pantheory

Large quantities of water ice on Mercury.

This is an interesting news article about finding large quantities of water ice at Mercury's poles, estimated to be between 100 billion and a trillion tons of water. This seems like a good place for future colonization like the moon, and easier than Mars. We could develop underground colonies in locations near the water sources at Mercury's poles as well as at the lunar poles. Both polar locations could transfer nearby heat from the sun for solar heating, to supply electrical energy for such a colony, and lighting for underground farming. Solar or nuclear power could be provided for manufacturing and mining. Based upon these water resources, its closer proximity, and accessible water supply, it may be easier to colonize Mercury than Mars. Much less fuel would be needed to escape its gravity, where hydrogen and oxygen fuel could be readily manufactured on site. The underground colonies might be able to spread out in all directions from the poles including downward, only limited in its extent by temperature control.

Large quantities of ice on Mercury.

Dark Matter: "Running Out of Places to Hide" --- in the dark

With the numerous experiments to find dark matter, and the theoretical possibilities they believe to have eliminated, "dark matter accordingly is running out of places to hide.

The article below suggests that the possibilities to discover dark matter within the next maybe four years, they believe, are getting better since they have already eliminated a number of the possibilities so there are fewer remaining possibilities.

My bet is that in four years they still will not have found dark matter excepting to have eliminated even more of the possibilities. Within four years if they propose a possible candidate I expect that it will not pan out. What do you think?

http://www.space.com...ery-search.html

My expectation is that they have found organic molecules of some kind. Because they seem to be making a big deal of it maybe these molecules are complicated enough that they believe that it could likely have no other source than living organisms living now, or in the past. Anything less such as water near the surface or methane in the soil would seemly be of far less interest, and maybe they wouldn't be making such a big deal of it with checks and counter checks, which they seem to be doing based upon the news. .

(bolded mine)

No. The rate is the same (.000001 parsecs per year).

 

and WE are expanding from them, not them from us.

Expansion would be a relative condition, we from them, them from us etc., if it were real, my friend But I understand your point based upon a Big Bang scenario.

//

As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us, doesn't it also mean that galaxies that we see more in a past are moving away faster then the ones we see closest to the present time. Why cant we then conclude the obvious from it, that the Universe is slowing down in expansion.

 

I have learn't about Universe actually increasing its speed of expansion. But isn't the true answer obvious from a fact I have just mentioned, and that they must have made an error in measurement.

So that you might better understand how it works let's simplify the model. Let's say the universe is full of galaxies exactly one Parsec (3 1/4 light years) apart. From here to the next galaxy let's say that the space between the next galaxy expands in distance at a rate of .000001 parsecs per year. That is such a small amount of change that we probably couldn't even measure it. But a billion parsecs away from us all the space in between galaxies is expanding at a rate of 1000 parsecs every year away from us. This we could readily measure by the redshift of the galaxies spectrum. It is not that the galaxies at a distance in this scenario are expanding away from each other at a faster rate in the past. Everything keeps expanding as to the whole at the same rate. It is simply that the more distant galaxies would be expanding away from us at a greatly faster rate, than those close by with much less space in between.

The accelerated expansion of the universe was proposed for a completely different reason. This proposal was based upon observations of type 1a supernova, which are a type of exploding star. Based upon observations they can be considered a type of standard candle giving off a similar amount of radiation at similar frequencies for a similar amount of time based upon their similarly consistent stellar explosions. But there were consistent anomalies in these observations. Those type 1a supernova closer to us seemed that their distances were farther away and their light weaker than their redshift calculations indicated. And those farther away were brighter. Either the "Hubble Law" for distance calculations was wrong, maybe there was something wrong with type 1a supernovas as standard candles, or the universe was changing its expansion rate over time. They finally decided on the latter since they could find no other explanation for what they were observing. They decided that the expansion of the universe, after the hypothetical Inflation era, was decelerating up until about 6 billion year ago, whereby accordingly they believe the expansion of the universe started accelerating again.

