I hope im in the right forum for the these topic, wasnt entirely sure... first out i'd just let the reader know, im not much at home in English, so my written word can have some what of a whanting...(spelling errors ect.) Ive been watching some programs about Hawkings, and in some of these they also started talking about string theory...wich got me thinking... (Rather cofused.) so i hope the brigt minds on this forum could maybe clarify a few questions.. I would like to ask nicely that ppl who answers do it in words that arnt to advanced....(As einstein said it, if u can explain it in simpel words, u don't know it well enoughf....right? or atleast some were along thant meaning. =) ) 1. Hawking's state that the same object can exist in more than one place at the same time..(electrons around a proton ex.) So gatherd with string theory does that mean that wen we "see" the Electron two places at the same time its the string(s) doing a --_-- motion instead of __--__ ? or is it something entirely diffrent. 2. Hawkings state that on the eventhorizon of a blackhole theres a line were the gammarays are bursted out, and time on the other side stands still. were the positive particals are ejected to space, and the negative is forever going in to the wormhole. Beyond this line.. does that mean that the "strings." stand still on the other side of it? since spacetime isnt "running." inside it? 3. does the rules of space time apply to quantum mechanics? in respect to the miniature black holes Hawking speculate exist with in atoms? can time then stand still for a particel, if cought in one of these small blackholes?
I'm only new here myself. But you are asking some very difficult questions .... and it appears that you have no basic background in this area which probably makes such concepts very difficult to explain . You are asking for an explanation of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory in the one paragraph ... So others are probably shy of answering as you would need several textbooks to do so ... and even then it wouldn't be simple as you request. Do you have knowledge of the Standard Theory ? I can't post links yet as I am a new member and you have to have made more than 20 posts before you can post a link. So go to the WIKI and type in the Standard Model and have a read. Perhaps if you were to read the link and then ask some particular questions other posters will reply. I will help if I can. In any case read the link and if you don't follow it, post here and i will give you a simple explanation ? Hope this helps a bit ? mutawintji
I know the std. Theory. i've read some of einteins theory's mostly about relativity ive read some of the basic books about wormholes and the way they work. I dont mind an advanced explanation that refers to other theorys, what i meant with a simpel answer was one were loooong chunks of math was part of the txt. as i have a hard time understanding the more advanced equations.
Hello Engell79, Be a little patient. You won't always get an instant answer, but most questions here get a reply sooner or later. You never see an object in two places at the same time. When an object is observed its quantum wavefunction "collapses" so that it is observed in one place. Time doesn't stand still on either side of the event horizon of a black hole. But anything inside the event horizon can never cross back to the outside, and in fact must move towards the centre of the hole. Yes. Any workable "theory of everything" must be able to explain both the results of quantum physics and of relativity (which describes spacetime).
One qualification here is that we do not yet have a completely working "theory of everything". What we can say is that the principles of general relativity (space-time) should apply to the quantum world and to what we know of quantum mechanics should also apply to general relativity. Many people are working on this from a number of different approaches. So far, though some progress has been made, none have resolved all of the fundamental conflicts. Even with English as a first language spelling is for some a continuing issue.
Sure... It sure can be in more place in one time, because the probability field \(\psi_P\) smears it out over spacetime, over all possible locations within a given volume. In many cases, it may have an infinite amount of possibilities, and so extends out to infinity. You know what, not only does an electron exhibit a wave function by appearing in more than one place on the spacetime map, but it can also exist in mulitple states; it can have up and down spin states simultaneously. This field of study is called Phase Space, or superspace in some theories, which is a space of all possibilities.'' Yes, Hawking Radiation. Hawking Radiation has not been observed directly, but there is some work suggesting that analogue black holes, (like a sonic black hole) might exhibit Hawking Radiation. I don't understand the rest of what you meant though. Quantum Mechanics is the rules of spacetime; those physical constraints which we call quantum theory are applied to the universe as a whole, simply because spacetime is a dynamical vacuum - this can be understood if you study the Alcubierre Drive which applies the rules of general relativity. Also, the vacuum is physical itself; quantum theory means all spaces are taken by particles, it is constantly frothing.
