Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by beecee

  1. Is it possible to distort space?

    I'm open for correction here, but I would say simply because the strong nuclear force, drowns out any observed effect attributed to the Casimir effect. A scientific theory is the best explanation/model, supported by available evidence that we have. Scientific theories grow in certainty over time and as they continue to match observational and experimental data and making valid predictions. Speculation is an idea or hypothesis that lacks any supportive evidence. I believe they do, but I refer you back to my first answer. [again I am open for correction]
  2. QM and Singularities

    Good point. The way I see it, is that there are many amateurs with an interest in science that like to believe they can after thinking for a while, come up with new theories and concepts, without giving much thought to the many hours weeks, and years of stringent learning and research that has gone into our incumbent models. As an amateur and one with a great interest in science, perhaps my "advanced years" gives me the necessary wisdom to be able to accept the fact that the great "quality" of optimism by amateurs and professionals alike, must be tempered by realism, the support of observational and/or experimental evidence, and the scientific methodology. Optimism and enthusiasm are great qualities and have certainly put science where it is today and put mankind on the Moon, but so to is the underlying realisation that hypothetical ideas and concepts are just that, and the enthusiasm and optimism shown by amateurs, for any of it to progress further then that, it must be professionally scrutinized and examined in the finest details....GR for example, even after a 100 years of incredible predictive powers and verification, is still being tested even as we speak. Imagine the fame and fortune that awaits any person who would ever be able to falsify some accepted concept of GR!!! That's science, that's the scientific method.
  3. Is it possible to distort space?

    It isn't a theory, simply a speculative concept. The Casimir effect concerns EMFs and quantum fluctuations. Atoms and quarks are dominated by the strong and weak nuclear forces.
  4. Mass and weight (yr 11)

    it is you who are wrong...really!
  5. QM and Singularities

    Of course I accept that. Basically what I'm trying to say is that while we may have many ideas and possibilities as to what goes on inside a BH, we also have no real reason to assume that the laws of physics and GR should not apply inside as they do outside, except of course at the quantum/Planck assuming that tidal gravitation still applies as it did outside, and that in essence a BH is just critically curved spacetime, with the mass probably and unfortunately residing where our laws do knowingly break down.
  6. The BB was not an explosion per se...rather it was an evolution/expansion of space and time, henceforth known as spacetime as we know them. Matter evolved later....It wasn't until 3 minutes after the BB that the first protons and neutrons combined to form basic atomic nuclei and another 380,000 years later before electrons were able to couple to those atomic nuclei to form out first elements of H and He. Being an evolution of spacetime itself, there was no center to this event, rather it happened everywhere at the same time, because everywhere was confined to within the volume of an atomic nucleus. The radiation we see and which we call the CMBR [Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.] pervades all of spacetime at a temperature of 2.7K and is the left over or relic heat from the BB itself. That though is only one element of evidence that supports the BB. The other of course is the observed expansion that we see. The BB model of the evolution of the universe/spacetime, is the most overwhelmingly supported model that we have. One other point...Scientific models such as the BB are not proven...nothing really is in science. Scientific models are simply the best explanation we have at this time, and are always open for modification, addition, or just plain old scrapping for any new improved model. By the same token, models such as the BB do grow in certainty over time and as they continue to match observational data and making valid predictions.
  7. What are you listening to right now?

    Deano and Goldie on dumb people: Deano doing what Deano does best!!
  8. As others have said, while WHs are a possible solution in GR, they have never been observed. In fact I have heard from reasonable reputable sources, that they contravene the conservation law. Hypothetically, what would hold the WH and BH together is a wormhole and ERB [Einstein Rosen Bridge. And of course most cosmologists do not believe a physical singularity exists anymore, rather only as a non solution of mathematics. A spinning singularity in a Kerr metric BH, would see what we know as a ring singularity. If one were to align his trajectory into a BH via the polar regions, so as to pass exactly through the middle of this singularity, one could do it without any tidal gravity effects, as the pull of gravity would be equalised on all sides. On passing through though and where one would end, we have no bloody idea!
  9. Is it possible to distort space?

    Interested: If we are able to survive any potential cosmological mishap, and our own Earthly follies, say to possibly 100,000 years or more hence, in my opinion the possibility exists that we "may" be advanced enough to modify spacetime to our demands, similar to the alcubierre warp drive or similar: But just as our stone age ancestors would see a jumbo jet as magic, such possible technology from the future, is at this time also magic and totally out of our league. The difficulties though in achieving such technology, also apparently means discovering some type of exotic energy and/or matter. No scientist/cosmologist expects anyone to find any such stuff anytime soon, if it at all exists. And of course if wormholes exist at all! The only thing really in its favour other then "over the top optimism" [which I have been told I have] is that entities such as wormholes and ERB's are solutions of GR, which has a pretty good track record. What I'm trying to say is that pessimism must be tempered with realism. We do know a lot more about GR today then when Einstein first gave it to us in 1916, and part of that is that even GR has limitations, particularly at the quantum/Planck level. The same applies of course to string theory and its derivitives: Mathematically beautiful they have been described, but as yet we are just not smart enough to invent technology to observe at such quantum/Planck levels and lower, and further no idea how we would/could implement any of the predictions or properties at such levels. I don't believe Strange is saying its all bullshit, rather that at this time, it is like magic to us and we have as yet no idea how to achieve any thing of that sort, if it is at all achievable, or even allowable. The same applies to time travel. I would love to believe that all this can be achieved by human kind at some time, and I would further love to believe that it can be achievable in my own time, before I kick the bucket. It certainly won't on the latter, and actually we have no idea as to the former.
  10. QM and Singularities

