Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Quantum Theory

  1. #1 Quantum Theory 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    22
    Hi all.I have been reading,and trying to learn a little about quantum theory-fascinating...although i am not a trained scientist so my understanding of it is a little sketchy to say the least...some of the implications are mind-boggling.

    I wonder if anyone can explain a bit about virtual particles?
    And i know this might sound dumb,but here goes.Are virtual particles and anti-matter the same thing?And what are the nature of virtual particles...how do we know they exist?
    Also,is there a virtual particle counterpart for each regular particle?

    Again,sorry if these questions seem a bit dumb guys.

    Was reading about how particles can pair up in a situation where they do not annihilate each other,with one or the other being sucked into a black hole-as a particle and an anti particle would normally annihilate each other (i think thats correct anyway),what is the significance of this event?

    I know it's going to take LOTS of reading and thinking and questioning till i get even a small grasp on this subject-but i do understand now how particle-wave duality works,with the double slit experiment (i think),and am getting the gist of the Schroedingers' cat stuff.

    It's mind boggling really,a thing can be in 2 states at the same time,AND WONT be either one or the other until it's observed.Wow!

    Any thoughts/insights from u wonderful beacons of knowledge greatly appreciated as always.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by asthmaticdragon View Post
    Hi all.I have been reading,and trying to learn a little about quantum theory-fascinating...although i am not a trained scientist so my understanding of it is a little sketchy to say the least...some of the implications are mind-boggling.

    I wonder if anyone can explain a bit about virtual particles?
    And i know this might sound dumb,but here goes.Are virtual particles and anti-matter the same thing?And what are the nature of virtual particles...how do we know they exist?
    Your questions certainly aren't dumb . Virtual particles are not anti-matter. Usually virtual particles are off-shell, which means they do not obey the equation



    which implies that they also are not, for instance, limited by the speed of light. The reason they can exist even though they seemingly violate special relativity (and also why they are "virtual") is due to the uncertainty principle



    which implies that given a short enough time interval you could potentially have enough energy to create a particle. Virtual particles are thus very short lived, much too short to actually measure.

    Quote Originally Posted by asthmaticdragon View Post
    Also,is there a virtual particle counterpart for each regular particle?
    Well, most virtual particles are the force carriers, i.e. photons, W and Z bosons, gluons, and the gravitino if it exists. But, it is possible to have say a virtual electron, so I'm sure you can have a virtual particle of any elementary particle. It's important to keep in mind that virtual particles aren't necessarily physical (real), in fact they probably aren't. They are just a mathematical byproduct of the theory in explaining scattering amplitudes.

    Quote Originally Posted by asthmaticdragon View Post
    Was reading about how particles can pair up in a situation where they do not annihilate each other,with one or the other being sucked into a black hole-as a particle and an anti particle would normally annihilate each other (i think thats correct anyway),what is the significance of this event?
    I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but it is possible that a particle and anti-particle could form what's known as a bound state, for example a positron and electron can form positronium for a short period of time before annihilating. Not sure what you mean by being sucked into a black hole.

    Quote Originally Posted by asthmaticdragon View Post
    It's mind boggling really,a thing can be in 2 states at the same time,AND WONT be either one or the other until it's observed.Wow!

    Any thoughts/insights from u wonderful beacons of knowledge greatly appreciated as always.
    Or even an infinite number of states!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by asthmaticdragon View Post
    And i know this might sound dumb,but here goes.Are virtual particles and anti-matter the same thing?
    Definitely not. Anti-matter is real; there are "anti" versions of normal particles. he most obvious difference is that they have opposite charge. So an anti-electron or positron is positively charged. These are used in Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans, for example.

    And what are the nature of virtual particles...how do we know they exist?
    This seems to be used to describe two different things. One is the mathematical abstraction of force carriers that beefpatty mentions. The other is that, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, particle-antiparticle pairs are continually being created and destroyed. As long as the product of their energy and lifetime don't exceed some limit, then they are allowed to exist.

    These virtual particles have predicted effects that can be measured. Can't think of an example right now. The Casimir effect, maybe.

    Also,is there a virtual particle counterpart for each regular particle?
    I think so, yes.

