A Revolution in Physics Coming?

a reply to: DJW001

"One of the beauties of science is that, unlike religion and superstition, it changes based on new observations."

Before Science and the idea of "testing" ideas/superstitions, there was Philosophy. Like how the Ancient Greeks thought the basis of everything was water, fire, earth and air. This was deduced from simple Observation - still a cornerstone of testable science and forming hypotheses.

www.hometrainingtools.com...
THE ANCIENT BELIEF IN THE "FOUR ELEMENTS"
"The idea that these four elements - earth, water, air, and fire - made up all matter was the cornerstone of philosophy, science, and medicine for two thousand years. The elements were "pure" but could not be found in that state on earth.

"Every visible thing was made up of some combination of earth, water, air, and fire. The four elements were even used to described the four temperaments a person could have, and Hippocrates used the four elements to describe the four "humors" found in the body. These theories stated that the temperaments and humors needed to be in balance with each other in order for a person to be well both mentally and physically.

"While we do know now that these previous theories are false, in a way the four elements do align with the four states of matter that modern science has agreed on: solid (earth), liquid (water), gas (air), and plasma (fire)."

(So even "wrong" science can spur people on to find the "right" scientific explanation. And God is there all the time, tending to his Intelligent/Advanced Being with brains that need stretching. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries came from "God-zapping" - whether an epiphany, startling dream, or just turning a schematic upside down.)

a reply to: GetHyped

Did someone piss in your Wheaties this morning, dear ?

... or are you always this pleasant with your social exchanges ?

Do you have a link to the scientific definition of a comet ? a reply to: DJW001

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Try this.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

"That's the problem, we can only theorize about the building blocks of the universe because we have no way of detecting them. There has to be a unifying force, the chaos of quantum mechanics doesn't get along with the order of relativity. That's why the Higgs field is so important to researchers because it could unite chaos and order."

Very well put! As I stated earlier, science needs to drive the technology for better equipment in order to test new theories. And start making that zia-zag path toward a final, reproducible Truth.

Although, based solely on social observation, I don't know if we'll ever find "a unifying force between chaos and order."

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Isn't there always a smaller particle?

Sure, but it's got to stop somewhere. There has to be a fundamental building block that we can't see or are aware of, that's what drives modern physicists.

It's amazing what a person can find for a description of comets . I guess it depends on what camp of scientist you venture into to learn about things a reply to: DJW001 ETA and then this one that mentions what the scientists have used to describe comets

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

"Isn't there always a smaller particle?"

"Sure, but it's got to stop somewhere. There has to be a fundamental building block that we can't see or are aware of, that's what drives modern physicists."

What if the very smallest, invisible "building block" is not a particle - but the force of a thought? Quantum Entanglement has proven that electrons (or their trajectory) can be changed by simple human observation.

a reply to: MKMoniker

Your response is exactly the problem.


It has to stop.


Well no it doesn't, it doesn't have to stop, what happens is your perspective changes.

a reply to: CranialSponge

It's always rather amusing hearing people make judgments about scientists when it's quite clear they've never spoken to an actual scientist in their life nor do they have half a clue as to they actually go about their scientific research.

a reply to: onequestion

I don't see anything wrong with their thought process. It seems like you are trying to censor them.

a reply to: Voyaging

"I don't see anything wrong with their thought process. It seems like you are trying to censor them."

THANK YOU!

a reply to: GetHyped

It's always rather amusing hearing people make judgments about scientists when it's quite clear they've never spoken to an actual scientist in their life nor do they have half a clue as to they actually go about their scientific research.

It's also rather amusing how people somehow manage to delude themselves into thinking that they've correctly comprehended the overall context of something, of which they actually haven't.

This delusion is derived by the blinders they have on due to their automatic defensive position blinding their logical reasoning mechanisms.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: GetHyped

It's always rather amusing hearing people make judgments about scientists when it's quite clear they've never spoken to an actual scientist in their life nor do they have half a clue as to they actually go about their scientific research.

It's also rather amusing how people somehow manage to delude themselves into thinking that they've correctly comprehended the overall context of something, of which they actually haven't.

