[Tesla]

Editorial: Loop quantum gravity increases its pull

• 12 August 2006
• NewScientist.com

THE accepted idea of matter is that it is made up of minuscule particles guided by quantum force fields. This is already far removed from the common-sense view that matter is, well, just chunks of stuff. If that seems hard enough to take, then brace yourself for another step away from common sense.

Theoretical physicists working in the rarefied field of loop quantum gravity have developed a way to describe elementary particles as merely tangles in space (see "Out of the void"). If they are right, it could be the most profound scientific generalisation of all time, in which everything in the universe emerges from a simple network of relationships, with no fundamental building blocks at all.

Up to now, loop quantum gravity has seemed like a poor relation of string theory, which for years has been the most popular route to a "theory of everything" in which all the forces of nature - and especially gravity, the outsider among them - are united. String theory builds the world from tiny strings and membranes that inhabit a space of 9 or 10 dimensions. It does away with some of the troublesome infinities of quantum mechanics and, crucially, predicts particles that carry gravity.

Yet to some eyes, string theory has unravelled. It has become clear that there are inconceivably many different solutions to its equations, each with different constants of nature and laws of physics, most of which are at odds with what we know about our universe. String theory seems not so much a theory of everything in our universe as a theory of everything else. Another criticism is that rather than predicting the existence of space and time, string theory takes them as a given.

“Rivalry between the two theories is driven in part by the different backgrounds and prejudices of their practitioners”

Loop quantum gravity, despite its confusingly similar name, takes a different approach in which everything is built up from a network of relationships. They are not even relationships between objects as such, just an abstract graph of connections, yet at large scales something like our smooth space and time emerge out of the network. Now, perhaps, matter does too, because it turns out that when the network is tied in a braid it forms something like a particle. This entity is stable, and it can have electric charge and "handedness" - a property of particles that has them spinning either to the left or the right. What's more, some of the different braids match known particles. That already seems to be an improvement on string theory, which allows universes in which there are completely different sets of particles.

As a get-out, some string theorists have turned to the anthropic principle, suggesting that the laws and constants of our universe have to be the way they are to allow the emergence of life - otherwise we wouldn't be here to measure them. This anthropic reasoning is philosophically uncomfortable for many scientists, who question whether it is even testable. Loop quantum gravity, if it does tightly prescribe the properties of particles, might run into the opposite philosophical problem: why should a universe that is hospitable to life arise out of fundamental physical laws?

The rivalry between the two theories may turn out to be false. It is driven in part by the different backgrounds and prejudices of their practitioners, with string theorists mainly coming from particle physics and the loop camp from general relativity. In the end, perhaps a final theory will share aspects of loops and strings - or one theory will turn out to contain the other.
Both theories have been criticised because they have so far failed to predict even a single number that can be tested by experiment. Theorists seem to be free to speculate at will, say the critics. That's a little unfair. What they're doing is struggling to accommodate what we know about the universe within a single framework.

One of the messages in Douglas Adams's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that there is no single ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. But perhaps Adams was wrong. If loop quantum gravity turns out to be true, and everything we see is made from a single thing that is not really a thing but a connection on a graph, we could after all be left with one ultimate question (though as our story on page 12 shows, loop quantum gravity is not the only theory of the universe to pose it): where does that reality come from?

From issue 2564 of New Scientist magazine, 12 August 2006, page 5

________________________________________________

Thanks,

Tesla

[baudrunner]

I wouldn't dismiss the anthropic principle outright. Even though it is construed as a philosophy more than a scientific theory, the evidence is right before our eyes. The quantum nature of reality suggests an ordering that unfolds to accomodate the reason for being. Tracing the evolution of the process of creation suggests that the intelligence that guides this unfolding process exists at the very most basic level, in the maintainance of particles and pre-particle definitons compatible with the current scenario and the discarding and rejection of particles and pre-particle definitions not compatible with it. Philip Bucksbaum of Michigan University established that an infinite amount of information can be stored in a single electron. Information is intelligence.

You said

As a get-out, some string theorists have turned to the anthropic principle, suggesting that the laws and constants of our universe have to be the way they are to allow the emergence of life - otherwise we wouldn't be here to measure them. This anthropic reasoning is philosophically uncomfortable for many scientists, who question whether it is even testable.

But neither string theory nor loop-quantum gravity theory can be empirically supported either, let alone be testable.

The discomfort that scientists feel for anthropocentrism is linked to the concept of a beginning out of nothing and the continuation of the creative process as a manifestation of perpetual motion in that the process is apparently accelerating. The problem lies in quantifying the how and why.

These questions can be rationalised. We have to get away from the "the Universe is the way it is otherwise we wouldn't be here to describe it" kind of thinking. The fact is, if the Universe were any other way, then that is the way that it would be, and we would still be here to observe it. This, of course, begs those questions "how and why?".

