geordief

Isn't the BB at T+ 10^-43 seconds? There would have been a time before then,wouldn't there? If you are talking about T=0 seconds then I think I see your point. Would that mean no beginning as well as no "prior"? Or is T=O just something we can say nothing about since the model breaks down then?

Oh yes,I did realize that I was just putting it out there,if "it" amounted to anything at all.

If Markus was right and DM was an emergent phenomenon would it by the same token be "observer related"? Seems absurdly improbable. (unless I have absurdly misunderstood,as per usual)

How is there no space?Does any network not presuppose distances between members,and a temporal ordering? But yes the passage from the very small and discrete to the large and seemingly continuous seems apt to be described as an "emergence",although it it is not "puff like" instantaneous since quantum effects persist into very large structures

Dark side of the Black Hole

A sort of "Cher effect"?

Maybe endless amusements for dolphins? Or to cook fusilli pasta?

That's a very inefficient way to turn a handle OK ,first sunny day we get I will look for the caustic light light caustics on my milky coffee. Thom was the name of our PE teacher.Maybe he was French.

Would the light find a way round ?(I have listened to a fair few Al Khalili documentaries so I know my stuff)

Maybe if the right circumstances applied.It could be entirely reproducible (my preference) and there would be a formal connection between the preceding and the subsequent arrangement. Obviously I am imagining. Wonder what your particle pairs are. How fundamental?(I mean what happens when they are more fundamental?)

Is entanglement the only one? @studiot"All my examples have this characteristic, but life doesn't." Can you say that?

So ,when system goes into less than 3 components does any related phenomenon go into "reverse emergence" And by the way(or an elephant in the room?) ,is life itself a prime example of emergence ?

Might have been an auto spelling malfunction? (would "whether" have made any sense,even if cryptic?)

Seems a good idea .There must be theories.I wonder if they are mathematics driven or physics driven.? I am new to this subject and was interested to learn that both Feynman and Hawking had ideas before String theory showed up. Can their ideas still have any applicability since the jury still seems to be out?

Mary?(She was a big one)

Hopefully will get through the article in time.I like the bit where they are supposedly disappointed to have achieved their aim without needing to have solved quantum gravity as part of the process. Also like the comments at the bottom.(they help me to assimilate the article as they are much easier to read!! )

I would but I sprained my left ankle yesterday coincidentally a couple of hours before I was due to take a neighbour into the doctor for the exact same ailment. A case of the crippled driving the crippled.That and Storm Barra has made for a couple of evenings and afternoons in front of the fire with legs up.

https://pediaa.com/difference-between-mold-and-fungus/ " Mold and fungus are two types of organisms that belong to the kingdom Fungi. The main difference between mold and fungus is that mold is a multicellular, filamentous fungi whereas fungus is a unicellular or multicellular organism with a chitin cell wall. Fungi include molds, mushrooms, and yeast. A mushroom refers to a macroscopic fruiting body of basidiomycetes or ascomycetes. Yeast are unicellular fungi. Fungi are eukaryotic organisms, containing membrane-bound organelles. Molds produce conidia as their asexual spores. Fungi are typically decomposers that grow on decaying organic matter. They secrete digestive enzymes on the organic matter." something I didn't know either.(it must surely be called "leaf mould" for a reason you'd have thought)

"Principally, it is the action of fungi that break down the leaves. These fungi are quite slow workers, so that is why the two year wait is recommended. Leaf mould does not need worms, activators or anything else." http://www.ipcc.ie/advice/composting-diy/composted-leaves-leaf-mould/ is what I had heard but thanks for the info

I am still watching this Cox series and towards the end of today's episode ,in a description of a "creation story" he says and I quote "In the beginning there was an ocean of energy" I think I have heard it said that energy is not considered to be a "thing" ,more a property of things or a system Am I right to discount such a description or is he maybe just taking a shortcut to get some complicated ideas across to the public in a more direct way? Or have I got it wrong and does that statement make sense in a scientific way? Edit: found a link on youtube https://youtu.be/G33j5Qi4rE8

No expert but is that right? Leaves are broken down by fungi and not bacteria I have heard that "normal" manure is said to deplete the soil of nitrogen if not sufficiently rotted but haven't heard that said about leaves.

A wonderful film Sadly ,though philosophy ,whilst a worthwhile activity does not really come to our aid when momentous decisions have to be taken and there is no time for delay. Of course the best course of resolving such conflicts is to cut them off at the pass (so they don't develop into full out war )but I think the debate as to whether Britain could have avoided WW2 by wise councel has been very sadly relegated to history. Do the lessons from that time apply now?Probably not so much as conflict avoidance between the major powers at almost any cost seems even more necessary at this stage in human history.

I don't know.It was just my naive assumption that they would tend towards that state in the long run and that the more massive they were the more homogenous they would become I thought all the matter inside a black hole was the same and even that matter no longer existed but that the black hole was considered as an extreme curvature in spacetime (without understanding what that or much else besides actually meant)

If @Prometheus is correct about the Confucian underpinning of Chinese society https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126218-war-games-russia-takes-ukraine-china-takes-taiwan-us-response/?do=findComment&comment=1193365 and if your own observation concerning the reliability of timekeeping devices is also to be banked,then any Chinese tilt at their pesky Taiwanese neighbours may well fall at the hurdle of synchronicity of attacks :-;