String Theory and The Empirical Existens of Consciousness

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmy85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jimmy85

Guest
I have been watching some videos of John Hagelin discussing issues related to quantum mind, and what really conciousness is. In my opinion, his understanding of conciousness is a breakthrough.

His understanding starts with the premise that Conciousness is not derivated from Matter, but that Matter is derivated from Conciousness. In other words that there is an Unified Field, that absolutely everything comes from, including conciousness.

This Unified Field is called superstring theory, which poses that absolutely everything that exists including conciousness, is made of extremely small strings of energy, that are more than a trillon times smaller than an atom. These strings vibrate in different ways, and these diferent vibrations are what cause the diversity of the things that we experience like gravity, atoms, conciousness, electricity etc.

Here are his lecture and his explanation of what conciousness is:
youtube.com/watch?v=cuuKBInwQRU&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=bQ31qkK4NoE&feature=related

What do you guys make of it?

Here there are some other videos about it:
youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=FSxluvq5HI0&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=s42mrdhKwRA&feature=related

Also try watching “What the bleep do we know?” a documentary about quantum consciousness:
youtube.com/results?search_query=what+the+bleep+do+we+know&search_type=
 
I didn’t have time to sit through the whole video, but I watched the one by Amit Goswami. To be honest, they both strike me as a little flaky. Not that they might not be on to something, but they seem to be jumping ahead of the evidence and even the theory.

What I got was this:

The subject (observer) is more fundamental than the object (observed).

The observer, in fact, determines outcomes. I have heard another physicist say that the observer determines the outcome of an event that has already happened.

I can how that can involve quantum mechanics, but I’m not sure that he will be able to tie in string theory to consciousness. [Why string theory and not M-theory?] As Goswami said, there is no mathematics to describe the subject (consciousness.)
 
I didn’t have time to sit through the whole video, but I watched the one by Amit Goswami. To be honest, they both strike me as a little flaky. Not that they might not be on to something, but they seem to be jumping ahead of the evidence and even the theory.

What I got was this:

The subject (observer) is more fundamental than the object (observed).

The observer, in fact, determines outcomes. I have heard another physicist say that the observer determines the outcome of an event that has already happened.

I can how that can involve quantum mechanics, but I’m not sure that he will be able to tie in string theory to consciousness. [Why string theory and not M-theory?] As Goswami said, there is no mathematics to describe the subject (consciousness.)
Well what happens is that Amit Goswami has been extremely critizied by skeptic magaziens becuase of using empircal phenomenon of quantum mechanics to support his point. So in this video he was explaining it in the logical way rather than in the empirical way. So it is not the best video to discuss about.

He has described several phenomenon in quantum mechanics as probably pointing out to consciousnes like qunatum entanglement that is when two or more particles act in the very same way whereas they are not comunicated in this reality, they dont broadcast any signal. Goswami said that this meant that there are realities that are outisde of space and time that influenciate our reality.

All this understanding is based on the fact that science cant understand consciousness at all it has absolutely failed to do so.

So taking in account this and that there are many realities and dimenssions in hyperspce like the ones predicted by string theory many have started to realize that consciousnes might not be a physical phenomenon, but a phenomenon outside of this reality. why?

Incialy beacuse the energy that is in a smaller scale is more powerful. Say radio lenght waves are way bigger than gama ray wave lenghts. the smaller the scale the bigger the energy.

The thoughts, and also what we think in the brain are electromagnetic wave lenghts as well just as the gama rays or the radio wave, but they are less powerful.

String theory states that evyerhting that exist are wavelenghts or vibrations of these strings of energy, a type of vibration accounts for gravity, another type accounts for a proton etc.

This made this people wonder whether consciousnes might be a wave as well.
like I said the smaller the scale the higher the energy. So if u go to a really smaller scale everything are waves.

Scientists believe that the unseen dimenssions of stirng theory might be curled in a scale a trillion of times smaller than a proton, at this scale space would stop existing.
If there are waves at this scale they would be extremly energetic beyond our udnerstanding. This is what they are thinking that could account for consciousnes.

Consciousness could be a sort of wave in hyperspace or in another dimenssion. That would succeesfuly explain why sciecne is not able to know anything about consciosunes, because it woudlnt be a physical phenomenon inside space and time, but it would be in hyperspace instead, out of this physical reality but still in existens, and we can see their effects.

