beecee

Some physics certainly is speculation....from speculation comes an hypotheisis...from an hypothesis via the scientific method, comes scientific theories/models. Some speculation though is doom to failure and some anomalous to speaking out of one's rear end. Do you have any reason to believe any accepted, mainstream physics models/theories are just pure fantasy? Or are you just peeved off because your own rear end speculative notions have been invalidated? . Yep, fascinating, thought provoking, and some worthy of further investigation and research. Still, as of today, the seventh day of August 2018, at 1044hrs AEST, we do not have any conclusive evidence of life existing off this Earth, let alone visiting Earth. Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence: Carl Sagan.

?? Spacetime curvature [that is gravity] is "generated" actually caused by mass/energy. Photons traverse spacetime in geodesic paths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gr77sPBjS4

Photons/Light have zero rest mass, but they do have momentum, and yes, as a consequence, light does by a very very tiny infinitesamal amount, warp the spacetime in which it is traversing. We do not as yet have a quantized theory of spacetime/gravity

The BB says nothing about scale 0: Plus the BB evolutionary universe theory applies to the observable universe. As Strange said, spacetime, the universe has no center [other the the center of one's observable universe], or edges. It is all that is.

WH's are nothing more then a hypothetical, speculative entity. Our knowledge of the universe/space/time actually ceases at t+10-43 seconds. The BB says nothing about "creation", rather just an evolution of the universe/space/time from a hotter, denser state at t+10-43 seconds. It is also something that I have also contemplated at times, but again it remains just a speculative hypothesis and as seemingly "reasonable" as it maybe, we do need some form of a observationally verifiable QGT to even begin to contemplate seriously. Psst! You should also have this posted in speculations. Obviously also it has SFA to do with the Higgs field or particle.

It seems to me that you are "trying" to project knowledge re Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle. To help in your terrible askew knowledge I give you.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle ???? DE is simply an unknown factor to account for the acceleration in the expansion of the universe/spacetime. The "observable universe" is that spherical universe that surrounds any observer, anywhere in the universe, and is governed by the speed of light and the observed expansion. Anything beyond anyone's observable universe is, you guessed it, unobservable. Any "stuff" beyond anyone's observable universe is unobservable. No great mystery, or anomaly or attempt at insinuating any mystery or contradiction, simply common sense based on current observational cosmology.. Gibberish.

And from memory, a recipient of the Templeton prize award, Mother Teresa being also a recipient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Prize +1

Human kind has seen the need to explain our existence via supernatural means for as long as we can remember. We saw deities/gods in many inanimate objects such as the Sun, Moon, Mountains etc etc etc. Science though has shown that such unsupported mythical supernatural beliefs are not necessary, and that our universe, the stars, our Sun, the planets, and even life can readily be explained by more natural scientific means. Those scientific explanations hold at least up to t+10-43 seconds. From here some install a "god of the gaps" to explain the unknowns particularly with regards to the BB and universal/space/time evolution with regards to before that 10-43 seconds post BB rime frame. So yes, one can believe in a deity of sorts while still accepting what science has explained. Others though realizing the great successes and answers that science has already given us, prefer to keep pursuing the unknown for further evidence and answers.

Cricket is a great game, analogous to playing chess. I'm speaking of course about 5 day test cricket, not the "Mickey Mouse" type short forms versions now foistered upon us like 1 dayers and T20

You mean gravitation will make the ball and Earth attract each other.

Excuse me?? Current accepted mainstream concepts are what primarily science forums worth their salt, are all about. Ever heard of the scientific method? Yes, photon wave/particle duality is the proper verified and observed concept. The only enlightenment that needs to be created, is that enlightenment that can make you aware of the error of your unsupported claims.

I'm sure we would get some takers.

No, you are contradicting yourself...There is no universal now, period. This is goverend and dictated by the universal maximum finite speed of light. yes, space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] is relative, that is not constant, not universal, but depended on other factors and frames of references governed by those factors. No. relativity says that space and time are relative, that is not fixed, not constant, not universal. perhaps some maybe getting trolling confused with ignorance. Again, from where I sit, you appear to be contradicting yourself, and the standard accepted, observable and evidenced based model.

