Jump to content

MarkE

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

MarkE last won the day on May 18 2018

MarkE had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About MarkE

  • Rank
    Atom

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Genetics, evolution, astronomy and logic

Recent Profile Visitors

3026 profile views
  1. So there is a correspondence? Could you elaborate some more please, I'm trying to understand what the difference between your statement/calculation and the non-correspondence is (al already pointed out by @swansont). I already thought that it would be unlikely that those two sources that I shared in my initial questions would both, independently, claim the exact same thing, but would both be wrong. @beecee pointed out that they probably meant something else as the way I was interpreting it, and your comment seems to show what this is, so I believe you're on the right track in better explaining
  2. So there is no correspondence between the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole and the observable universe (as these two sources both are wrongfully implying)?
  3. @beecee So both the author of the book, as well as this calculation, are wrong?
  4. "The mass and radius of the observable universe fit the same relationship defined by the mass and Schwarzschild radius of a black hole". I've read this sentence in the book 'Einstein's Monsters: The Life and Times of Black Holes'. Here's the calculation. What's the significance of this correspondence? Is it expected that there should be relationship between the two, and if so, why?
  5. Thanks everyone for taking the time to respond to my question. In the meantime I asked the same question at some place else, and found my answer. The miscommunication lies within the distinction between Feynman diagrams on the one hand (since these diagrams are not gauge invariant), and the experiments that had been undertaken on the other hand. In the first case, it’s a clear no, but in the second case, experimental evidence (such as the Casimir effect) demonstrate that it’s a yes (which is closest to what @joigus said: yes and no). This distinction was the answer I was looking for,
  6. Are virtual particle pockets of energy? In other words: are virtual particles force carriers? If not, if they’re in no way a form of energy, and in no way associated with kinetic energy because they’re not actually moving/vibrating at all, but rather just ‘theoretical and mathematical constructs’, as some argue, then why are they called ‘particles’ in the first place? How is that not a misleading term, because, if you’re a particle somewhere in the universe, you’re definitely not ‘nothing’ (which is what ‘a mathematical construct’ basically implies). And if you’re not nothing, that means
  7. Why are you ruling out Sternglass's hypothesis, then? He describes a possible mechanism immediately after the Big Bang, referring to the time before 10^-35s after the Big Bang, since you don't seem to have a more plausible alternative? I'm trying to follow your line of reasoning, which is why I'm asking. As you know, the universe began in a hot, dense state, with a low entropy. Well, one initial photon-like particle (without any space in between, only this particle, and nothing else), seems pretty low entropy to me. In fact, it doesn't go any lower than that. Why doesn't it sound pla
  8. @Markus Hanke If you’re acknowledging that... then what you’re saying is that this electron field was already present at the moment of the Big Bang, right? Well, right now, billions of years later, there are multiple, but different, fields (electromagnetic field, weak/strong gauge field, Higgs field etc). So at some point, something evidently changed to this initial field. So are you implying then that all fields came from one field, which they all once shared? If so, why then is it so far-fetched to suggest that this first field was like the nature of a photon, since it has no
  9. I don't praise him, not yet at least. I just learned about this hypothesis, so I was wondering whether people on this forum might know about it already, and in that case, could tell me whether they are supporters of it, or not. I wasn't expecting that people here weren't acquainted with it already. I'm not sure what you mean, or what you're looking for. The author doesn't make the statement, he writes about a statement made by somebody else, by the physicist, who wrote an entire book about his theory. I didn't read that book, I only read the book about somebody else who wrote about it.
  10. I’ve always been skeptical about the idea that all the particles in the universe were always present, but were once confined into a very small place, which then supposedly gave rise to the Big Bang. It’s as if supporters of this idea can’t seem to leave Fred Hoyle's ‘static universe’ hypothesis, by continuing to assume that there is this fixed, unchanging amount of particles in the universe. The opposite of this idea is of course that the universe went from 1 to 2 particles, and eventually lead to the vast amount of matter and energy we have today. The total number of particles in the visib
  11. So when it's said that fungi colonised the land before plants, it's meant that they were able to do this as symbionts of green algae?
  12. From the same link in that description I've provided. So green algae were the first to colonise land, and fungi along with them as symbionts? I've always interpreted this development of algae colonising the land synonymous to evolving from algae first into moss (which is why lichens show morphological similarities with mosses), but I guess there was a period that green algae could survive on land without having to evolve into moss first?
  13. First the non-vascular bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, hornworts) during the Ordovician period (which started around 490 million years ago) that evolved from green algae. Mosses lack true leaves, true roots and vascular tissue. It therefore can’t conduct sugar or water through the plant, only diffusion and osmosis. Then came the vascular seedless plants (ferns, horsetails, clubmosses) during the Devonian period (which started around 420 million years ago). A fern is vascular, but still contains spores, just like moss, and thus a swimming flagellated sperm cells. The oldest-known vascular
  14. I've found an old topic on this forum regarding this subject, maybe you'd like to read that discussion? I'm a fan of this hypothesis by the way, how about you?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.