Physical Inquiries

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I was going to postpone making this thread until I had time to sort out and make my questions more concise and organized, but oh well.

I also wasn't sure if this should be in the S&T forum, or the philosophy board. Wherever it fits, Mods.

I will just copy the questions I had from the other thread here regarding Nassim Haramein:

1. Nature abhors a vacuum. Demonstrations of vacuum density/ZPE/uncertainty show there is no such thing as a vacuum. What is 'space' in its most generic term, if there is no 'separation' or 'vacuum' between 'things' or 'particles' etc.?

2. Matter is made of space-time. Therefore, nothing exists 'inside' or 'on top of' or 'in' space-time. There is levels of organization of space-time. If an atom is space-time, what is a molecule? If a molecule is space-time, what are humans? If humans are space-time, what is the earth? etc.

3. How do gravitational waves propagate? What are the properties of space-time which allow this?

4. What is gravity? Is it emergent or a priori?

5. How does a homing pigeon find its way home? random?

6. How/Why does experienced 'space' and 'matter' exhibit self-similarity and recursive geometry?

7. What existed before the 'big bang'? What 'banged'? From whence came motion?

8. Is it possible that we(everything) are traveling at the speed of light already, and we just cannot tell?

9. Why is the universe's expansion accelerating?

10. What is 'dark energy'?

11. What is 'anti-matter'? If 'anti-matter' exists, does it compromise space-time as we know it?

12. What is inside a black hole? Is it possible for an observer in space-time to ever know?

13. Do you think a type of quantum gravity will end up replacing the mysterious 'strong force'?

14. Where do we go once we have unified SF with QG, and the WF with EM?

15. Does the expansion of space exert a force of any kind?

16. Since we know that 'space' has a tangible density, and has energy, does the expansion of space violate conservation laws unless we bring in exotic brane theory, dark energy theory, parallel universe theory, etc.?


The discussion is aimed at pointing out any fallacies in my presuppositions, and investigating in general these popular and controversial topics in physics.

If it is too broad, compromises can be made(like focusing on a specific few).

Also, if you have another specific question in any of these areas, and wish to discuss it feel free, etc.

And, since I came up with the questions in a haphazard mess, simply ask for any clarifications, etc.





posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 



Observer effect and uncertainty principle don't compromise observations. Inflation and dark energy aren't anomalies to the prevailing paradigm, not at all. Expansion isn't a force. In fact, expansion doesn't even require a force.

These aren't telltale signs of a failing paradigm, they're telltale signs that you haven't come to grips with these things conceptually. They're really worth exploring a bit more before you dismiss them.


Rather, the UP and OE state the nature of the system. But our observations are limited due to inherent uncertainty. Correct or no?


So in quantum mechanics, there can be no states that describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum.


Will we never be able to measure them? Or are we looking at it wrong? Is the problem the quantum state, or our method of observing?

---

Space-time can expand w/o force and w/o exerting force on mass? What is the difference between that space-time, and matter? Is the space-time between 'nucleus' and 'electron' expanding also, or is it just intergalactic space-time?

I can perfectly conceive of these concepts, but I don't see how they aren't anomalous.

If space-time is expanding, is there nothing it is expanding into? In other words, is there an 'edge' to the universe?

Be careful with that one, because if there is an edge(and the universe isn't infinite) what lies beyond that 'edge'?

Does there have to be a place(space?) for something to expand into?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs

Thanks for separating these from the Haramein thread to keep that one on topic. I'll try to tackle 5-15 now, I may tackle others later if I get more time:

5. How does a homing pigeon find its way home? random?
This is really a Google type question, here's the Wiki that's pretty self explanatory. en.wikipedia.org... My take is we know some things about it, but not everything, and not with 100% certainty.


6. How/Why does experienced 'space' and 'matter' exhibit self-similarity and recursive geometry?
Have you got a source from someone besides a new-ager describing the mystery or question further? It's an overly broad, unspecific and somewhat ambiguous question.


7. What existed before the 'big bang'? What 'banged'? From whence came motion?
I've read theories, but nobody even knows for sure exactly what happened DURING the big bang, as inflation theory is sort of a SWAG at it. I've read theories about what happened before the big bang but to me it's like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Both are unknowable for now at least.


8. Is it possible that we(everything) are traveling at the speed of light already, and we just cannot tell?
C'mon, you know that every experiment we've run in particle accelerators confirms relativistic mass increase such that we can't get things to travel at the speed of light since the energy would be infinite. I know, Haramein might say "We do have infinite energy" but there's no evidence for this.


