World Science Scholars

4.4 Quantum Geometry

discussion Discussion
Viewing 7 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?

You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.

Send this to a friend