    Can't we reasonably logically assume, that tidal gravitational effects would take place, considering we observe it with Earth/Moon system and also outside of BH EH's with regards to accretion disks and matter spiraling we also assume that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous on limited observations.
  11. QM and Singularities

    As far as we know, the effects of tidal gravitation increases as a object approaches a BH's singularity region, to the extent that it will be ripped asunder into its most basic constituent fundamental parts. Yes even the strong nuclear force is overcome.
  12. What is Time?

    Simply put, time is what stops everything from happening together: Likewise, space is what keeps everything apart.
  13. What is your point? Remember this is mainstream science.
  14. No, they obviously are not, but it still leaves open a myriad of other explanations and reasons.
  15. A possible experiment to prove that gravity and quantum mechanics can be reconciled: Two teams of researchers working independently of one another have come up with an experiment designed to prove that gravity and quantum mechanics can be reconciled. excerpt: The experiment essentially involves attempting to entangle two particles using their gravitational attraction as a means of confirming quantum gravity. In practice, it would consist of levitating two tiny diamonds a small distance from one another and putting each of them into a superposition of two spin directions. After that, a magnetic field would be applied to separate the spin components. At this point, a test would be made to see if each of the components is gravitationally attracted. If they are, the researchers contend, that will prove that gravity is quantum; Read more at: the papers: Gravitationally Induced Entanglement between Two Massive Particles is Sufficient Evidence of Quantum Effects in Gravity: ABSTRACT All existing quantum-gravity proposals are extremely hard to test in practice. Quantum effects in the gravitational field are exceptionally small, unlike those in the electromagnetic field. The fundamental reason is that the gravitational coupling constant is about 43 orders of magnitude smaller than the fine structure constant, which governs light-matter interactions. For example, detecting gravitons—the hypothetical quanta of the gravitational field predicted by certain quantum-gravity proposals—is deemed to be practically impossible. Here we adopt a radically different, quantum-information-theoretic approach to testing quantum gravity. We propose witnessing quantumlike features in the gravitational field, by probing it with two masses each in a superposition of two locations. First, we prove that any system (e.g., a field) mediating entanglement between two quantum systems must be quantum. This argument is general and does not rely on any specific dynamics. Then, we propose an experiment to detect the entanglement generated between two masses via gravitational interaction. By our argument, the degree of entanglement between the masses is a witness of the field quantization. This experiment does not require any quantum control over gravity. It is also closer to realization than detecting gravitons or detecting quantum gravitational vacuum fluctuations. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ABSTRACT Understanding gravity in the framework of quantum mechanics is one of the great challenges in modern physics. However, the lack of empirical evidence has lead to a debate on whether gravity is a quantum entity. Despite varied proposed probes for quantum gravity, it is fair to say that there are no feasible ideas yet to test its quantum coherent behavior directly in a laboratory experiment. Here, we introduce an idea for such a test based on the principle that two objects cannot be entangled without a quantum mediator. We show that despite the weakness of gravity, the phase evolution induced by the gravitational interaction of two micron size test masses in adjacent matter-wave interferometers can detectably entangle them even when they are placed far apart enough to keep Casimir-Polder forces at bay. We provide a prescription for witnessing this entanglement, which certifies gravity as a quantum coherent mediator, through simple spin correlation measurements. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Questions.....Why specifically diamonds? In the Abstract of the first paper, it says, " By our argument, the degree of entanglement between the masses is a witness of the field quantization." When they speak of the "the degree of entanglement" are they referring to how far the masses are apart before entanglement ceases? If so, I was always of the opinion that this entanglement process, extended to infinity? In the second paper, it says, "We show that despite the weakness of gravity, the phase evolution induced by the gravitational interaction of two micron size test masses in adjacent matter-wave interferometers can detectably entangle them even when they are placed far apart enough to keep Casimir-Polder forces at bay." So again I understand that "Casimir forces only act over very short distances of less then the wavelengths of vacuum fluctuations or your average virtual particle that pops into and out of existence. So what has this to do with entanglement? Or more properly, what am I misunderstanding? And finally, when will we have a verifiable QGT? Will we ever really have the tools and methodology of measuring at those quantum/Planck levels to validate or otherwise?
  16. Astronomy Picture Of the Day:

    It seems that the link to the apod has updated itself...let's try again.... run your cursor over the picture and see how far each galaxy is away and illustrated with sound tones.
  17. The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field in Light and Sound Explanation: Have you heard about the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field? Either way, you've likely not heard about it like this -- please run your pointer over the featured image and listen! The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field(HUDF) was created in 2003-2004 with the Hubble Space Telescope staring for a long time toward near-empty space so that distant, faint galaxies would become visible. One of the most famous images in astronomy, the HUDF is featured here in a vibrant way -- with sonified distances. Pointing to a galaxy will play a note that indicates its approximate redshift. Because redshifts shift light toward the red end of thespectrum of light, they are depicted here by a shift of tone toward the low end of the spectrum of sound. The further the galaxy, the greater its cosmological redshift (even if it appears blue), and the lower the tone that will be played. The average galaxy in the HUDF is about 10.6 billion light years away and sounds like an F#. What's the most distant galaxy you can find? This Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) is based on an entryof new site called Astronomy Sound of the Month (AstroSoM). <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great Innovation!!
  18. Stephen Hawking Passed Away 3/14/2018

    A giant amongst men: Given 2 years to live at the age of 21 years, he instead reached out into the Universe, with his knowledge, humour and example. I'm drinking a can of Fosters to his memory.
  19. No one having an attempt at this?
  20. Once again Moreno, your incredulity in general is unfounded: Besides gravitational interactions, tidal perturbations, radioactivity, thermo-nuclear fusion etc, the Gaseous giants energy output can be explained by continued gravitational shrinking or collapse. In addition it certainly appears you have some other possibility in mind. OK, all you need is some evidence to support what ever it is that you seem to be pushing for all you are worth. In the meantime, scientists do have a reasonable handle on the planets and there geoactivity, and many have been listed here, with some unknown aspect. What you need to do is take this "unknown aspect" research it, form an hypothesis, and then write up a paper for proper scientific peer review.
  21. Light: visible or invisible?

    Very badly worded! Can I have another go? Our eyes see...period: Unless of course in the first instance, no part of the visible spectrum falls on the eye, thereby giving us a perception of a lack of colour, or black. And those facts lead us to the logical conclusion, that an Orange in the dark, has no colour.
  22. Light: visible or invisible?

    Of course it does! And not only contradicting, but resorting to unnecessary and irrelevant pedant and philosophy, and at the same time discriminating between word definitions like perceived, see, and interpret. Our eyes see...period: Unless of course in the first instance, no part of the visible spectrum falls on the eye, thereby giving us a perception of colour. And those facts lead us to the logical conclusion, that an Orange in the dark, has no colour.
  23. Light: visible or invisible?

    As is your rather pedant philosophical take just your opinion. AGREED.
  24. Light: visible or invisible?

    Wow!! Are you trying to be funny? Talk about philosophical pedantic nonsense! Let me sum it up for you...We see light, which we call the EMS. Black is the absence of light/colour, or a property of the object absorbing all of the EMS. And while in a technical sense, it is really not appropriate to refer to light as being colored. Light is simply a wave with a specific wavelength or a mixture of wavelengths; it has no color in and of itself. An object that is emitting or reflecting light to our eye appears to have a specific color as the result of the eye-brain response to the wavelength. Agreed.
  25. Light: visible or invisible? Visible Light Spectrum The focus of Lesson 2 will be upon the visible light region - the very narrow band of wavelengths located to the right of the infrared region and to the left of the ultraviolet region. Though electromagnetic waves exist in a vast range of wavelengths, our eyes are sensitive to only a very narrow band. Since this narrow band of wavelengths is the means by which humans see, we refer to it as the visible light spectrum. Normally when we use the term "light," we are referring to a type of electromagnetic wave that stimulates the retina of our eyes. In this sense, we are referring to visible light, a small spectrum from the enormous range of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. This visible light region consists of a spectrum of wavelengths that range from approximately 700 nanometers (abbreviated nm) to approximately 400 nm. Expressed in more familiar units, the range of wavelengths extends from 7 x 10-7 meter to 4 x 10-7 meter. This narrow band of visible light is affectionately known as ROYGBIV. As mentioned in the first section of Lesson 2, our eyes are sensitive to a very narrow band of frequencies within the enormous range of frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. This narrow band of frequencies is referred to as the visible light spectrum. Visible light - that which is detectable by the human eye - consists of wavelengths ranging from approximately 780 nanometer (7.80 x 10-7 m) down to 390 nanometer (3.90 x 10-7 m). Specific wavelengths within the spectrum correspond to a specific color based upon how humans typically perceive light of that wavelength. The long wavelength end of the spectrum corresponds to light that is perceived by humans to be red and the short wavelength end of the spectrum corresponds to light that is perceived to be violet. Other colors within the spectrum include orange, yellow, green and blue. The graphic below depicts the approximate range of wavelengths that are associated with the various perceived colors within the spectrum.