All this is becuase physicists believe that the unseen dimensions that string theory predicts seem to be in scales smaller than a trillion times a proton. Smaller than the plank scale of lenght, and therefore smaller than space itself. This would mean that the dimensions there, are not physical at all.

This would indicate that if there are waves there they must be extremly small and therefore extremly energetic.

This understanding would finaly explain why science wasent able to understand anything about consciousness, becuase it seems that it is a pehnomenon that is outside this physical reality.

This people go a little further, saying that everythign that exist is due to conciousness and that it is the ground of everything.
 
In other words that there is an Unified Field, that absolutely everything comes from, including conciousness.
I agree it is fascinating and has a certain amount of validity. Like the movie asks, “How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?” These concepts challenge not just a few of our presuppositions as Catholics/Christians.

I am personally on board with many of these concepts but this will be a hard sell to traditionalists among us of every stripe. (I don’t mean this pejoratively but rather descriptively.)

I think there is a “probability” component to theological and hermeneutical endeavors not unlike the concepts of Uncertainty and Quantum Mechanics.

Running for bunker…
 
This Unified Field is called superstring theory, which poses that absolutely everything that exists including conciousness, is made of extremely small strings of energy.
What is the evidence that Conciousness is one and the same as energy?
His understanding starts with the premise that Conciousness is not derivated from Matter, but that Matter is derivated from Conciousness.
In other words his starts with a complicated premise that hasn’t been proven.
What does that mean? Does he or she mean that matter is a produce of “concious-energy”? Why is it concious?

It seems to me like going from the fire in to a blazing inferno. If conciousness can’t be understood by postulating a physical mechanism, then why in the hell does one think that breaking conciousness down to pure energy is going to solve the problem?
In other words that there is an Unified Field, that absolutely everything comes from, including conciousness.
Everything might start of from the Unified Field, but that does not explain conciousness. It just means that physical reality can be reduced to a vibrating string. It doesn’t explain why it exists or why the vibration of a string ought to create anything meaningful, or why energy or a cluster of atoms should have a point of veiw. Its just another link in the process.You cannot understand conciouness just by positing an arrangement of physical objects in space and time. Conciousness might arise as a result of a “pattern” in space and time, but the pattern itself cannot explain conciouness or describe to us what it actually is and why it is; we only know the physical process or pattern to which we see these things occur.

Physics, as in physical reality, is merely a medium by which qualities arise pending the achiement of a specific pattern in time. The qualities are infered by the patterns. But some qualities, such as conciousness and ideas, have no physical characteristics or dimensions. Although you can infere the existence of things by a pattern, you cannot actually see conciousness or “ideas” by pointing to a pattern; the physical pattern is significatly and evidently different to the nature of an idea. The only reason we know it exists, is because we think. The only reason i believe that you think like i do, is because of our intelectual interaction; otherwise conciouness cannot be measured empiracly.
 
What is the evidence that Conciousness is one and the same as energy?

In other words his starts with a complicated premise that hasn’t been proven.
What does that mean? Does he or she mean that matter is a produce of “concious-energy”? Why is it concious?

It seems to me like going from the fire in to a blazing inferno. If conciousness can’t be understood by postulating a physical mechanism, then why in the hell does one think that breaking conciousness down to pure energy is going to solve the problem?

Everything might start of from the Unified Field, but that does not explain conciousness. It just means that physical reality can be reduced to a vibrating string. It doesn’t explain why it exists or why the vibration of a string ought to create anything meaningful, or why energy or a cluster of atoms should have a point of veiw. Its just another link in the process.You cannot understand conciouness just by positing an arrangement of physical objects in space and time. Conciousness might arise as a result of a “pattern” in space and time, but the pattern itself cannot explain conciouness or describe to us what it actually is and why it is; we only know the physical process or pattern to which we see these things occur.

Physics, as in physical reality, is merely a medium by which qualities arise pending the achiement of a specific pattern in time. The qualities are infered by the patterns. But some qualities, such as conciousness and ideas, have no physical characteristics or dimensions. Although you can infere the existence of things by a pattern, you cannot actually see conciousness or “ideas” by pointing to a pattern; the physical pattern is significatly and evidently different to the nature of an idea. The only reason we know it exists, is because we think. The only reason i believe that you think like i do, is because of our intelectual interaction; otherwise conciouness cannot be measured empiracly.
Well a bunch of things point out to that, this is not something that has been proven it is jsut a logical approach, and it makes a lot of sense if one learns about all these stuff in depht.

