axenome

ok this is my last post before I go to bed and sleep it off, I swear. Gravity seems to be the big problem in all of quantum physics, and throws a big wrench into all the models they've proposed to explain it in terms of EM forces like light, magnetism, strong/weak forces. But gravity propagates itself on an inverse square law rather than an inverse cubed law like the EM forces, right? Doesn't this suggest that gravity is a symptom of something else? Quantum entanglement has been proven to bypass speed of light laws already, if I remember correctly. We could probably find support for quantum entanglement as a cause or factor in gravity by causing a massive particle to tunnel to a distant location, then determine through instrumentation exacting enough to measure it whether the local gravity of the region where the particle appeared is measurable at the moment of transport, or only when the "gravitons" arrive. The original quantum entanglement could be sourced at the big bang? Where all matter and energy was originally in the same location? Might be close enough to effect an entanglement, maybe... Of course, the idea is something along the order of trying to check for a fly obscuring the light intensity of a raging forest fire some three hundred miles away with a pinhole through a cardboard box, but hell, they've already discovered planets around distant stars so this seems about as difficult. Drunk, stupid, and ready to pass out, this is me, signing off.

Tar: Not intending to be offensive, but your post seems to boil down to, "Don't interject your opinions in the grown ups conversation; come back in ten or twelve years when you know something." You say not to argue a concept with common logic, but isn't that what virtually every pioneer of science has done since the beginning of trecorded history? They build a model first and then find a way to test it against available evidence. Those who don't have the immediate math available to them try to mull it out, and even Einstein developed GR through a series of thought experiments trying to compare a constant- the speed of light- to separate observers in different, localized regions, before the proving through the esoteric probing of numbers on paper and black board. Math, when you get down to it, is a tool we use to attempt to more accurately describe the concepts we're trying to explore, not the perfect lens through which we define new discoveries. Ultimately speaking, my best analogy for what I'm trying to say is that math is the picture we paint of what we're trying to see, not the thing we see itself. Or something like that. I'm drunk and tired and have to go to sleep so I can wake up in five hours. Just my $.02

I wonder... just how "clean" is the vacuum between galaxy clusters? And how that mean density affects spacetime in relation to curvature? If what we perceive as linear space is itself curved by another force not being countered by the gravitational forces we ourselves experience in more dense regions, could that curvature account for red shift more logically than assuming the rest of the universe is speeding away from us? Especially since our closest cosmic neighbors seem to actually be geting closer? Okay let me elaborate- if you impose a linear sine wave on a euclidean graph paper next to a parabola, then traverse the parabola to experience the crests and troughs of that sine wave from the perceived reality of the hyperbola, then the further away from the closest interval between the parabola and the sine wave corresponds to a larger interval between our perceptions of the crests and troughs, thus immitating a doppler effect although for different reasons than would be logical in linear, transitional space. There would be a perceptual oddity in the trough-to-crest measurement compared to the crest-to-trough measurement, but for a shallow enough parabola it might really be all but indistinguishable for us unless we were to deliberately look for it with instrumentation exacting enough to tell the difference between a skewed sine wave and a pure one. A steady motion away from one another would, through the change of the source of the sine wave, be easily misconstrued as an acceleration in the expansion of the universe.

Silver, not meaning to nitpick, but I dispute the eixistance of Hawking radiation as a means of black hole deletion on the following grounds (Response to your statement #2): Hawkings is making two very big mistakes when he describes the evaporation of black holes through particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously popping into existance. 1) Were these particles to appear in such a fashion at the event horizon, and one escapes while the other is drawn into the black hole, you have a 50/50 chance of the negative particle falling in. Ergo; over any given sequence of these occurances there is mathematically a net loss of ZERO mass, assuming that error 2 is bypassed... 2) When a particle and its antiparticle mutually annihilate, they release energy commensurate to their previous total mass. Which, if a negative particle falls into the black hole, annihilates with a positive particle, creating an equal amount of energy... said energy is STILL unable to escape the black hole. And since E=mc^2, mass = energy, therefore that black hole has actually GAINED mass equal to the mass of the antiparticle. But wait, you say, that makes no sense, you can't have mass created from nothing! In which case, you yourself admit that the whole concept of spontaneous creation of particle/antiparticle pairs is illogical on its face, and therefore, the black hole STILL isn't evaporating. No matter how many people try to disprove black holes on a conscious or subconscious level (Even Stephen Hawking's silly little 'If one is left alone for long enough, with nothing paying attention or mass to it, it will eventually go away' theory) they're not going to just disappear. Figuratively or literally.