Difficult as it may be, try to conceive of a state of pre-beginning. Before there was anything there was nothing. Period. No time, no void, no substance. So the beginning happens. That's all. What caused it to happen to my mind was what I like to think of as being a premonition. A premonition does not require the function of time. Premonitions are foreshadowings of future events. This particular premonition was of the idea that anything existing, let alone being cognizant of that fact, yes - existence itself - being so staggeringly awesome and profound that it simply vents into issuance. What is established at this time is the difference between being and not being, existence versus nothing, and it represents an infinite differential. Polarity is established and the process creates space and matter and ultimately time expanding in a perpetual realization of that premonition, which is occurring at the periphery of the Universe as we speak, and wherein we find the manifestation of consciousness which must of needs predispose the premonition since the two are mutually inclusive. The same consciousness that Carl Gustav Jung described intuitively as "The Universal Unconscious".

We have found that evolution is accelerating. And for this reason consciousness could not have manifest in one giant entity infinite in scope and duration since it would become obsolete over time. That is why we are corporeal and finite, as the duration of our observable Universe is also finite, doomed to ultimately peter out and dissipate, even as creation happens anew at the periphery.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by baudrunner Difficult as it may be, try to conceive of a state of pre-beginning. Before there was anything there was nothing. Period. No time, no void, no substance. So the beginning happens. That's all.

Hey Baud, this statement is nothing but your personal religion. Why not try a bit of science___like absolute and infinite thermo-hydro-dynamics___cold, dark motion and temperature pressure exist as the infinite creator energy of pre and post-first-star void reality___period! Just take a look beyond what the speed of known light could have traveled, in any amount of finite time, or the 13.7 billion years as is thought___the infinite thermo-hydro-dynamic void energy and motion extends beyond all finite limits of otherwise known space-time___into the infinite's void-velocity-time___period! The dark energy before light energy and matter... The conservation of energy and matter laws of physics requires the above___if you simply mathematically reverse engineer the entire known, or theoretically unknown universe, you will come up with just such an answer.

"Mathematics is not transcendable. Mathematics is absolute intelligence and truth." me
"Thermo-hydro-dynamics is the uncaused-cause of creation. Cold is!" BTW, Cold and heat are mathematizable! Study a little Josiah Gibbs___America's premiere thermodynamicist and vector mathematics inventor.

regards

p.s.
Try a bit more science, instead of premonition... I fail to see any point in science___of faith and religion, i.e., premonition...

[baudrunner]

Religion has nothing to do with it.

What I am doing is simplifying, which happens to be the intention of all mathematical processes, for ease of understanding. What you are doing is not making any sense. You jump on the bandwagon of popular science and then promote it as your personal religion. Start making sense. Provide explanation. Stop pointing to mathematics as explaining anything if it does not appear to have any literary substitute, because it must of course be crank science if so.

All of a sudden you have seized upon the holy grail of "dark matter", a very new concept by the way. What is dark matter if not an accommodation to a lack of real understanding and probably a temporary one at that until we figure out the real reason for the anomalies resulting from the analysis of data from WMAP and COBE? Any honest scientist will tell you the same thing. Your injection of thermodynamics is true, it is a form of polarization during the creation process but it of itself is not the reason the creation process began.

And by the way, I have not contradicted any science in my post. All the true science that explains how and why we and this came to be will not in any way supplant or replace my description. It will just be science that supports the ideas I have given and which supplements them.

You have not contributed Lloyd, merely bafflegabbed a negative rejoinder. I am not impressed by your considered lack of user-friendliness.

I used the word premonition to describe the initial event because it comes closest to describing a unified solution to the theory of anthropocentrism.

You explain consciousness. You explain quantum reality, order from chaos. You can't because you do not have the imagination. Too bad. Stick to math because your writing sucks.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by baudrunner Religion has nothing to do with it. Your injection of thermodynamics is true, it is a form of polarization during the creation process but it of itself is not the reason the creation process began. And by the way, I have not contradicted any science in my post. All the true science that explains how and why we and this came to be will not in any way supplant or replace my description. It will just be science that supports the ideas I have given and which supplements them. I used the word premonition to describe the initial event because it comes closest to describing a unified solution to the theory of anthropocentrism.

