String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

[Revoltingest]

I said that they're theoretical, meaning no one has found one yet...except apparently Kaku, but he hasn't published any of his evidence yet, so no Nobel for him! They're not disallowed by relativity, and their detection would not disprove relativity.

Their detection would seem to have great difficulties.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Their detection would seem to have great difficulties.

Yes? It took 60 years to get sufficient evidence of the Higgs boson. For something as odd as a tachyon, I wouldn't be too surprised if it takes centuries...

 

[idav]

Maybe there's no space between two entangled quarks, so nothing is really violated? Perhaps they represent a form of warped space.

That would explain why neither QM or GR can be disproven and who a qubit can be in simulataneous places at the same time. In quantum computing they are using real particles in quantum states similar to how a computer uses binary on off switches, The particles are literally in different states and in different points in space at the same time.

 

[Ouroboros]

Show me a tachyon.
And I want a new one, not some dirty old one.

I rather have one that's not so sticky-one.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'll add that the phenomenon doesn't involve motion.

Right. If they're connected in some kind'a warped space, they could essentially be the same particle.

If a particle exceeded the speed of light, then that would disprove both theories of relativity,

Space can exceed the speed of light. And any particle that's not bound by time-space technically could. Problem is, we wouldn't be able to, or would be very difficult to detect or use (like tachyons).

& their precursors (which predict that infinite energy would be needed just to reach light speed.)

Yes. Within space-time.

But entanglement doesn't do that.

Right. Because there's something going on that's beyond our ordinary space-time there.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right. If they're connected in some kind'a warped space, they could essentially be the same particle.


Space can exceed the speed of light. And any particle that's not bound by time-space technically could. Problem is, we wouldn't be able to, or would be very difficult to detect or use (like tachyons).


Yes. Within space-time.


Right. Because there's something going on that's beyond our ordinary space-time there.

Sorry to disappoint, but I've no disagreement with any of the above.
(I'll try harder next time.)

 

[idav]

Right. If they're connected in some kind'a warped space, they could essentially be the same particle.


Space can exceed the speed of light. And any particle that's not bound by time-space technically could. Problem is, we wouldn't be able to, or would be very difficult to detect or use (like tachyons).


Yes. Within space-time.


Right. Because there's something going on that's beyond our ordinary space-time there.

So a photon has zero mass supposedly which allows it to go speed of light. I've tried it. Zero mass makes the e equals mc thing really hard to work, but not sure that means all of sudden light breaks any of the general relativity rules.

 

[Ouroboros]

So a photon has zero mass supposedly which allows it to go speed of light. I've tried it. Zero mass makes the e equals mc thing really hard to work, but not sure that means all of sudden light breaks any of the general relativity rules.

Since different particles have different properties, only certain properties are affected by relativity. Basically, relativity is true, but only in a given context, not universally for all particles or even space-time itself. The Higgs field might not be bound by relativity for instance. Relativity is an emergent property, which would mean it's emerging from something that is not bound by relativity itself.

 

[McBell]

I don't need any math. It's common sense. If you want to do the math, go for it. I couldn't care less.

You do need math if you want your math claims to be taken seriously outside the choir.

However, if you are only interested in preaching...

 

[McBell]

Without a creator you have randomness. You certainly cannot prove that the universe started out in an orderly manner without a creator. Heck, you can't explain where anything came from without a creator or how it came about.

And you cannot eve prove that a creator exists, let alone that it created something.

Abiogenesis is an interesting, yet unintelligent concept. Which theory of abiogenesis do you buy into?

List them.

 

[First Baseman]

You do need math if you want your math claims to be taken seriously outside the choir.

Translation: Don't say anything even remotely religious to me unless you have mathematics to prove it rigorously!

In other words - don't say anything religious to me.

 

[First Baseman]

And you cannot eve prove that a creator exists, let alone that it created something.



List them.

You'll find out whether the Creator exists or not, no doubt about that. I just hope it's not too late for you when you do.

