions. Of course Newton did not know of time dilation in his time, but Einstein had already heard of time dilation when he conceived his theory of Special Relativity.

 

The possibility of time dilation was known in the 1880's by the Lorentz transformation equation which would effect the dimensions of matter as well as possibly slowing time. But time dilation as a separate entity was first "predicted by several authors at the turn of the 20th century. Joseph Larmor (1897), at least for electrons orbiting a nucleus, wrote "... individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the [rest] system (according to the Lawrentz equation factor).  Emil Cohn (1904) specifically related this formula to the rate of clocks. In the context of special relativity it was shown by Albert Einstein (1905) that this effect concerns the nature of time itself, and he was also the first to point out its reciprocity or symmetry. Subsequently, Hermann Minkowski (1907) introduced the concept of proper time which further clarified the meaning of time dilation."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

 

Time dilation occurs by three known means. The first prediction related to the velocity of matter, the second relates to time dilation by gravity, and the third discovered in the 1970's, was time dilation based upon galactic distances and their redshifts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, on second thought Pantheory...

 

...if the warping of space has never been observed, then what is it that the LIGO and VIRGO arrays have been detecting since 2015?

 

https://www.ligo.org/detections.php

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Oh, on second thought Pantheory...

 

...if the warping of space has never been observed, then what is it that the LIGO and VIRGO arrays have been detecting since 2015?

 

https://www.ligo.org/detections.php

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

The idea of warped space being related to gravitational waves is conceptual but such a theoretical connection is not evidence. Gravity waves have been considered since the 1700's if not before.  Remember at that time they had the theoretical aether. Anything moving through the aether could produce an aether wave. Although aether is no longer mainstream physics there are still many totally new versions of it around based upon such background fields as the Zero-point-field, the Higgs field, hypothetical dark matter, gravitons, quantum foam etc. ; any such background field might produce waves based upon the movement of matter or photons through it.

 

Even at this moment some scientists think that such waves are the result of a background aether-like field.

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235539/could-discovered-gravitational-waves-in-fact-be-an-aether-wind

http://www.ipme.ru/ipme/labs/dms/prive/ivanova/Home_page_Elena_Ivanova/Ether modern ENG.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 1:19 PM, pantheory said:

IMO what we now refer to as modern physics went terribly wrong more than a hundred years ago at its beginning.

 

Well, because the BBT doesn't prove or constitute a fixed beginning, it would seem that cyclic modeling or eternal universe thinking was probably correct. Granted the BBT beat out static universe modeling but a universe with no fixed beginning isn't all that different than a static universe, is it? It seems that we've had a bump in the road for a while and then got back on track previous to the BBT. 

 

The same could easily be true of the old aether thinking as well. Just like static universe thinking. It may not have been exactly correct, but as time goes on it seems that it may have at least been on the way to how things actually are, just incomplete back then. Because I could see both eternal universe modeling (cyclic or otherwise) bringing about wave medium properties of space along with it. To where the static universe comes back in a way with aether medium coming back in a way as well. Not exactly the same, but the same general idea. 

 

I'm just saying, I wouldn't be shocked if that's how it plays out from here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Pantheory.

 

Do Newtonian black holes have singularities?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WalterP said:

Thank you Pantheory.

 

Do Newtonian black holes have singularities?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

No, singularities are only an implication of Einstein's equations. Einstein himself did not believe in singularities or black holes.

 

"Einstein denied several times that black holes could form. In 1939 he published a paper that argues that a star collapsing would spin faster and faster, spinning at the speed of light with infinite energy well before the point where it is about to collapse into a Schwarzchild singularity, or black hole"

 

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNS_0M0nBaYFHq7kTia2XhLwELmKmQ%3A1572139927864&source=hp&ei=l_O0Xf7eMtfY-gSL4I2QBg&q=Einstein's+statements+concerning+black+holes&oq=Einstein's+statements+concerning+black+holes&gs_l=psy-ab.12...1912.22332..24335...3.0..0.156.4290.36j11......0....1..gws-wiz.......0j0i131j35i39j0i10j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j38j33i22i29i30j33i299j33i160.ZyAW8tA-0GQ&ved=0ahUKEwi-hr7PpbvlAhVXrJ4KHQtwA2IQ4dUDCAs

 

Although what we now call back holes are known to exist, they may not exist as singularities, only as another dense form of matter,  more dense than a theoretical neutron star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Aether has been pretty thoroughly debunked (which includes fairly recent tests...something like 2009).  If it wasn't for this failure general relativity probably wouldn't have happened (at least at that time).

