It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GRT and QM reconciled in new theory, Gravitons exist, are dark matter and more...

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
www.sciencedaily.com...

Well I guess that's that then.

 



Starting a New Thread?...Look Here First

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites
please post one or two paragraphs,
a link to the entire story,
AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item,
as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.





edit on Fri Mar 6 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)


by that's that i meant that QM and GRT are reconciled (and Gravitons exist) not that this was the final theory of everything. both of those things GRT->QM and Gravitons existance are the premiere topics/questions of the last (nearly a) century. and it looks like even though these gravitons are not the standard model type we were looking for it looks like you can still finesse these to provide antigravity effects as well as gravity effects.
edit on 6-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)


EDIT: One other thing i meant to bring up was the use of the term dark sector. did you see that? when cosmologists refer to sectors it means something special. for another example see mirror sector WRT to neutrons. essentially you can treat these sort of as a hidden dimension of the universe almost in the sense meant when people talk about other dimensions in space.

so did they go all the way there like the mirror neutron articles from a few years ago did?
edit on 6-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I hope someone can find the resonant frequency of gravity. I think that will be the key FTL travel.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Not really.

Science always seeks a new level of complexity, peeling away the layers of existence like the skin upon skin of an onion. This theory is probably great (I would love to read it, but the article is a heavily truncated document, which leaves many questions unanswered), but give it a hundred years at most, and I would be very surprised if something even more astounding has not come along by then.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I doubt that anybody would state: "That's it. No more searching. Let's retire to the pub."



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Not really.

Science always seeks a new level of complexity, peeling away the layers of existence like the skin upon skin of an onion. This theory is probably great (I would love to read it, but the article is a heavily truncated document, which leaves many questions unanswered), but give it a hundred years at most, and I would be very surprised if something even more astounding has not come along by then.


by that's that i meant that QM and GRT are reconciled (and Gravitons exist) not that this was the final theory of everything. both of those things GRT->QM and Gravitons existance are the premiere topics/questions of the last (nearly a) century. and it looks like even though these gravitons are not the standard model type we were looking for it looks like you can still finesse these to provide antigravity effects as well as gravity effects.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Can someone explain the ramifications of this in laymans terms to a dumb monkey?.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
so if the space between your feet and the ground expands... what does that look like? what does it emulate?



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Can someone explain the ramifications of this in laymans terms to a dumb monkey?.
well it means we have something to test for to find dark matter, dark energy, and gravitons. if we can manipulate these new species of gravitons provided we verify their existance first we control gravity like we now do electricity. along with flying cars, synthesized gravity in spaceships and space stations and in the floors of colonies on planets with little gravity we might be able to make tractor beams or even make or move planets or stars. if you really want to take the possibilities to extremes. we would jump from being barely a type one civilization to a type three and skip right over type 2.
edit on 6-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Can someone explain the ramifications of this in laymans terms to a dumb monkey?.


It's published in a low quality journal and tries to solve too many things. Odds are that there is something wrong with it.

take a look here. It's not my field but it looks like simplistic nonsense.

www.scirp.org...



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
here is a better one: www.academia.edu...



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
one other thing i meant to bring up was the use of the term dark sector. did you see that? when cosmologists refer to sectors it means something special. for another example see mirror sector WRT to neutrons. essentially you can treat these sort of as a hidden dimension of the universe almost in the sense meant when people talk about other dimensions in space.

so did they go all the way there like the mirror neutron articles from a few years ago did?
edit on 6-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   
The actual paper can be found here, but it's behind a paywall. I am quite curious, OP, what you are basing your statements about other dimensions and anti-gravity on, as the brief articles about this and the abstract of the paper itself do not even hint at such things. One has to wonder if you have any idea what this is actually discussing...
edit on 3/7/2015 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
The actual paper can be found here, but it's behind a paywall. I am quite curious, OP, what you are basing your statements about other dimensions and anti-gravity on, as the brief articles about this and the abstract of the paper itself do not even hint at such things. One has to wonder if you have any idea what this is actually discussing...
actually both references are in the original article briefly. i merely elaborated on them and added my own thoughts.

antigravity is in the bit where they speak of a high energy graviton releasing a "smaller" graviton producing space/time expansion. and my comment about what does it look like if that happens in the space between your feet and the ground.

thats an antigravity effect.

as to dark sector i read several articles yesterday and it is possible i conflated this article with another article. i will check.

nope. i conflated nothing. look at the title of the article i linked to. it actually says:


Black holes and dark sector explained by quantum gravity


that's the title. and you say you wonder if read the article myself? get out of that glass house oh ye inaccurate thrower of stones!
edit on 7-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   
That article assumes GR is a fact rather than just a hypothesis and imo flawed.
a reply to: stormbringer1701



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
That article assumes GR is a fact rather than just a hypothesis and imo flawed.
a reply to: stormbringer1701

GRT no matter how much a pain in the butt has never failed a single test. not once in thousands of tests for over a hundred years. the only sense left in which GR can fail is the way Newton does when it is asked to describe situations of extreme circumstances requiring GR. There is a further extreme where GR does not work. and that is where the new theory will come from. but GR will never be disproven. It's far too late for that.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Whats the point of these thousands of tests over more than hundred years, if the results of these tests are interpreted to suit GR? In time GR will be discarded imo.
a reply to: stormbringer1701



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

GR makes predictions. Those predictions are tested by experiment. The results are what GR predicted. No interpretation needed, just cold, hard data.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Whats the point of these thousands of tests over more than hundred years, if the results of these tests are interpreted to suit GR? In time GR will be discarded imo.
a reply to: stormbringer1701

We never discarded Newton. Why would we discard GR when QG comes along? You know my original post is largely some researcher's hypothesis about QG? The reason it can be taken seriously is that it makes testable predictions just like GR did. It's either right and the predicted phenomenon will be observed in nature or in the lab or it's wrong and the observations will not match the predictions. That is how science works.

If the researcher is right though it means a huge leap in our technology that would warm the heart of any UFO buff.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Nochzwei

GR makes predictions. Those predictions are tested by experiment. The results are what GR predicted. No interpretation needed, just cold, hard data.
Lol. Of course the results need interpretation and if they are interpreted to suit the predictions, then we are back to square one imo.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

That's not how experimentally testable predictions work. There's lots of experimental evidence for GR, whether you deny it or not. It's quite silly that we're even having this conversation.

Edit: better yet, pick an example from this list whose evidence was "reinterpreted" to fit GR and explain what the "correct" interpretation is and why:

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 9-3-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join