This news article (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paUniverse_sun14_parallel_universes&show_article=1&cat=0) says that scientists at Oxford have shown mathematically that parallel universes can exist. They're basically citing the rule of quantum mechanics that "nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time." And so parallel universes must exist in that "superposition" state.
But this brings up a question in my mind... what if there is a parallel universe out there where scientists have mathematically disproved the existance of parallel universes?
so they spent how much money to basically come up with something that I could have told them for free?
Well nerr, multiple universes could exist. Pink, flying ponies could exist, we just haven't observed any.
tell me are you a pro at pissing on parades or just a hobbist? :P
Just a hobbiest, and only when I find it to be a particularly stupid parade.
I didn't do too well with proofs in math. Apparently "because it's obvious" isn't part of a proper proof.
Keep in mind that because it's in paper doesn't make it true.
Heck, the atomic bomb couldn't be predicted until they actually got out and did the damn thing.
I have a feeling that most of these quantum 'rules' about viewing subatomic particles are simply because the particles are so tiny and moving so fast in such odd ways and spins, that they simply seem to be everywhere at once because our equipment can't handle measurements that would require precision of a measurement below the size of an X-ray frequency.
The rules are simply made to fit the limits of technology, not what may be the reality for these particles.
The world of the infinitely small likely has as many surprises in store for us as the universe of the mind-numbingly large. I would not limit things to such rules simply because the techniques are still insufficient.
I'm still waiting to hear the explanation of quantum tunneling and some of those other strange phenomena, like the one in which you can align two particles' spins and whatnot, then separate them, then hit one with a beam and the other one reacts at the exact same time as the one that was hit.
What on earth is linking those particles together over the space between them? The principle involved, if it is ever discovered, could be the foundation for subspace communication.
Heh... the way that article describes it, the "great discovery" sounds about half a century late. :animesweat Sci-fi aside, the implications of the findings aren't all that interesting for macro-level reality.
On the other hand, it's not as if all that funny math is without practical value. In case his name doesn't ring a bell, David Deutsch practically founded the field of quantum computing. :3
Someone has a big brains out today...Just hope will wonder whats next onto this
hawking says that black holes spew the matter out in another dimension in order to explain how they don't break the law matter conservation.
he says that his math proves black holes loose mass and that that mass is spewed into dimensionX.
I don't agree. i belive the atoms just compress into a new mega atom. like if a hydrogen atome entered a black hole with hypotheticly only 1 helium atom excluseively the proton of the hydrogen would combine with the neucleus of the helium and make the next atom. i can't be spacific right now because i haven't my periodic table but you get the gist.
i do belive in other dimensions however. i belive that the next dimensions atoms inhabit the emptyspace in our atoms.
Here's a little kicker. What if dark matter and dark energy are actually in a dimension slightly outside our own, but close enought hat gravity (which no one has figured out exactly what it really is) can still affect our matter! Indeed, what if dark energy is gravity from another dimension which functions with a different set of quantum principles!
What if our dimension is just one of an infinite number layered upon others, the 'closest' of which can influence our own by varying degrees, depending on how similar certain aspects are to ours!
Fuel for science fiction, me thinks. :3
you are just now discovering this, I've known about this since 2006.
I guess quantum physics must be like the easiest discipline of physics in the world.
I've heard that our universe is the result of the collision of two universes, but then what happened to the other two universes? do they still exist, or were they destroyed?
Quantum physics is actually dicking around with unfalsifiable ideas, apparently.
Quote from: Alondro on September 26, 2007, 04:28:57 PMI have a feeling that most of these quantum 'rules' about viewing subatomic particles are simply because the particles are so tiny and moving so fast in such odd ways and spins, that they simply seem to be everywhere at once because our equipment can't handle measurements that would require precision of a measurement below the size of an X-ray frequency.
No. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle requires it, and Heisenberg has been proved mathematically.
Anyways, I haven't seen the paper, so I don't know if there really is anything new, but I'd be hard pressed to abandon the Copenhagen interpretation.
As to what lucas was saying, see the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Quote from: BillBuckner on September 26, 2007, 09:20:44 PM
Quantum physics is actually dicking around with unfalsifiable ideas, apparently.
I think you may be very right, Bill.
so, basically, they're saying that there's other universes, but they don't exist, except in potentia, becasue they didn't happen?
That's what I'm getting out of this, anyway.
thanks for the link bill and it reminded me of a point i neglected.
hawking says that his maths prove black holes loose mass. i belive this to be extra electrons/neutrons/protons that didn't quite fit the mega atom. e.g. hawking radiation.
Quote from: BillBuckner on September 26, 2007, 09:14:02 PM
I guess quantum physics must be like the easiest discipline of physics in the world.
1) Put cat in box
2) ???
3) PROFIT!
I would imagine GT, that that might be explained with the "Big Bang Theory" where the two unverses would have colided, either destroying them, or perhaps merging them into the new one.
Make me wonder if it could happen again though. Meaning, maybe it's something like when the star (sun/central star) explodes at the end of it's life-span it sends the remains careening though space, with the end result of what we have.
