User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: now THIS is wierd

  1. #11
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 16.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    22,796
    Thanks
    7,903
    Thanked: 21,390
    Rep Power
    21474864
    Looks like we're about to "see" a black hole.

    Astronomers set to make 'groundbreaking' black hole announcement - CNET

  2. #12
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 16.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    22,796
    Thanks
    7,903
    Thanked: 21,390
    Rep Power
    21474864
    Quote Originally Posted by BabyBoomer+ View Post
    Dont need to spell it out for @nonsqtr, he'll take it from here, You just need to point him at the right theory.

    everyone else is on there own......
    Thanks, I'm realizing how little I know.

    So... "generators".

    I find this word in the group Theory, it's an "epsilon", probably something close to a dX.

    And, this is how they get the "motion" aspect of a dimension. In the sense we were talking about earlier, that you need to be able to move around to "see" something.

    It's the same concept of "infinitesimal generator" that's used in Ito's calculus to describe, say, Brownian motion.

    I found another use of the concept in the "phase functions".

    I have a question though.

    Why is it necessary for strings to have orientation? Is there a reason for it? Or, "they just do"?
    Last edited by nonsqtr; 04-02-2019 at 05:13 AM.

  3. #13
    Banned Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Overall activity: 91.0%

    BabyBoomer+'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,592
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked: 881
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    Why is it necessary for strings to have orientation? Is there a reason for it? Or, "they just do"?
    All string theories are only 'orientable' open or closed string theories, except Type I string Theory, which allows 'unoriented' strings. The only clarification i can find is that "Unoriented means that the genus expansion includes non-orientable surfaces like a mobius strip or klien bottle" , which is a bit mind boggling, and ill have to think about it a bit more.

    genus expansion.jpg

    Then there's this: "orientifold is a generalization of the notion of orbifold, proposed by Augusto Sagnotti in 1987. The novelty is that in the case of string theory the non-trivial element(s) of the orbifold group includes the reversal of the orientation of the string. Orientifolding therefore produces unoriented strings—strings that carry no "arrow" and whose two opposite orientations are equivalent. Type I string theory is the simplest example of such a theory and can be obtained by orientifolding type IIB string theory."

    Now, Orbifolds are n dimensional manifolds contianing singularity points. A Calabi Yau space isnt an orbifold, because it contains all smooth foldable surfaces, ie 'ricci-flat'. I dont think you can be ricci-flat and have singularities, its a mathematical contradiction ? Also, Calabi Yau manifolds are homeomorphic, and they couldnt be if the had singularities.

    And THAT takes us back Modular Groups, Siefert Fibre spaces , and all that shit about Robinson Conguences and Compact Riemann Spaces, most of which tends to give mathematicians an orgasm, but me a headache. The whole field is massive - it includes stuff like elliptic curves and Tamiyami Shimanu Wiel Conjecture, and best not to go there unless your a mascochist, you just sink into a morass of mathematical functions....


    pick something simpler to talk about.........
    Last edited by BabyBoomer+; 04-02-2019 at 07:18 AM.

  4. #14
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 16.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    22,796
    Thanks
    7,903
    Thanked: 21,390
    Rep Power
    21474864
    Well, the path integral method applies to stochastic processes as well - so for instance a Wiener process has a sine spectrum and in 3d a Brownian motion can be made equivalent to a path integral along a surface.

    (An interesting feature of a Wiener process is it's recurrent in 1 or 2 dimensions but not in 3).