Darn! The Aussie tooth fairy must have been a real tight wad...the most I ever got left was threepence! In relation to the article, Great Britain conducted 12 atomic tests in South Australia in the early/mid fifties...most from memory were air borne tests. It required the removal of the indigenous traditional land owners to other regions. I specifically remember reading reports of adverse medical conditions and deformaties of children of Australian troops who were stationed in the region. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/new-generations-of-australian-families-suffering-deformities-and-early-deaths-because-of-genetic-transfer/news-story/5a74b7eab2f433402aa00bc2fcbcbea4

Hmm, so you chose emotional, ignorant, and unsupported beliefs over evidenced based science? Do you have any evidence at all supporting any of these religions and or any soul? Whatever "evidence" there is that in anyway supports what you claim, it pales into insignificance to the evidence totally supporting such beliefs to be all scientific woo, myth and nonsense. Perhaps it is just patently obvious that evidence for any supernatural/paranormal myth is lacking, and that alternatively, the evidence for the BB, evolution of life and universal Abiogenesis is overwhelming. Irrespective there are intelligent people who are also religious but phycologically speaking their desire for some warm inner comforting feeling over rides their logic, and of course science as yet does not have all the answers, such as why the BB banged, but it continues to search, for answers, rather then short circuiting it with unsupported myth. No, you don't just get the BB theory. The BB theory as first proposed by a Catholic priest, was based on observational evidence. That evidence over the last 100 years has grown so that it is by far the most accepted theory on how the universe/space/time came to be...Yes, an accident, speculatively explained by a fluctuation in the quantum foam. Richard describes it adequately and well...a happy little accident. The chances of the universe arising is quite real, considering that we are here. More to the point, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4a7F6dOdlc So as Carl said try being couragious, and honest...It's not hard. Well again, it is you that has ventured into a science forum, on your white charger conducting some crusade against science. Is it not you with this weird mind set?? I also have plenty to say about the wonders and awe and answers that science and the scientific methodology has given us. But I will express them on forums such as this, and not venture into church next Sunday, expressing what a lot of gullible fools they are. Perhaps you and I actually swung in the same tree before science evolved?

I cringed last night when a news TV station was saying that it is the first sign of water on Mars. Of course that honour actually goes to the Phoenix Polar lander a few years ago with the discovery of water ice.

I'm not sure what you are getting at? Yes, I was lucky enough to be born in a first world country, but by the same token myself and my partner, do do our little bit to alleviate those less fortunate by sponsoring a child from Africa. With regards to hope my good man, I am a retired tradesman that is comfortabley well off and enjoying my retirement, but accept that like you, one day I will be returned to the dust of the Earth...dead, kaput, no evidence whatsoever of any resurrection of any mythical soul, ...Or as a great man did say, we are all just star dust, born in the belly of stars. While it may give the impressionable folk amongst us some nice warm inner glow to believe [without any evidence] that this great big magical spaghetti monster that sits a high in the clouds and that has been there forever and ever, will take them under his wings into paradise and banish the rest of us to hell...The universe my young fella, was an accident, and out of that accident, the birth of stars and planets took place, then abiogenisis and evolution to the stage of what you and I are at now. So enjoy it while it lasts my friend!!! because there is no other purpose....when you're dead you are dead, kaput, finished. That's funny and rather hypocritical I must say. It is you that has chosen to come into the "lion's den" so to speak. Perhaps in reality it is you that is reacting in spite, anger, remorse and sadness...Science goes on and on regardless of yours or anyone's mythical beliefs. If it wasn't for science you and I would still be swinging in the trees. Are you simply upset, angry, and spiteful, simply because science/cosmology has given observationally and experimentally supported evidence, to explain the universe/space/time that you and I inhabit at least up till t+10-43 seconds, and pushed all modes and types of magical spaghetti monsters into near oblivion, and simply no more then a superfluous mythical explanation that holds no influence in this day and age.