9. Why is the universe's expansion accelerating? 10. What is 'dark energy'?
Related questions. It's a mystery.


11. What is 'anti-matter'? If 'anti-matter' exists, does it compromise space-time as we know it?
Another search engine type question, en.wikipedia.org...


12. What is inside a black hole? Is it possible for an observer in space-time to ever know?
I don't know and based on my current understanding, I don't think so. The No-hair theorem en.wikipedia.org... talks about why the factors that can be externally observed may be independent of what's inside, or what has fallen inside.


The no-hair theorem postulates that all black hole solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations of gravitation and electromagnetism in general relativity can be completely characterized by only three externally observable classical parameters: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. All other information (for which "hair" is a metaphor) about the matter which formed a black hole or is falling into it, "disappears" behind the black-hole event horizon and is therefore permanently inaccessible to external observers
That sounds right to me.


13. Do you think a type of quantum gravity will end up replacing the mysterious 'strong force'?
14. Where do we go once we have unified SF with QG, and the WF with EM?
I have no idea. I've read lots of theories. But Bobathon posted this clip in the other thread about how science works, this is how I feel about that question:

The Key to Science


Haramein needs to watch that about 1000 times until it sinks in, along with possibly some string theorists too!
It might not hurt you to watch it either. But it tells us how questions like that are answered...guess...computation...and most importantly, evidence-the key to science.


15. Does the expansion of space exert a force of any kind?
Prior to 1998 and the discovery of the "dark energy" effect, we didn't think so and thought the expansion was just leftover momentum from the big bang (I think), but after discovering dark energy there must be some kind of force involved to cause acceleration because acceleration doesn't happen without a force.

I hope that helps.
edit on 6-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


i have some questions for you
1. if the big bang made the universe out of nothing does that mean there is energy in between things?
2.space is not a vacum what is the temperature outside our heliosphere and out side our galaxy?
3.when we discovered "local fluff" we found a 6000 degree plasma with unexpected magnetic properties "that resists compresion" it seams plasma energy may be the "new vacum"
4.if the medium density can be expanded (aera) without density loss what is medium density?

there are alot of unanswered questions

xploder



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


i have posted a series of post answering all your questions from a theretical point of veiw
they are alternate theretical explinations of the questions you have asked
they can be found on my threads page of my profile
i can list them here if you wish
other wise you will be studying physics for some time to understand the standard models we use

xploder



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon
 

...the UP and OE state the nature of the system. But our observations are limited due to inherent uncertainty. Correct or no?

Yes. If we try to observe a 'property' such as the 'position' of a particle, we'll meet with limited success. The reason is that 'position' isn't truly a property of a particle. The system has a 'state' (or a 'nature', as you say), but that state doesn't include a position. When we try to locate something, intuition says we're just looking to see where it is. Quantum theory tells us that there's no 'where it is' to look for.

What we do when we try to locate something is perform some operation on the state of the system, and get a result. The result will be a measurement of position, but there will be uncertainty in it because 'position' isn't something inherent to the particle... what we think of as a 'property' is really just the result of a measurement operation.

The particle has a state, and the state contains a whole load of information about the different probabilities of getting various results when we take a measurement.

The important thing is that the quantum state is well-defined and inherent to the particle... and if we can produce enough identical particles and take large numbers of measurements, we can figure out virtually anything we need to know about what that state is.

Uncertainty is an unfortunate word, really. Quantum physicists can figure out virtually everything about a quantum system if they can design the right experiments. Then they will know the precise probabilities of every possible measurement that can be made on the system. The only thing they'll never know is what any individual measurement will give.




So in quantum mechanics, there can be no states that describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum.


Will we never be able to measure them? Or are we looking at it wrong? Is the problem the quantum state, or our method of observing?


They're not measurable because they're not inherent properties of the particle. We can figure out the details of the quantum state (the wavefunction), and use that to figure out the precise probabilities of getting any result from any measurement. But the important thing is that making a measurement means performing an operation on the system, and that changes its state.

Operations that give very precise values of momentum will change the state so as to smear it out over a larger range of positions. And vice versa.

If you see these things (position, momentum, etc.) as properties that a particle has, then you're right, we're limited in how much we can measure them. And if you measure any property of a particle, it always ends up being probabilistic. There's no way around that... like getting good at poker, the best you can do is figure out the precise nature of the system, calculate all the probabilities, and engineer things so that in the long run they'll work in your favour. (Except unlike poker, this works!)

You probably know much of what I've said already, but it's always worth some careful thought. I don't know if any of that will cause any pennies to drop... but I hope it's helpful. That's how I understand it, anyway.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Space-time can expand w/o force and w/o exerting force on mass?
Definitely. I'm not saying it does... but it can. It can even expand with an inward force! Or it can expand with an outward force. If the expansion is accelerating, which it seems to be, then there must be an outward force, or something else playing the role of an outward force.