Or something there abouts.
EDIT: I definitely started this post in a far more logical place of mind, several hours ago. Before getting distracted.
Quote from: lucas marcone on September 27, 2007, 12:14:15 AMthanks for the link bill and it reminded me of a point i neglected.
I provided you the link, not Bill. Or does this mean that I'm one of Bill's multiple accounts?
Quote from: lucas marcone on September 27, 2007, 12:14:15 AMhawking says that his maths prove black holes loose mass. i belive this to be extra electrons/neutrons/protons that didn't quite fit the mega atom. e.g. hawking radiation.
Er...no.
In free space, you can get virtual particles--a particle and its antiparticle or two photons spawning out of the vacuum. They quickly interact and annihilate each other resulting in no net energy change.
But if one of these virtual particles falls into a black hole before it can annihilate the other, and the other escapes, then the black hole has emitted Hawking radiation.
And that is Hawking radiation. The entire thing occurs outside of the event horizon.
Oh, that sounds like 'brane theory', which surmises that there are planes of some sort which occaisionally move toward each other, touching at a point and triggering a Big Bang. The bang forces them apart again from that point. The theory (which is actually more like a hypothesis) has the interesting result that not only could infinite numbers of universes exist in between two parallel branes, but there could be an infinite number of branes, with inifnite numbers of universes between each pair, or what not. After all, whose to say you don't need 3 branes to collide, or 4, or a billion, to get the right combo for a universe.
And as far as mathematic 'proving' things, I would like to point out that there have been a very large number of theories that were quite mathematically sound which were eventually tossed once experimental evidence proved conclusively they couldn't be real. The Uncertainty Principle applies for now, until someone makes the next great discovery. Just as general relativity breaks down in a singularity, no one can say there may not be some phenomenon somewhere which can violate the Uncertainty Principle.
One thing to always remember, these mathematical equations were all written by humans. And humans still don't know everything. Until they do, there is always the possibility of error.
sorry super i mistook you for bill for a sec.
also, i saw hawking radiation and thought for a minute that it was the gases escapeing at the apex. my bad again.
i still think black holes are just mega atoms though.
Quote from: Alondro on September 27, 2007, 02:16:38 AMAnd as far as mathematic 'proving' things, I would like to point out that there have been a very large number of theories that were quite mathematically sound which were eventually tossed once experimental evidence proved conclusively they couldn't be real. The Uncertainty Principle applies for now, until someone makes the next great discovery.
Yeah, but no one is suggesting the the Uncertainty Principle is wrong.
Except you.
The issue isn't precision. At this point, our instruments are precise enough to measure these things. The issue is that we are prohibited from measuring them. I won't go as far as Bohr (I think), who declared that the particles don't have both a precise position and a precise momentum simultaneously, but simply that if they do (a big if), we can never measure it.
I's say us never being able to measure it is the likely truth. It's a realm so small, fast, and moving in so many directions that our technology is simply too 'big' and too slow to catch the action. It's the same on the opposite end with the edge of the universe. We know there must be 'something' past it (even if the something is utter nothingness) but we can never know what it is because the expansion of the universe is so rapid that no energy of any sort can pass the boundary.
These particles are vibrating constantly at or very close to the speed of light, and so to really see them you'd have to use a detection method with energy that can move faster than that to catch the particle in one spot. It's like the blurring you see in an old still camera when you try to photograph rapidly moving objects. You can't catch the frame fast enough and all you see is a blur of all the places the object has been during the time it takes to snap the picture. That doesn't mean the object is never in one place at one time, it just means your method can't keep up with it. And since we don't have any energy form that can move faster than light (and even if we did it might not interact with normal matter in a way that would allow us to use it to see where a particle is in one infinitesimally small unit of time), we can never see anything more than the 'mirage' of the particle's motions.
this is something all webcomic artists and authors should know well.
it's been long a theory of mine that if it exists in your own creation, that it might exist somewhere for real, fueling one's muse.
Quote from: Turnsky on September 27, 2007, 09:58:13 AM
this is something all webcomic artists and authors should know well.
it's been long a theory of mine that if it exists in your own creation, that it might exist somewhere for real, fueling one's muse.
That would be a hypothesis, a supposition as yet untested. A theory must have evidence to back it up. And it's both an implausible and untestable hypothesis, as the concept of an entity outside our existance contacting someone's mind violates pretty much every law of everything. :P
It's a nice little bit of fiction, but it's about as likely as the Ministry of Magic actually existing.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v447/Kasarn/mess/little_werner.jpg
SCIENCE LOL
Quote from: Turnsky on September 27, 2007, 09:58:13 AM
this is something all webcomic artists and authors should know well.
it's been long a theory of mine that if it exists in your own creation, that it might exist somewhere for real, fueling one's muse.
This idea has been around for a while. Probably the best treatment of it is in Robert A. Heinlein's
The Number of the Beast.
.. not that he was particularly on the mark with anything -else- in that book, or, indeed, many of his others.
Fun to read, but not particularly accurate...