Havn't read all this thread and obviously have come in late....But if these "certain" people you have asked about how the BB happened, were slightly knowledgable, they could only answer, we don't really know....Our knowledge about the evolution and expansion of spacetime/universe stops at around 10-43 seconds after the initial event. But we do have I believe reasonable speculative explanation/s one I see much sense in is...https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Am I an Atheist??? I don't like being labeled anything, particularly when that labeling is in regards to what I see as the mechanics of the scientific methodology, by far the best system we have. Of course the dependence in that system relies on observations and repeatable experimental results, which of course then in turn rules out any and all supernatural and paranormal mythical nonsense. Of course though being a reasonable human being, I accept that others can believe in whatever myths and nonsense they want, except I am troubled by one thing...why so many that push the idea and myth of some magical spaghetti monster, that sits a high, judging all human kind, see the need to come to a science forum, expressing and crusading said nonsense.

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-black-holes-ever-growing-balls.html Black holes really just ever-growing balls of string, researchers say July 26, 2018 by Misti Crane, The Ohio State University Black holes aren't surrounded by a burning ring of fire after all, suggests new research. Some physicists have believed in a "firewall" around the perimeter of a black hole that would incinerate anything sucked into its powerful gravitational pull. But a team from The Ohio State University has calculated an explanation of what would happen if an electron fell into a typical black hole, with a mass as big as the sun. "The probability of the electron hitting a photon from the radiation and burning up is negligible, dropping even further if one considers larger black holes known to exist in space," said Samir Mathur, a professor of physics at Ohio State. The study appears in the Journal of High Energy Physics. The new study builds on previous work from 2004 led by Mathur that theorized that black holes are basically like giant, messy balls of yarn—fuzzballs" that gather more and more heft as new objects are sucked in. That theory, Mathur said, resolved the famous black hole "information paradox" outlined by Steven Hawking in 1975. Hawking's research had concluded that particles entering a black hole can never leave. But that ran counter to the laws of quantum mechanics, creating the paradox. The firewall argument emerged in 2012, when four physicists from the University of California, Santa Barbara argued that any object like a fuzzball would have to be surrounded by a ring of fire that will burn any object before it could reach the fuzzball's surface. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-black-holes-ever-growing-balls.html#jCp :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~mathur/firewallstory2.pdf The end of the firewall story? In 2012 a group of physicists (Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski and Sully) from the University of California, Santa Barbara, made a startling claim: in any theory where black holes do not lose information, a person falling towards the hole will get ‘burnt’ by a ‘firewall’ of radiation as he approaches the horizon of the black hole [1]. This claim flew in the face of earlier theories where information was not lost and where an infalling observer could maintain a sense of ‘falling freely through empty space’ as he reached the horizon. In 2014, Mathur and Turton pointed out the flaw in the firewall argument: an assumption in the argument implied that information travels faster than light to escape the hole [2]. With the offending assumption removed, an explicit model of the black hole could be made which bypassed the firewall argument. There remained, however, a last piece of the firewall story, which was closed in a paper by Guo, Hampton and Mathur, due to appear shortly in the Journal of High Energy Physics. In considering the behavior of black holes, it is normally assumed that the holes are large; i.e., their mass is much larger than Planck mass, the microscopic mass scale where quantum gravity effects begin to take over. Marolf (one of the authors of the firewall argument) had agreed that Mathur and Turton’s suggested process provided a way around the firewall claim for sufficiently large holes. But he questioned if the astrophysical holes we observe around us are large enough for the scenario to work. This may sound odd, since a solar mass hole is about 1038 times heavier than Planck mass. But the arguments of Mathur and Turton assumed that the firewall would burn infalling objects by gravitational interactions, and for holes that are not too large, electromagnetic interactions might be more important than gravitational ones. The electrostatic repulsion between two electrons is about 1042 times stronger than the gravitational attraction between the electrons. For sufficiently large holes gravitational effects would have to dominate in any firewall, but perhaps astrophysical holes were small enough that electromagnetic effects would create the conjectured firewall. In that case there might be a window for the firewall argument; i.e., a range where the black hole is large enough to be interesting but small enough for the Mathur-Turton scenario to not apply. In their new paper, Guo, Hampton and Mathur explored the possibility of firewalls for astrophysical holes, now including interactions from all four fundamental forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak. They found that the earlier Mathur-Turton argument against firewalls continued to hold, unless the hole was smaller than onehundredth the size of an atom. This ruled out firewalls for holes of astrophysical interest, closing the last loophole in the argument of Mathur and Turton against firewalls more......