What is the difference between that space-time, and matter? Is the space-time between 'nucleus' and 'electron' expanding also, or is it just intergalactic space-time?

The forces holding nuclei and atoms and planets and even galaxies together are much too strong to allow the spaces between things to expand within them.

Imagine a loaf of bread expanding in an oven with a penny sitting on the top of it, and a patch of flour next to the penny. As the bread expands, the patch of flour expands with it because the particles are not bound together by anything else. The penny doesn't expand. Think of our galaxy as like the penny - it's strong enough to hold together despite the expansion of space.

If we couldn't see anything past the reaches of our little galaxy, we'd never know anything about the expansion of the universe.



If space-time is expanding, is there nothing it is expanding into? In other words, is there an 'edge' to the universe?

Be careful with that one, because if there is an edge(and the universe isn't infinite) what lies beyond that 'edge'?

Does there have to be a place(space?) for something to expand into?

There doesn't have to be a space for space to expand into. If space expands, there's more space.

It's hard to imagine, because we don't experience space expanding – when we think of something expanding, we automatically see it expanding into space and space staying as it is. In terms of our ability to imagine space, that's all that evolution has equipped us with. The universe isn't bound by the same limitations as our imagination. Which is why physicists look to mathematics instead, to figure out what's going on. It seems to work extremely well.

So no, there's no edge. There's a horizon that we can't see past (because light only travels so fast, and the universe as we know it hasn't been around forever). There's no edge, at least not this side of the horizon!
edit on 6-12-2010 by Bobathon because: botched html tag



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Regarding dark energy, it's certainly very strange, but I wouldn't say it was so weird or unexpected or disconnected from anything else as you all seem to think it is.

It's right there in the form of the cosmological constant in every decent general relativity book printed in the last hundred years, and not just for historic 'greatest blunder' reasons. It's there because it's a definite consequence of following the logic of general relativity unless you forcibly ignore it.

Einstein deliberately ignored it in 1915, preferring to present the simplest possible formulation of his theory. In 1917 he relaxed his assumptions to allow it back in, and then deliberately fixed it to give a static universe (that was his blunder – fixing it on a presumption – not the fact that he'd shown it was part of general relativity).

After Hubble discovered the universe was dynamic, the constant was mostly abandoned because it had never been measured, but it's very definitely always been there in the theory.

So it's always been there as a very natural part of the theory of relativity. It was just never measured as being different from zero. And I don't think anybody honestly expected it to ever be any different from zero. But now we know different.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
Regarding dark energy, it's certainly very strange, but I wouldn't say it was so weird or unexpected or disconnected from anything else as you all seem to think it is.
true the cosmological constant was in Einstein's equation and we've heard the "biggest blunder" story regarding that both before and after 1998. So around Einstein's time you may successfully argue it was somewhat expected.

However if you argue that it wasn't unexpected in 1998, then I would ask you, who in 1998 expected to find the expansion of the universe was accelerating? If the answer is, you were the only one who expected it, then my hat's off to you for being right!


Virtually every account I've read stated they weren't looking for this result and were trying to measure how much the expansion was slowing down (due to gravity), and that nobody expected it.

Here is one such example but there are many more:

Dark Energy, Dark Matter


Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the Universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today. So the expansion of the Universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.

Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein's theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a "cosmological constant." Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.


BTW I suspected you'd say that because I read your blog! And different viewpoints are always welcome on discussion boards, that's what makes them interesting!



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


#5.
The homing pigeon one is my favorite... Check this out:

Pineal gland calcification and defective sense of direction

#6. ArXiv search: 'fractal spatial'
wiki: Space-filling curve

We can get into more depth on that if you want, I think its fairly obvious that 'space' is fractal... the more interesting debate is whether that 'space' carries over into 'space-time'... which gets into theories like the Time-Wave which is fractal.

#7. I agree. As Terrence Mckenna perhaps said it best.

(courtesy of our own Evasius)

Perhaps space-time has no beginning... ending?

#8.

C'mon, you know that every experiment we've run in particle accelerators confirms relativistic mass increase such that we can't get things to travel at the speed of light since the energy would be infinite.


Yes. But, from an epistemological standpoint, the ultimate skeptical scenario is that we are already traveling the speed of light. Everything we measure would then be relative to our current velocity, so at rest would be c. Therefore, we could divide it out of the equations right away because it is relative and doesn't matter.

Is that inconsequential? Hard to say, as it is very profound. But it should be considered as a relevant alternative when considering funding future experiments.