Well, by the theory, they must be accurate in some other universe... :P
Quote from: LionHeart on September 27, 2007, 11:35:14 AM
Well, by the theory, they must be accurate in some other universe... :P
It's circular self-fulfilling reasoning and utterly untestable. And once more, it's a weak hypothesis, not a true theory.
Quote from: Alondro on September 27, 2007, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: Turnsky on September 27, 2007, 09:58:13 AM
this is something all webcomic artists and authors should know well.
it's been long a theory of mine that if it exists in your own creation, that it might exist somewhere for real, fueling one's muse.
That would be a hypothesis, a supposition as yet untested. A theory must have evidence to back it up. And it's both an implausible and untestable hypothesis, as the concept of an entity outside our existance contacting someone's mind violates pretty much every law of everything. :P
It's a nice little bit of fiction, but it's about as likely as the Ministry of Magic actually existing.
can't be proved or disproved, as insufficient evidence exists for either case. truth be told, it's always been a musing of mine, mind you, it does exist in one way, in the author's mind. physical or not, it exists in that fashion.
Course, you can just say that since all possibilities may exist, the fact that a paralell universe exists that's exactly like your story/webcomic/epic poem is purely coincidence.
All of this is completely unprovable, of course.
Well... not completely unprovable...
Some of the Many Worlds theories may turn out to have predictive validity in real world applications (computing and such). David Deutsch, for one, believes that they will become testable once engineering catches up with the theory. The possiblity of alternate worlds populated by talking furry animals and such would still be a bit of a leap from that point--just not as far. :3
I so love armchair supposition! Here, let me try... it is paramount for the very existence of science and mathematics that the same conditions produce the same results. Unfortunately, most of you should know that this is not typically the case... or at least I would think that you should as I read these responses. However, I must put forward that if you truly wish to discuss quantum mechanical problems, it would behoove you to actually understand how to apply quantum mechanics to these problems.
Edit: ugh, my apologies to anyone who I have inadvertently quoted in my jibe.
All of existence is just a dream. Who's dream? Mine? Yours? My dog's? No one knows! :U
Quote from: Alondro on September 27, 2007, 09:54:36 AMI's say us never being able to measure it is the likely truth. It's a realm so small, fast, and moving in so many directions that our technology is simply too 'big' and too slow to catch the action.
No, sorry. A FEU-142 photomultiplier can measure down to a precision of 7E-5 eV (if my calculations are correct). The picosecond event timer can measure events down to 1.2E-12 seconds.
The error in the FEU-142 times the error in the PET is 8.4E-17 eV*s. The minimum error in the uncertainty principle is 3.3E-16 eV*s.
So we have the precision to measure these things. That is not the issue. The issue is that we cannot measure these things. The precise momentum and position (or time and energy) cannot be communicated to us. Indeed, we cannot be sure that they even have such attributes.
That's not my point at all. We're talking about predictions here. We don't know what makes particles move the way they do. THAT'S the key to predicting where they will be in a given instant. What we perceive as totally random may yet have a predictable factor to it that we'll only discoever when we actually understand the basic structure of matter and energy, as well as figuring out gravity, dark matter, dark energy, vacuum energy, and quite a few other concepts that lie at the very heart of what our universe actually consists of.
We're still lacking a clear understanding of some of the most basic forces in the universe, so it should be no surprise that the particles and energy which scoot along some strange routes carved out by these and other forces at the quantum level do so in a way that is completely unpredictable for us.
You can't make an equation for it because we don't know all the variables, and likely are still missing some of the fundamental constants.
And when we do (if ever) know it all, we'll likely also need technology on an entirely different level, just as quantum physics required a whole eschelon of technology beyond general relativity, which required a huge boost beyond Newtonian physics.
Quote from: Alondro on September 28, 2007, 01:00:24 PMThat's not my point at all.
OK. I'm really lost, then. You kept talking about how our instruments were too big and slow to measure what the particles were doing. Why would you mention that if your point was...uh, what is your point, exactly?
Quote from: Alondro on September 28, 2007, 01:00:24 PMWe're talking about predictions here. We don't know what makes particles move the way they do.
Actually, we have a pretty good idea about what makes particles move. Particles give off fields, and if another particle is in that field, it will be attracted or repelled.
General relativity goes further and says that spacetime is just a manifold that is stretched out by these particles and that particles will tend to move toward the bits that are more stretched out.
(I don't know a lot about GR, so I might be off-base, here)
Quote from: Alondro on September 28, 2007, 01:00:24 PMTHAT'S the key to predicting where they will be in a given instant. What we perceive as totally random may yet have a predictable factor to it that we'll only discoever when we actually understand the basic structure of matter and energy
Bell's Theorem says that this is impossible.
Mmmm-hmm, just like going faster than the speed of sound was impossible until someone found out how to do it.
I don't lock myself in according to theorems that claim what is and is not possible when there's still so much utterly unknown about the very things they theorize.