Bingo!

That is also an interesting point. I was astonished lately that it is possible to formulate GR in flat space, see Is spacetime really curved? Kip Thorne also mentions it in his book on black holes. But what would your view be? It seems to me there is an essential difference between physical objects, existing in spacetime, and spacetime itself. I cannot ask you to change the time, or space itself. However we can change events in space an time, e.g. we can change an appointment to another time and place. Throwing in my $2 worth, if a model is successful and widely used, I believe it can logically be referred to as real. Newton told us that gravity is the attraction between masses, but that he did not have any clue why. Einstein came along and informed us that the background metric against which we locate events and call spacetime is curved and warped in the presence of mass, and this curvature is why masses attract and which we call gravity. GR is Einstein's theory of gravity and curved spacetime: SR is simply a special subset case of GR, is it not? and one in which spacetime being flat, gravity does not play a part. That's the way I see it, obviously I'm not in real deep to the philosophical question of what is really really "reality" and again, see the successful model as being real. A noted astronomer once told me that any future QGT will encompass the BB and GR, not invalidate them.

What information and knowledge it already has discovered is of course even more solid evidence, not only for BH's, but BH mergers, and of course the size range from stellar to intermediate mass BH's. In the future as precision, tolerances, and sensitivities are further enhanced, we will discover gravitational waves from further back in time, [perhaps from the BB itself] and of amplitudes and frequencies beyond that which aLIGO and its ground base cousins are able to decipher at this present time. Perhaps the LISA project may reveal more.

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant probably as a result of the nature and properties of our spacetime that emerged at the BB as are the other constants, such as the fine structure constant, the gravitational constant, Plancks constant etc. It's just the way it is and probably if it wasn't, then we wouldn't be here to ponder that question. Speculation has it that our BB was a fluctuation in a pre-existing quantum foam, and that many other fluctuations have and will occur....some with properties that have seen them already collapse, others with an expansion rate so fast that any matter that evolved, has already been ripped asunder due to the decaying process that we know will also happen to our own universe/spacetime. Perhaps this quantum foam, may best be described as the closest thing to the "nothing" from which our universe evolved. Our universe, our spacetime, is simply luckily fortunate enough to have things as they are, that incidentally support abiogeneis and the evolution of life as we know it. All speculative of course and imaginative also. Perhaps one day evidence maybe discovered that supports such speculative processes. Nothing wrong with imagination and I agree probably many theories have sprung from such imagination. But one must also understand that imagination while important, goes hand in hand with knowledge. "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." Albert Einstein: I believe that is what Einstein was trying to show with the above quote.

I don't believe it is important at all....spacetime, space-time or space/time, it all means the same thing.

I'm not sure if those statements are correct. Why don't we ask ourselves is a magnetic field real?...or just an abstraction? I see it as analogous to asking is space and/or time real. Does something have to be physical to be real? My answer to the last one is no. Space and time, [as we know them] both evolved from the BB. Then if we progress to the following statement.... "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".— Hermann Minkowski Now we have another example of something that is not physical yet is real and certainly compulsory when describing the universe we inhabit in line with GR and the known laws of physics. Fundamental or emergent?? good question! The following short interview videos I believe tell it like it is at this time. and..... Just some food for thought. Earlier I made the comparison between magnetic fields and spacetime: While we are unable to see a magnetic field directly, we are able to observe its properties such as the attraction and/or repulsion between ferrous objects. Simarilly with spacetime, we see gravity emerge when mass warps/curves it, or when that same warpage/curvature causes gravitational lensing and light following geodesic paths which we also observe.