There has been predicted that there are 7 real and unseen dimenssions that really exist, thanks to string theory. This dimenssions are not physical at all. However they totaly influenciate our reality. Our reality is derivated and it exist thanks to what happens in those unseen dimenssions.

Scientists believe that these hiden dimenssions are extremly small.

This is a news about it:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310151949.htm

Now, string theory claims that everything that exist mass, forces etc are diferent types of vibrations.
Really if everything is a diferent kind of vibration there are a lot of chances that vibrations would also exist in those unseen dimenssions as well.
Actualy there are a lot of chances of that being plausible. Since there are 7 further dimenssions that exist but that are not physical.

This entials that there might be also fundamental vibrations or waves that might exist at that extremly small scale. These waves would have to be extremly powerful. literaly so powerful that we can not start to picture them.

Our thoughts and memories are electromagnetic waves in space time. If you think about it is likely that consciosuness might also be a sort of wave. Since many sicentists think that this dainty electromagnetic waves in our brain wouldnt be able to account for conciousness.

This approach varys a lot, and many scientists have diferent theories about how could waves in different dimenssions might be related to how consciousness works.

How could these hypotetical vibrations exist in another dimenssions, outside space and outside this phsyical reality?

There is something call the plank scale of lenght, this is the smallest amout of space that could exist.
it is 10-99 cubic centimeters,
that is one cubic centimeter minus 99 ceros, that is the smallest scale of space that could exist.
If threre are things smaller than that they wouldnt exist in space any more, they wouldnt be physical.
This is where scientists believe that the 7 further dimenssiosn predicted by string theory might be.

I mean we are not talking about atoms nor about anything that huge, we are talking about a scale in which time and space cease to exist. and this 7 unseen dimenssions are real and not physical. Their effect might affect the physical reality as well.

If you take in account taht eveyrthing is made of waves then it is not hard to hypotetize that the waves that might exist in those dimensions could account for many macroscopic phenomenons.

So how does we develop conciousness?
We still dont know but there are many logical approaches to understand how do we developed consciousnes.
I personately like the approach and the theory of Roger Penrose, it is a very nice explanation about why complex organism like human being can develop it more than other organisms. Furthermore on this aproach a sort of wave or vibration in fundamental spacetime is needed in order to account for consciousness.
.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#Roger_Penrose
quantumconsciousness.org/skunk.htm

All this might really seem like extremly rare, but if you really live all the time thinking about things like, quantum entanglement, the plank scale of lenght, about how things might work on that scale, and if you realize that they influenciate so much our macroscopic scale, then it would make a lot of sense.

About consciousnes being the result of a pattern in the brain, I thinks it is plausbile but it is not likely, neurologists are totaly unable to understand anything about consciousness. So they have no choice, the only macroscopic explanation for it is that it must be the result of a pattern in the brain however most of scientist are not conformist with this, becuase it cant explain anything about consciouness.
Now with quantum mechanics and string theory there are many other good alternative to learn more about consciousness.
 
If you’re pondering string theory I think you owe it to yourself to read “The Trouble With Physics” by Smolin (2006).
 
If you’re pondering string theory I think you owe it to yourself to read “The Trouble With Physics” by Smolin (2006).
I 'd love to read his book haha. Smolin is really cool, I really think he is right, string theory might not be the only good approach.
Loop Quantum Gravity is a very promising theory as well.

On “Three Roads to Quantum Gravity” he proposed a better concept.
That a Theory of Everything might be achived by unifying
String theory, Loop quantum gravity and by solving the problem of the Thermodynamics of the Black Holes. He believes that they are different approaches about one single thing.
 
Scientists believe that these hiden dimenssions are extremly small.

There is something call the plank scale of lenght, this is the smallest amout of space that could exist.
it is 10-99 cubic centimeters,
I might not have any specailist knowledge, however i am not totall scientific illiterate.

If something is extreamly small, then by definition, it cannot be “immaterial”. An immaterial being, is something which does not have a location in space and does not have any dimension of any sort. Dimension implies structure and location. A thing, such as a vibrating string, could quite possibly lack “mass”; as in, it could be “pure energy”, but as far as i know, this is still classed as a physical phenomenon located in a space-time dimension. To speak of dimensions, is to speak of something which exists within the Universe, not outside it. If it is out side of time and space, what does it mean to say that it is “vibrating” or has a “location” or is extreamly “small”?

