String Theory vs E8 and Quantum Gravity Research vs ?

[excreationist]

Here is a recent video from "Quantum Gravity Research" (not much new information)
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJi3_znm7ZE[/YOUTUBE]
It criticises String Theory saying it has "kind of failed" (9:10) and has "never produced any successful predictions".

It talks about E8 and their "friend" Garrett Lisi.... here is an E8 explorer he has been working on:
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAIw123DIcI[/YOUTUBE]
http://www.deferentialgeometry.org/epe/

I think E8 predicts some particles.

The founder of QGR, Klee Irwin,
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Klee_Irwin
is said to be "a pseudoscience proponent and fraudster".

QGR has 130 videos on Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUyk0KLo7JPLCCh4oRNLzsQ


and 10 staff members:
https://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/about-quantum

What do people here think about E8, String Theory, QGR and possible contenders for a theory of everything (or at least combine gravity with QM)?

 

[excreationist]

I'm watching Klee Irwin's "Scientific Clues That We Are Living In the Matrix"


So far I see a problem at 15:30

It shows:

Which comes from:
https://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/numbers-magick/

In 15:50 he says based on Wikipedia it is 99.975% accurate "virtually 100%"

 

[excreationist]

Again,


48:00 says "the universe has the topology of a neural network". Then talks about Bose Eintein condensates that are quantum entangled and communicate instantly (51:00). About "emergent collective universal consciousness", "I'm not saying it is like our consciousness".

57:00 talks about Ouroboros. 58:10 "We didn't create God and Got didn't create us - we co-created one another".

The video was for the San Francisco Theosophical Society - from what I know, I think Theosophy is nonsense. But maybe a lot of Klee's normal theories make sense.

 

[skepticalbip]

I could only watch a few minutes of that video. I can only take a limited amount of hand waving BS. The presentations by Klee Irwin and Deepak Chopra are very similar in that they misrepresent (whether intentionally or lack of understanding?) the real physics to support their own personal beliefs. They just have different beliefs.

 

[excreationist]

[MENTION=453]skepticalbip[/MENTION]

What about the second video - the elementary particle explorer.... It is based on E8.

 

[steve_bank]

String theory looked promising at first, but it kept getting tangled up in knots.

 

[DBT]

Quantum theory and determinism

''In this paper, I reviewed the interpretations and the fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics, arguing that, contrary to a popular view, quantum theory can be considered as a deterministic theory describing Nature.

The theory has two parts. The first part is physical, mathematical, the one to which I attach the words “ontological” or “ontic” (without attributing a distinction between them). It is a counterpart of the theory of particles and fields in classical physics. This is the part of a theory about what is in the physical Universe. Although I discussed several approaches, I find by far the best option to take the wave function of the Universe, and only it, as the ontology of the theory. Major part of the paper explains why I have this view. I also review numerous recent works on the subject pointing in this direction.

The theory of the wave function is a deterministic theory without action at a distance. It is the theory about what is, irrespectively of us. Even quantum observables, like momentum, energy, spin, etc. which are frequently considered to be the starting point of quantum mechanics, are not considered ontological in this approach. Thus, various uncertainty relations between quantum variables do not lead to indeterminism.''

 

[fromderinside]

So take away time and choice or cause and what's left is QM?

 

[steve_bank]

Quantum theory and determinism

''In this paper, I reviewed the interpretations and the fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics, arguing that, contrary to a popular view, quantum theory can be considered as a deterministic theory describing Nature.

The theory has two parts. The first part is physical, mathematical, the one to which I attach the words “ontological” or “ontic” (without attributing a distinction between them). It is a counterpart of the theory of particles and fields in classical physics. This is the part of a theory about what is in the physical Universe. Although I discussed several approaches, I find by far the best option to take the wave function of the Universe, and only it, as the ontology of the theory. Major part of the paper explains why I have this view. I also review numerous recent works on the subject pointing in this direction.

The theory of the wave function is a deterministic theory without action at a distance. It is the theory about what is, irrespectively of us. Even quantum observables, like momentum, energy, spin, etc. which are frequently considered to be the starting point of quantum mechanics, are not considered ontological in this approach. Thus, various uncertainty relations between quantum variables do not lead to indeterminism.''

