Things you'd like to ask a theoretical physicist.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:58 PM
reply to post by CaptChaos

Philosophers and scientists in the past were not wrong: Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Einstein, and hosts of others were all right with many things. I have not met a professor or researcher today who says we are right and they are wrong, we are only closer to the truth. This still doesn't make us better than our predecessors. As Issac Newton once said regarding his theories, "If I have seen further it is only be standing on the shoulders of giants." We only know what we do now because of what they knew before. Science is about explaining our world around us and finding answers. We're not there yet, but we're closer than before.

But if you really think it's nonsense then why don't we all just stick our heads up our a$$es and call it a day.

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 05:04 AM
reply to post by Astyanax

Astyanax thanks for taking the time to write your insightful reply. In the short time I've been on this forum I've always admired your way of explaining difficult concepts in a simple manner, and you've answered all my questions to a level well beyond my expectations. I will certainly be looking into your 'light cones' link.

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Astyanax
I wonder. A frozen universe is an unobservable universe, except from without. Unless you’re one of those people who believes in ‘multiverses’ (and usually, even then), such observation from outside is impossible or meaningless. So I would say that space could no more exist independent of time that time could do without space.
The interesting thing to me is that in theory we should be able to observe a very nearly frozen part of our universe near the event horizon of a black hole.

A Sci-Fi TV show used this concept to put a spaceship just outside a black hole, and a few days went by in the spaceship while 300 years went by on Earth.

So it wasn't completely frozen in time, but that's because it was outside the event horizon. So this raises the question of what happens precisely AT the event horizon. Does time completely stop there? I don't know, but I'm not real fond of the singularity in a black hole either so I tend to think it's more likely to be a problem with our model and math than it is with nature. But if the model/math is right, then time indeed stops at the event horizon from our perspective as outside observers, right?

Maybe the solution to the paradox is that there's no space at the event horizon, it's a an infinitely thin surface of a sphere so it encompasses no space. I don't think we really know, and I read this physicists explanation and I don't think he knows either, and I think he also misrepresents the spaghettification aspect which in fact depends on the size of the black hole:

Ask a Physicist: How long does it take for you to fall into a black hole?
It's kind of a mind-bending thing to think about how something can fall into a black hole if time stops at the event horizon from our perspective.

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 06:12 PM

Originally posted by l_e_cox
I want to know that modern science is free for undue interference from outside parties before I start taking its work too seriously.

So before you take modern science, the thing that brought you TV, satellite communications, space flight, transistors, computers, miniaturized computers, the internet, LCD displays, plasma screen TVs, every kitchen appliance, all of modern chemistry (through applied quantum mechanics), biology (through applied chemistry), DNA sequencing, modern medicine, organ transplants, prosthetic limbs, MRIs, CAT scans, PET scans, modern firefighting equipment (through the space program--really!), smoke detectors (radioactivity), robotics, modern manufacturing, cell phones, optical mice (lasers), radio, wireless communications, wireless internet, aircraft anti-icing systems (NASA), fire resistant building material (NASA), GPS, and hundreds of thousands of other technologies that I didn't list because I got bored of typing.... you want to know where the funding for all of that came from before you take it "too seriously"? Really???

Incidentally, almost every one of the things on that list requires quantum mechanics to function, and many additionally require special relativity. But, right, I forget you people believe all of this stuff came from Aliens instead of scientists.

And so you don't claim "a-ha, you avoided the question and didn't answer that proves I was right all along about the aliens / illuminati / 'TPTB'!" we get our funding from everywhere: universities, grants, donations, research funds, private corporations, etc.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So it wasn't completely frozen in time, but that's because it was outside the event horizon. So this raises the question of what happens precisely AT the event horizon. Does time completely stop there? I don't know, but I'm not real fond of the singularity in a black hole either so I tend to think it's more likely to be a problem with our model and math than it is with nature. But if the model/math is right, then time indeed stops at the event horizon from our perspective as outside observers, right?

Like I mentioned earlier, there's nothing wrong with the singularity, but the meaning of the event horizon here is just that it is the place where the inside and outside of the blackhole become causally disconnected. It no longer makes sense to talk about how time inside and outside are related, the two regions are not connected to each other in a way that allows that. To a person crossing the horizon, though, generally nothing special happens, they don't notice anything as they cross. So time doesn't "stop" there, it just no longer is relatable to outside time (again, to the person falling in nothing strange happens because they are not using the outside time).