No one knows what dark matter is, they have only unproven theory. No one knows what dark matter is, again only unproven theory. Those two things make of the majority of the universe's mass, and dark energy is repulsive and causing the universe's expansion to accelerate, making it very strange indeed. They likely have a great deal to do with everything.
I have a feeling that once we identify them solidly, a lot of light will be shed on the quirks of particle behavior.
And that's what I meant with the instruments. We don't have anything that has caught a trace of either dark matter or dark energy, and what gravity really is is still just a jumble of conflicting equations too. The machines that identify a particle for dark matter and the form of dark energy may discover many other things as well that no ever even thought existed.
We can only wait and see. Closing ones mind to possibility is not scientific, it's arrogance. A theorem is only as good as the knowledge that it's based upon. So long as any unknowns remain, you cannot be sure that there is no room for flexibility.
Quote from: superluser on September 29, 2007, 03:41:16 PM
Quote from: Alondro on September 28, 2007, 01:00:24 PMWe're talking about predictions here. We don't know what makes particles move the way they do.
Actually, we have a pretty good idea about what makes particles move. Particles give off fields, and if another particle is in that field, it will be attracted or repelled.
General relativity goes further and says that spacetime is just a manifold that is stretched out by these particles and that particles will tend to move toward the bits that are more stretched out.
(I don't know a lot about GR, so I might be off-base, here)
Ah, but that's the problem, you see. One can easily derive all of classical Newtonian mechanics from quantum mechanics simply by zeroing out terms that become insignificant beyond the nano scale. It is not possible (with our current understanding of the universe) to do the same with general relativity. Until we understand why these "fields" look similar but have completely different and incompatible mechanisms under the hood, it's difficult to claim that we understand why particles move...
I forget where the source is but I read that gravity is essentially useless in the atomic world. so if parallel universes are real and each atom is exhibiting a force on our galaxy in the form of dark matter. then it would essentially be more than possible to never find this as it's affect would be so minuscule that it would exhibit next to nothing on large bodies of mass yet there is still something in the "void" of space that keeps everything tethered from flying into the space between these parallel universes...
so when the universe's boundaries are torn and shredded as easily as say when mab goes to the faye kingdom that when the portal is finally closed, if at all it ever does, and say that this tear in the fabric of space continues to expand then it could suck everything either into mabs glen, causing a rather embarrassing view of the newly expanded house or it can explode violently as everything is sucked into the limbo of the space between other universes................ or it could just link this universe with the next one over and essentially merge 2 mushed universes into one which would lead to either the discovery of a range of things from new elements to new creatures or even say the land of dmfa or it could completely destroy the laws of physics we'd all fly apart at the speed of whatever and nothing would be left thats stable enough to sustain life... and acording to the thing-a-majig that says that anything thats a possibility has happened then somewhere some how this is all true and is about to happen right as you read this.
yaaaaaaa i made a theory does that mean that i could get paid to drive a Ferrari and destroy the universe as we know it?
Quote from: gh0st on September 29, 2007, 07:56:28 PM
I forget where the source is but I read that gravity is essentially useless in the atomic world. so if parallel universes are real and each atom is exhibiting a force on our galaxy in the form of dark matter. then it would essentially be more than possible to never find this as it's affect would be so minuscule that it would exhibit next to nothing on large bodies of mass yet there is still something in the "void" of space that keeps everything tethered from flying into the space between these parallel universes...
Just as the effects of electromagnetism and nuclear forces are insignificant at planetary distances, the effect of gravity inside an atom is negligible compared to other forces unless you're dealing with fields on the scale of a neutron star. However, if there's a lot of it, there will be an effect. Galaxies are, after all, just very large clusters of atoms. :3
You'll probably get credit for the first attempt to attribute cosmic dark matter observations to the actions of a fluffy-tailed purple kitty, though. :3
Quote from: Tezkat on September 29, 2007, 08:33:21 PM
Quote from: gh0st on September 29, 2007, 07:56:28 PM
I forget where the source is but I read that gravity is essentially useless in the atomic world. so if parallel universes are real and each atom is exhibiting a force on our galaxy in the form of dark matter. then it would essentially be more than possible to never find this as it's affect would be so minuscule that it would exhibit next to nothing on large bodies of mass yet there is still something in the "void" of space that keeps everything tethered from flying into the space between these parallel universes...
Just as the effects of electromagnetism and nuclear forces are insignificant at planetary distances, the effect of gravity inside an atom is negligible compared to other forces unless you're dealing with fields on the scale of a neutron star. However, if there's a lot of it, there will be an effect. Galaxies are, after all, just very large clusters of atoms. :3
You'll probably get credit for the first attempt to attribute cosmic dark matter observations to the actions of a fluffy-tailed purple kitty, though. :3
rather large quote anyways so in order to observe the dark matter to even prove it we'd either have to
a. go into the limbo inbetween the universes or
b. observe a large body of high density mass say a massive black whole at the center of the galaxie
i vote b because it's less likely to destroy the universe.
Quote from: Alondro on September 29, 2007, 04:28:41 PMThe machines that identify a particle for dark matter and the form of dark energy may discover many other things as well that no ever even thought existed.
