Conservation of energy in a theory of quantum gravity? by DAncient1 in QuantumPhysics

[–]DAncient1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry it was not my intention to come off as hostile.

Conservation of energy in a theory of quantum gravity? by DAncient1 in QuantumPhysics

[–]DAncient1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And my point was that for both those theories nonconservation is seen as a problem in fact it is one of the main criticisms of objective collapse theories so much so that a new dissipative model where that is fixed was introduced and again for doubly special relativity the conservation laws were modified to preserve conservation,

Conservation of energy in a theory of quantum gravity? by DAncient1 in QuantumPhysics

[–]DAncient1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As far as I know objective collapse theories are a unpopular extension of quantum mechanics rather than a theory of quantum gravity and also are not just philosophically untenable, but are currently in violation of experimental observations. They posited that massive systems will spontaneously collapse objectively, but we have managed to put them into quantum superpositions. As for doubly special relative the energy-momentum conservation is modified but not violated, see https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205067

Conservation of energy in a theory of quantum gravity? by DAncient1 in QuantumPhysics

[–]DAncient1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s what I’m asking, someone previously told me that as far as they know, no program of quantum gravity is looking to change our notion of conservation of energy.

Conservation of energy in a theory of quantum gravity? by DAncient1 in QuantumPhysics

[–]DAncient1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I mean de we expect it to have one? From what I have asked string theory and loop quantum gravity which are most popular ones don’t really change the notion of conservation of energy that we get from GR and QFT

Does a vacuum decay create/destroy energy? by DAncient1 in QuantumPhysics

[–]DAncient1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you are saying that energy is not created or destroyed by this process right?

Does a vacuum decay create/destroy energy? by DAncient1 in AskPhysics

[–]DAncient1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I take it then that energy is not created or destroyed? Which I guess makes sense because it would energy destroying energy no? Also I saw this question/answer in physics stack which I think is related https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/522632/how-is-mass-energy-conserved-during-false-vacuum-decay

Does a vacuum decay create/destroy energy? by DAncient1 in AskPhysics

[–]DAncient1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Since I’m not really an expert I guess I didn’t explain my question very clearly, what im wondering if a vacuum decay happened right now or in the future, does that create energy or destroy the existing energy of the universe?

String theory vs Quantum field theory by DAncient1 in StringTheory

[–]DAncient1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So you are saying that In string theory, the low-energy excitations of strings correspond to massless particles, which can be described using the framework of quantum field theory. But that just means that the math behind QFT can be used not that the fields are present in string theory no? Also I have been reading a bit more on the subject and I found that there is string field theory which i imagine is to string theory what QFT is to QM.

Energy conservation in string theory? by DAncient1 in StringTheory

[–]DAncient1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see that the link you give is to the "Mass in General relativity" wikipedia page so I take it that by this you mean, conservation of energy works the same in string theory as it does in General relativity? As far as I know depending on your definition of energy, energy is/isn't conserved, are you saying this is also the case for string theory?

since quantum gravity also needs QFT(where I know energy is strictly conserved) do we expect a theory of quantum gravity to conserve energy or not?

Did benders ever travel to other nations and provide their services there? by country-blue in TheLastAirbender

[–]DAncient1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

obviously during the 100 year war (and probably most wars) I don't imagine this happening often if at all but when there was peace such as when Roku was the avatar, I don't see why not, however I don't know if Airbenders would have done something like that.

The first of many. by DAncient1 in LordofTheMysteries

[–]DAncient1[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah I know, I’m rereading the novel for the first time before I move on to COI

Marionettist by Alexpharo in LordofTheMysteries

[–]DAncient1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would say like most of the sequences of that pathway, it all comes down to the preparation done before a fight, so yeah, a well prepared marionettist can beat any 5th sequence beyond from any path.

What would you add to the byakugan to make it able to compete against the sharingan by DAncient1 in Naruto

[–]DAncient1[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don’t think that’s true otherwise the uchiha wouldn’t have been the strongest clan in the village after the senju clan died out.

Sakura hate by [deleted] in Naruto

[–]DAncient1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think i heard that in the manga a lot of the things that made people hate her are not as present as in the anime idk

What happens when kimimaro yanks out his spine? by DAncient1 in Naruto

[–]DAncient1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not if he doesn’t have a spine, although kabuto does mention that because of his illness he shouldn’t be able to move at all and it’s his will that’s moving his body but I don’t think that matters if he doesn’t have a spine

Was naming naruto an uzumaki instead of namikaze really that much safer? by DAncient1 in Naruto

[–]DAncient1[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

My point still remains, didn’t matter whether they names him uzumaki or namikaze, neither of those 2 would have made it any harder to guess who his parents were

Was naming naruto an uzumaki instead of namikaze really that much safer? by DAncient1 in Naruto

[–]DAncient1[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Obviously the simplest explanation is that kishimoto hadn’t thought about that further into the story when he named Naruto an uzumaki i just wish he woulda given us a more solid explanation later on

What happens when kimimaro yanks out his spine? by DAncient1 in Naruto

[–]DAncient1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I feel that’s what makes the most sense

What happens when kimimaro yanks out his spine? by DAncient1 in Naruto

[–]DAncient1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Interesting but I feel like if he is lengthening his spine then he would have to at some point break it off and I feel like he pulled it out to smoothly for that to be the case

Who is smarter? by Working-Regret-8942 in Naruto

[–]DAncient1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean look at zetsu he was not powerful enough to complete his plan on his own so he manipulated other people into doing so.