Philosophical babel. There is philosophical determinism and there are deterministic system.

From my my most recent systems book the top level is chaotic. Under chaotic thee are deterministic and probabilistic system.

A chaotic system is indeterminate due to required accuracy of variables for example. Deterministic is a limiting case of chaotic. Analogous to Newtonian gravity versus relativity. At all times local weather conforms causal to laws of physics. Yet long term predictions become increasing off due to lack of knowledge of variables.

A deterministic system means you have a set of equations to which you plug in values and get a deterministic result. Computing distance from velocity and time is deterministic. For a set of inputs there is one and only one result.

Probabilistic would be when a particles is emitted from radioactive material.

Both deterministic and probabilistic are causal.

QM says nothing about free will and predestiny in philosophy.

 

[DBT]

Quantum theory and determinism

''In this paper, I reviewed the interpretations and the fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics, arguing that, contrary to a popular view, quantum theory can be considered as a deterministic theory describing Nature.

The theory has two parts. The first part is physical, mathematical, the one to which I attach the words “ontological” or “ontic” (without attributing a distinction between them). It is a counterpart of the theory of particles and fields in classical physics. This is the part of a theory about what is in the physical Universe. Although I discussed several approaches, I find by far the best option to take the wave function of the Universe, and only it, as the ontology of the theory. Major part of the paper explains why I have this view. I also review numerous recent works on the subject pointing in this direction.

The theory of the wave function is a deterministic theory without action at a distance. It is the theory about what is, irrespectively of us. Even quantum observables, like momentum, energy, spin, etc. which are frequently considered to be the starting point of quantum mechanics, are not considered ontological in this approach. Thus, various uncertainty relations between quantum variables do not lead to indeterminism.''

Philosophical babel. There is philosophical determinism and there are deterministic system.

From my my most recent systems book the top level is chaotic. Under chaotic thee are deterministic and probabilistic system.

A chaotic system is indeterminate due to required accuracy of variables for example. Deterministic is a limiting case of chaotic. Analogous to Newtonian gravity versus relativity. At all times local weather conforms causal to laws of physics. Yet long term predictions become increasing off due to lack of knowledge of variables.

A deterministic system means you have a set of equations to which you plug in values and get a deterministic result. Computing distance from velocity and time is deterministic. For a set of inputs there is one and only one result.

Probabilistic would be when a particles is emitted from radioactive material.

Both deterministic and probabilistic are causal.

QM says nothing about free will and predestiny in philosophy.

What you say doesn't necessarily disagree with the article. The article is another interpretation of quantum....there being at least ten if I recall correctly, some being probabilistic, others deterministic.

 

[steve_bank]

Whenever I see a word like ontological I tune out. My paradigm is modern scince devvolopes models based on math, observation, and experiment that maps inputs to outputs.

Anything beyond tat for me is metaphysics and assigning philosophical meaning. From Durand's History Of Philosophy that which can be quantified is science, the rest is philosophy and religion.

Don't have a clue what QM is not action at a distance means. QM is action at a distance via fields albeit at very small distances.Transistors operate via fields across inter-atomic spaces.

 

[DBT]

Whenever I see a word like ontological I tune out. My paradigm is modern scince devvolopes models based on math, observation, and experiment that maps inputs to outputs.

Anything beyond tat for me is metaphysics and assigning philosophical meaning. From Durand's History Of Philosophy that which can be quantified is science, the rest is philosophy and religion.

Don't have a clue what QM is not action at a distance means. QM is action at a distance via fields albeit at very small distances.Transistors operate via fields across inter-atomic spaces.

As Brian Greene puts it:

''Wave functions - the probability waves of quantum mechanics - evolve in time according to precise mathematical roles, such as the Schrodinger equation (or its more precise relativistic counterparts, such as the Klein-Gordan equation). This informs us that quantum determinism replaces Laplace's classical determinism Knowledge of the wave functions of all of the fundamental ingredients at some moment in time allows a ''vast enough'' [Laplace] intelligence to determine the wave functions at any prior or future time.

Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time''

 

[steve_bank]

Whenever I see a word like ontological I tune out. My paradigm is modern scince devvolopes models based on math, observation, and experiment that maps inputs to outputs.

Anything beyond tat for me is metaphysics and assigning philosophical meaning. From Durand's History Of Philosophy that which can be quantified is science, the rest is philosophy and religion.

Don't have a clue what QM is not action at a distance means. QM is action at a distance via fields albeit at very small distances.Transistors operate via fields across inter-atomic spaces.

As Brian Greene puts it:

''Wave functions - the probability waves of quantum mechanics - evolve in time according to precise mathematical roles, such as the Schrodinger equation (or its more precise relativistic counterparts, such as the Klein-Gordan equation). This informs us that quantum determinism replaces Laplace's classical determinism Knowledge of the wave functions of all of the fundamental ingredients at some moment in time allows a ''vast enough'' [Laplace] intelligence to determine the wave functions at any prior or future time.

Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time''

Sounds like semntics over dtermined and detrministic.

Imagine a rectangular box potential well. The ends have infinite potential and are totaly reflective. A model of a gas laser.

The solution to the WE for a rectangular well is sines and cosines. When the length of the well is multiple wavelengths of the laser light/photons a standing wave occurs in amplitue of the photons.

The wave equation s a probability distribution function. This means to find the probability of an photon being in a volume dxdydz you integrate the probability distribution function. The result is the probability of photons in space yields a sine wave. Hence the term 'wave'. The WE is not some kind of independent existence. Wave equations are derived for specific conditions. The are probability distribution functions, like the normal or Gaussian curve or distribution. It is no more complicated than that.

To say a set of equations is fully determined simply means it can be solved. Fully determined does not equate with deterministic versus probabilistic. Calculating linear distance from velocity and time s deterministic. Calculating the position of a photon in a laser is probabilistic.

QM is daily routine in areas like solid state electronics and lasers. QM is a well developed set of math like LaPlace and Fourier transforms.

If you want something really spooky how about going from time domain to frequency domain using LaPlace abd Fourier transforms? Is the frequency main a reality or just a mathematical function?

Google rectangular potential energy well. The equations are derived from the SWE and there are animations.

 

[DBT]

Sounds like semntics over dtermined and detrministic.

Not necessarily just a matter of semantics. There are several versions of determinism and the term 'deterministic.' Hard determinism, soft determinism ---- ''Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time''

 

[steve_bank]

Sounds like semntics over dtermined and detrministic.

Not necessarily just a matter of semantics. There are several versions of determinism and the term 'deterministic.' Hard determinism, soft determinism ---- ''Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time''

That is the problem with philosophy and the differnce between philosophy and scince.

Science is based on unambiguous definitions in Systems International.

In engineering a problem is said to be fully determined when there are enough variables defined to solve the problem at hand. An indeterminate problem is one in whico there is not enough information tp calculate a solution.

A problem in QM can be fully determined yet not be deterministic.


If I am in an engineering discussion and say deterministic or stochastic or probabilistic the meaning is clear. If I am having a lunch table discussion deterministic and determinism can have a number of meanings.


The philosophical debate centered on QM is about determinism which I equate to re predestiny. Is a person's life predetermined? Is the future fixed? There is no scientific answer.

Books mixing modern physics with philosophy and mysticism go back to the 70s.

If you have seen Depak Chopra speak on PBS show he weaves a blend of physics and the mystical. He has a following.

From QM there is an underlying probability and uncertainty. A macro scale planet is simply the aggregate random states of a vast number of probabilities. A statistical average. A deterministic relation like time, speed and distance of a car is an illusion based on the large number of particles involved. A WE could be developed for a car in motion.


QM is no different than other statistics. If I know the distribution of heights of people and I pick random people off the street there is a probability of the person being a certain height. I can not pick or predetermine what the height of a person selected will be, yet all people have a height. In QM all atoms are in motion and change. When measuring a quantum state we do not know what it will be, but we know the probability of a particular state. Benetah the jargon was regular probability and staistics.

Back in the early 90s I took a modern physics night class because it was showing up in technical journals. It was anti climatic.
Beneath ah the jargon was regular probability and statistics.