//

Maybe a little closer to a practical cloaking device. Such devices seemingly could control feedback and background "noise" in fiber optic systems and probably many other possible new fiber optic applications. It also seems likely such devices could enable possible telescopic improvements and advances

Visible light, I presume, is a photon product. And since photons have no mass or charge, how are they affected by gravity? Black holes don't allow photons to escape, and light is "curved" when passing a large body toward Earth from a distant star, etc. So how can a mass-less unit be affected by gravitational pull?

The classical explanation of General Relativity is that photons follow the curved lines inward surrounding matter. You also could say that photons, via their momentum/ energy, have a small mass equivalence and thereby react like matter concerning gravity.

//

is it possible to know how many impacts can a gas make with a certain area of wall using a kinetic theory of gas?

I imagine an estimate of impacts per surface area, per unit of time, based upon the kind of gas, pressure of the gas, its temperature, containment material and configuration, atomic/ molecular structure, etc. could be made.

//

So we think we know that time began at the Big Bang. Why isn't there are universal time as a consequence of that?

Time is a man-invented concept that explains the rate of changes in matter and energy. Whether via the Big Bang model or another model, either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. If it had a beginning then that beginning instant was the first change which defines time. We know that relative motion and gravity causes time to run a little slower which we call dilation.

Here on Earth there is very little time dilation so that our time is close to a "universal time" whereby time would pass as fast as possible. Such concepts are not too complicated

//

Don't you think it's more proper to say space/time had a beginning rather than just time?

Yeah, you're right. You could say that space and time had the same beginning, or that spacetime had a singular beginning. It is not impossible that the universe has always existed but this would be contrary to the Big Bang model. Multiverses also are not impossible but there is no accepted evidence that supports them. And the universe, I think, would be unnecessarily complicated by their existence. If one wanted to be precise one might say that if there was a beginning of everything (cosmos), in the beginning there was matter/ energy/ substance that occupied and defines space, an instant thereafter there was the first change that defines time. So substance and space must have accordingly come first, then time and energy an instant thereafter According to the Inflation hypothesis some matter could have existed from the beginning or it could have condensed out from energy thereafter.

//

Moontanman,

....I've given this some thought.... ok there... I can't see how anyone can say time had a beginning.......

OK I'm saying it. According to the consensus version of the Big Bang model, time had a beginning. And I very strongly agree that it's by far the simplest explanation of reality, in my opinion.

More importantly is that if the universe is finite concerning its existence in time, it had to have a beginning by definition. An infinite universe in time can be joined in agreement by great scientists such as Fred Hoyle, Stephen Hawking and many others. By far the simplest universe is the simplest idea possible, according to Occum's Razor. Accordingly there is only one simple answer and universe One universe with only one very simple beginning -- even though we may not understand many of the details.

On an earlier forum thread, I made arguments similar to those above. However, I was told by those smarter than me (most everybody) that what Einstein said was that time and space have no separate existence from a gravitational field. So since matter/energy produces a gravitational field, I assumed this meant there is no time and space without matter/energy.

 

I was corrected. If I remember it right, per general relativity, even a universe with no matter/energy has a gravitational field. So saying you need matter/energy to have space and time is not right.

 

Also, the big bang theory tells us nothing about time zero when the universe began. The equations blow up at time zero, giving infinity for answers. This is the so-called singularity -- a name for "we don't know". So no one knows what if anything happened before the big bang.

Of course GR is all about gravity, but in it Einstein introduced the concept of spacetime which was a new idea at the time, the equations of which were promoted by Minkowski. Maybe all can realize that there would be no gravity without matter, but maybe not everyone can understand and realize that there would be no meaning to time or space either if there was no matter. In these days when most think that space can expand and warp it may not be so obvious. In those times I think this was what Einstein meant by this quote above.

.........I was told by those smarter than me (most everybody) that what Einstein said ........

//

Too humble They may not have understood Einstein's quote as well as you did

//

What do you mean no i do not understand

Astrology, the question was "Can you support (your) assertion with any physical evidence?"

Interpretation of the scriptures of the bible is not evidence. This is a science part of the forum. There is a religious forum here where such ideas will be welcome or acceptable. A six thousand year old cosmos has no scientific basis at all so in this forum all will perceive such statements and ideas as being ignorant.

//

Then why does it work so well in reality, as opposed to your opinion?

