QuantumT

6 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

What do you mean by stating that?

Not stating - suggesting!

I'm suggesting that there might not be any gravity in QM, because it operates under different rules than the macro/relativistic world.

Very interesting discussion!

Would it be totally wrong to consider QM as a singularity, and thereby accept that it might be incompatible with relativity?

Then gravity becomes an exclusively relativistic issue.

Drainpipes are made to lead water away as fast as possible, so if we attempted to gain energy from them, it would slow the draining, thus defeating their purpose.

Obviously I have no evidence to back the following suggestions up, but neither does other more or less accepted hypothesis, like the 'inside black hole' one, or the 'multiverse' of M-theory.

Suggestion 1:
Could a new big bang have occurred 5 billion years ago, inside our universe, causing our universal expansion to accelerate? Like a balloon inside a balloon?

Suggestion 2:
This one should be easier to dismiss.
Could the big bang have happened in two stages? Stage one releasing only dark matter, and later the version we know, with both matter and dark matter? In that way our universe would be surrounded by a huge gravitational field, that is only getting stronger as we are catching up to it?

I myself lean more towards the 'biased measurements' solution, but until we're sure, I take the acceleration very serious.

I apologize if you think this is a complete waste of your time.

So they entangled two particles while they were hundreds of miles apart?

Mind blowing!

But hey... it's from 2017! Why address this now?

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Also, the BB wasn't necessarily the beginning of the universe. The BB theory describes only the development from an earlier very hot and very dense state. It's possible the universe has always existed.

Are you suggesting a big bounce?

By asking that, I also bring this thread back on the intended track 

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Space is created between things, so, we don't need an 'outside'.

There are two reasons I thought of an "outside". Mainly because I've seen universe simulation videos, where you actually look at it from beyond.
And secondly because of the multiverse model, where our universe is just one of countless neighbor universes in an endless vast vacuum.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is no nothingness around it. The universe is all there is (nothing outside)

It is not expanding into anything.

If that is hard to get your head around, there are two things that might help:

1. Assume the universe is infinite. If it gets bigger, it is still infinite (see Hilbert's Hotel for a good analogy).

2. Just think of it as the distance between things increasing, rather than the universe getting bigger.

3. Or think of it as the average density decreasing.

Note that even if the universe is finite, there is no "edge" or boundary, so there is no "outside".

It might defy intuition, but that's not the same thing (and not really relevant!)

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yes. Based only on the set of assumptions we are wired with it certainly does. But there is no reason to believe that set of assumptions is correct. There is no evidence or requirement for it.

I get it now. But it wasn't Hilbert's Hotel that helped me. It was a name I gave it. I call it: "Does not exist"

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. I think we count it as part of our imaginations.

There is absolutely no evidence that it is there, and there is no requirement for it aside from the way we tend to think.

So, you're saying that "everything" (spacetime) grows bigger, but there is no place to grow in?

Doesn't that defy logic?
 

Edit: Unless we name the place it's growing into: "Does not exist", of course.

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Also, the BB wasn't necessarily the beginning of the universe. The BB theory describes only the development from an earlier very hot and very dense state. It's possible the universe has always existed.

But if the "hot dense state" was the universe (spacetime), then the nothingness around it was not, I assume.
Or do we count the "place" that spacetime is expanding into as a part of the universe?

15 minutes ago, MotleyNoumenon said:

Lol its probably just a troll. Maybe another user pulling a bit..

Hush! He said goodbye!

9 minutes ago, WaveLengthOfGod said:

you are simply an ignorant person that is all.

No, he is honest.

5 minutes ago, koti said:

At times like these I wish I knew Latin. 

I only know one sentence in latin. And it fits this forum well: Finit Hic Deus

6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Can you have someone record and document the next few times you leave?

Kanske det är Gud som besöker honom...?

15 minutes ago, WaveLengthOfGod said:

I've been with God thousands of times & he demonstrates the supreme science to me very often.

This is important information, that you really need to tell your doctor. He will know what to do.

Those words were spoken long before the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment was done, or the recent Wigner's friend experiment.

Both experiments point to the observer, not the equipment, as the culprit for quantum change.

What is your personal - not professional - opinion about this?

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not quite. There are multiple symmetries. Some lead to anti-matter, others to supersymmetric particles, others to mirror matter. (There may be others ...)

Thank you very much for un-wooing that! And for widening my horizon!

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Certainly not parallel universes.

But if it provides evidence of mirror matter then it is possible (but not certain) that there could be large scale structures equivalent to stars and galaxies, made up of mirror matter. This would exist in our universe but not be directly detectable. That could be described as a "parallel universe" but it requires a bit of journalistic license.

There is a good overview of mirror matter here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter 

Isn't that just supersymmetry?

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

It absolutely is, here is another quote from the article:

The stuff about parallel universes and "portals" is hyperbole.

So it will not prove parallel universes, even if they succeed?

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

There is a difference between a 'mirror universe' and mirror particles which would exist in our universe.
Mirror particles have their left/right symmetry switched ( as does a mirror ).

I don't think this about mirror particles. Here's a quote from another article

Quote

The experiment itself will involve firing a beam of neutrons at a solid wall with a neutron detector set up at the other side. Normally the detector should pick up nothing at all because the neutrons cannot pass through the wall, however scientists believe that some of them may temporarily "oscillate" in to a mirror universe and back, enabling them to pass through the wall where the detector will pick them up.

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/parallel-universe-portal-mirror-world-science-stranger-things-oak-ridge-a8987681.html

You may have chosen the wrong forum. This is a science forum, not a bible study.

Quote

At Oak Ridge National Laboratory in eastern Tennessee, physicist Leah Broussard is trying to open a portal to a parallel universe.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/scientists-are-searching-mirror-universe-it-could-be-sitting-right-ncna1023206

I don't know about you guys, but my money is on "a waste of time". If she succeeds it's gonna literally change the world.

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Nothing in the opening post is accurate....

A string has dimensionality of 1. Each vibrational mode can effectively add a degree of freedom ( dimension). String theory also isn't limited to 11 dimensions. There are other variations of string theory with more or less dimensions. 

It was the general concept of the dimensions I was asking about. I did not mean to start a hair-splitting about the amount of them.
I do know there are some theories that have more than 11.

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Ah. You understand that this is a science discussion site, right?

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Like I said: science site. 

Of course. My inquiry was, if it had any foundation in science.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Citation needed

I believe it is a general misconception deriving from sci-fi authors and Hollywood.
But it is something millions of people has accepted as science fact, unfortunately.