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:11 AM
I have a question about the three fundamental forces of (Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear and Electromagnetic).
Each of these forces are well understood processes of quantum mechanics

My question has to do with the in ability of these mathematically established forces of structure of the universe and the inability of mathematics to apply the Fourth for gravity to theses three fundamental forces

Basically I'm asking why Quantum Theory and The Principals of Relativity don't work together

I have a concept as to the reason; and would like feed back on it.

Gravity aside, If you look at the Three forces on their own there what provide stability or the appearance of it and allows for however long a period of time for psychical structures to existence.

To me it seems like these Three Forces are in action against gravity, keeping the particles, that form matter and its mass From quickly collapsing in on itself. Which is why objects with more mass possess more gravity, but all matter more or less is affected by it.

Stars have the to produce massive amounts of energy to fight the inward pull of gravity
What I propose is this the idea of time is miss applied as a forward progressing aspect of space, For both theories to be correct which on their own they most imperatively are. Then the progression of time most be moving both forward and backwards

Think of it like this when the big bang began it was as if the A side of a cassette tape, time a this point is a bit immeasurable by human standers but then the universe expanded and cold this was the point where the A side of the tape end and began to rewind drawing back in the creation it let out, this is where the B side started to play, because as the A side of a cassette tape rewinds the B side plays

You see we subsist on both sides but the forward motion only appears so, we live on the B side, but look out into space both up and down watching the A side rewind the Universe through the force of gravity which is stably slowed by the Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear and Electromagnetic forces

reply to post by zigmeister

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:59 AM
reply to post by IblisLucifer

I've heard similar ideas from professional physicists stated more eloquently, but they were just ideas for which I've seen no evidence. Take for example knocking a glass off the counter and watching it break into many pieces. I can play a video of this backwards and it's entertaining, but beyond that the concept of the broken glass pieces actually re-assembling and the glass flying back up on the counter is beyond my comprehension.

Unless someone is going to use these ideas to formulate an experiment to test whether they have any connection to reality, it seems like useless speculation to me.

What's lacking is a theory of quantum gravity, which is supposed to bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity that you mentioned, by modeling the behavior of gravity on quantum scales. Experimentally it's challenging:

One of the difficulties of quantum gravity is that quantum gravitational effects are only expected to become apparent near the Planck scale, a scale far smaller in distance (equivalently, far larger in energy) than what is currently accessible at high energy particle accelerators. As a result, quantum gravity is a mainly theoretical enterprise, although there are speculations about how quantum gravity effects might be observed in existing experiments.
At least there's some speculation about experimental observations, but I don't know how much larger accelerators can get...the LHC is pretty large.

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by IblisLucifer

That last bit about side A and B, I kinda think I understood what you meant, it would be as if stuff was spreading out in direction, but at the same time curling back in on itself. Kinda like if you were to do a cannonball in a pool, the water would be displaced and spread out and then also curl in on itself;or if you have seen in old horror films or mad scientist with the smoke billowing on the floor, if something were dropped in the middle of it it would extend outwards and then reach a point where it starts curling or swirling in on itself. So if I can relate what I think you are expressing, is that although time is a linear progression from the beginning of the universe till now, there is also lots of doubling back and curling and swirling and spinning, and at different speeds and levels, and are you saying this perhaps is what creates the affect of gravity? Before the universe cooled where was the affect of gravity, was the energy or matter then to massless? But once it cooled gravity began existing? Do you think gravity is a fundamental essence of the form and existence of reality, like built into the fabric, beyond energy and matter and space and time and vacuum; gravity is its own thing? Or do you think it is only something that exists because of the nature of the matter that exists, kinda like the nature of displaced water exists only because the nature of that which is displacing it exists as it does and is there?

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:34 PM
Think of it like this
The idea of parallel universe, which i think to be true
but these universes technically exist at the same time Each universe lives a life cycle of conception begetting, beginning and then end
How they are conceived and begotten leads to their birth and eventual end
This is where the philosophical thought of free will is allowed to exist and where i believe the concept of rebirth comes from

How many life times do you think you have lived and died, but then lived again being presented with the similar or far different chooses

If you have ever seen the movie Groundhogs Day with Bill Murray he relives the same day over and over again waking up to Sunny and Cher every morning each day choosing different things to find a way to the next day which ultimately is the day he finds his own personal love and happiness.