• Hey Baud, stop taking everything I say so personal, it defeats the purpose of scientific investigation. I was simply trying to point out that anthropocentrism and premonition were religious ideas and not scientific reasoning. To take any ideas that can't be scientifically presented with honest math and logic only leads the discussion in the direction of unfounded beliefs, which are totally useless to scientific investigations, as is consciousness, except for the cognitive advances made over recent years, and by cognitive I mean real testable evidence, not premonitions of.
• When anyone takes ideas like consciousness, intuition, premonition or statements of conjectured nothing, and try to say the universe just happened, it is the same foolish mistakes many have made for thousands of years. Real, true and honest science must be testable and provable, or at the least, logically provable science, not mere religious conjecture. Even if I were to be foolish enough to accept your premonition conjecture, to be scientific, you would have to mathematically and logically explain how premonition was created and functions___you can't, because it's religious BS. Even if I exaggerated this further like Leibniz did, the mind of any god must be explained itself, to have any scientific validity___otherwise it's just religious BS. BTW Leibniz failed the explanation also, and most likely because he was also looking for the anthropocentric genie___IT AIN'T There!!! It's a scientific universe that produced life, spirit and everybody's dumb consciousness.
• And finally, I'm not going to be scientific with somebody who has no scientific recognition of science___99% of the world's citizens speak nothing but emotional dis-honesty, few speak logical honesty___you're still in the first category. I make mistakes, I agree, I'm human too___but I always try to correct them to scientific, mathematical and logical honesty. I don't continue to adhere to my immature emotional dis-honesty.

regards

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Lloyd "Mathematics is not transcendable. Mathematics is absolute intelligence and truth." me

Lloyd;
Though mathematics is considered the language of science, it is not infallible to error. Mathematics once proved the Earth was at the center of our solar system. Math cannot be absolute truth until it is applied to absolute reality and the absolute fundamentals of existence.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Lloyd; Though mathematics is considered the language of science, it is not infallible to error. Mathematics once proved the Earth was at the center of our solar system. Math cannot be absolute truth until it is applied to absolute reality and the absolute fundamentals of existence.

I fully agree Dave. When I mention mathematics as related to absolute truth, I am always considering only first order provable and sound complete math, not the incomplete math of higher order math and logic. When we go to higher order math we always have the problem encountered by the lack of suitable absolute fundamentals, i.e., the fact that infinity can not yet be mathematized, and relativity being quantum cosmologically fluid at light speed, yet we can substitute least and greatest magnitudes, to describe our findings and theories with absolute truth to real and absolute fundamentals. Just as many have said, "If infinity exists, then nothing is a myth." Since infinity is known to exist, and the laws of physics must apply to such infinity, even infinity of the greatest magnitude is subject to the conservation laws of physics, i.e., energy or matter, as the same at light speed, must exist infinitely and or eternally.[my reading of your material shows you also agree with this point] My only point I am always making is to first cause of the motion of such energy/matter, and there I see nothing but thermo-hydro-dynamics to fill the bill___first cause of first motion___first cause of first star___and first and final causes of life and death___the cold to heat and back to cold thermodynamic cycle. I think it the most important aspect for explaining absolute cause and effect___and with greatest and least magnitudes math applied, these findings are, IMO, absolute mathematizable truth, through the use of thermo-hydro-dynamics, sound quantum mechanics, sound relative mechanics and sound classical mechanics combonations... I do not belive all of quantum, relative and classical mechanics can explain everything without the laws of thermodynamics, as their central causes___these, IMO, are absolutely mathematizable with least and greatest magnitudes math___even if we have to substitute extremely huge numbers for our representation of real infinity___the absolute truth of such math would lie on the line between least and greatest magnitudes___as we already absolutely know it is an infinite eternal space and a finite matter universe___by all the evidence presented to the scientific eye. The question is about first motion, and were there any angular motion waves or just linear motion waves, in the earlier stages of pre-first-star development motions, and or were there any out waves, or just in waves in this stage of universal evolution, from the infinite existing energy/matter? This seems to be a giant weather system at the pre-first-star stage, and I can't prove how such system would have reacted, but in theorizing the conditions, it seems it would have reacted much as our present weather conditions do, i.e., the conservation of first and final motions... Any comments Dave?

regards

[dleviwing]

Hi Lloyd:
The first cause is what I have referred to as the “Last Question”. Was there a beginning or has existence always been?? First cause of our universe is easy to hypothesize. First cause of existence appears to be impossible to comprehend.

BTW: A bit over the top but an excellent post

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Hi Lloyd: The first cause is what I have referred to as the “Last Question”. Was there a beginning or has existence always been?? First cause of our universe is easy to hypothesize. First cause of existence appears to be impossible to comprehend. BTW: A bit over the top but an excellent post

As my post stated, we're totally agreed on the "Last Question." IMO, there is no "Last Question,"___It absolutely had to infinitely, eternally exist, or the laws of physics are invalid, and we absolutely know they are valid___therefore, there's only one answer___infinite, eternal existence of energy/matter___my only questions are motions and organizations of it, and their timing factors, such as, did the sped of light slow with, say, the square of time? We'll never be able to measure it, but it is a real possibility, and would explain much of cosmology's anomalies...

[dleviwing]

Well Lloyd, I guess that makes us in 100% agreement now. This only leaves the details to work out and where to make the announcement.