    The part I'm trying to get to, is where the basis vectors themselves change stochastically. You can think about this in the obvious way - if you have a basis e and coordinates xyz defining a vector or a location -

    V = xe1 + ye2 + ze3

    If the e are changing stochastically (let's do the easy thing and call them Wiener processes), then this "induces" a symmetric fluctuation in the coordinates too.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second Class1 year registered
    Overall activity: 16.0%

    Oberon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    767
    Thanks
    675
    Thanked: 559
    Rep Power
    3199223
    The field of basic theoretical physics left mathematical language's ability to describe nature a long time ago, circa the 1970's. That's when you start getting the Zen and Buddhist weirdness and such, with physicists going off the deep end and looking more like lunatic stoners than scientists. String theory is junk, everyone knows it, but they're stuck with it due to math manipulation and a lack of anything better, being all they got, mainly. Mathematicians have moved on to ever more abstract studies, and aren't much interested in describing natural sciences any more, hence all the new works on topology and the like. I like to laugh at the alleged 'new particles' discovery announcements that come out every once and a while for that reason; they really have no idea what they're 'observing', much less whether or not it exists or is just a mathematical invention due to their own observations interfering with their experiments and causing the results they claim to see. Actually, it happened first in optics, where a certain nonsense function had to be used to keep the math pretty in certain areas; can't remember the name now, been a few years since I did any laser work. Essentially you had to fudge it to zero. Farily common name of the function, but I'm drawing a blank now.
    Last edited by Oberon; 04-15-2019 at 03:04 AM.

  6. #16
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 16.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    22,796
    Thanks
    7,903
    Thanked: 21,390
    Rep Power
    21474864
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    The field of basic theoretical physics left mathematical language's ability to describe nature a long time ago, circa the 1970's. That's when you start getting the Zen and Buddhist weirdness and such, with physicists going off the deep end and looking more like lunatic stoners than scientists. String theory is junk, everyone knows it, but they're stuck with it due to math manipulation and a lack of anything better, being all they got, mainly. Mathematicians have moved on to ever more abstract studies, and aren't much interested in describing natural sciences any more, hence all the new works on topology and the like. I like to laugh at the alleged 'new particles' discovery announcements that come out every once and a while for that reason; they really have no idea what they're 'observing', much less whether or not it exists or is just a mathematical invention due to their own observations interfering with their experiments and causing the results they claim to see. Actually, it happened first in optics, where a certain nonsense function had to be used to keep the math pretty in certain areas; can't remember the name now, been a few years since I did any laser work. Essentially you had to fudge it to zero. Farily common name of the function, but I'm drawing a blank now.
    The Zen and Buddhist thing was man's effort to describe something he didn't understand.

    The idea of observation is rooted in subjective perception, not an objective measurement. It took a while for people to understand what quantum entanglement really "is". It cannot be explained in any other way than "higher dimensionality". Far from being "junk", string theory is an effort to explain the higher dimensionality.

    I think they're missing something, and I have so stated. The answer is, there is no "observer", that is an entirely meaningless Concept in the objective world. Or - if you wanted to put it another way - the Zen and Buddhist way - you would say that the two entangled wave functions are observing "each other". Of course, um... there are not two wave functions, therefore there is no "each other". There is only one way function oh, and it has internal symmetries, some of which we can observe and some of which we can't.

    The MATH, has to explain all these different reference frames, which is why it's so generalized sometimes. And still, there is a considerable part of it that the Riemannian models miss entirely. Which is why I showed you the Skorokhod integral. That, is how you calculate the Dirichlet boundary conditions on a STOCHASTIC manifold, and if you stare at it for more than 10 seconds the amazing nature of it should leap right off the page at you.

    You have to appreciate the Elegance of some of these things. The same stuff that curves the universe, gives rise to awareness in the brain. Information geometry is the fastest growing field right now, and it's mostly being driven by Quantum computing.

    Limits and neighborhoods are not hand waving, they are meaningful. Open and closed sets are meaningful too. "Math" is not the be-all-and-end-all, a lot of it is trickery as you say. Every part of mathematics depends on underlying fundamental assumptions, which is why proofs are important. And yes, topological proofs can be quite complex - but that's why those guys are mathematicians and I'm just a lowly engineer.

    What I think though, is I could engineer A system that is subjectively aware. I think I could do that, given my current level of knowledge.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

    Oberon (04-15-2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •