The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe

Product Information

I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! …I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. … I don’t like it that they’re not calculating anything. …why are the masses of the various particles such as quarks what they are? All these numbers … have no explanations in these string theories – absolutely none! …” To explore the process of pursuing mathematical truth, Penrose outlines a few proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. The theorem can be stated as such, "For any right-angled triangle, the squared length of the hypotenuse [math]\displaystyle{ c }[/math] is the sum of the squared lengths of the other two sides [math]\displaystyle{ a }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ b }[/math] or in mathematical notation [math]\displaystyle{ a I believe that it is time for a Hard Nosed mathematician to have a look at this problem and provide some help to the Physic community! As for objectivity, I notice that people like Schreiber, Helling, Motl and Distler criticize LQGists essentially for missing conformal anomalies (this is a clear symptom if not the cause of the problem), but they have no interest in trying to understand why 4D diff anomalies do not arise in string theory. Note here that anomalies are physical effects seen in any reasonable quantization scheme – path integral quantization of the Polyakov action also singles out 26D, i.e. the conformal anomaly does not only arise in canonical quantizion.

The Road to Reality - Wikiwand

Why not entertain a similar possibility for the issues about the “observed” gauge groups, etc.? Do you really think such a point of view would render a theory based on the latter totally unpredictive? Finally, I’ll draw these threads together more tightly by citing the following paper by Dowker, Henson, and Sorkin: Here is a fundamental objection of mine (which I think is a fairly obvious one) to the main theme in many of your posts againsts string theory (I am not a string theorist, by the way): General points of philosophy and arguments of authority are just a matter of taste. The facts are that the question of linearized stability of KK spacetime, to the extent that it is a mathematically precise question, was settled long ago by precise calcualtions. I suggest that if Penrose had something concrete to say about it, he would publish a paper on the subject, which would then be subjected to the usual scrutiny. In the absence of that there is really nothing to agree or disagree with. Just relying on his authority is unfair to many talented and devoted people who actually worked on the subject. Similar words can be said about Hawking and the fiasco of the information paradox resolution.

Maybe either or both of those two events influenced Roger Penrose in making the above-described changes in the USA edition. A second area where Penrose is less than orthodox is his belief that quantum gravity somehow modifies quantum theory and resolves its measurement paradoxes. He explains an experimental set-up that could in principle test whether gravity plays a role in quantum state reduction, but he doesn’t have a concrete proposal for how standard quantum mechanics is to be modified. The Portal Book Club - We have a weekly group that meets to talk about this book. Come join us in Discord! I was just reporting what Penrose says, and I’m not interested enough in this issue to spend my time on the details of this. In any case I don’t think Penrose has an air-tight argument against extra dimensions, because you can always claim that quantization solves the problem.

The Road to Reality : A Complete Guide to the Laws of the

to draw the obvious conclusion, Wilczek seems willing to entertain reservations about current attempts to join quantum mechanics and general relativity and to go out on his own looking for new ones, as in the case of this paper. Even allowing for mights and mays, especially from such an accomplished scientist, it is hard to find an argument there. The usual singularity theorems, valid in 4dim asysmptotically flat space, are usually not taken to mean instability of flat space, or exclude it’s existence. Even if there is some hypothetical singularity thm. in higher dimesnion, why would it imply the non-existence of higher dimensional gravitational theory? I got the book last july, it’s *very* impressive from a mathematical point of view (I can’t comment on the physics). Just before a total eclipse of the Sun, the Moon is given a large velocity tangential to its orbit at mid-eclipse. Do the effects of relativity prevent the eclipse? Explain. I find that the book explains the geometric concepts of fibre bundles and spinors perfectly well (certainly better than I would have thought they could be explained).

However, the USA edition omits the laudatory reference to Paul Ginsparg that is found in the UK edition. Maybe at a later time you will speak to this in more detail? This clarifies to me the essence of your resistance to other theoretical approaches and helps to point towards more information to be look at. This is good.

Road To Reality Robert Penrose : Robert Pinrose : Free Road To Reality Robert Penrose : Robert Pinrose : Free

To me, at least, it sounds very awkward when a theoretical (hep-th or math-ph) physicist dismisses math as much STheorists do nowadays… and, before this last comment starts a flame war, let me just say that i only read about Donaldson Polynomials, Knot theory, gerbes and so forth on books either by the AMS (on QFT!) or by Kauffman or Baez. Personally, i never saw a single STheorist (mainly the ‘pop’ ones) talking about those topics; in fact, in more than one occasion i have been condemned for ‘breaking up a discussion’ with such ‘mathematics’ topics. Real good review of Penrose’s book by Frank Wilczek in current (Feb 11) Science. Not Free, unfortunately. Says book is very interesting and challenging for beginners, but flawed at the highest level. Finally, there’s a remarkable chapter on supersymmetry, extra dimensions, and string theory. Penrose is very skeptical of the whole idea of introducing more that 4 space-time dimensions. One reason is that the beautiful spinor and twistor geometry that fascinates him is special to 4 dimensions. Another reason he gives is the classical instability of higher-dimensional space-times. Under a small perturbation, such space-times should collapse and form singularities. The difficulties in stabilizing extra dimensions are at the heart of the problems of string theory, with the only known way of doing it leading to the “Landscape” picture and ruining any ability to get predictions out of the theory.If anyone has any other ideas as to why those changes were made, I would welcome being informed about them. For sheer fun, find and read Penrose’s early paper on the appearence of a moving relativistic object.

The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose | Waterstones

Now, (my addition I apologise) recent research has confirmed this in admitted a low dimension setting. 3 dim constrained water waves have been show to have UNIVERSAL chaotic motions. You should be trying to figure out how to use symmetries to gain control of the space-time degrees of freedom, not throwing out the gauge symmetry, creating a higher dimensional mess whose dynamics you don’t understand, then hoping to recover gauge symmetry as an effective low energy phenomenon. If I allow you to continually post long comments promoting TGD, I also end up with long, multiple comments from Quantoken promoting GUITAR, and others promoting their favorite ideas, together with many hostile comments from other people who are annoyed that the comment section is being taken over by this kind of thing. Note that Matti Pitkanen was in 1994 allowed to post papers on the e-print archives now known as arXiv(obviously including the paperI really think you could understand everything I say if you actually read complete sentences instead of just look for points for