#9. If its a mystery its an anomaly, for all intents and purposes. The current paradigm is de-ranked when things are deemed a 'mystery'.

#11. Carrying the logic through here... if matter is made of space-time(debatable?!), then what is antimatter made of? Time-space?

Matter is made of particles. Particles are made of wave packets of vacuum density/planck medium(debatable?!). What is an anti-particle made of?


#12. Well, Steven Hawking doesn't have much hair... but Hawking radiation has been confirmed?:
Hawking radiation from ultrashort laser pulse filaments

#13-14. Great vid by Feynman.

Well, the general trend appears to be leaning towards unifying the strong force with some kind of quantum gravity dynamic.

We can either wait or 'Guess' at what comes next. I like to guesstimate.

#15. Well, if we admit there is an 'energy' or force associated with inflation... then where does it come from? It can't come from nowhere.




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


1. Well, the better question, IMO, is the question of whether there is such a thing as 'in-between', or gaps.

2. From ZPE, I think the answer is something like 'approaching zero' because there is no such thing(within our experience) as absolute zero... and therefore no such thing as a vacuum.

3-4. Links please! Sounds interesting...




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Feel free to post them here, 'tis the point of this thread.





posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 



Quantum theory tells us that there's no 'where it is' to look for.


Anomalous behavior...


Perhaps its like trying to locate an arbitrary 'point' on a high-frequency wave... It keeps shifting ever so slightly in and out of the average phase due to vacuum fluctuations, changing just barely every single time it comes around.


because 'position' isn't something inherent to the particle...


Well, it would help if we didn't call it a particle... if its a wave it isn't so surprising. Language is key.


The important thing is that the quantum state is well-defined and inherent to the particle... and if we can produce enough identical particles and take large numbers of measurements, we can figure out virtually anything we need to know about what that state is.


Statistics is surely one way we can use brute force to overcome our shortcomings when it comes to the nature and structure of atomic and subatomic phenomenon.

Which gives us probability models like this, right?




The only thing they'll never know is what any individual measurement will give.


Aye.


But the important thing is that making a measurement means performing an operation on the system, and that changes its state.


Observer effect?


In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.wiki


This is highly significant. The whole reason the uncertainty principle exists, is because we collapse the wave function when we bounce a photon off of the system, correct?


You probably know much of what I've said already, but it's always worth some careful thought. I don't know if any of that will cause any pennies to drop... but I hope it's helpful. That's how I understand it, anyway.


Highly appreciated, I assure you. Keeps me on my toes... and it is far more interesting to discuss these things than much of the hogwash around here.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
true the cosmological constant was in Einstein's equation and we've heard the "biggest blunder" story regarding that both before and after 1998. So around Einstein's time you may successfully argue it was somewhat expected.

However if you argue that it wasn't unexpected in 1998, then I would ask you, who in 1998 expected to find the expansion of the universe was accelerating? If the answer is, you were the only one who expected it, then my hat's off to you for being right!


Virtually every account I've read stated they weren't looking for this result and were trying to measure how much the expansion was slowing down (due to gravity), and that nobody expected it.


You're completely right, Arbitrageur. I don't know anyone who was expecting it.

But it was there in the theory, and most cosmologists in the 90s would have expressed the same view: the cosmological constant is part of the theory of relativity and is always taken into account in cosmological models, but we've measured it to be zero to as accurately as our observations permit, and we've no reason to think that will change... but there's also no reason to discard it and assume it IS zero.

My 1973 GR book (and no, I wasn't studying then, before you ask!) gives the maximum value for Λ/8π consistent with observations to be 10^-29 g/cm3, and notes a few cosmologists who actually were expecting a value very close to that.

You're right, very few expected to find it... but there was no time when cosmologists ceased looking. Because it was right there in the same theory that had given them black holes, gravitational lensing and all the rest. If they hadn't found it, they'd still be teaching it and looking for it now, as they were when I was sitting in GR lectures.

The measured value is "of order 10^-29 g/cm3". That's how close they were even in the early 70s.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Well, constants in themselves aren't very nice.

Because it still begs the question of where is that energy coming from?

What do you think of the wikipedia article reg. the CC?

CC


Seems to be the task to figure out in physics.

Is the uncertainty of the vacuum literally 'growing' the universe? Perhaps a slight tilt in probability, like 51 to 49 in favor of expanding? A certain, preferred 'right hand twist'?

If I had to choose a direction for this thread, this would be it.




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I am overwhelmed replying ATM haha...

Thanks for posting them, I will be checking them out throughout the course...




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Well thanks everyone for replying and discussing!

