This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, claims physicist

[paddoboy]

from the OP paper:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.02589v2.pdf

What I have done in this lecture is trivial. I’ve taken some ordinary quantum phenomena and quantum protocols, and by invoking ER=EPR I’ve reinterpreted them in terms of the geometry of Einstein-Rosen bridges. No new phenomena were discovered other than the correlation with what infalling observers see, and whether they can meet behind the horizons of the ERB. The interesting thing is that such a translation is at all possible. The current source of all wisdom, AdS/CFT, has provided tremendous inspiration and knowledge about quantum gravity, but it is not all there is. Why is it that in AdS/CFT we never have to talk about those questions that the Relative State Formulation addresses? There is a reason: the existence of an asymptotic boundary. The theory is set up so that an outside “uber-observer” can manipulate the CFT, and make measurements on it, but the uber-observer is not part of the system. For the purposes of the uber-observer the Copenhagen Interpretation (and the collapse of the wave function) is a sufficient framework. Such an uber-observer makes things easy but unsatisfying. Sooner or later we will have to give up the security of an asymptotically cold boundary, and formulate a theory in which the universe is a highly interconnected network of entangled subsystems, with no preferred uber-observer. I expect that when this happens ER=EPR will take its place as one of the cornerstones of the new theory. What all of this suggests to me, and what I want to suggest to you, is that quantum mechanics and gravity are far more tightly related than we (or at least I) had ever imagined. The essential nonlocalities of quantum mechanics—the need for instantaneous communication in order to classically simulate entanglement—parallels the nonlocal potentialities of general relativity: ER=EPR.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

[paddoboy]

Note the following:The above quoted poster is ignoring or denying and evading the scientific evidence which I listed for him that categorically says wormholes etc could not exist in physical reality. He also still doesn't get that once the objective science itself properly and exhaustively rules those things out, then they are no longer scientific speculative things; and are thereafter only effectively unscientific speculative fantasies. Why cannot he get that at least? Mystery.

You have shown nothing. You have made unsupported rhetorical fairy tale claims.
The existence or otherwise of wormholes is not as yet determined, no matter how that offends your rhetorical nonsense.
No physicists has categorically said that worm holes do not exist; Neither has any said worm holes categorically do exist.

 

[expletives deleted]

Note the following:

from the OP paper:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.02589v2.pdf

What I have done in this lecture is trivial. I’ve taken some ordinary quantum phenomena and quantum protocols, and by invoking ER=EPR I’ve reinterpreted them in terms of the geometry of Einstein-Rosen bridges. No new phenomena were discovered other than the correlation with what infalling observers see, and whether they can meet behind the horizons of the ERB. The interesting thing is that such a translation is at all possible. The current source of all wisdom, AdS/CFT, has provided tremendous inspiration and knowledge about quantum gravity, but it is not all there is. Why is it that in AdS/CFT we never have to talk about those questions that the Relative State Formulation addresses? There is a reason: the existence of an asymptotic boundary. The theory is set up so that an outside “uber-observer” can manipulate the CFT, and make measurements on it, but the uber-observer is not part of the system. For the purposes of the uber-observer the Copenhagen Interpretation (and the collapse of the wave function) is a sufficient framework. Such an uber-observer makes things easy but unsatisfying. Sooner or later we will have to give up the security of an asymptotically cold boundary, and formulate a theory in which the universe is a highly interconnected network of entangled subsystems, with no preferred uber-observer. I expect that when this happens ER=EPR will take its place as one of the cornerstones of the new theory. What all of this suggests to me, and what I want to suggest to you, is that quantum mechanics and gravity are far more tightly related than we (or at least I) had ever imagined. The essential nonlocalities of quantum mechanics—the need for instantaneous communication in order to classically simulate entanglement—parallels the nonlocal potentialities of general relativity: ER=EPR.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The above quoted poster has again linked and quoted something which he does not even understand let alone have any cogent sciencitic observation to make on it all. He obviously doesn't realize that it is trivially true that any two theories about the reality, from whatever angle they approach explanations of it, must both be true if they are describing the same reality. So the ER = EPR is of no consequence unless and until either is actually describing real things existing in physical reality not imaginary. But since science already ruled out wormholes etc as I listed before, then this ER = EPR 'conjecture' is a non-starter. And Susskind alludes to 'the principle' and the 'development' etc of ER = EPR as if it came from somewhere else without his involvement or pushing it. So even in the lecture terminology he is trying to insinuate some 'arms length' respectability and viability for considering his own trivial and unreal 'conjecture' which science already rules against because of the unphysical things that 'conjecture' relies on for its 'scientific consideration'? Trivial and already ruled out 'conjecture'. What's left to 'consider'? Nothing. It appears that the Susskind 'reputation' is enough to let him get away with this sort of trivial, meaningless, publish/lecture or perish non-science exercise masquerading as 'scientific conjecture'; when it is just more fantasy conjecture with the trivial and meaningless 'ER=EPR 'hook'; with which the publish or perish bandwagon can attach others who want 'peer review' passes and citation stats etc even though they have nothing else but already failed ideas to 'offer' pop-sci & Sci-fi infotainment circuit being promoted by the various PR agents for all their worth (even on here at Sciforums?).