If these things are immaterial, then we are no longer dealing with scientific entities; we are instead going in to the realm of unmeasurable realities. Science cannot prove their existence emprically because they cannot be measured. Immaterial-casual-factors could be logically infered by the existence of the Universe and the neccesity of an explanation; however, we have now gone in to the realm of metaphysical concepts like platos trancendent-ideas.
 
I might not have any specailist knowledge, however i am not totally scientifically illiterate.

If something is extreamly small, then by definition, it cannot be “immaterial”. An immaterial being, is something which does not have a location in space and does not have any dimension of any sort. Dimension implies structure and location. A thing, such as a vibrating string, can quite possibly lack “mass”; as in it can be “pure energy”, but as far as i know this is still classed as physical phenomenon. To speak of dimensions, is to speak of something which exists within the Universe, not outside it. If it is out side of time and space, what does it mean to say that it is “vibrating” or has a “location” or is extreamly “small”?

If these things are immaterial, then we are no longer dealing with scientific entities; we are instead going in to the realm of unmeasurable realities. Science cannot prove their existence emprically because they cannot be measured. Immaterial-casual-factors could be logically infered by the existence of the Universe and the neccesity of an explanation; however, we have now gone in to the realm of metaphysical concepts like platos trancendent-ideas.
No wait Hagelins approach is that strings are the unified field, others say that waves in another dimenssions outside space and time might account for consciousness.
They are different approaches.

The strings proposed by string theory are 10-35 m long
The plank scale of lenght is 10-99 cubic centimeters, way smaller.

And yes at these scales things cant totaly be proben empircaly but rationaly that is what the views of all this people are about. There are phenomenons and they can only find an explanation for them rationaly.

The thing with the plank scale is that Einstein showed that time and space are one thing.
There is a theory call loop quantum gravity and it attempts to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics by study the nature and structure of space time.
and it came up with succeesful quantizations of space and time
based on the plank scale of quantum mechanics.

The Plank scale of lenght is 10-99 cubic centimeters and the Plank scale of time is 10-43 seconds.
This is the smallest amout of space and time that math can get through.
physicst can only go just 10-43 seconds after the big bang their math dosent allow them to go to a smaller tiem scale that that.
All this seem to show that since Einstein showed that space and time are one and that it is a physical concept and not an abstract concept then they could be quantizied.

So the smaller scale of space is 10-99 centimeter and the smaller time scale is 10-43 in between those scale there is no time nor space just as there is no water in bewteen a water molecule.

At this very small scale the physical reality cease to exist as we know it, and I think that at that scale metaphysics might be more plausible.
 
At this very small scale the physical reality cease to exist as we know it, and I think that at that scale metaphysics might be more plausible.
But metaphysics has been around for quite a long time before string theory was invented! While the speculations are interesting, trying to explain consciousness by means of quantum theory essentially reduces consciousness to materialism. It could then be expressed in physical terms rather than being the expression of an immaterial aspect of human nature.

In any case, the tiny extra dimensions required by string theory are physical dimensions. The theory requires the customary 3 spatial dimensions plus the customary one dimension of time, plus six or seven additional rolled up spatial dimensions for a total of ten or eleven dimensions. There is nothing non-physical about them. They are just small.

If strings are considered to be the most basic aspect of physical reality, one might ask, just what is it that is vibrating? A string has no substructure, and no dimension except length. Is it the ultimate indivisible unit of matter, as atoms were once thought to be? Or the ultimate indivisible quantum of energy, whatever that means? Or is it simply a vibration in the substructure of space? And how can it be one dimensional and still exist?

With M-theory of course, the basic membranes are considered to be two-dimensional, but that’s not much help in making sense of a 4 dimensional or higher universe.
 
This isn’t anything new? I didn’t watch the particular videos, but I think I have seen this before on T.V. From your summary, I think most of these propositions are common knowledge, at least in the wider scientific community.
 
But metaphysics has been around for quite a long time before string theory was invented! While the speculations are interesting, trying to explain consciousness by means of quantum theory essentially reduces consciousness to materialism. It could then be expressed in physical terms rather than being the expression of an immaterial aspect of human nature.