    Was reading about how particles can pair up in a situation where they do not annihilate each other,with one or the other being sucked into a black hole-as a particle and an anti particle would normally annihilate each other (i think thats correct anyway),what is the significance of this event?
    This sounds like the usual non-technical description of Hawking radiation: a virtual pair is produced just outside the event horizon, one gets dragged in and the other escapes. It took energy to create the pair. One falls back in so the black hole loses the energy of
    one particle. (Note that this is not a very accurate description of what the math says, even though it is Hawking's own analogy.)

    I know it's going to take LOTS of reading and thinking and questioning till i get even a small grasp on this subject-but i do understand now how particle-wave duality works,with the double slit experiment (i think),and am getting the gist of the Schroedingers' cat stuff.
    Remember, if you think you have understood it, you probably haven't! Have you come across the "quantum eraser" and "delayed choice quantum eraser" experiments yet?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Was reading about how particles can pair up in a situation where they do not annihilate each other,with one or the other being sucked into a black hole-as a particle and an anti particle would normally annihilate each other (i think thats correct anyway),what is the significance of this event?
    This event gives rise to the phenomenon of Hawking radiation; this means that for an outside observer every black hole appears to have a temperature associated with it. At the same time the anti-particle falling into the black hole reduces its total mass, meaning that black holes slowly evaporate over time. They have only a limited lifespan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    22
    Thanks for this reply-as i always have to do-i'm going to take a little bit of time to read and think that through...there's so much info to take in,and unfortunately,i'm not blessed with a quick mind.
    The situation with the black hole i was refering to in fact (i think) has to do with Hawking radiation-virtual particles being created just outside the surface of a black hole, with one of the two particles falling into the black hole, and the other escaping.
    There are so many fascinating things to read about,and i'm impatient and want to know it all at once,which sometimes leads to information overload!
    The infinite number of states...that's just mind boggling.It's kind of hard to grasp,being so counter intuitive.
    Thanks again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    22
    Thanks for this reply too-i posted my reply to beefpatty before i got down to your reply,so thanks for confirming the thing about the Hawking radiation-reading too many books in an effort to make up for all the learning i never quite got round to in school.
    Also will take some time to digest replies properly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    22
    Last two replies were for strange and markus respectively....thanks for ur thoughts guys,was definitely a good move joining this forum.Most helpful.Food for thought.Damn nuisance when work gets in the way of learning though,so i'll have a good read of the thread again later!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    22
    Yes-i should have said that i'm beginning to understand some of the theory,it's a layman's interest entirely at the moment-but physics is catching me now in a way it never has before...with a lot of the more exotic ideas im just having to read,read and read again...and that's never a bad thing.
    Thanks for the heads up-i'm not familiar with either of those experiments,but i will certainly check them out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    This event gives rise to the phenomenon of Hawking radiation; this means that for an outside observer every black hole appears to have a temperature associated with it. At the same time the anti-particle falling into the black hole reduces its total mass, meaning that black holes slowly evaporate over time. They have only a limited lifespan.
    That one I have never understood. How an anti-particle that is just anti-charged (not of negative mass, nor negative energy) can decrease the amount of mass or energy inside the black hole ? On average both anti or anti-anti particles are absorbed, maybe the fact that they are virtual explain something ?

    It is also said the when a positron and a electron annihilate, there is energy *released* (in the form of photon).
    I though first that it was the energy corresponding to the momentum/mass of those particle.
    But then I think I have read that once computed this virtual energy is not observed (well, except by Casimir's plates) and is even many order of magnitude greater than postulated dark energy (itself quite big, big enough to stretch space).
    Isn't it the reason we call them virtual ? Because they are not there, besides in the Math ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    That one I have never understood. How an anti-particle that is just anti-charged (not of negative mass, nor negative energy) can decrease the amount of mass or energy inside the black hole ? On average both anti or anti-anti particles are absorbed, maybe the fact that they are virtual explain something ?
    That is the trouble with this analogy (all analogies) they break when you think about them too hard. But, in principle, what the analogy says happens is that energy equivalent to two particles is "borrowed" from the gravitational field. In the normal course of events, the two virtual particles would cease to exist after a moment and there would be no net change in energy. However, the two particles must have equal and opposite momentum (conservation of momentum) and so one could dive into the event horizon and one flies off in the other direction (it doesn't matter which is the particle and which is the anti-particle). In this case, the black hole gets back the energy equivalent of one particle and so loses a net energy of one particle.