You have shown nothing. You have made unsupported rhetorical fairy tale claims.
The existence or otherwise of wormholes is not as yet determined, no matter how that offends your rhetorical nonsense.
No physicists has categorically said that worm holes do not exist; Neither has any said worm holes categorically do exist.

The above quoted poster still denies and ignores the science reasons outlined for him by me earlier which categorically ruled out such things which the above poster is 'pushing' for all he is worth, even to the extent of using his irrelevant PR MANTRA sales distraction device which goes against all logic and fair comment by real physicists. Is this what the future of sciforums is, a PR service provider with paid PR trolls protected from banning and allowed to push the publish or perish 'product' for a cut of earnings from the 'clients'? Seems like that is what's happening; else the moderators and management would have banned this particular PR sales pitch troll long ago. Mystery.

 

[paddoboy]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.06375v4.pdf

Black Hole as a Wormhole Factory:


Abstract:
There have been lots of debates about the final fate of an evaporating black hole and the singularity hidden by an event horizon in quantum gravity. However, on general grounds, one may argue that a black hole stops radiation at the Planck mass (¯hc/G ) 1 / 2 ∼ 10 − 5 g, where the radiated energy is comparable to the black hole’s mass. And also, it has been argued that there would be a wormhole-like structure, known as “space-time foam”, due to large fluctuations below the Planck length (¯hG/c 3 ) 1 / 2 ∼ 10 −33cm. In this paper, as an explicit example, we consider an exact classical solution which represents nicely those two properties in a recently proposed quantum gravity model based on different scaling dimensions between space and time coordinates. The solution, called “Black Wormhole”, consists of two different states, depending on its mass parameter M and an IR parameter ω: For the black hole state (with ωM 2 > 1 /2), a non-traversable wormhole occupies the interior region of the black hole around the singularity at the origin, whereas for the wormhole state (with ωM 2 < 1 /2), the interior wormhole is exposed to an outside observer a s the black hole horizon is disappeared from evaporation. The black hole state becomes thermodynamically stable as it approaches to the merge point where the interior wormhole throat and the black hole horizon merges, and the Hawking temperature vanishes at the exact merge point (with ωM 2 = 1 /2). This solution suggests the “Generalized Cosmic Censorship” by the existence of a wormhole-like structure which protects the naked singularity even after the black hole evaporation. One could understand the would-be wormhole inside the black hole horizon as the results of microscopic wormholes created by “negative” energy quanta which have entered the black hole horizon in Hawking radiation processes; the quantum black hole could be a wormhole factory ! It is found that this speculative picture may be consistent with the recent “ER = EP R” proposal for resolving the black hole entanglement debates.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The above rather interesting speculative paper, is pretty much what my own speculative views align with, and which I have stated here a few times now.
If it were validated or at least evidence obtained to support such a concept, one would then need to ask and look at our BB and its evolution of spacetime from a hotter, denser state and the quantum foam at that first Planck level of 10-43 seconds.....
Another death knell for our magical spaghetti monster supporters!

 

[paddoboy]

The above quoted poster has again linked and quoted something which he does not even understand let alone have any cogent sciencitic observation to make on it all.
The above quoted poster still denies and ignores the science reasons outlined for him by me earlier which categorically ruled out such things which the above poster is 'pushing' for all he is worth,

Pushing for all I'm worth?? yeah sure my friend.
Again digging through your usual rhetorical nonsense, you are simply wrong in what you claim and far from explaining it, you simply type a few sciency sounding words, again without any support or citation to back your uncredentialed position.
ps: Worm holes are a solution of GR [despite your denial] and although as yet never been observed, there is no physicists that dare say that they categorically do not exist: nor that they do exist.
In other words their existence is inconclusive and your own claim otherwise just a simple porky pie, since you are unable to support that claim.