The Universe works in a similar way but only to compute every possible out come from every way that could functionally exist
this happans one universe at a time from and ill use a Hindu god Brahmā who is the embodiment of the existing living universe that one day will come to and end beginning the next from parts that came before

The Brahman is the all that is everything that exits and everything that doesnt
In Hinduism, Brahman (ब्रह्मन् brahman) is "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world",[1] which "cannot be exactly defined"

Auṃ – That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.

on a strait line you have a point at 1 and a point at -1 between them is 0 infinite are the points beyond the 1s and within them

Sorry to get a little of the topic of physics but its the only way i can conceive and use to explain what the mathematics points to but doesn't connect

reply to post by Arbitrageur

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by zigmeister

What percentage of the professional and teaching physicists--PhD's

truly believe in the

infinite multitude of multiverses being true reality or likely true reality?

= = = =

If plate tectonics poorly explains the world as we observe it . . . what's a likely alternative?

= = = =

Is there anything at all to the "expanding earth" theory?

= = = =

What does the average physicist think about the Mars colonization effort underway?

= = = =

Pretend the verse:

. . . The heavens shall be rolled back like a scroll . . .

Has any physicist speculated what that might look like?

THX THX for the thread.

posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 09:58 AM
Question 1) Regarding multiverses... I think most PhDs have no opinion Id hazard that most would say... Multiverses in the TV style of, for every action, the opposite is played out... they would say... no no logical reason to believe it would exist.

Multiverses in that different universes might exist with different physical constants... Maybe yes

Question 2) While you say 'IF' you are posing a thought experiment, but I can assure you that plate tectonics explains the world as we observe it very very well. Its the best model at the moment

Question 3) No there isn't, There is no credible evidence the Earth is expanding, and no reason for it to be.

Question 4) There is no concise effort to colonize mars, only viability projects. There is a great number of things that have to be done before a project can be performed enmass. We have yet to get a man/woman on mars, let alone being able to set up a stable controlled environment.

Question 5) Space time folded in on itself? Well, I think it wouldn't look like anything. It would just look like a brilliant white light. We of course would be long dead (during the process) to even go 'wow'

posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:00 AM
What do you think about this,

posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:40 AM
reply to post by zigmeister

I have one, if planets, stars, moons etc. are formed round because of the forces of gravity making it so, how come accretion disks are flat? why do interstellar clouds have no particular shape shouldn't they be spherical? Why are sprial galaxies relatively flat, when gravity in theory attracts equally in every direction from the center of mass?
edit on 11-1-2014 by Hijinx because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 11:34 AM

Why are sprial galaxies relatively flat, when gravity in theory attracts equally in every direction from the center of mass?
You've got the over-simplified theory, not the actual theory.

The real theory is that everything with mass attracts everything else with mass, including dust and gas particles. Therefore the gravitational attraction around a protoplanetary disk is not radially symmetrical as it would be if all the gravity came from the center of mass.

The factors to consider in gravitationally influenced shapes are the amount of mass, the distribution of the mass including density, the ability of the mass to flow, and rotation.

A body which would be spherical if not rotating will become less spherical the faster it rotates. In a protoplanetary disk, the inertia of the outermost particles is enough to offset the gravitational attraction, and that's why they orbit instead of falling into the center of the disk.

If it didn't rotate, eventually the particles would fall in and you'd just have the spherical mass at the center.

So why does it rotate? I think the clue which answers that question lies in looking back at ancient galaxies which are more spherical in shape. Spiral galaxies are very rare shortly after the big bang, and their more disk-like shape is probably the result of mear-misses or collisions with other galaxies, which took time to happen which is why we see more of them later after the big bang. I'd guess similar effects but on smaller scales of stars (rather than galaxies) are at work in forming protoplanetary disks which rotate.

posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

About about the rings around planets, why are they so perfectly relatively flatish and not just debris up and down, I guess im asking why are they focused and urged into that specific area and in that design?

posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by ImaFungi

They didn't start out that flat, but, over time, they ended up that way for the same reason cars that weave back and forth across a six-lane highway without using a turn signal tend to not keep going too long...eventually they crash into something. Only the cars that "go with the flow" keep going...same with the ring particles.

Why are Saturn's rings flat? Why isn't the debris dispersed equally around the whole planet?

Over time (a very short time, as it turns out!) the inclined particles will lose their inclination or be destroyed, leaving a nice, flat ring system.

We see this disk-forming process, not only in planetary rings, but in many other astrophysical contexts, such as young solar systems and disks around black holes.

edit on 12-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in