Here's a 'cut' from my hypothetical discourse (available by email request) on how strings interact and formulate massive particles: ". . . The hypothesis proposes that a hierarchical and interactive string complexity evolves from a matrix of basic gluon and graviton strings (i.e., the ‘wires’ in rope parlance) possessing extremely high energies (ca. 10x120 erg/cc). Energetic interactions and vibrational harmonics (including constructive and destructive interference at the quantum wave/probability level) among individual strings (perhaps gluon-graviton interactions) initializes the formation of quarks (i.e. the ‘strands’ in rope parlance). Quarks are the initial quantum “twist” of individual string interactions. Once twisted into strands, quarks are relatively ‘stabilized’ within the residual gluon-graviton matrix, but they also remain (symbiotically?) interactive with the gluon-graviton strings. Quarks represent the initial components for potential mass creation (i.e., virtual particles). Further interaction with gluon-graviton string energies causally promotes quark-quark pairing interactions with a resultant slight net energy loss – ‘the energy of the parts is greater than that of the whole (quark-pair)’. The resultant energy loss is resorbed into the gluon-graviton matrix. Experiencing such an energy fluctuation, the quark-pair is primed for virtual massive particle formation. If given an extra-energy ‘kick’ (probability, again) from the gluon-matrix, the quark-pair disintegrates and returns to the gluon-matrix. If, on the other hand, the quark-pairing temporally persists, further energy loss occurs, or more complex quarkal ‘twisting’ ensues, a higher-order “rope” (e.g., Higgs Boson?) may form, or the virtual particle may simply become a ‘lighter-mass’, ‘permanent resident’ (i.e., proton, neutron, etc) massive particle in our observable part of the universe. Once a permanent (i.e., ‘locked-into’ a much lower energy environ - ca. 10x60 erg/cc) massive particle, standard (at least as we currently understand our physical laws) processes govern the remainder of the particle’s history. . ." wlminex
To Joe Green.. Thank u very very much, your answer made somethings clear.. among otherthings that there are things ive missunderstood while reading about wormholes...guess ill have to go back on that again and give it a second read.... Could u suggest some reading about this Phase space? sounds very intresting. =) __________________________________________________________________________ To James R. Thank u for your reply. I wasnt impatient, just worried that i had explanied my questions so bad they were hard to understand. And thank u for clearing up one of my misconceptions about wormholes... __________________________________________________________________________ To ONLYME thx for the understanding with my spelling, its a comfort to hear ppl saying as such. What are the fundemental conflicts? could u suggest some place i can read up in this? __________________________________________________________________________ To wlminex U wouldnt happen to have that in danish would ya? he he... i guess not... I tried reading threw it a few times, ending up with a dictonary in my hand.. and then it strated to make more sence... id like to read the entire thing! so please send it by all means. my email is *****************
There are three basic problems, not to imply that there are not others. Two in some fashion are related. Quantum Mechanics has yet to successfully describe gravity. Gravity is not even considered at the quantum scale. There have been a number of attempts but none have as yet been successful. In a similar way general relativity cannot explain interactions at the quantum scale. Every attempt to marry the two theories fails, so far. The third is space itself. At the macrocosmic scale of general relativity space is dynamic and curved. At a subatomic level all indications are that space is flat. I don't have good sources for you right now. Let me know what kind you would prefer and I will make a note to try and look up something. A caution would be that most will probably be in English. And right off hand it is my expectation that most of the information will not be found in a single publication. Are you most interested in research papers or something directed more to a lay audience?
Engell today, post #9: It's on its way . . . . . MSWORD.docx file (with a couple of illustrative figures). Thanks for your interest. Bill/wlminex
Engell79: It's a really bad idea to post your email address to a public forum like this. You're inviting spam. I'd advise you to delete it.
I kinda thought the same. Should be able to pass information a little more securely through Contact Info the tabs is on the Your Profile page.
im in 2d?....joke aside.. this last one i have read about. Understanding even the problem... is WAY out of the IQ levels i process, grasp of understanding.