 

[expletives deleted]

Note the following:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.06375v4.pdf

Black Hole as a Wormhole Factory:


Abstract:
There have been lots of debates about the final fate of an evaporating black hole and the singularity hidden by an event horizon in quantum gravity. However, on general grounds, one may argue that a black hole stops radiation at the Planck mass (¯hc/G ) 1 / 2 ∼ 10 − 5 g, where the radiated energy is comparable to the black hole’s mass. And also, it has been argued that there would be a wormhole-like structure, known as “space-time foam”, due to large fluctuations below the Planck length (¯hG/c 3 ) 1 / 2 ∼ 10 −33cm. In this paper, as an explicit example, we consider an exact classical solution which represents nicely those two properties in a recently proposed quantum gravity model based on different scaling dimensions between space and time coordinates. The solution, called “Black Wormhole”, consists of two different states, depending on its mass parameter M and an IR parameter ω: For the black hole state (with ωM 2 > 1 /2), a non-traversable wormhole occupies the interior region of the black hole around the singularity at the origin, whereas for the wormhole state (with ωM 2 < 1 /2), the interior wormhole is exposed to an outside observer a s the black hole horizon is disappeared from evaporation. The black hole state becomes thermodynamically stable as it approaches to the merge point where the interior wormhole throat and the black hole horizon merges, and the Hawking temperature vanishes at the exact merge point (with ωM 2 = 1 /2). This solution suggests the “Generalized Cosmic Censorship” by the existence of a wormhole-like structure which protects the naked singularity even after the black hole evaporation. One could understand the would-be wormhole inside the black hole horizon as the results of microscopic wormholes created by “negative” energy quanta which have entered the black hole horizon in Hawking radiation processes; the quantum black hole could be a wormhole factory ! It is found that this speculative picture may be consistent with the recent “ER = EP R” proposal for resolving the black hole entanglement debates.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The above rather interesting speculative paper, is pretty much what my own speculative views align with, and which I have stated here a few times now.
If it were validated or at least evidence obtained to support such a concept, one would then need to ask and look at our BB and its evolution of spacetime from a hotter, denser state and the quantum foam at that first Planck level of 10-43 seconds.....
Another death knell for our magical spaghetti monster supporters!

The above poster posts another gratuitous link (is he being paid by the link and its promotion on this site?). The question has to be asked because all the poster did was post that excerpt and link and then, as is his usual follow up, basically says something to the effect: "Me too!" or "What they said". He obviously doesn't understand what he links or "approves of" or "agrees" with etc (he admitted as much before now when pressed to describe in his own words what the linked material/idea actually described in science terms. He still is unable to describe in his own words what a wormhole is etc, even after The God asked him politely to do so more than once. Mystery.

 

[paddoboy]

The above poster posts another gratuitous link (is he being paid by the link and its promotion on this site?). The question has to be asked because all the poster did was post that excerpt and link and then, as is his usual follow up, basically says something to the effect: "Me too!" or "What they said". He obviously doesn't understand what he links or "approves of" or "agrees" with etc (he admitted as much before now when pressed to describe in his own words what the linked material/idea actually described in science terms. He still is unable to describe in his own words what a wormhole is etc, even after The God asked him politely to do so more than once. Mystery.

Perhaps you need to report such accusations then...or are you trolling?
Let me again clarify for you and the god and the non scientific approach both you are taking......
[1] Making non mainstream claims [your right] but refusing to support with reputable link.
[2] The usual preacher style pretentious and condascending nature of both your posts.
[3] The unknown factor as to your credentials and qualifications [if any]
[4] Expecting the forum to accept your non mainstream claims without knowing the qualifications etc
[5]Unsupported unqualified nonsense as is evidenced in other threads similar to here, such as in the DM, cosmological redshift, gravitational waves threads.
Why neither of you are not getting any support on this either is the same reason you both have failed to get it on your other general anti mainstream propaganda, and why reputable posters such as PhyBang, Dave and Schneibster, have seen the need to take both of you to task on each of those rather strange interpretations that you both preach. [most though have the god on ignore]
Let's state it again very clearly: Wormholes are a speculative concept that is predicted by GR. And while problems would exist as to their nature, the fact remains that no professional scientist/cosmologist, will ever say that wormholes categorically do not exist. We have never seen them or have evidence of them, but the overwhelmingly observed success of GR, still leads that possibility open for debate and research which obviously is still being carried out despite your's and the god's cries of anguish.