In any case, the tiny extra dimensions required by string theory are physical dimensions. The theory requires the customary 3 spatial dimensions plus the customary one dimension of time, plus six or seven additional rolled up spatial dimensions for a total of ten or eleven dimensions. There is nothing non-physical about them. They are just small.

If strings are considered to be the most basic aspect of physical reality, one might ask, just what is it that is vibrating? A string has no substructure, and no dimension except length. Is it the ultimate indivisible unit of matter, as atoms were once thought to be? Or the ultimate indivisible quantum of energy, whatever that means? Or is it simply a vibration in the substructure of space? And how can it be one dimensional and still exist?

With M-theory of course, the basic membranes are considered to be two-dimensional, but that’s not much help in making sense of a 4 dimensional or higher universe.
Yes that is true, there are 7 further spatial dimensions needed. In that case they might or might not be in a bigger or smaller scale than the plank scale, it is rough to tell since these spatial dimensions cant be seen in space and time.

In my own opinion I think that the most undivisible structure of space might be the plank scale and the zero point energy, rather than strings.
But the approach of string theory is very good, in order to understand how all the diversity of things are generated.
If you watch nature you will see that many things have properties of wave, electricity, gravitations waves etc. the most likely approach might be that mass might also be some sort of wave but still physicists know nothing about it, becuase they havent found the Higgs boson yet.
but I think that in a way it makes sense that everything could be composed of diferent fundamental waves, just as string theory claims. Other sign that string theory might be right is the fact that all the forces of nature become matematicaly and absolutely one when they are seen in 10 spatial dimenssions.

Yes metaphysics has been arround for quite a long time before string theory, however I believe that at these scales metaphysics could have some sort of roll on physics. Many people used to think that time was an abstract concept just as colors and many other things, now we know that time is a physical concept, peopel used to beleive that every single thing had a color, however the color of things is just the result of electromagnetic wave lenghts that are reflected in diferent ways.
and so on, physics is showing that reality is way less abstract than what we thought it was.

And this dosent reduce consciosunes to materialism though at this small scales the physic reality dosent exist materialy nor in a deterministic way. it is still a rational approach rather than an empirical approach. If it was empirical it could be proben to be right, but the only way to attempt to do that is by understanding rationaly the empirical data.

The reason that many physicist are interested in solving the problem of consciousness using quantum mechanics and string theory is because physics is yet incompleted. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are still totaly incompatible. So this made them wonder that there might be something in between the two scales that hasent been understood yet and that they are missing, this might also involve information about how consciosuness might work.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
 
But the approach of string theory is very good, in order to understand how all the diversity of things are generated.
If you watch nature you will see that many things have properties of wave, electricity, gravitations waves etc. the most likely approach might be that mass might also be some sort of wave but still physicists know nothing about it, becuase they havent found the Higgs boson yet.
Furthermore energy normaly comes in waves, and Einstein showed that mass is a way of energy, and that energy is a way of mass. E=Mc2
Both are closly related and are different kinds of one thing. Therefore it is likely that mass might be generated bu some sort of wave as well, just as string theory predicts it.

This is a logical concept that propose to unify mass, gravity, electromanetism and all the forces based on the concept of vibrating strings of energy. It is not just about the undivisable units of matter, but it is the unified field of eveyrthing that is physical.
 
There is a theory call loop quantum gravity and it attempts to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics by study the nature and structure of space time.
and it came up with succeesful quantizations of space and time
based on the plank scale of quantum mechanics…
I would be interested to know why you think that loop quantum gravity is a credible theory. I can think of several reasons why it is not:
  1. The spin foam version of loop quantum gravity breaks unitarity.
  2. Loop quantum gravity provides no information on how to calculate the S=matrix or scattering cross sections. And the S-matrix is the main and possible only gauge invariant observable in quantum gravity.
  3. Loop quantum gravity cannot calculate the black hole entropy.
  4. Loop quantum gravity requires a non-separable Hilbert space… All other quantum theories are based on a separable Hilbert space.
  5. Loop quantum gravity cannot answer questions concerning the Hawking radiation or the AdS/CFT correspondence.
  6. Loop quantum gravity breaks Lorents invariance because spacetime is made discrete and so there is a preferred frame picked by the lattice… As far as I know, there are no experiments which show any breaking of Lorentz symmetry.
  7. LQT assumes that Einstein’s equestions are exact in the Planckian regime. What is the basis for such an assumption?
 
