The Instigator
Vision13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ajabi
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The loop quantum gravity is a better theory of quantum gravity than the strings theory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Ajabi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 694 times Debate No: 61334
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Vision13

Pro

The loop quantum gravity is a better theory than the strings theory because it can reproduce the theory general of relativity as classical approximation. Moreover, it can reproduce the berkenstein-hawking's equation about the black hole and entropy.
Ajabi

Con

I should start off by stating that my opponent has the burden of proof in this debate. This means that he must prove this topic in so far as if X stands for the motion, he must show []X, while I need only show ~[]X which is the equivalent of <>~X. This means I only need to show possibly not X. Now my opponent has given two lines of analysis however he has failed to compare his analysis on the LQG theory with String Theory. As he had the BoP and he did not do this fundamental analysis I should win this debate here and now, I will still however supply some basic analysis. I will keep this brief because it is only one round, and my opponent never provides an argument.

Now while LQG is not a bad theoretical postulate, it is not the best one. While the LQG does align with the theory of relativity, as does String Theory. So lets not talk about what they both can do: I want to discuss what string theory can do. By adding different dimensions, and postulating sub-atomic particles like gluons string theorists allow themselves to address the problems of Unification, and resolve them. Contrary to this LQG is indifferent to Unification, and this is a major weakness. So while string theory goes far and beyond to consider gravity LQG is limited to understanding quantum aspects of gravitational interaction.

While I could present more, I do not feel the need to. This is one very important point which is addressed in great detail by String Theory but ignored completely by the Loop Quantum Gravity theory. Since the scope of String Theory is greater, and since String Theory can be proven beyond the LQG I hold that it is a better gravity theory than the LQG.

Faithfully Yours,
Ajab
Debate Round No. 1
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
@Elijahhill97 :
If you want to debate TBB,
I'd recommend that you choose someone who's Sane & Intelligent.

Scientist state that matter/ energy can't be created or destroyed.
There couldn't have been a BB.
Posted by Elijahhill97 2 years ago
Elijahhill97
@cheyennebodie That has been disproved actually if you would like to debate the Big Bang Theory Id be glad to debate you on the subject.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I am just a laymen in these things. I would conclude that the big bang is a big bust. If the big bang did occur, then all the planets would all spin in the same direction. You have planets in this solar system spinning in opposite directions.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
I'd like to add this:

If Quantum Effects occur near the Event Horizon of Black Holes,
I'd assume that they're balanced.
For each so-called "positive particle" , there'd be a so-called "negative particle" ;
for every so-called "positive EM radiation wave" there'd be a so-called "negative EM radiation wave" , etc.
So all of them would automatically cancel out.
There's no free added or minus subtracted energy/ matter/ mass/ information, etc.
There's no such thing as a "free lunch" .
So the Steady State Theory is apparently wrong.

I just looked up Steady State Theory.
The "reasons" against it as given were wrong.
Einstein stated that the universe is finite but unbounded.
There couldn't have been a "Big Bang" .
The universe had no beginning, & will have no ending.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
If the theories do, in fact, make sense, I'd tend to agree with you.
But why stop at a classical approximation?
Why not full agreement?
I came to the conclusion some time ago that Hawking had to be wrong
about radiation being released by a Black Hole near the Event Horizon.
It seems to me that if Quantum effects occur there, one might assume
that they occur in all directions, which would mean that radiation
traveling away from the Black Hole can be assumed to be equal to
the energy traveling towards the Black Hole,
so they'd cancel out.
Does that sound right?
&,of course, you ARE aware that "randomness" cannot exist, right?

If I understand basic Quantum Physics correctly, such as that derived from the
Young experiment, etc. , "particles" cannot exist.
Thus, I'd assume that neither can particles in space, time, gravity, etc.
If I'm wrong can you explain?
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
wha...?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Vision13AjabiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was more in depth.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Vision13AjabiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro just doesn't provide any analysis in this debate, and in doing so leaves himself open to simple contradiction without analysis. Con basically does that, claiming that both theories align with the theory of relativity (Pro didn't give me any reason to believe that that's not the case), and providing a small amount of analysis on Unification, though he doesn't provide any analysis of what Unification is or why it should be regarded as important. Then again, Pro only states that LQG reproduces "berkenstein-hawking's equation about the black hole and entropy," but provides absolutely no analysis on why it does so and doesn't weigh its importance. So, while I could give this to Con based on burdens alone, I could also do so based on who had the stronger points, and that's Con.