QuantumT

So, is it basically a search for gravity? I have attempted a few conjectures the latter years, and been proven wrong. But still I can't help myself trying again. Is that good or bad? About gravity, my latest conjecture is that it is not found in the standard model. It is dark matter. Gravity is dark matter. You don't need to state the obvious: that I'm wrong.

Please elaborate, or maybe link to a video (reading can become tiresome).

Thank you! No physicist said it. It comes from fiction mainly. Just wanted to be sure it had no foundation in real science.

Some interpret the 11 dimensions of string theory as "other worlds" that could host life. I've met many spiritual people who use that as a scientific validation for the "unknown". But as I've understood it, they are subatomic dimensions, that only exist within particles. So which one is it? Just to get it settled once and for all...

We could put it in the drawer along with reversed entropy, parallel universes and supersymmetry

I find that argument very unlikely. Our intelligence emerged from being predators outsmarting our prey. That drive has kept us going for millennia and can be seen in the way we compete. Without that aggressive drive, we would probably never have evolved to our current state. So, I argue that aggression/competition is a key element in any emergence of advanced civilisation. You can't have one without the other. And thereby you can't have have a peaceful, non-aggressive, advanced civilisation.

The whole premises of this thread is based on the 2016 Asimov debate, where the conclusion, of us being simulated, ended up way below 50%. In that debate Tyson was acting as a host, and only commented on the statements made. He was being funny and tried to entertain the audience. We need people like him in science, if we want the public to engage. And we do!

You are so wrong it's becoming ridiculous. Don't you have any pride? If you do you should stop.

Before we can talk about what is real, we must first agree on how reality is perceived and measured. Do you know how?

You are letting your personal feelings getting in the way of facts and learning. And in that process you wrongfully degrade good people.

The research in that link only proves that you can't simulate a quantum based universe from inside a quantum based universe. If we are simulated, I find it likely that QM is a biproduct of it. An area they either failed to see us discover, or an easter egg for us to find. Either way, they do not have QM. That at least we can learn from that article.

What would it take to get a visit from E.T.? Before we can determine that, we need to know what is required for intelligent life to emerge, and get here. - A rock planet with a magnetic core - A large neighbor (like Jupiter) to shield against most large object impacts. - The right distance to the star - The right elements and circumstances for life to start - Preferably a moon to make tides. - The right timing to make thousands of years of space travel coincide with arriving in our time. Right now! - Stumbling upon Earth as a one in a gazillion chance. Literally a needle in a huge stack of needles. - After beating all the odds, being unwilling to show you presence to the general population. Playing hide and seek, despite being superior.

Evidence of what? All it shows is "something" in the air! And that something must be extraterrestrial according to you?

Conclusion without evidence is superstition. And there is zero evidence of extraterrestrial visitors.

No. He was just a radical jew, who was executed. If he existed at all.

Sorry for not replying. I was not notified about your message, and you were (previously) quoting the article, not my words. I'm just the messenger. My interpretation of this, is that it confirms "the observer effect", just like the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment does. So we have two different experiments that contradict the "measurement effect". Two different experiments that shift the culprit from the instruments to the scientists themselves.

I knew a hairdresser like that once.

You don't have to break a sweat, and you can still call it a sport.

Might I suggest a digital science section? One that addresses reality as virtual. Many might not like it, but it's come to stay, so why not talk about it openly?

Yes, that's what I meant. Although it is sad to be proven wrong I am grateful. So thank you! Now I can move on.

What is that? The energy from the big bang?

One day, Einstein has to speak at an important Science conference. On the way there, he tells his driver, who looks a bit like him: "I'm sick of all these conferences. I always say the same things over and over!" The driver agrees: "You're right. As your driver, I attended all of your conferences and even though I don't know anything about Science, I could give the conference in your place." "That's a great idea!" says Einstein. "Let's switch places then!" So they switch clothes and as soon as they arrive, the driver dressed as Einstein goes on stage and starts giving the usual speech, while the real Einstein, dressed as the car driver, attends it. But in the crowd, there is one scientist who wants to impress everyone and thinks of a very difficult question to ask Einstein, hoping he won't be able to respond. So that scientist stands up and interrupts the conference by posing his very difficult question. The whole room goes silent, holding their breath, waiting for the response. The driver looks at that scientist, dead in the eye, and says: "Sir, your question is so easy to answer that I'm going to let my driver reply to it for me."

This is my perspective: Spacetime has no problem with vacuum. It is just the void between matter. The more vacuum added (space between matter), the larger (or less dense) the cosmos gets. What I don't know is, if virtual particles has volume? And if that volume is added to space when they appear. If so, my conjecture is that that tiny volume will be replaced by a tiny vacuum after the particles annihilate each other.

Thanks for not shutting me down. Yes you are right. I knew where to put it, but I got carried away and hit submit prematurely, because I was confident about the details in it. Regarding evidence, I was hoping the in-house mathematicians could clarify or dismiss it. If not, it seems logic that anything added to a volume adds to it, even if it's a vacuum. Quantum fluctuation is the main culprit behind the big bang singularity after all, so it would only seem logic that fluctuation could also accelerate the cosmos.

Is the universe still accelerating? Sometimes I read articles that argue against it, so I'm not totally sure anymore! But if it is, I have a conjecture that might explain it. It is based on quantum fluctuation. (1) I might not be the first to think of it, and (2) it might be mathematical impossible, but here goes: Quantum fluctuation is (as far as I know) considered a come-and-go phenomena. Hello, goodbye. 2 - 2 = 0. But what if it leaves a vacuum? A tiny tiny vacuum? If so, there must be gazillions of tiny vacuums made every second. Speeding up the cosmos? (Sorry if this is wrongly placed! Feel free to move it to Speculation if needed.)