 

[expletives deleted]

Note the following:

Perhaps you need to report such accusations then...or are you trolling?
Let me again clarify for you and the god and the non scientific approach both you are taking......
[1] Making non mainstream claims [your right] but refusing to support with reputable link.
[2] The usual preacher style pretentious and condascending nature of both your posts.
[3] The unknown factor as to your credentials and qualifications [if any]
[4] Expecting the forum to accept your non mainstream claims without knowing the qualifications etc
[5]Unsupported unqualified nonsense as is evidenced in other threads similar to here, such as in the DM, cosmological redshift, gravitational waves threads.
Why neither of you are not getting any support on this either is the same reason you both have failed to get it on your other general anti mainstream propaganda, and why reputable posters such as PhyBang, Dave and Schneibster, have seen the need to take both of you to task on each of those rather strange interpretations that you both preach. [most though have the god on ignore]
Let's state it again very clearly: Wormholes are a speculative concept that is predicted by GR. And while problems would exist as to their nature, the fact remains that no professional scientist/cosmologist, will ever say that wormholes categorically do not exist. We have never seen them or have evidence of them, but the overwhelmingly observed success of GR, still leads that possibility open for debate and research which obviously is still being carried out despite your's and the god's cries of anguish.

The above poster still mistakes valid scientific scrutiny and questions as somehow making non-mainstream claims. No wonder he is confused and irrelevant etc in his responses that evade or ignore and just plain miss the point. Now we know that is what to expect from paddoboy, it all makes some sort of sense out of his flailing without a clue when asked to actually explain in his own words so that we can get onto the same page. But so far no dice. Either that, or the paid PR angle may be the only other thing that makes sense of why he links to and or repeats ad nauseam irrelevant and already acknowledged background claims and information when the original question was put that challenged that background claims and info. It's a tough choice: either paid PR troll, or plain uncomprehending troll. Not pretty either way.

 

[paddoboy]

Note the following:
The above poster still mistakes valid scientific scrutiny and questions as somehow making non-mainstream claims. No wonder he is confused and irrelevant etc in his responses that evade or ignore and just plain miss the point.

No point missed at all.
The OP and reputable paper are discussing a speculative proposition.
That's science and all scientific theories have started out that way.
Within that speculation worm holes are discussed and researched.
Again that's science, as worm holes are still a solution of GR and the enormous knowledge and benefits that could be gained by any consequential QGT is obvious.
Thirdly you are not making any attempts at scientific scrutiny and that is painfully obvious, as you are unable to support your non professional status with any citations or links.

Now we know that is what to expect from paddoboy, it all makes some sort of sense out of his flailing without a clue when asked to actually explain in his own words so that we can get onto the same page. But so far no dice. Either that, or the paid PR angle may be the only other thing that makes sense of why he repeats ad nauseam irrelevant and already acknowledged background claims and information when the original question was put that challenged that background claims and info. It's a tough choice: either paid PR troll, or plain uncomprehending troll. Not pretty either way.

You imagine what you like my friend, and as your delusions of grandeur and agenda directs you to...
As of the 9th day of the 9th month in the year 2016, no physicist has categorically said that worm holes do not exist:FACT!

 

[paddoboy]

From a previous post of mine but worth a repeat....at least this abridged version of it:
It is an example from two physicists with opposing views, that essentially show exactly what I have been saying.......................
On the question of do you think worm holes exist:

https://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/could-wormholes-really-exist/
Dr Eric Davis, Senior Research Physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin

YES
“Wormholes should exist in nature, because they are predicted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity which is the theory that also predicted black holes, cosmology, neutron stars, the gravitational lensing of galaxies, gravitational redshift and time dilation, bending of light by stars (gravitational lensing) amongst other things.

“All of these astrophysical phenomena have been repeatedly observed to high precision and thus verify general relativity theory. There is no reason why wormholes should not exist based on a very well tested theory whose other predictions have been verified as previously mentioned. Another prediction of general relativity is gravitational waves, and there has been a search for their existence going on for over 50 years. This search is now ramping up with a major British astronomy program dedicated entirely to detecting them.”


