tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post2682107781982745397..comments2024-01-04T11:40:48.827-06:00Comments on Dr Michael G Strauss: The Reports of the Death of String Theory may be Greatly ExaggeratedMichael G Strausshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-8357636019176629712022-01-06T11:41:08.938-06:002022-01-06T11:41:08.938-06:00You may be confused as to what meaning of "pe...You may be confused as to what meaning of "perturbation" is being applied, say, in quantum field theory. Most often it is about the solution of the equations of motion to lower levels in "perturbation theory" as when an expansion of some interaction matrix is used to calculate a scattring cross-section. This may address part of your question.<br /><br />best regards,<br />Domenico Barillari, PhD, C-Nucleonics companyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00619724372202871139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-68783113787564451782019-04-11T09:11:51.863-05:002019-04-11T09:11:51.863-05:00I don't know the answer. Particle-antiparticle...I don't know the answer. Particle-antiparticle pair can annihilate and create energy. I don't personally know any string theorists to ask.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-15897268294626893342019-04-10T21:56:54.797-05:002019-04-10T21:56:54.797-05:00I've waited for 2 weeks but no one has respond...I've waited for 2 weeks but no one has responded. Do you know a theoretical physicist who I may ask, "Can a nearby string absorb energy from other string/anti-string annihilations?" Thanks for your help.<br /><br />Howard Jeffrey Bender (hjbender@anylanguage.net)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08869411875055688806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-67671912720222725202019-03-27T08:13:06.254-05:002019-03-27T08:13:06.254-05:00I think the fundamental question is: can a nearby ...I think the fundamental question is: can a nearby string absorb energy from other string/anti-string annihilations? Anybody know? Thanks for your help.<br /><br />Howard Jeffrey BenderAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08869411875055688806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-18969577892762849802019-03-26T16:34:07.438-05:002019-03-26T16:34:07.438-05:00Since I'm not a theoretical astrophysicist I d...Since I'm not a theoretical astrophysicist I don't know all the details that lead to the dark energy hypothesis for the observations. I do know that the overwhelming consensus of astrophysicists is that the effect we see is caused by dark energy. Of course, there are other hypotheses and if we have experiments that can differentiate between the different hypotheses we can check which best matches the observations.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-53052143481668412952019-03-26T15:09:19.794-05:002019-03-26T15:09:19.794-05:00As you point out, "String Theory holds tremen...As you point out, "String Theory holds tremendous promise for solving certain known problems in physics." For example, another way to explain Dark Energy is if light passing near quantum foam string/anti-string annihilations is absorbed by string in the light, moving the Fraunhofer lines a bit towards the blue. As this continues in an expanding universe we get the same curve displayed by Reiss and colleagues at their Nobel Prize lecture. Specifics can be found in my YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se6H-FcoW7Q&t=284s. Please tell me why this idea is just plain wrong.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08869411875055688806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-37343832801328861922019-03-04T14:05:44.988-06:002019-03-04T14:05:44.988-06:00Because this hypothesis best fits all the scientif...Because this hypothesis best fits all the scientific, historical, sociological, and psychological evidence.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-42447966894857674962019-03-03T20:39:37.324-06:002019-03-03T20:39:37.324-06:00Why still at the end there is a idea of multidimen...Why still at the end there is a idea of multidimensional god ??? Physics/Video Gameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08791327812248540285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-47097427257040515702019-01-23T21:48:01.149-06:002019-01-23T21:48:01.149-06:00A painting shows the character and soul of the art...A painting shows the character and soul of the artist. The creation shows the character and soul of the creator. The creator is, of course, not fully comprehensible and he is not physical. But his physical creation gives an indication of what he is like.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-77785470751197699052019-01-23T12:03:08.746-06:002019-01-23T12:03:08.746-06:00Sorry, but Dr Strauss sounds like an atheist to me...Sorry, but Dr Strauss sounds like an atheist to me. A God who can be explained ”scientifically” is no God. He's just ET, the alien. Pseudo-religious people have been claiming for centuries that God can be known and understood through reason. But such a ”god” would simply be a physical system like any other - an atom or a star or a hurricane. Explain that -- and then you still have to explain something else. An intelligible god must have some other (intelligible) god behind him and so forth. Now, this is not faith.Cetățeanul Gicăhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15596149253368974452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-90638509433318661312018-09-28T07:20:17.974-05:002018-09-28T07:20:17.974-05:00grtgrtShwetabloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12945314996642903763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-49906957196347800462018-06-27T17:34:25.370-05:002018-06-27T17:34:25.370-05:00"All currently proposed string theories are c..."All currently proposed string theories are classified as superstring theories." Consider the MILGROM DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Please google "kroupa milgrom", "mcgaugh milgrom", "sanders milgrom", and "scarpa milgrom". I have suggested that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no supersymmetry, while string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and no MOND. Consider the following:<br />Photons and gluons cannot escape from the universe in which they are located. Gravitons travel at the speed of light on average. A statistically significant few gravitons travel slower than the speed of light. These slow gravitons cause the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect (replace the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein's field equations by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant where this constant is approximately 3.9±.4 * 10^-5). A statistically few gravitons travel faster than the speed of light and escape from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse. These fast gravitons cause the nonzero cosmological constant and the inflaton field. Electromagnetic radiation from the inflaton field shows up as the space roar (Fredkin-Wolfram analogue of Cherenkov radiation).<br /><a href="https://science.howstuffworks.com/space-roar.htm" rel="nofollow">space roar, howstuffworks.com</a><br />If the fast gravitons never escaped from the universe in which they are located, then the slow gravitons and the fast gravitons would average out, yielding Einstein’s field equations with cosmological constant = zero and dark-matter-compensation-constant = zero. I CONJECTURE THAT THE 4 ULTRA-PRECISE GYROSCOPES USED BY GRAVITY PROBE B WORKED CORRECTLY AND CONFIRMED THE PRECEDING BIZARRE THEORY.David Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10537922851243581921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-52764850613204355382018-01-28T20:04:55.663-06:002018-01-28T20:04:55.663-06:00In reading Roger Penrose "Road to the Reality...In reading Roger Penrose "Road to the Reality" and particularly the chapters on String Theory and its siblings (as best a mere mortal can comprehend) I came away with the impression that Penrose is rather unimpressed by the theory(s)..even so far as to deny it's ability to unify QM and GR as to gravitation. <br /><br />In my youth I was privileged to take a grad course from Dr. Carl Solloway (JPL Senior Mathematician) on Pertubation Theory. If I recall correctly any Universe/System that is stable as to its fundamental laws and physical makeup can be slightly perturbed and it will return to its status. But it is difficult to imagine that all those supposed other universes generated by Guth's expansion, ad finitum, requiring all sort of "preturbed" variations of the laws and parameters of the only universe we know exists would be stable in the slightest sense ..you have indicated the very very small allowable variations or perturbations in the standard model for instance that permit our universe to exist. I'm with Penrose.Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219283160015859565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-86535795537503068242018-01-27T16:03:35.057-06:002018-01-27T16:03:35.057-06:00How the laws would vary depend on who you talk wit...How the laws would vary depend on who you talk with. Some people think that certain laws of quantum field theory would be universal. Almost everyone think that things like mass and charge and constants would all be different. Many think that certain of the conservation laws would be retained. Of course, only a unique verifiable mathematical theory will actually make unique predictions. String theory as a whole is not at that point.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-46375759269237674992018-01-27T15:37:58.888-06:002018-01-27T15:37:58.888-06:00You say “it is likely that the laws of physics wou...You say “it is likely that the laws of physics would be different in every one of these different universes”. <br />What laws do you think could vary within string or any other theory? <br />Is it the mass or charge of the fundamental particles? <br />Would the conservation laws such as conservation of charge, spin, barion number, momentum and energy vary?<br />Many worlds theory appears to violate conservation of energy as universes are constantly duplicated <br />steve hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05477306356710771921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-45479106317951784002018-01-15T09:03:02.607-06:002018-01-15T09:03:02.607-06:00Hi Dr Strauss,
Happy one year anniversary. I know...Hi Dr Strauss, <br />Happy one year anniversary. I know this is off topic, but since it deals with science I think that you, none-the-less, may find the following video and comment interesting:<br />Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics - video<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA <br /><br />Here is a bit more information on the relationship between nature and the ‘platonic world’ of mathematics <br />https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinism-vs-mathematics-in-a-post-modern-world/#comment-648506 <br /> bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.com