Re: The Quantum Gravity Problem

From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:57:38 -0400
Message-ID: <3e4vkc.45i.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net>

Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:

> "Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message
> news:5d1qkc.m52.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net...

>> Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
>>
>> > "Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in

> message

>> > news:n72pkc.f8h.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net...
>> >> Here is a little its-been-a-good-week Friday musing.
>> >>
>> >> I wonder if database theory is suffering from a version of what is

> going

>> > on
>> >> in Physics.  In Physics for the past few decades they have had to
>> >> struggle with the fact that the two fundamental theories of the

> twentieth

>> >> century
>> > do
>> >> not play nice together.  Relativity describes gravity well, but it is

> not

>> > a
>> >> quantum theory.   Quantum theory is considered the most successful

> theory

>> >> in history, but does not describe gravity.  Since most physicists

> believe

>> >> that the underlying truths are quantum in nature, everyone is
>> >> searching
>> > for
>> >> a quantum theory of gravity, instead of searching for the relativistic
>> >> theory of E & M and nuclear forces.
>> >>
>> >> So can we draw any useful analogy here, with perhaps the RDM being
>> >> quantum
>> >> and Hierarchies being Relativity?  This choice is not arbitrary, it
>> > implies
>> >> that we can find a way to add hierarchies to the RDM before we will
>> >> get
>> > RDM
>> >> into a hierarchical form.
>> >
>> > Yes, yes -- I have used this analogy before.  The fun thing about it is
>> > that the answer to how to combine the disperate theories is the same
>> > for both (physics theory of everything and database theory) -- one
>> > word: Strings. (OK, I know that is simplistic in both cases, but it
>> > could be more true than some might think on the database side).
>>
>> Strings, very cool, I'm guessing some kind of network?  I'd like to
>> understand this, but could you help me connect the dots?  (get it?
>> connect-the-dots, graphs? asking for help? ooh, ha ha ha.)  Do I start at
>> the wikipedia on di-graph?  How do I get from 3Nf TO branes?

>
> I am almost completely ignorant regarding physics, bu some suggest that a
> theory of strings is the solution to the Theory Of Everything (TOE) in
> physics, being consistent with relativity on the large scale and quantum
> theory at the small end (if I understood correctly). I few years ago I
> read a lay person's treatment of this in Brian Green's The Elegant
> Universe (not considered terribly accurate by physicists, but perhaps
> "close enough" for
> non-phyiscs people like me). It is about "superstrings" and the TOE.

Yes, various string theories are thought of as being candidates for the TOE, though of course there are plenty of detractors. I've had no Physics more demanding than Scientific American since college (which, having no math, has no Physics, but what the heck), so I can't say much more either.

>
> As for computers, databases, and strings, the connection of perhaps more
> obvious. It's all 1's and 0's at the low end and at the high end (for the
> interface with human beings) it could be video or audio or pictures or
> words, but in between there -- from the perspective of the database --
> it's all strings, right?
>
> So, a database theory of everything (DTOE), we could focus on the strings
> (and sub-strings and superstrings).
>
> OK, it was likely one of those thoughts that entertained me, in that the
> TOE and DTOE both came down to strings (although quite different
> definitions of
> such) and that I should have kept to myself. cheers! --dawn
> --dawn

Well, I've had many of those. I figure I've got the analogy to explain everything and everyone scratches their heads.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me

Received on Mon Oct 18 2004 - 02:57:38 CEST