This delusion is derived by the blinders they have on due to their automatic defensive position blinding their logical reasoning mechanisms.

Winner.

a reply to: onequestion

Isn't there always a smaller particle?

So far, nothing smaller than a quark or boson has been observed.

EDIT: Not to say there couldn't be smaller particles, there very well could, but science hasn't developed the tools to find them yet.

a reply to: MKMoniker

The problem is, we seem to be reaching the physical limits of the fundamental blocks of knowledge we have built up our entire idea of reality about.

We now know the rules that govern the different layers of the universe (Sub-atomic through to classical Newtonian/General Relativity) and we understand the sub-fields of these 'bandwidths' incredibly well.

When we look at any topic on the small-scale, from astronomy through to cellular biology, we can confidently answer all meaningful questions within that context.

What we've realised more and more so over the last few decades, is that when we attempt to 'zoom out' and view a few of our pieces in synergy, our understanding of them can fall apart.

Take gravity for example - as an alone fundamental we felt we cracked it years ago. The truth is, when we understood gravity in the context of the other fundamental forces, it became nonsensical for gravity to be so weak and therefore we have had to start proposing ridiculous ideas such as 'leakages' from parallel universes.

We cannot explain how all of the universe's individual pieces simueltaneously came together in the form we actually perceive, because the way we have individually described the origins and effects of these jigsaw pieces can ultimately be contradictory.

It returns to a simple paradox - the chicken or the egg? The plant or the seed?

You realise you need an additional process or rule, that covers both the chicken and the egg such that to allow them to individually yet simultaneously form. Otherwise our understanding of either the egg, or the chicken, falls apart.

Likewise, the physicist mentions how the energy density of the space vacuum should, by understanding, cause one effect, yet we perceive a completely different result, which can also be scientifically explained, meaning we need a common rule linking both of those sub-rules allowing them to, once again, individually yet simultaneously form.

Now, when you start observing this all over the scientific fields, it becomes quite uncomfortable. I say this from personal experience as someone who's spent a lot of time studying the physical sciences, both academically and at my own leisure.

It means you have to keep increasing the complexity of the universe by the virtue of our explanation (which is the opposite goal of the standard model lol) and that also means we have to start considering potentially untestable effects on the universe and how to rationalise this (i.e. parallel universes).

Or, it means you have to introduce intelligence. The rules were planned to work in conjunction like the way we have observed it, and hence a form of conscious design was prevalent with the inception of the universe.

Neither of those two options is appealing to a scientist lol. It's a hard time to pursue the good art, for there are no clear leads as to what the next 'step' is.

The truth is, we still don't actually understand the implications of quantum mechanics let alone how all the rules have worked in tandem to produce apparently contradictory effects.

Of course, we will rise to the occasion provided we are not dead in the next 10,000 years.

However, isn't it interesting, that as humans, we can appreciate the meta-physical 'design' of the universe, and actually decipher it? Now, that's a beautiful and timeless fact.

originally posted by: Miccey
Its said you cannot CREATE or DESTROY energy...
What if you CAN?!?!?

Energy and matter are interchangeable. Fire two gamma rays at the same point in space, and there's a chance a couple of virtual particles will get snagged and turn into an electron and positron.

Apply fusion to atoms like Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium and the change in mass is converted into energy.

In other cases, friction gets turned into heat.

The question is, can you pull energy out of a space-time vacuum? In theory there are all the virtual particles that are appearing and disappearing. They may not actually be created and destroyed but simply going somewhere else and coming back again.

Most "science" is modern day snake oil IMO. They give you scientific "facts" then a few years down the line its all debunked as being wrong and its replaced by new scientific "facts".

Its all just guesswork, nothing "scientific" about it at all.

a reply to: CranialSponge

The pattern of rampant anti-intellectualism on this forum is easy to spot. So many people seem to know so much more than those silly scientists from the comfort of their Dunning-Kruger Lazy Boy (tm).

a reply to: jimwise68

...and this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Changing a position when new evidence comes in is a good thing. That's how science works.

The irony of communicating such daft statements over technology derived directly from supposed snake oil appears to be lost.