Professor Andreas Karch, a professor of physics at the University of Washington

NO

“I would completely agree that most likely they are just a theoretical construct. It’s very unlikely that we will ever see the more standard kind of wormhole – the one that you could transverse through, as seen in science fiction movies.

“According to our understanding of physics, those seem almost impossible and we certainly haven’t seen one. Even if they exist, I’m not sure how to hunt for them.

“Of course that doesn’t mean that one should stop looking, we should always look for what’s out there, however, I wouldn’t hold my breath.”
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"No reputable physicist would say that they categorically do not exist"

 

[Schmelzer]

While true in cases of experimental and observational data, it most definitely is not true with the silly semantics re the word "categorically" that you have stooped to.

You think a scientist should be accurate about numbers, but can be inaccurate and sloppy about words? Sorry, this does not work.

The worth of the scientists involved, have been established for decades, and the potential of their speculative research, demands that it be continued,

The worth of Christian theological research has been established for thousands of years, and the potential of their speculative research, demands that it be continued.

My remark re your "thin skin" stems from your rather hypocritical defining of adhoms when applied to your adversaries, as compared to your own,

Because you are inaccurate even in thinking about such notions like ad hominem attacks, personal attacks and so on.

An ad hominem can be rather mild, and, moreover, even appropriate. Ad hominem means only that it is not the content of the argument, which is attacked, but the proponent of the argument. This alone does not make it amoral - one can make ad hominem arguments. It makes the argument not even wrong. It makes it simply very weak. So, if I name an argument ad hominem, I do not cry "stop this!!!11!", I simply tell you that it is a very weak argument.

And your problem is that you have nothing but such weak arguments. Because the number of citations of my papers is, even if formally not ad hominem, equally weak, because it is not about the content.

 

[paddoboy]

You think a scientist should be accurate about numbers, but can be inaccurate and sloppy about words? Sorry, this does not work.

? It's not inaccurate by any stretch of the imagination. If you like substitute "100% sure" or "zero chance" irrespective, categorically means what it means.

The worth of Christian theological research has been established for thousands of years, and the potential of their speculative research, demands that it be continued.

?? I don't interfere with Christian or any other religious mythical research.
But again, your obfuscation has lost me.

Because you are inaccurate even in thinking about such notions like ad hominem attacks, personal attacks and so on.

Rubbish...I have sen you with the same biased, it's OK for me attitude, but not for you in your political rantings

An ad hominem can be rather mild, and, moreover, even appropriate. Ad hominem means only that it is not the content of the argument, which is attacked, but the proponent of the argument.

As long as you decide? right!

And your problem is that you have nothing but such weak arguments. Because the number of citations of my papers is, even if formally not ad hominem, equally weak, because it is not about the content.

I actually see your argument particularly with regard to physicists never categorically saying worm holes do not exist...or even that they do exist, and with your nonsense re "categorically" as non existent.

 

[Engell79]

LOL, you think the worth of a theoretical scientist can be established before the theories he proposes have been supported by scientific evidence? As far, nor ER=EPR as my ether theory have not been supported by sufficient empirical evidence. From theoretical evaluation, my ether theory solves serious problems of modern physics, but, once it is ignored, you cannot find nor arguments supporting this, nor arguments against it, so, you are unable to decide about this.

First, Schmelzer, id like to thank you for your answer of my previous question. 'kudos' og 'points' for that. it was intresting, and im always intriqued to hear things explained in diffrent ways.

second: with all respect, Aether theory has largely been deemd 'lacking' ever since 1905, not disproved i know. aka, for more than a 100 years, Aether theory has not been accepted by the majority of sicentist.
people holding on to it, well.... they hold on by the one thin hair strain that no one has categorically said it does not exist. So i guess Schmelzer, you and paddoboy has something in common.

 

[The God]

Let me again clarify for you and the god and the non scientific approach both you are taking......
[1] Making non mainstream claims [your right] but refusing to support with reputable link.

This is silly. If I am making a non-mainstream claim, then how can I support that with a reputable link?

Perhaps you need to report such accusations then...or are you trolling?
[2] The usual preacher style pretentious and condascending nature of both your posts.

Spellcheck pl. This is your failing, you are kind of uneducable, so the best preacher style attempt has to be made.