List them? You mean that you don't know what to believe and you are asking a person who abhors abiogenesis to list them for you?

 

[idav]

Since different particles have different properties, only certain properties are affected by relativity. Basically, relativity is true, but only in a given context, not universally for all particles or even space-time itself. The Higgs field might not be bound by relativity for instance. Relativity is an emergent property, which would mean it's emerging from something that is not bound by relativity itself.

Sure but a photon is the epitome of relativity. A photon may very well negate space-time due to its speed regardless of mass. Relativity space time dilation works with mass or speed, doesn't need both.

 

[Zosimus]

And? Can you show me at what point in the movie he says that relativity is violated? And how it is violated? At what point does the Bell theorem destroy relativity, in your opinion?

So, again, are you confident with the concept of density matrix in QM? I ask because that is what you need to discuss the degree of entanglement and things like locality or lack thereof.

Or do you gather all your information about physics from google and Time magazine?

But if you really think that a video on tube can overturn relativity, then here is my competent critique of some aspects of classical astronomy (LOL):

Ciao

- viole

I posted the video because I didn't want to be rude by saying that you didn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about.

 

[Zosimus]

The real question is "how in the world is it doing that", not by going faster than light as far as we know.

How is it that a photon is able to violate general or special relativity when light itself is part of the equation, I mean we use it as a way to measure space and time dilation? The way a photon seemingly travels faster than the speed of light is by dilating space and time the way physics says objects going closer to the speed of light do. Quantum entangled objects don't need to travel 100 miles because they are connected at a single point in space in which case only needs to travel an inch to reach a thousand miles, in theory anyway.

I cannot make heads nor tails of your answer.

 

[idav]

I cannot make heads nor tails of your answer.

I will simplify. Photons are in a quantum state which prove all exeriments for QM. However at the same time the photon is the standard in which experiments show general relativity exists.

According to theory all the mass that a photon would have is in the form of energy.

Since photons contribute to the stress–energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound–Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[100]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

The gravitational attraction as described above is due to a photon warping spacetime.

 

[McBell]

Translation: Don't say anything even remotely religious to me unless you have mathematics to prove it rigorously!

If you were not so quick to appoint yourself as martyr...
You should really stop.
I mean, seriously, you suck at it.

Fact is you made a math claim.
If you are unable to understand that fact, just ask.

In other words - don't say anything religious to me.

You do know that you made a math claim, right?
I mean, if you are not even capable of understanding that you made a math claim...

 

[McBell]

You'll find out whether the Creator exists or not, no doubt about that. I just hope it's not too late for you when you do.

Bold empty threats do not scare or impress me.

List them? You mean that you don't know what to believe and you are asking a person who abhors abiogenesis to list them for you?

so you are unable to list the various abiogenesis you claim exist?
And you wonder why you are not taken seriously?

 

[McBell]

I cannot make heads nor tails of your answer.

ouch.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Translation: Don't say anything even remotely religious to me unless you have mathematics to prove it rigorously!

No, you made a mathematical claim but provided no math to back it up. You claimed we have a better chance of finding a randomly assembled watch than a cell, but you don't even give us the percentage, or even your variables that allowed you to reach this conclusion.

You'll find out whether the Creator exists or not, no doubt about that. I just hope it's not too late for you when you do.

Just because you believe it doesn't make it true, and this "not too late" doesn't scare or bother many people. I see the idea of some human-looking god who is going to judge us to eternal bliss or eternal damnation is less likely than eternal oblivion. We have absolutely no proof or evidence of this, it doesn't make sense when you consider all of the factors and variables, there are issues when you ask questions of those who came before Christ and those who never heard of him, and Christians themselves do not even have a consensus on what exactly happens after we die. But it's a reasonable assumption that when we die, we die. It's easier to state that life is only a dream, because we can even confuse a dream for reality, and our life ending is much like a dream ending.