Why am I suddenly reminded of Breen's speech to Freeman, during the final stages of Half Life 2?
"Doctor
Freeman, you really
shouldn't be out there. At the moment of synapse as I teleport this chamber will be bathed in deadly particles that have yet to be named by human science. Perhaps when I have the leisure to do the work myself, I'll name one of them after you; that way you won't be completely
forgotten. When the singularity collapses, I will be far away from here - in another universe, as a matter of fact. You
, on the other hand will be destroyed in every way it is possible to be
destroyed, and even in some which are essentially impossible!"
Quote from: Alondro on September 29, 2007, 04:28:41 PMMmmm-hmm, just like going faster than the speed of sound was impossible until someone found out how to do it.
Except we've tested just about every aspect of quantum mechanics experimentally. Bell's theorem, the uncertainty principle, Planck's law...
Quote from: Alondro on September 29, 2007, 04:28:41 PMAnd that's what I meant with the instruments. We don't have anything that has caught a trace of either dark matter or dark energy, and what gravity really is is still just a jumble of conflicting equations too.
We may already know (and have detected) what a lot of that dark matter is. A lot of the hot dark matter is likely to be neutrinos. Cold dark matter is a different story, but it may turn out to be something that we already know behaving in a different manner than we had expected.
Gravity pretty much has one equation, and it works pretty well for anything where we can detect gravity.
Quote from: Alondro on September 29, 2007, 04:28:41 PMWe can only wait and see. Closing ones mind to possibility is not scientific, it's arrogance.
It is also arrogance to say that tested theories are wrong in particular ways based on no evidence.
Quote from: Tezkat on September 29, 2007, 07:16:30 PMAh, but that's the problem, you see. One can easily derive all of classical Newtonian mechanics from quantum mechanics simply by zeroing out terms that become insignificant beyond the nano scale. It is not possible (with our current understanding of the universe) to do the same with general relativity.
Both QM and GR predict similar models for how and why particles move. It is unlikely that it will turn out that particles are simply moving in odd ways that neither theory predicts.
Quote from: gh0st on September 29, 2007, 07:56:28 PMI forget where the source is but I read that gravity is essentially useless in the atomic world.
What Tezkat said, but here's a bit more. Here are some facts and figures:
Charge on a proton: 1.6E-19 Coulomb
Mass of a proton: 1.7E-27 kg
Gravitational force between two protons one picometer apart (using Newton's theory of universal gravitation): -1.9E-40 N
Electromagnetic force between two protons one picometer apart (Coulomb's law): 2.3E-4 N
That's a undecillion times more powerful. (Luckily, I don't have to show the size of the strong force, since it can't act at distances that large)
Quote from: gh0st on September 29, 2007, 07:56:28 PMyaaaaaaa i made a theory does that mean that i could get paid to drive a Ferrari and destroy the universe as we know it?
On a physicist's salary?
Quote from: gh0st on September 30, 2007, 02:17:29 AMin order to observe the dark matter to even prove it we'd either have to
a. go into the limbo inbetween the universes or
b. observe a large body of high density mass say a massive black whole at the center of the galaxie
I'm not sure what your theory is here, so I'm having a hard time following.
I have, however, been quite close to the center of a Galaxie before. I thought those little dealies above the headlights were pretty nifty.
QuoteWell let's face it. It never really made any sense that objects that heavy should become lighter than air. But as with many pre-existing phenomena, we sort of worked backwards to come up with scientific justifications.
Now, the so-called ``Bernoulli Effect'' postulates that air currents, set into rotation beneath the wing's surface create a vacuum that produces lift and so forth. Now, that sounds like a load of crap, well, that's because it is. But we needed an explanation. We all feared that one day it would simply cease to function, and common sense would prevail, and the whole theory of flight would collapse.
And today, of course, that's exactly what's happened. Flight no longer works.
I should also point out that I have grave doubts about electricity.
Too many big words in here, and here I am without my science brain again. :mowsad :mowdizzyThings would be so much simpler if could all just agree that God makes all this so and that he will show us the answer when the time is right. :mowhappy
Personally, though, I like Hawking's proposed Black Hole/White Hole theory (was that him?), because it does technically keep the Laws of Mass and Energy still in effect. Also, I'm 17--give me a break. I may be a jeanyus, but that doesn't mean I know everything. :mowignore
.....Yet. *CLAW-HAND*
Gravity's equation only explains the effects of the force, not what it is.
No one knows what gravity is or how it causes the attraction of mass and energy.
Every year there's another article in "Discover" with someone trying to figure out what gravity is.
And though gravity itself may not effect actions between particles too much, it does have effects on atoms and smaller particles when it's intense, otherwise black holes would be spewing high-energy particles constantly from their centers as the particles merrily skipped through this force that meant nothing to them.
Quote from: Alondro on September 30, 2007, 09:01:50 PMNo one knows what gravity is[...]