 

     I can't say I understand all this stuff all too well but my niece has a degree in astrophysics so I get to bug her (though I think she doesn't like it when I do).

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

No, singularities are only an implication of Einstein's equations. Einstein himself did not believe in singularities or black holes.

 

"Einstein denied several times that black holes could form. In 1939 he published a paper that argues that a star collapsing would spin faster and faster, spinning at the speed of light with infinite energy well before the point where it is about to collapse into a Schwarzchild singularity, or black hole"

 

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNS_0M0nBaYFHq7kTia2XhLwELmKmQ%3A1572139927864&source=hp&ei=l_O0Xf7eMtfY-gSL4I2QBg&q=Einstein's+statements+concerning+black+holes&oq=Einstein's+statements+concerning+black+holes&gs_l=psy-ab.12...1912.22332..24335...3.0..0.156.4290.36j11......0....1..gws-wiz.......0j0i131j35i39j0i10j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j38j33i22i29i30j33i299j33i160.ZyAW8tA-0GQ&ved=0ahUKEwi-hr7PpbvlAhVXrJ4KHQtwA2IQ4dUDCAs

 

Although what we now call back holes are known to exist, they may not exist as singularities, only as another dense form of matter,  more dense than a theoretical neutron star.

 

So what were Hawking and Penrose proving the existence of in this paper, Pantheory?

 

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

So what were Hawking and Penrose proving the existence of in this paper, Pantheory?

 

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

The title of their paper is " The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology. The paper goes on to explain the pros and cons concerning this and past proposals concerning the formation of singularities.

 

This quote in their abstract states that four assumptions are required for the consideration of their theorem.

 

"(1) Einstein’s equations hold (with zero or negative cosmological con­stant), (2) the energy density is nowhere less than minus each principal pressure nor less than minus the sum of the three principal pressures (the ‘energy condition 5), (3) there are no closed time-like curves, (4) every time-like or null geodesic enters a region where the curva­ture is not specially aligned with the geodesic (This last condition would hold in any sufficiently general physically realistic model.) In common with earlier results, time-like or null geodesic incompleteness is used here as the indication of the presence of space-time singularities. No assumption concerning existence of a global Cauchy hyper-surface is required for the present theorem."

 

They go on to ask the question: Is the picture that is presented by symmetrical exact models accurate, according to which a singularity in space-time would ensue?: The paper continues to present the pros and cons for this and other considerations and proposals.

(quotes from the paper follow) It has sometimes been suggested also that, on a somewhat larger scale, some form of gravitational collapse may be taking place in quasars, or perhaps in the centers of (some?) galaxies. Finally, on the scale of the universe as a whole, this instability shows up again in those models for which the expansion eventually reverses and the entire universe becomes involved in a gravitational collapse. In the reverse direction in time there is also the ‘ big bang ’ initial phase which is common to most relativistic (faster than light) expanding models. This again may be regarded as a manifesta­tion of the instability of gravitation (in reverse).

But what is the ultimate fate of a system in gravitational collapse? Is the picture that is presented by symmetrical exact models accurate, according to which a singularity in space-time would ensue? Or may it not be that any asymmetries present might cause the different parts of the collapsing material to miss each other, so possibly to lead to some form of bounce? It seems that until comparatively recently many people had believed that such an asymmetrical bounce might indeed be possible to achieve, in a manner consistent with general relativity. However, some recent theorems']' (Penrose 1965 a; Hawking 1966 a, 6;H; Geroch 1966) have ruled out a large number of possibilities of this kind. The present paper carries these results further, and considerably strengthens the implication that a singu­larity-free bounce (of the type required) does not seem to be realizable within the framework of general relativity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Pantheory.

 

Since this thread is about String Theory and not General Relativity, my questions have been dragging the thread off-topic.  I won't ask any more.

 

Walter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.