I would be interested to know why you think that loop quantum gravity is a credible theory. I can think of several reasons why it is not:
  1. The spin foam version of loop quantum gravity breaks unitarity.
  2. Loop quantum gravity provides no information on how to calculate the S=matrix or scattering cross sections. And the S-matrix is the main and possible only gauge invariant observable in quantum gravity.
  3. Loop quantum gravity cannot calculate the black hole entropy.
  4. Loop quantum gravity requires a non-separable Hilbert space… All other quantum theories are based on a separable Hilbert space.
  5. Loop quantum gravity cannot answer questions concerning the Hawking radiation or the AdS/CFT correspondence.
  6. Loop quantum gravity breaks Lorents invariance because spacetime is made discrete and so there is a preferred frame picked by the lattice… As far as I know, there are no experiments which show any breaking of Lorentz symmetry.
  7. LQT assumes that Einstein’s equestions are exact in the Planckian regime. What is the basis for such an assumption?
Loop quantum gravity can calculate the black hole entropy
The main successes of loop quantum gravity are:
  1. It is a nonperturbative quantization of 3-space geometry, with quantized area and volume operators.
  1. It includes a calculation of the entropy of black holes.
  1. It replaces the Big Bang spacetime singularity with a Big Bounce.
As far as I know about the Lorentz Symmetry, nowadays many phycists are especulating about the Lorentz Symmetry breaking as a fact, that could give them a clue about how to find the theory of everything.

And yes, as Smolin said the theory is very incomplete, it could just be one part of the theory of everything, it is not consider to be a theory of everything. Just another approach.

Also cosndier the fact that there are just like 2 dozens of theorical physicsts working on developing Loop Quantum Gravity.

I personately like the subject of spacetime, I think that it deserves to be studied, if it is right it might contribute a lot to find the theory of everything.

With Loop Quantum Gravity theoricaly they have made their way throught the singularities, they have predicted what was before the big bang, and Ashtekar provided a mechanism to solve the black hole information paradox with the use of loop qunatum gravity.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515092615.htm

The good thing about this theory is that it can make predictions that we could test soon unlike string theory for now.

I agree with Smolin that physics should be about people getting diferent approaches, that is how progress has been done in the past. But if I had to choose one of the two theories, I would choose string theory.
 
Loop quantum gravity can calculate the black hole entropy.
“Despite various claims, loop quantum gravity is not able to calculate the
black hole entropy, unlike string theory. The fact that the entropy is
proportional to the area does not follow from loop quantum gravity. It is
rather an assumption of the calculation. The calculation assumes that the
black hole interior can be neglected and the entropy comes from a new kind
of dynamics attached to the surface area - there is no justification of
this assumption. Not surprisingly, one is led to an area/entropy
proportionality law. The only non-trivial check could be the coefficient,
but it comes out incorrectly (see the Immirzi discrepancy).

The Immirzi discrepancy was believed to be proportional to the logarithm
of two or three, and a speculative explanation in terms of quasinormal
modes was proposed. However it only worked for one type of the black hole
  • a clear example of a numerical coincidence - and moreover it was
    realized in July 2004 that the original calculation of the Immirzi
    parameter was incorrect, and the correct value (described by Meissner) is
    not proportional to the logarithm of an integer. The value of the Immirzi
    parameter - even according to the optimists - remains unexplained. Another
    description of the situation goes as follows: Because the Immirzi
    parameter represents the renormalization of Newton’s constant and there is
    no renormalization in a finite theory - and loop quantum gravity claims to
    be one - the Immirzi parameter should be equal to one which leads to a
    wrong value of the black hole entropy.”
    Please see:
    What’s wrong with loop quantum gravity:
    physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=43682
    1 Too many assumptions
    2 Commentary from the renormalization group aspect
    3 As a predictive theory
    4 Self-consistency
    5 Gap to high-energy physics
    6 Smooth space as limiting case
    7 Clash with special relativity
    8 Global justification of variables
    9 Testability of the discrete area spectrum
    10 The S-matrix
    11 Ultraviolet divergences
    12 Black hole entropy
    13 Foundational lacks
    14 Prejudices claimed
    15 Background independence
    16 Claims on non-principled approach
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top