[3] The unknown factor as to your credentials and qualifications [if any]
[4] Expecting the forum to accept your non mainstream claims without knowing the qualifications etc

This is irrelevant. You with absolute lack of science education, can come up with a brilliant idea. Have trust in your intelligence.

either of you are not getting any support on this either is the same reason you both have failed to get it on your other general anti mainstream propaganda, and why reputable posters such as PhyBang, Dave and Schneibster, have seen the need to take both of you to task on each of those rather strange interpretations that you both preach. [most though have the god on ignore]

Simply because the posters whom you have named are as ignorant as you are. Physbang boastingly claimed to be a PHD (Yes PHD not PhD), his posts do not reflect that kind of education. DaceC is a parttime guy, mostly into trolling with no serious or worthwhile contribution in this sub forum, Schneibeser was a plant to salvage some tough and noisy argument, he vanished as he could not handle the heat.

Let's state it again very clearly: Wormholes are a speculative concept that is predicted by GR. And while problems would exist as to their nature, the fact remains that no professional scientist/cosmologist, will ever say that wormholes categorically do not exist. We have never seen them or have evidence of them, but the overwhelmingly observed success of GR, still leads that possibility open for debate and research which obviously is still being carried out despite your's and the god's cries of anguish.

So, in your word what is a Worm Hole ? Pl define it.

still leads that possibility open for debate and research which obviously is still being carried out despite your's and the god's cries of anguish.

You do not allow sensible debates. And why should I have anguish over scientific research? In fact I want the true science to come out not some nonsenses like curved spacetime, Black Holes, Worm Holes, Singularity of infinite density. All crap.

 

[Schmelzer]

? It's not inaccurate by any stretch of the imagination. If you like substitute "100% sure" or "zero chance" irrespective, categorically means what it means.

And I would object against "100% sure" or "zero chance" for similar reasons. The theories of physics always remain hypothetical in character, and this is something known to any serious scientist. So they will usually not make such "100% sure" or "zero chance" claims. Except may be in popular context, or in a context where some theory is already fixed (say, 100% certainty that in GR exist black hole solutions).

?? I don't interfere with Christian or any other religious mythical research.

Fine. I don't interfere with string theory or ER=EPR or any other religious mythical research too. But I don't think there is any demand for it to be continued.

About ad hominem:

As long as you decide? right!

The question if some counterargument is ad hominem is quite objective. The original argument is about X, the ad hominem counterargument is not about X, but about the person who has proposed X - one should ignore the argument because that person is Jew, Russian, layman, proponent of theory Y, has lied before, is paid by Z, is not cited by the mainstream, whatever.

Some text I was unable to decipher in a meaningful way disposed.

second: with all respect, Aether theory has largely been deemd 'lacking' ever since 1905, not disproved i know. aka, for more than a 100 years, Aether theory has not been accepted by the majority of sicentist.
people holding on to it, well.... they hold on by the one thin hair strain that no one has categorically said it does not exist. So i guess Schmelzer, you and paddoboy has something in common.

Sorry, but there is no single entity named "ether theory". There is a large number of theories which have shared some common ideas about an ether. Most of them were definitely falsified by the Michelson Morley experiment. There was an exception - the Lorentz ether. The second serious hit against ether theory was general relativity. After GR, there was a relativistic theory of gravity, but no corresponding ether theory of gravity. Once there was no longer any viable ether theory, ether theory was dead. As dead as possible for a theory of physics.

For some time, namely, until a viable ether theory of gravity was proposed. Which is what I have done. Such is life in physics - not only can established theories like Newtonian gravity appear to be false. A new proposal for an ether theory can as well revive the ether. And with my ether theory of gravity, and my ether model for particle physics, ether theory is now in a much better state than string theory. Even if it is completely ignored.

But feel free to invite any string theorist here to show that I'm wrong, that string theory is somehow better than my ether theory. Lubos Motl has tried, but then preferred to ban me from his forum, and not to appear in my forum.

 

[Engell79]

But feel free to invite any string theorist here to show that I'm wrong, that string theory is somehow better than my ether theory. Lubos Motl has tried, but then preferred to ban me from his forum, and not to appear in my forum.

WEN you make an Aether theory that finds the "missing link" then ill be impressed, and as far as i can understand thats not the case. Until then.... Aether theories are just as likely as a wormhole. Not categorically denied, but very unlikely.

 

[paddoboy]

This is silly. If I am making a non-mainstream claim, then how can I support that with a reputable link?

Thank you, you have just made my point!
Please note carefully that while you or expletive deleted lack the evidence to support your non mainstream claim, it will forever remain that way.
BTW, there are many more "non mainstream"claims than mainstream....think about it.