I hope it continues... I don't think we have solved the mystery of the universe just yet!



Done for the evening, take care.




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon
 



Quantum theory tells us that there's no 'where it is' to look for.


Anomalous behavior...


Only if you think it should be there!
Anomalous expectations, I say!





because 'position' isn't something inherent to the particle...


Well, it would help if we didn't call it a particle... if its a wave it isn't so surprising. Language is key.

It behaves as a particle when we attempt to measure its particle properties, and a wave when we attempt to measure its wave properties. The underlying state is neither. (I'm accustomed more to measuring particle behaviour, so I tend to just call it a particle!)



Statistics is surely one way we can use brute force to overcome our shortcomings when it comes to the nature and structure of atomic and subatomic phenomenon.

Which gives us probability models like this, right?


Yes! They measured wave properties (it's a diffraction pattern). So in that image, you get waves.
Compare this: www.bnl.gov...
They measured particle properties (a bubble chamber measures positions), and they got particles.



Observer effect?

This is highly significant. The whole reason the uncertainty principle exists, is because we collapse the wave function when we bounce a photon off of the system, correct?


Collapsing the wave function is just one way to look at it, but yes. Whenever a measurement is taken, the state of the system becomes entangled with the state of the measuring device, and they remain consistent with each other until one of them is disturbed (or measured) by something else. I find this a much more revealing picture.

It's not just that the particle you measure to be at position X then collapses to a state consistent with position X, it's more symmetrical. The measuring device and the particle evolve quantum mechanically together after the measurement... and the person looking at the measurement joins in, and everyone they communicate the result to... and they all evolve consistently with each other in a big entangled web.

Sounds over-complicated, but if you use a quantum system to measure a quantum system, and then check out what's happening to them both, it's entanglement.
edit on 6-12-2010 by Bobathon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
#6. ArXiv search: 'fractal spatial'
wiki: Space-filling curve
Space filling curve just shows what mathematicians can do, I don't see the link to nature. I looked at some of those fractal papers and read parts of the book The fractal geometry of nature By Benoît B. Mandelbrot and he says we can draw a sphere enclosing the Earth, and get a density within the sphere, the density of the Earth. We draw a bigger sphere out to the moon and get a totally different density because it includes the space around the Earth. And as we draw larger and larger spheres up to galaxy clusters etc, the density can vary as the sphere size varies.

It seems to me that this shows space is NOT fractal:

Because they appear similar at all levels of magnification, fractals are often considered to be infinitely complex (in informal terms). Natural objects that are approximated by fractals to a degree include clouds, mountain ranges, lightning bolts, coastlines, snow flakes, various vegetables (cauliflower and broccoli), and animal coloration patterns.
As we look at different scales of space, the appearance is NOT similar at different levels of magnification. Quite the opposite. So I agree with the examples listed as fractal, but not your generic claim of "space and matter". Some things are fractal, some things aren't.


#7. I agree. As Terrence Mckenna perhaps said it best.
Why does he say the big bang happened for no reason? Just because we don't know what the reason is, doesn't mean there wasn't a very good reason. Like bobathon said, no matter what you choose to believe about the deepest questions, the concepts are not something our evolution-designed brain are designed to handle. We can't handle the concept of a beginning because then we must know what was before the beginning. We can't handle the concept of not having a beginning (eternity) either. Our brains didn't evolve to understand concepts like these.


#8. from an epistemological standpoint, the ultimate skeptical scenario is that we are already traveling the speed of light. But it should be considered as a relevant alternative when considering funding future experiments.
I think you could probably prove we're not going the speed of light but I'd have to think about how to do that, for now I'll just say it seems self evident from the experimental evidence. And I see nothing to lead me to even pose the question as you have.


#9. If its a mystery its an anomaly, for all intents and purposes. The current paradigm is de-ranked when things are deemed a 'mystery'.
Just because we don't know the reason, doesn't mean there isn't one. But of course the model would be stronger with fewer gaps or unanswered questions.


#12. Well, Steven Hawking doesn't have much hair... but Hawking radiation has been confirmed?:
hawking radiation won't tell us what's inside the black hole will it? So the interior is still unobservable.



We can either wait or 'Guess' at what comes next. I like to guesstimate.
Nothing wrong with that but if you want to guess more accurately, getting more into the math side of things than you have been, might help.


#15. Well, if we admit there is an 'energy' or force associated with inflation... then where does it come from?
Of course we don't know where dark energy force comes from. I still don't fully understand gravity. I know it results from the presence of mass which warps space-time around it, but I still don't understand exactly how or why. So even though gravity doesn't come from nowhere its exact nature still seems mysterious to me.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join