...Um....yeah, we do. :rolleyes Gravity is the force of attraction between two bodies, whether it be me and the Earth's (inner core), or maybe Earth to its satellite (what's the technical name for Earth's moon again, other than "The Moon"?). Oh yeah, black holes are big gravity deathtraps, too, aren't they? Yeah, always forget about those.
P.S. I know what you mean, Alondro, I'm just being a smart aleck. ;)
Quote from: Alondro on September 30, 2007, 09:01:50 PMGravity's equation only explains the effects of the force, not what it is.
You said that it was ``just a jumble of conflicting equations,'' which is different from saying that we don't understand it.
Which I agree. We don't.
Quote from: Alondro on September 30, 2007, 09:01:50 PMEvery year there's another article in "Discover" with someone trying to figure out what gravity is.
Bob Guccione's rag?
Quote from: Alondro on September 30, 2007, 09:01:50 PMAnd though gravity itself may not effect actions between particles too much, it does have effects on atoms and smaller particles when it's intense
No one was saying otherwise.
arcalane:
my first theory is that we shouldn't mess with other universes... i mean come on i'd rather not be stuck in a time paradox forever or get blasted apart as another universes physics collide with ours.
my second theory is that in order to find what we are looking for (dark matter) we need to look at it from a different perspective! if you've ever noticed earth is amazingly in the right spot to view the gods eye nebulae perfectly or even most things that we learned about space probably couldn't be done if we were on a planet in a different solar system. but at the same time it can't be perfect so were slice open into limbo send a probe and close it just in time to save the universe.then we pick it up somehow and study the info...
Here's a better way of saying what my rapidly written rambles couldn't cover:
(This problem must be put in the proper context, however. In particular, contrary to the popular but erroneous claim that quantum mechanics and general relativity are fundamentally incompatible, one can in fact demonstrate that the structure of general relativity essentially follows inevitably from the quantum mechanics of interacting theoretical spin-2 massless particles (called gravitons). While there is no concrete proof of the existence of gravitons, all quantized theories of matter necessitate their existence. Supporting this theory is the observation that all other fundamental forces have one or more messenger particle, EXCEPT gravity, leading researchers to believe that at least one most likely does exist, which they have named, the graviton.
If the graviton turns out not to exist, it will render all work based on quantized macroscopic physics flawed, and destroy virtually all the accepted notions of a unified theory of physics since the 1970's, including String theory, Superstring theory, M-theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, and Quantum Gravity, among others.)
From Wiki.
This pretty much covers what I've been saying from all my reading. If the graviton doesn't exist, a whole lot of stuff goes right out the window. They're getting pretty desperate to find it.
It's what I've been trying to express about gravity. The truth of what it actually is could revolutionize a good deal of modern physics, or prove alot of theories correct. We won't know until we understand gravity.
EDIT: Now this is impressive: In June 2007, Ashton Bradley's team at the Australian Research Council Center of Excellence for Quantum Atom Optics in Brisbane, Australia, proposed a technique that avoids quantum entanglement entirely. "We're talking about a beam of about 5000 particles disappearing from one place and appearing somewhere else", says Bradley. "We feel that our scheme is closer in spirit to the original fictional concept", he adds. While the technique can also transmit quantum information in the beam, the technique itself does not rely on the quantum properties of particles, so the team have dubbed the new method "classical teleportation". John Close, an expert on atomic laser physics at the Australian National University in Canberra, is impressed. "Using entangled atomic states looks pretty tough in comparison." Close wants to set up an experiment to test the system, but estimates it will take at least four years.
Cool. If that actually works, it opens up a whole lot of very interesting possibilities.
EDIT #2: Ack! Even more reason why understanding gravity is so important: A definite theoretical decision on the status of the chronology protection conjecture would require a full theory of quantum gravity as opposed to the semiclassical arguments that have been mainly used to support it (there are also some arguments from string theory which seem to support chronology protection, but string theory is not yet a complete theory of quantum gravity). Experimental observation of closed timelike curves would of course demonstrate this conjecture to be false, but short of that, if physicists had a theory of quantum gravity whose predictions had been well-confirmed in other areas, this would give them a significant degree of confidence in the theory's predictions about the possibility or impossibility of time travel.
So, gravity is pretty much the axis for proving or disproving a whole bunch of theories. :3
Quote from: Alondro on October 01, 2007, 11:46:50 AMIn particular, contrary to the popular but erroneous claim that quantum mechanics and general relativity are fundamentally incompatible, one can in fact demonstrate that the structure of general relativity essentially follows inevitably from the quantum mechanics
How do you explain simultaneity?
Quote from: superluser on October 02, 2007, 01:27:17 AM
Quote from: Alondro on October 01, 2007, 11:46:50 AMIn particular, contrary to the popular but erroneous claim that quantum mechanics and general relativity are fundamentally incompatible, one can in fact demonstrate that the structure of general relativity essentially follows inevitably from the quantum mechanics
How do you explain simultaneity?
I don't know! I was quoting from someone! Arg, I studied biology in college, I can't learn all of quantum theory in a day!
I spent half of yesterday trying to catch up to all the new theory... my head hurts. :c
Studies also suggest that squirrels may one day conquer the world...
