World Science Scholars

4.4 Quantum Geometry

discussion Discussion
Viewing 17 reply threads
    • We’ve now moved beyond particles and space being fundamental and are calling into question the idea of fundamentality itself. How does this sit with you?

    • Right now I’m getting the impression that strings could be the last fundamental “thing” in our world – but what ARE strings? So far, there has not been an answer to that.Probably more basic: Are the “fundamental” constants we think of – c, h and G – still fundamental? If not: are physical laws, which “govern” any change of a status, fundamental or are we going to loose that as well?

    • This is not a theory, it is a kind of philosophy. There are some interesting thoughts and ideas in there, but what bearing does it have on reality? It is just a mathematical construct – not even that, it is a groping towards a mathematical construct. The speaker sometimes says string theory hasn’t actually been formulated yet – all the thought has gone into what string theorists want string theory to do. It is a geometrical theory, so it is all about perspectives – things look different from different perspectives. So, just because things look different from one frame of reference to another, does that mean nothing is fundamental? Might it not be that all points of view of equally fundamental?

      • No, this is not philosophy. It is a theory. The difference is that, as a scientific theory, it must be testable at least in principle. The energies needed to explore the extra dimensions of string theory are not available, but if they were, the direct testing would be possible. The LHC does not even come close to providing the required energy, but indirect effects may at some point be within reach of future colliders. The basic fact remains that the theory is in principle testable. It is not philosophy.

    • The idea of fundamentality changes over the time. If the concept of fundamentality doesn’t sits in mind firmly,but as a just one of the information which can be changed easily , I think we would try to question almost everything on the universe and would try to emerge theories often as Einstien, Feynman,Heisenberg,Schrodinger bashed the gates of some fundamentals in the previous centuries

    • Interesting question indeed. I think we should give try and get rid of the fundamentality. However, this is rather philosophical question. So, are there virtual strings and dimensions existing only when needed?

    • On one hand I feel like I’ve been climbing a ladder and now the rungs are disappearing. On the hand the idea of nothing fundamental is strangely attractive. Will other fundamental “things” be introduced?

    • The history of science has shown us that in order to keep moving forward non stop, we should have flexible minds because our understanding is changing every day. We have to keep in mind that we have done a good job till now and we shouldn’t be scared of changing our beliefs. That’s the way to improve.

    • The idea of fundamentality: The direction in which science is progressing it is ripping everything apart to its very core, to its very nature, to its identity. Honestly, it feels like that there is no solid ground beneath and yeah it feels uncomfortable and if there is nothing fundamental is there anything real?

    • When attempting to grasp the many forces that bring every Into being it would serve you greatly to detach your human sense of right and expectation instead expect to discover facts that are hard to grasp due to human understanding. Human concepts like fundamentality may hold no place when it comes to truly understanding the forces that keep permit reality to be.

    • The link between geometry and quantum theory is very rich and it I think that it may elucidate some problems in formulating a version of quantum gravity.

    • I tend to agree with Ruth Bingham – String Theory is just that, a theory. The mathematical conjecture of possible realities that are undoubtedly compelling but do not seem to be substantiated and are not conclusive.
      Different frames of reference give us a different view of reality – some of these do help to illuminate the reality of the underlying principles that are counter-intuitive to our (inherited) human perspective that has not evolved to find survival value in these concepts. But the underlying reality remains unchanged – only the point of view is altered.
      However these altered perspectives can give rise to a better understanding of the true nature of reality.

    • Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

      In the http://www.monroeinstitute.org teachings we find the MEST – matter, energy, space and time – as fundamental to fathoming how we are more than a physical body.

      So we have the concepts of energy levels – physical, astral, causal, mental, etheric and onwards.

      When nothing is sacred, there is often a new energy level, just as the people in the afterlife access higher wisdoms without a physical wetsuit.

      OK, lets recall the RUSH music song Mystic Rythyms and suspend belief.

      The song lyrics are here:

      https://www.google.com/search?q=Lyrics+mystic+rythyms&oq=Lyrics+mystic+rythyms&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30j0i5i13i30j0i8i13i30.12430j0j4&client=ms-android-rogers-ca-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

    • great idea

    • a square is a triangle is a circle, there I’ve made a round square.

    • Well, the idea of questioning fundamentality itself is a fascinating and thought-provoking development in our understanding of the universe. It challenges the long-held assumption that there must be some fundamental, indivisible entities or concepts from which everything else emerges. Instead, it suggests that our perception of fundamentality may be limited by our current level of knowledge and understanding.
      The progression from atoms to subatomic particles, then to quarks, and even to the proposed strings has shown that what we once considered fundamental can be further broken down into more elementary components; this raises the question of whether there is an ultimate “bottom layer” or if we will continue to discover new layers of complexity.

      By calling into question fundamentality itself, we open up the possibility of a more interconnected and interdependent view of the universe, where everything is dynamically intertwined and emerges from a complex web of relationships. It invites us to explore alternative perspectives and conceptual frameworks that better capture the underlying nature of reality.
      This shift in thinking aligns with the broader trend in scientific inquiry, where the emphasis is placed on exploring the relationships, patterns, and emergent phenomena that arise from simpler components. Complexity theory, network theory, and systems thinking have already demonstrated their value in understanding complex systems in various scientific disciplines.
      While the idea of questioning fundamentality challenges deeply ingrained intuitions, it presents an exciting opportunity to push the boundaries of our knowledge and explore novel avenues of research. It encourages us to adopt a more holistic and interconnected view of the universe, where the properties and behavior of the whole may not be reducible to the properties of its constituent parts alone.
      It is important to note that the exploration of fundamentality is an ongoing and dynamic process within the scientific community. Different theories and approaches may offer diverse perspectives on what constitutes fundamentality and how it relates to the observed phenomena in the universe. Continued research, experimentation, and theoretical developments are essential in refining our understanding of this complex and evolving concept.

    • This is only somewhat a philosophy; it is more a scientific theory that has philosophical repercussions. There was a time in which we believed atoms were fundamental and the core of all things, then came the electron and not long after, the nuclei. We now have replaced particles with strings vibrating at specific frequencies. However, we are now ripping apart and exploring nature which is leading to radical discoveries and new thoughts on the subject, we are now at a point where we cannot regard fundamentality as true, let alone important.

    • At present we can say that,nothing is fundamental and idea of fundamentality evolves with our understanding..

    • I’m getting used to the idea that our concepts of the nature of our universe tend to change as we dig for answers. My mind isn’t accustomed to grasping these concepts, but I keep trying. In a way, the idea that particles and space are not fundamental actually makes more sense than the idea that there is such a thing as fundamental.

You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.

Send this to a friend