Quantum Gravity fix'd?

[deltro300111]

Given a rudimentary knowledge of a variety of stuff, and a computer- why shouldn't this be right?

Anyway, it is my understanding that in general, String theor(y/ies) tend to assert that all matter is comprised on a subatomic level of tiny, 1 dimensional, vibrating strings. The intensity with which they vibrate determines the objects mass/energy (made one in the same), and their shape determines other properties.

That's the extent of my knowledge.

Here's where we get into the part that just seems too obvious to me.

Gravity = Rate of Entropy

Basically, the rate at which individual strings vibrations become less intense should determine the rate at which normal masses are capable of attracting others from a short range.

This leads me to believe very strongly that we're not going to see gravitons.

Theory is just great.

[QED Stepfiles]

First, I must decide if this is a troll or not. Having decided that it very well might be, but also juxtaposing this conclusion with the fact that I'm horribly bored right now, I will continue regardless.

So... you probably shouldn't attempt to talk about any theoretical string theory until you have a solid foundation in quantum mechanics, GR, and quantum field theory. The way the media portrays string theory, people are likely to fall into the "OMG THINGS ARE MADE OF STRINGS WHEEEEE" mentality and are likely to wholly oversimplify and misrepresent the theory. Of course, all this is assuming that string theory is, in fact, true (or at least experimentally verifiable) - which is another issue entirely.

As to your assertion... I'm not sure I can understand what you mean. If you want to discuss physics, at least discuss it in the proper units - intensity is energy propagated over time over a certain surface area, while "rate at which masses are capable of attracting each other" also doesn't make very much sense to me, since rate is associated with some inverse time relationship, and without defining "capable" in clear terms I have no idea what you mean.

Entropy is also in units of energy/temperature, while gravity, depending on what precisely you're talking about, gravity is either measured in terms of force or acceleration (in that sense, setting "rate of entropy" equal to "gravity" makes no inherent sense at all).

Ultimately, I can't really say anything meaningful about your statement, because it just doesn't make sense physically.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by deltro300111

Gravity = Rate of Entropy

First of all, "rate of entropy" is nonsensical.

Secondly, how on earth is that equivalence "obvious"? It makes no physical sense.

I'm of a mind to consider this a CT trolling thread for how little sense it makes...

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Even if there's no trolling going on, this is still a pretty ill-reasoned and supported OP.

Care to clear this up a little with SCIENCE! deltro? Otherwise, it's probably going to get closed.

[deltro300111]

This isn't a troll post, I swear.

The initial idea was somewhat unclear but given my quickly progressing knowledge of the subject I've come up with a more clear idea of how to portray it in real terms.

String theory quantifies the basest particle to be energy, one unit of which is a string.

Low energy Strings interacting with other low energy Strings gives a chance for a 0-energy situation, because of destructive interference of waves.

With 0-energy, it collapses into a dimension where it can exist with this much energy, a slight reduction of total mass, and bending of space.

This should neatly explain black holes as infinite entropy entities,
and why a large amount of matter causes gravity by simply slipping out of existence at a constant rate on a quantum level.

This idea leaves room for dark matter/energy.

It also could explain why we haven't seen Gravitons yet.

Entropy defines the 4th dimension of our universe. Why not let it be a path in and out of the universe's self-feeding stars, and seemingly self-feeding nothingness?

[QED Stepfiles]

Mind citing your sources? I'm still not convinced this isn't a troll. I'm not actually sure whether any of the statements you made even come close to a feasible explanation of string theory. For example:

Destructive interference of waves does not produce a zero energy situation. Energy is still conserved... otherwise we'd be completely screwed since waves destructively interfere all the time, and we don't suddenly lose energy.

And "entropy is the fourth dimension" is pure nonsense. Like, seriously.... what?

etc.

[deltro300111]

Entropy is the arrow of time, in essence. It's the only way we can tell which way time is going, because there is always less energy than there was before.

If, somehow, mass that exists is always undergoing entropy, then it explains why gravity acts how it does, and how our three spacial dimensions fold in on themselves to form the four that we know.

And I think that string theory explains how this is possible.

[foilman8805]

If like most people you consider time to be the 4th dimension, then it makes even less sense.

Would you mind defining the 'entropy' you're talking about? Are we talking about changes in energy here, or are we talking about the opposite of chaos, or what?

EDIT: ninja'd...let me read.

Originally Posted by deltro300111

If, somehow, mass that exists is always undergoing entropy

Yeah, we need you to define what exactly you mean by 'entropy'. You seem to be treating it as a process, and I think the rest of us just see it as energy...well, perhaps I shouldn't speak for everyone else, but I'm thinking of it in the thermodynamic sense. Regardless, be a bit more clear.

Also, I'm not so sure about the whole 'there is less energy than there was before' hypothesis of yours either, because there are a few laws out there like the conservation of energy that contradict what you're trying to reason.

[deltro300111]

If quantum particles, one-dimensional vibrating energy, interact with each other like waves as predicted by string theory, then why shouldn't entropy exist at that level too, however undetectably small?

Now when a string is deactivated, it collapses into another spacial existence elsewhere in the 4th dimensional system. This process pulls inward, by actually reducing the space that is there, creating gravity.

[QED Stepfiles]

First off, you're talking about the entropy of a local system. That does NOT have to increase - only entropy of the entire, isolated universe has to increase by the second law of thermodynamics.

Second off, what is this with a fourth dimension? Time isn't really a fourth dimension - time and space are equivalent concepts in relativistic terms, so to say it's a separate, fourth dimension is a bit redundant. Rather, sometimes physicists use time as a fourth component in vectors with which to do calculations in order to simplify some of their math.

And yea, define entropy. Nobody knows what you're talking about.

AND WHERE ARE THOSE SOURCES? Lol...

The sensemeter on this thread is remaining at a 0, and the "probability this is a troll" meter is approaching 98%.

[devonin]

Unfortunately, when people are at least using intelligent words, the probability of trolling increases asymptotically.

[deltro300111]

The possibility that immeasurable amounts of three dimensional mass could be disappearing into another side fits too conveniently into everything already there.

Relativity, Newtonian physics, and standard model- allowing for the dispersion of a particle that exists without existing by all matter all the time, and seems to act to just push out space and time fits too well into what we already know.

Asserting that string theory explains how entropy can happen may not work so well, but the base assertion that immeasurable amounts of matter simply disappearing explains how time exists, and the fact that we cannot ever see it is supportive of an infinitely self-restarting universe where the "0-energy" remnants of the last becomes the "nothingness" of the new one.

The difference in energy is the dimension that we can't measure because it's changing with our tools on their basest levels.

Quantum Entropy

[foilman8805]

Have any of the things you typed actually come from your head? I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, but it just feels like copypasta. :/

Originally Posted by QED Stepfiles

AND WHERE ARE THOSE SOURCES?

QFE

[deltro300111]

Every single word is coming from my thoughts about the subject. It's funny to me that as I make them I find support for them within the tome of wikipedia.

[devonin]

Well you could at least be linking to the relevant pages of Wikipedia, insofar as Wikipedia is a source.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by deltro300111

Given a rudimentary knowledge of a variety of stuff, and a computer- why shouldn't this be right?

Anyway, it is my understanding that in general, String theor(y/ies) tend to assert that all matter is comprised on a subatomic level of tiny, 1 dimensional, vibrating strings. The intensity with which they vibrate determines the objects mass/energy (made one in the same), and their shape determines other properties.

That's the extent of my knowledge.

Here's where we get into the part that just seems too obvious to me.

Gravity = Rate of Entropy

Basically, the rate at which individual strings vibrations become less intense should determine the rate at which normal masses are capable of attracting others from a short range.

This leads me to believe very strongly that we're not going to see gravitons.

Theory is just great.

This isn't a troll post, I swear.

The initial idea was somewhat unclear but given my quickly progressing knowledge of the subject I've come up with a more clear idea of how to portray it in real terms.

String theory quantifies the basest particle to be energy, one unit of which is a string.

Low energy Strings interacting with other low energy Strings gives a chance for a 0-energy situation, because of destructive interference of waves.

With 0-energy, it collapses into a dimension where it can exist with this much energy, a slight reduction of total mass, and bending of space.

This should neatly explain black holes as infinite entropy entities,
and why a large amount of matter causes gravity by simply slipping out of existence at a constant rate on a quantum level.

This idea leaves room for dark matter/energy.

It also could explain why we haven't seen Gravitons yet.

Entropy defines the 4th dimension of our universe. Why not let it be a path in and out of the universe's self-feeding stars, and seemingly self-feeding nothingness?

First of all, entropy doesn't have a rate. Defining it as S, entropy is essentially a measure of the portion of energy in a system which is unable to do work.

Gravitons are definitely compatible with String theory...much more so than the standard model, given that like every other particle, it is a state of a given string.

Basically, what you're saying at the end of your first post is that string vibrations are responsible for gravitational behavior, and the 'intensity' of the specific string behavior will determine the strength of the gravitational field, which should be contingent on the disorder of the system. This is because intensity determines energy. Ultimately, this means there are no gravitons.

However, this explains nothing, even if we ignore the misunderstanding of entropy. It does not explain how gravity exerts it's force. Rather, it states something relatively obvious that has nothing to do with gravitons.

Gravitons would be a specific manifestation of specific string behavior. What you're saying does not argue for or against this idea.



With respect to your second post, while some of this is interesting speculation, I don't think M theory allows for much of this. Links to the support for ...essentially any of these statements?

[deltro300111]

The string theory stuff was an incorrect conclusion because I didn't really know what I was talking about, but it made me stumble upon a more interesting conclusion.

We can't know how much matter is being lost to entropy, because it's basically becoming what we percieve as emptyness at a constant rate, the only way we detect it is by the time distortions three dimensional matter disappearing creates.

Assuming standard model, relativity, etc. if you can actually call the amount of energy being lost "NOT MEASURABLE" <-- (the new idea created in my theory here), then it explains gravity, and why gravity increases so much when this "NOT MEASURABLE" entropy, while not breaking any laws.

My sources surrounding this speculation are just wikipedia, honestly I just read a whole lot, and came to what sounded like a plausible conclusion using what I know about the universe.

[deltro300111]

Holy ****, I think this really really has weight to it.

Someone over at SA appears to have named it, "Vector icosahedral multifield theory"

I can't find this name anywhere else.

[deltro300111]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

HAH. In your FACE old people.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by deltro300111

The string theory stuff was an incorrect conclusion because I didn't really know what I was talking about, but it made me stumble upon a more interesting conclusion.

We can't know how much matter is being lost to entropy, because it's basically becoming what we percieve as emptyness at a constant rate, the only way we detect it is by the time distortions three dimensional matter disappearing creates.

Assuming standard model, relativity, etc. if you can actually call the amount of energy being lost "NOT MEASURABLE" <-- (the new idea created in my theory here), then it explains gravity, and why gravity increases so much when this "NOT MEASURABLE" entropy, while not breaking any laws.

My sources surrounding this speculation are just wikipedia, honestly I just read a whole lot, and came to what sounded like a plausible conclusion using what I know about the universe.

Well, I have never heard of Vector icosahedral multifield theory. SA? Icoshedral multi-model sets are an incredibly complex way of describing higher dimensional superspaces, but I fail to see how this is relevant to what you have said.

Also, while what you had said before was ultimately pointless, at least it made sense. This however, does not, so you have some clarifying to do.