*cough*
On a more serious note... gotta really wonder if the funding for this useless information actually goes to more secretive things and that the so called "scientists" that pop up in these studies just pull things out of their butt that can be figured out for almost no budget... that or they are cheating their funders.
shun the non-believer
you do have a point most scientists do get paid for bogus reasons such as womens breasts actually bounce more while jogging than previously thought and men enjoy sex more than women i mean come on is that really a study? but at the same time they are calling the force thats keeping us on earth gravity at the moment so I'm going to support it in hopes that in the future i don't do something horribly wrong
Quote from: gh0st on October 02, 2007, 04:06:39 PM
shun the non-believer
shun! shuuuun! it's a magical leopluridon!
Quote from: gh0st on October 02, 2007, 04:06:39 PM
you do have a point most scientists do get paid for bogus reasons such as womens breasts actually bounce more while jogging than previously thought and men enjoy sex more than women i mean come on is that really a study? but at the same time they are calling the force thats keeping us on earth gravity at the moment so I'm going to support it in hopes that in the future i don't do something horribly wrong
In thier relevant fields, these can be very important things. (in the first, it could contribute to, say, more comfortable bra design) or an off shoot of other research (in the second, perhaps it was discovered while setting a base line for trying to find a way to stimulate a greater pleasure response durring coitus? sex sells, after all!)
In either case, it gives some poor scientists an excuse to (scientifically)oogle bouncing breasts. scientists need love too. :<
Quote from: Kuari on October 02, 2007, 02:59:32 PM
Studies also suggest that squirrels may one day conquer the world...
*cough*
On a more serious note... gotta really wonder if the funding for this useless information actually goes to more secretive things and that the so called "scientists" that pop up in these studies just pull things out of their butt that can be figured out for almost no budget... that or they are cheating their funders.
You don't need grant money to sit on your ass all day pondering the nature of the universe. Tenure will do fine. :3
Theoretical physics only gets expensive when you need to test your theories in the real world. And the materials, equipment, and manpower needed to... say... accelerate particles near the speed of light can be very, very expensive indeed.
What's up with all the conspiracy theory stuff, anyway? People fund research because they expect an overall return on their investments. If they consider their money well spent, why complain? "Scientists" who screw those people over tend to discover a lack of money flowing their way in the future...
Quote from: Tezkat on October 02, 2007, 08:11:54 PM
Theoretical physics only gets expensive when you need to test your theories in the real world. And the materials, equipment, and manpower needed to... say... accelerate particles near the speed of light can be very, very expensive indeed.
*Charles nah* All they have to do is hold onto the particles and run really really fast. :3
Quote from: Alondro on October 02, 2007, 10:03:25 PM
*Charles nah* All they have to do is hold onto the particles and run really really fast. :3
But people who can run that fast charge exorbitant fees, so it's still expensive. :mowtongue
Quote from: Tezkat on October 02, 2007, 08:11:54 PM
Quote from: Kuari on October 02, 2007, 02:59:32 PM
Studies also suggest that squirrels may one day conquer the world...
*cough*
On a more serious note... gotta really wonder if the funding for this useless information actually goes to more secretive things and that the so called "scientists" that pop up in these studies just pull things out of their butt that can be figured out for almost no budget... that or they are cheating their funders.
You don't need grant money to sit on your ass all day pondering the nature of the universe. Tenure will do fine. :3
Theoretical physics only gets expensive when you need to test your theories in the real world. And the materials, equipment, and manpower needed to... say... accelerate particles near the speed of light can be very, very expensive indeed.
What's up with all the conspiracy theory stuff, anyway? People fund research because they expect an overall return on their investments. If they consider their money well spent, why complain? "Scientists" who screw those people over tend to discover a lack of money flowing their way in the future...
Why the conspiracy theories from me? Well it's obvious that the government keeps a lot of secrets... Area 51 being the worst kept though by now, nothing is there. It's become too well known.. I just think there is more to these useless studies when they're government funded then we're told. A majority of the people in the country know they're useless, so obvious by now the government must know, they just have a reason they're not going to tell us.
Awww, now you are all just being silly... come on, pretend you know what you are talking about peeps.
Quote from: Kuari link=topic=3418.msg149258#msg149258I just think there is more to these useless studies when they're government funded then we're told. A majority of the people in the country know they're useless, so obvious by now the government must know, they just have a reason they're not going to tell us.
Well, If *I* ran a company which did studies for millions for the government, wouldn't I try my best to get lots of useless studies done?
-RobbieThe1st
Quote from: RobbieThe1st on October 03, 2007, 12:57:42 AM
Quote from: Kuari link=topic=3418.msg149258#msg149258I just think there is more to these useless studies when they're government funded then we're told. A majority of the people in the country know they're useless, so obvious by now the government must know, they just have a reason they're not going to tell us.
Well, If *I* ran a company which did studies for millions for the government, wouldn't I try my best to get lots of useless studies done?