Spellcheck pl. This is your failing, you are kind of uneducable, so the best preacher style attempt has to be made.

Yet its your own uneducable threads that litter the fringe sections.

This is irrelevant. You with absolute lack of science education, can come up with a brilliant idea. Have trust in your intelligence.

No, quite relevant and quite factual to boot. I dont need to put on pretentious airs like yourself and expletive deleted to get myself noticed.
And when you come up with some brilliant idea, instead of just turning your back on the real evidence and deriding the science, then I'll consider to the best of my ability that idea.

Simply because the posters whom you have named are as ignorant as you are. Physbang boastingly claimed to be a PHD (Yes PHD not PhD), his posts do not reflect that kind of education. DaceC is a parttime guy, mostly into trolling with no serious or worthwhile contribution in this sub forum, Schneibeser was a plant to salvage some tough and noisy argument, he vanished as he could not handle the heat.

Yet its yourself that has undergone the most bans in a short space of time, plus the removal of most of your threads to the fringes. Are you so blind to reality?

So, in your word what is a Worm Hole ? Pl define it.

You have that answer, many times.

You do not allow sensible debates. And why should I have anguish over scientific research? In fact I want the true science to come out not some nonsenses like curved spacetime, Black Holes, Worm Holes, Singularity of infinite density. All crap.

That's your opinion and is why you lack any credibility on this forum, and why your threads in general are moved out of the sciences.
And of course one must ask, why then come to a science forum? Do you see a great need to convert and make the rest of us unclean members see the light? Is this an example of your evangelistic crusade as directed by some overlord?

 

[paddoboy]

WEN you make an Aether theory that finds the "missing link" then ill be impressed, and as far as i can understand thats not the case. Until then.... Aether theories are just as likely as a wormhole. Not categorically denied, but very unlikely.

Well said Engell!

 

[paddoboy]

Fine. I don't interfere with string theory or ER=EPR or any other religious mythical research too. But I don't think there is any demand for it to be continued.

That's your opinion...I hold the same opinion re the ether hypothesis.

About ad hominem:

The question if some counterargument is ad hominem is quite objective. The original argument is about X, the ad hominem counterargument is not about X, but about the person who has proposed X - one should ignore the argument because that person is Jew, Russian, layman, proponent of theory Y, has lied before, is paid by Z, is not cited by the mainstream, whatever.

I've seen you wiggle and sqirm before to get out of a particular situation, here and elsewhere....I'm not impressed, sorry.

And with my ether theory of gravity, and my ether model for particle physics, ether theory is now in a much better state than string theory. Even if it is completely ignored.

That may make sense in your own biased mind, it is plain contradictory from where I stand.

But feel free to invite any string theorist here to show that I'm wrong, that string theory is somehow better than my ether theory. Lubos Motl has tried, but then preferred to ban me from his forum, and not to appear in my forum.

Both are as yet speculative, and that's the simple fact of the matter.

 

[Schmelzer]

WEN you make an Aether theory that finds the "missing link" then ill be impressed, and as far as i can understand thats not the case. Until then.... Aether theories are just as likely as a wormhole. Not categorically denied, but very unlikely.

It is the case. My ether theories are published in mainstream journals, and they actually solve the main problems of fundamental physics.

See my home page, which in http://ilja-schmelzer.de/matter/ gives an introduction for the ether model which explains the standard model, and in http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/ an intro into the ether theory of gravity.

The main problem of modern fundamental physics are quantization of gravity - which becomes trivial for an ether, given that we know how to quantize classical condensed matter theories - the understanding and explanation of the Standard Model of particle physics - which is reached - and the unification of all forces, which is unproblematic too for the two parts of my ether theory.

But even if one does not accept that this new ether theory solves the main open problems of modern physics - that the ether theory of gravity has GR as the limit, and that the ether model gives the fermions and gauge fields of the SM, so that all parts of established modern physics are covered is essentially already acknowledged by the fact that the papers have survived peer review and been published. So, the ether is at least a viable theory of modern physics.

That's your opinion...I hold the same opinion re the ether hypothesis.

The difference is that ether theory defines a falsifiable physical theory. ER=EPR is only a vague idea how some paradox of approaches alternative to the ether can possibly be solved.

Both are as yet speculative, and that's the simple fact of the matter.

Both are described in human language, that's also the simple fact of the matter. Feel free to ignore the difference, which is defined by Popper's criterion of demarcation.