Comments on the news re Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: Like Einstein believed, I also think that QM is a statistical system based upon probabilities, as well as equations developed from data based upon a long history of observations. This is Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Theory can be looked at as the theory behind why the system and equations work. The explanations and theory of it I think are wrong. Even if the theory of it were entirely wrong and someday replaced it might not change Quantum Mechanics much at all since it is a mathematical system of analyzing the quantum world.

//

I'm of the opinion that Quantum Theory (QT), which basically is the explanations and Principles of QM, are almost entirely wrong. The reason why I think this problem exists is because the "hidden variables" of quantum mechanics have not been discovered. Whether they exist or not, I expect many of the other Principles might be shown to be wrong.

(from the OP)

Other principles of QM are the Either Or, but not both at once, wave particle duality Principle of EM radiation, the Indeterminacy of particle state before observation, relating to Schroedinger's Cat and quantum Entanglement. The Lack of Causality Principle: that events can happen by pure chance, their probability determined by statistics.

I'm expecting that within less than a dozen years some of these other principles will be challenged and shown to be wrong. Even if QT were completely changed, I would still expect the QM system of analysis to change little.

//

What is needed is a very clear statement of the working principles of QM, so that no one who ever uses them might misunderstand them.

I find lots of 'problems' around that just completely disappear when the described 'experiment' is formulated correctly. One such is the

dispersion of the wavepacket for a localized particle. When you formulate the experiment from beginning to end, the wavepacket sort of

disappears into the larger problem.

 

It's been eighty years since Dirac stated them and some updating, at least of the language, might be in order. Might be a good project

for some people here.

Yeah, sounds like my kinda project. I have proposed lots of experiments to test QM principles, but obviously none will be simple to do. First they need to be written up in detail and then criticized. First I need to complete an experiment that I designed long ago proposed to compare the one-way speed of light, up vs. down. That experiment may be completed within a couple of years, god willing and the creek don't run dry

//

Start? That implies that these other principles have not been continually tested over the years, and that's simply not the case. They are accepted because they have been tested many times, and every time the concept holds up. Many further experiments rely on the more basic principles being true.

I agree. I think I recognized the possible misinterpretation of my intent but forgot to reword/edit it.

Will they now start on trying to disprove the other principles of QM below?

Maybe better wording: Do they now have improved methods, equipment, ideas, to better test the other principles of QM listed below?

(now listed above )

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt

 

http://www.sciencefo...__1#entry701279

Thanks for that. I guess I missed the first news releases last month. Was the T-shirt free?

My comment and implied question still is relevant however.

Will they now start on trying to disprove the other principles of QM below?

Other principles of QM are the Either Or, but not both at once, wave particle duality Principle of EM radiation, the Indeterminacy of particle state before observation, relating to Schroedinger's Cat and quantum Entanglement. The Lack of Causality Principle: that events can happen by pure chance, their probability determined by statistics.

Looks like they may have found a way to show that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle may be wrong. The Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics is intuitive to a certain extent and is only one of a few primary foundation principles of Quantum Theory. Maybe its wording and formulations may need to be changed in the future.

Other principles of QM are the Either Or, but not both at once, wave particle duality Principle of EM radiation, the Indeterminacy of particle state before observation, relating to Shroedingers Cat and quantum Entanglement. The Lack of Causality Principle: that events can happen by pure chance, their probability determined by statistics.

Will this finding hold up under scrutiny? If so one might expect there will eventually be other tests invented, like the one below, trying to find fault with other principles of quantum mechanics.

http://www.scienceda...21004121638.htm

dmaiski,

The Columbus egg is an interesting idea but its unfortunately not relevant to this topic, "something" can't have always been here, because to get here it had to come from there, and this is asking where was there.

There would seem to be just two possibilities. Either the universe has always existed, or it had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning and is finite concerning times past, then time can be defined by change. The first change in the beginning entity/universe would accordingly have been the beginning of time, period. To ask what existed before that, is like asking what happened before the beginning, or what change came before the first change? Such questions are logically invalid .

If you believe there must have been something before that then you are either talking about an earlier beginning point in time and beginning entity which would beg the same question: where did that come from? what existed before that? or you're talking about an infinite universe model of some kind. There are seemingly no other logical choices or possibilities.