-RobbieThe1st
The question is, why would the government continue paying for it throughout all the useless garbage
Quote from: Kuari on October 03, 2007, 01:03:14 AM
Quote from: RobbieThe1st on October 03, 2007, 12:57:42 AM
Quote from: Kuari link=topic=3418.msg149258#msg149258I just think there is more to these useless studies when they're government funded then we're told. A majority of the people in the country know they're useless, so obvious by now the government must know, they just have a reason they're not going to tell us.
Well, If *I* ran a company which did studies for millions for the government, wouldn't I try my best to get lots of useless studies done?
-RobbieThe1st
The question is, why would the government continue paying for it throughout all the useless garbage
Can you, by chance, name a few of these government funded useless studies?
A lot of studies are done by universities, priveate colleges, institutions whos funding is not primarily government based. Now, I will admit, lots of useless drek comes out of congress and the whitehouse, but the government generally grants money for research in fields that will benifit either the government or the country (or, by the act of funding, thier re-election)
Stem cell research
Rocketry
Nuclear power
The Internet
I challenge you to tell me you don't use atleast one of the above to your benefit on a regular basis.
BTW, 'useless' studies I'd like to see government funded: anything done as a training exercise for the next generation of american scientists, or to help americans in general learn to think in a more scientific and critical manner.
Useless studies: Anything to do with sports or Hollywood. :P
Quote from: Reese Tora on October 03, 2007, 02:49:58 AM
Quote from: Kuari on October 03, 2007, 01:03:14 AM
Quote from: RobbieThe1st on October 03, 2007, 12:57:42 AM
Quote from: Kuari link=topic=3418.msg149258#msg149258I just think there is more to these useless studies when they're government funded then we're told. A majority of the people in the country know they're useless, so obvious by now the government must know, they just have a reason they're not going to tell us.
Well, If *I* ran a company which did studies for millions for the government, wouldn't I try my best to get lots of useless studies done?
-RobbieThe1st
The question is, why would the government continue paying for it throughout all the useless garbage
Can you, by chance, name a few of these government funded useless studies?
A lot of studies are done by universities, priveate colleges, institutions whos funding is not primarily government based. Now, I will admit, lots of useless drek comes out of congress and the whitehouse, but the government generally grants money for research in fields that will benifit either the government or the country (or, by the act of funding, thier re-election)
Stem cell research
Rocketry
Nuclear power
The Internet
I challenge you to tell me you don't use atleast one of the above to your benefit on a regular basis.
BTW, 'useless' studies I'd like to see government funded: anything done as a training exercise for the next generation of american scientists, or to help americans in general learn to think in a more scientific and critical manner.
You know, now I remember why the government pays for these studies thanks to you... it's an indirect effect from the government funding many colleges (yes, some government money goes to colleges). In any case, I can understand some studies for practice, but it should at least be a useful piece of information... not something like "Accidents occur the most at home" or "The bathroom is the most dangerous room of your house"
Well gee... as if these weren't duh moments.
Well, scientists kinda get obsessed with quantifiable data, so even when something is common sense, one of them simply must perform a study.
There was a study about the longest lasting bubble gum, I recall. Then there was the one which found that depressed people were the most likely to commit suicide. No way! :U
Quote from: Alondro on October 03, 2007, 09:26:08 PM
Well, scientists kinda get obsessed with quantifiable data, so even when something is common sense, one of them simply must perform a study.
There was a study about the longest lasting bubble gum, I recall. Then there was the one which found that depressed people were the most likely to commit suicide. No way! :U
....weren't scientists supposed to be smart?
My favorite was the study of the effects of alcohol on 70,000 nurses.
I don't know what it proved, except that you can get people to pay you to watch 70,000 drunk nurses.
*just announced today!* The formation of knots is revealed! :U
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071004/sc_livescience/thescienceofknotsunraveled
The end of a string goes through loops! Astounding! :B
You know what's even more astounding? The fact that air actually exists, even though we can't see it with the unaided eye. Like God.
Air only exists because you believe in it. If you stop believing, you die. :<
Quote from: BillBuckner on October 06, 2007, 07:32:07 AM
Air only exists because you believe in it. If you stop believing, you die. :<
We must conduct a study to ascertain whether or not this phenomenon occurs. I suspect it will cost around $1,000,000,000.
Now to plan for my escape to Costa Rica once I have the money. >:3
Quote from: BillBuckner on October 06, 2007, 07:32:07 AMAir only exists because you believe in it. If you stop believing, you die. :<
:O NO WAI!! That...it can't be true!! ...Can it? :erk Hmmm....*debates whether or not he should ask his local Catholic Church to test this theory* ...Mm, no, I can't, I've even already been Confirmed...with a Catholic sponsor who's never been Confirmed. :pope
Quote from: Alondro on October 06, 2007, 09:57:47 AMWe must conduct a study to ascertain whether or not this phenomenon occurs. I suspect it will cost around $1,000,000,000.
Now to plan for my escape to Costa Rica once I have the money. >:3
COOO-STAAA RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIII~I~I~IICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! (http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0726656720071007?sp=true) ...sounds like a good place to live, to me. :3