    What the math says is somewhat more complicated and is (I think - it is waaaay over my head) to do with the fact that a local observer and an observer at infinity will disagree about the contribution of positive and negative energy components in the vacuum and ... blah blah blah ... Bogoliubov transform ... blah blah blah ...

    It is analogous to Unruh radiation seen by an accelerating observer, if that helps.

    It is also said the when a positron and a electron annihilate, there is energy *released* (in the form of photon).
    I though first that it was the energy corresponding to the momentum/mass of those particle.
    That is true in the case of "real" particles. And we can detect the gamma rays generated by such annihilations. In the case of virtual particles, there was never any "real" mass or momentum and so the energy of annihilation just "pays back" that "borrowed" under the terms of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (warning: another analogy that you can't analyse too far.)

    But then I think I have read that once computed this virtual energy is not observed (well, except by Casimir's plates) and is even many order of magnitude greater than postulated dark energy (itself quite big, big enough to stretch space).
    Are you thinking of the fact that quantum theory predicts that the zero point energy of a vacuum should be 120 orders of magnitude greater than we observe? This has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    in principle, what the analogy says happens is that energy equivalent to two particles is "borrowed" from the gravitational field.
    That kind of make sense, thanks for the explanation. I'll just have to try to understand how the inside of the black hole could have imported the borrow (-2 mass) and one of the particle (1 mass). I suppose the -2 mass "hole/borrow" is not a moving thing but will be a quantum thingy that will anyway be put on the black hole account (well if it is not moving, it is not going anywhere either

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    However, the two particles must have equal and opposite momentum (conservation of momentum)..
    Now it strikes me. I mix up Fenman diagram for encounter of particle with departure of them, which ought to be perfectly symmetrical. What are the other opposite quantities conserved ? (spin ? ...) Because there is no chance they will encounter a perfectly mirror cousin to disappear quietly except... if it is itself, running backward in times...
    I have read that about positron that could be seen mathematically as electron "running" backward in time. So would the annihilation and the creation be in fact the same event, hence kind of virtual ?
    OK I am too founded of analogy, sorry...

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    What the math says is somewhat more complicated and is (I think - it is waaaay over my head) to do with the fact that a local observer and an observer at infinity will disagree about the contribution of positive and negative energy components in the vacuum and ... blah blah blah ... Bogoliubov transform ... blah blah blah ...

    It is analogous to Unruh radiation seen by an accelerating observer, if that helps.
    No, but it was fun reading, thanks for pointing that out. I like the precise description of vacuum in the wiki article


    But then I think I have read that once computed this virtual energy is not observed (well, except by Casimir's plates) and is even many order of magnitude greater than postulated dark energy (itself quite big, big enough to stretch space).
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Are you thinking of the fact that quantum theory predicts that the zero point energy of a vacuum should be 120 orders of magnitude greater than we observe? This has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics".
    Yes, but I was remembering 40 orders of magnitude, and you are much closer.
    What is the state of play about that "problem" ?
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki;
    Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy in a cubic meter of free space has been estimated to be 10−9Joules.[1] However, in both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck constant requires it to have a much larger value of 10113 Joules per cubic meter
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    That kind of make sense, thanks for the explanation. I'll just have to try to understand how the inside of the black hole could have imported the borrow (-2 mass) and one of the particle (1 mass). I suppose the -2 mass "hole/borrow" is not a moving thing but will be a quantum thingy that will anyway be put on the black hole account (well if it is not moving, it is not going anywhere either
    Yes, perhaps using the analogy of accounting is not a bad way of thinking about it.
    Remember first that the event horizon strictly separates the universe from the region of space-time enclosed by the horizon. They are not causally connected, meaning that that space-time region is for all intents and purposes not part of our universe. So, if a black hole emits a particle ( which has to be of positive energy due to the Stefan-Boltzmann law of black body radiation ), that can be thought of as the universe outside the black hole gaining energy; however, at the same time we know that total energy in that process must be conserved, so of necessity the black hole in its entirety must therefore loose the same amount energy to balance the books. The system as a whole ( black hole + universe taken together ) thereby remains unchanged.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The system as a whole ( black hole + universe taken together ) thereby remains unchanged.
    That much I totally understand, and that is why I could not understand the process.
    So the -2 mass "space time distortion", which was outside the horizon, did it cross (it should for the accounting) the horizon later on or not ? Does it dilute ? Is it the horizon that grow due to the absorbed particle (the +1), and then shrink back -2 ?
    I have trouble imagining a black whole wrapped into a cloak of negative energy, they are already creepy enough
    I know it is all math in the first place, but I refuse that particle pop into existence without letting "something" like that "borrow", on the universe bank account. Does the "borrow" behave like a particle or is it totally different ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    It is not negative mass or energy.

    Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time. As long as their energy (mass) x the time they exist for is less than the Planck constant then that is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. To ensure conservation of everything else (charge, etc) they will be particle-antiparticle pairs. To separate the particles so they cannot annihilate and they become "real" particles, requires the the energy of two particles, which in this context notionally comes from the black holes gravitational field. But then the black hole gets the mass (energy) of one of the particles back and so has lost the mass of one particle.

    Except, that isn't what happens... it is just a popular "fairy story". It nearly makes sense as long as you don't try and analyse it too much.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It nearly makes sense as long as you don't try and analyse it too much.
    By now you should know that it is impossible for me
    Thank you for reminding the Planck curtain that cover that mighty process, hence their virtuality.
    But now you have convinced me that they (the particles) do come from space, but from time. Even more sexier
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    So the -2 mass "space time distortion", which was outside the horizon, did it cross (it should for the accounting) the horizon later on or not ? Does it dilute ? Is it the horizon that grow due to the absorbed particle (the +1), and then shrink back -2 ?
    The creation of the particle-antiparticle pair happens just outside the event horizon. The antiparticle crosses the event horizon and falls into the black hole, whereas the particle moves the other way and is emitted away from the black hole. Because only the antiparticle falls into the black hole, the surface area of the event horizon decreases slightly.

    I have trouble imagining a black whole wrapped into a cloak of negative energy, they are already creepy enough
    I am not certain what you mean by this.

    I know it is all math in the first place, but I refuse that particle pop into existence without letting "something" like that "borrow", on the universe bank account. Does the "borrow" behave like a particle or is it totally different ?
    The books are always balanced, because the total amount of net energy in the entire "universe-black hole" system never changes at any stage. All that happens is that energy changes form during this interaction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The books are always balanced, because the total amount of net energy in the entire "universe-black hole" system never changes at any stage. All that happens is that energy changes form during this interaction.
    Yes, of course, but net energy being constant on the universe+hole account is not really helping. If two mass are created, then two un-mass are created.
    If this two un-mass are "borrow into the gravitation field", I thus represent that has a space-time-distortion or negative energy particle (because I lack mathematical understanding of the "thing").

    Even below Planck time scale (making them virtual), this thing must "follow" the entering particle (+1) and cross the even horizon, to actually enter the black hole account and make it shrink (-2). If not, they stay onto the universe one, lets say on the surface the horizon hence the cloack, maybe pushing on the horizon from the outside ?

    I know all these analogies are misleading, maybe my main problem is considering the horizon has a cross-able membrane. After it is just space time knotted like hell.
    But that "membrane" can "receide" only by being influenced by the "inside" of it, no ? I now think I got my causality wrong. Or does causality does not exist below Planck scale ? (BTW is there some evidence of black hole having temperature from cosmological observation ?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Yes, of course, but net energy being constant on the universe+hole account is not really helping. If two mass are created, then two un-mass are created.
    No, just two masses are created (temporarily, as allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

    I know all these analogies are misleading, maybe my main problem is considering the horizon has a cross-able membrane.
    It is not a "membrane" (because it is not a thing) but it is crossable in one direction. But not the other. The radius of the event horizon is proportional to the mass of the black hole. When one of the particles falls in, the event horizon expands (by a really tiny amount).