Either the universe is finite concerning times past, or it's infinite concerning times past; either the universe* had a beginning or it didn't.

* where the word universe means everything that exists

//

I have found out that the last book I read on physics was wrong :/\

Have you read the book and is it factual?

I presume you were talking to me?

Yes, I read Lee Smolin's book. Such books are not based upon facts in general. I'm sure all the facts he presented are true. Lee Smolin is a theoretical physicist. Nothing in theoretic physics has any certainty to it. I think Dr. Smolin makes some very good points concerning what kinds of problems are involved with today's theoretical physics.

//

I have thought about this ....a lot.

 

Both "something" and "nothing" is relative to what is doing the observing (interacting.)

 

Here is a diagram (from a series of diagrams) I have made explaining why the Universe appears to "exist" to us (when, in actuality, nothing exists):

 

http://s12.postimage...nothingness.jpg

 

finster, something has constituent parts, nothing does not.

One must use words according to the way they are defined in language. If you have a different meaning for a word then you might have to coin your own word to explain a different concept concerning any existing word, such as the word "nothing."

I think your analysis is based upon the question of how something could possibly come from nothing. The simple answer concerning logic is that it cannot. If valid this answer simply means that either the cosmos (all of reality at any given time including possible multiverses*) has always existed, or that it had a beginning by which the word "before" would be meaningless.

Either the known cosmos/ universe* has always existed or it had a beginning. I don't think there is a logical third choice.

By definition of the words, "something" and "nothing" cannot be the same. You might however make this argument:

If nothing has no constituent parts for a given volume (which it does not by definition)

AND

If something has no constituent parts or way to describe it for the same given volume

then there could be no distinction between something and nothing

//

Your right i'm biased towards the idea, not going to lie. I don't stand anywhere to make a claim, I just like the idea probably because I too thought it possible. I am very well aware that it could be and to our current knowledge is complete BS.

Then I think you have a good foundation concerning the odds against such a proposal. Personally I think Lee Smolin wrote a great book though:

"The Trouble with Physics."

//

Michel123456,

In this case the Columbus egg is:

First time I've heard that expression. I will us it in the future, thanks. And it would seem that "what started the universe," or "was there a beginning to the universe," were the bottom-line questions concerning this posting, as you suggested

And also our understanding of the concept of Time is still in its infancy.

Again this being the Speculation Forum:

I think that some understand time perfectly well. I think that it is just some mainstream concepts of time that are goofed up. When all of the kinks are removed from today's theories I believe time will be simply understood as "an interval of change" and nothing more. But discussions on this thread should not diverge on this topic.

//

I think the closest anyone has ever come to finding out what "nothing" is was through studying the torricillian vacuum, because within this vacuum, there is not only no air, but there is supposedly "nothing" whatsoever. I think this was closely linked to the theory of virtual particles, as it was theorized that inside this vacuum of nothing, there were these "virtual particles" which come in and out of existence at random.

I can remember watching an entire documentary about this, if I can find a link to it I'll be sure to post it.

The question then becomes: if within the Torricellian vacuum virtual particles can be found, can we really say there is nothing there? I like the way you phrased it, "supposedly nothing."

We know that within any vacuum of space there exists what we call "the Zero Point Field (ZPF)," also called "Zero Point Energy." It has been estimated that there is more energy within the totality of space than there is energy in all of the matter within the universe, including hypothetical dark matter. So is the contents of this vacuum really "nothing?" From the perspective of its whole it may be the farthest thing away from being nothing as possible.

When Stephen Hawking proposed that the universe was created from nothing, what he really meant was that he thinks the universe was created from the Zero Point Field.

Since this thread is now in the Speculation Forum:

Theorists today have proposed the existence of many yet undiscovered types of particles within the vacuum: particulate dark matter, Higgs particles, gravitons, etc. They have proposed several different types of yet undiscovered energies in this field: dark energy, quantum foam, etc. If any of these hypothetical particles, energies, or other hypothetical entities exist within this vacuum it could also be called an aether. To be called an aether its constituents would seemingly need to have relative motions within it, as well as a frame of least motion (a rest frame concerning EM radiation).

//