    BTW is there some evidence of black hole having temperature from cosmological observation ?
    No. And there is not likely to be either, For any realistic size of black hole, the effective temperature of the radiation is lower than the cosmic microwave background (CMB) so they will always have a net increase in energy. Only a black hole with less mass than the moon would have a temperature greater than the CMB.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Yes, of course, but net energy being constant on the universe+hole account is not really helping. If two mass are created, then two un-mass are created.
    I think I lost you here now, I don't understand what you are trying to say...?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Yes, of course, but net energy being constant on the universe+hole account is not really helping. If two mass are created, then two un-mass are created.
    I think I lost you here now, I don't understand what you are trying to say...?
    That for the whole thing to be constant you cannot create two particules, except if they are opposite in every way/property. But they are not, not about they mass/energy at least. Thus those two mass MUST be compensated by something (I call that two un-mass) so net zero is respected.

    Strange's explanation is very pleasing an much on OP. Being inside the Planck scale, this net zero can be broken, quite virtually and extremely temporarily, because it is beyond measurement, but ...

    ..., it does not help me understand how a black hole can decrease by absorbing one (positive mass/energy) particle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    No. And there is not likely to be either, For any realistic size of black hole, the effective temperature of the radiation is lower than the cosmic microwave background (CMB) so they will always have a net increase in energy. Only a black hole with less mass than the moon would have a temperature greater than the CMB.
    Too bad ! I was again chasing Unicorns

    Seriously does such small black hole are supposed to exist (I kind of think the universe is not old enough for a ancient one having evaporated...)
    And what is the smallest "natural" black hole possible ? (Not the one the LHC creates once in a while
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Strange's explanation is very pleasing an much on OP. Being inside the Planck scale, this net zero can be broken, quite virtually and extremely temporarily, because it is beyond measurement, but ...
    It is not because it is beyond measurement. It is because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. There is an uncertainty in the energy of an volume of space. That uncertainty can be as great as the energy of two particles (for a short time) (1). This is measurable.

    ..., it does not help me understand how a black hole can decrease by absorbing one (positive mass/energy) particle
    Because to make the two temporary virtual particles "real", energy must be provided to rip them apart (2). This requires real energy equal to the two particles to be provided. This energy comes from the black hole's gravitational field (3). The balck hole then absorbs one of the particles, getting half that energy back (and hence losing the energy of the one, escaped, particle).

    (1) That is a gross, and rather inaccurate, simplification
    (2) Except I don't believe that can actually be done in practice.
    (3) Except it it doesn't really.

    It is an analogy. It is like trying to understand what is pulling the ball down in the "rubber sheet" analogy of GR. It isn't what really happens.
    xkcd: Teaching Physics
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Seriously does such small black hole are supposed to exist (I kind of think the universe is not old enough for a ancient one having evaporated...)
    And what is the smallest "natural" black hole possible ?
    We don't really know. It has been suggested that small black holes could have been created in the big bang. People are looking for the radiation that would be expected if they were evaporating now.

    Primordial black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    (3) Except it it doesn't really.
    Anyway I prefer accept point 3 on faith, and that the gravitational field of the black hole is able to export energy from the inside of the hole...
    ... then to learn a boooooring set of equations !
    Thanks for the explanations !
    Last edited by Boing3000; March 31st, 2013 at 05:18 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    As an addendum, it is also interesting to note that Hawking radiation is a direct consequence of quantum field theory in curved space-time. In such a theory particle creation occurs as an automatic consequence of either time-dependent gravitational fields ( pair production from gravitons ), or time-independent fields where an event horizon is present. The maths are highly non-trivial, and, to be honest, waaaayyyyyy over my head, but I reference it here anyway :

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0308048v3.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. General relativity theory, Quantum theory, Sting theory, Whatever theory, True theory
    By painwithoutlove in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2013, 09:40 PM
  2. Second Experimental Challenge to Quantum Theory
    By sciconoclast in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 16th, 2010, 02:45 PM
  3. A Quantum Theory
    By Manynames in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 15th, 2009, 02:42 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 5th, 2006, 01:51 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •