Battle of the Mega-verses

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

You think it's bad reading it, you should be me! I have to Google ever other word I use, since I'm pulling this all outta my butt!

In a string? Ain't gonna touch that theory!

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Oh, I keep forgetting the green text rule

Yes; every aid to reading comprehension is sorely needed on the internet. I simply can't understand why the convention isn't adopted for all literature; it would make reading vintage Captain Marvel and Proust sooo much easier!

So, I heard a while back that the universe is actually speeding up rather than slowing down. Does this mean that "the BIG BANG" is still banging?

I'm gonna have to get busy Googling.

[kstar]

QM "theory" is fundamental and practically applied in the production of microchips, among other things. A lot of folks would be very surprised if it wasn't "true".

Ever heard of a qubit?

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

QM "theory" is fundamental and practically applied in the production of microchips, among other things. A lot of folks would be very surprised if it wasn't "true".

Ever heard of a qubit?

I hate to put words in someones mouth but I think he means that since QM and GR are incompatable, QM is not a "true" theory in the sense that it is complete and self contained.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by sjf911

I hate to put words in someones mouth but I think he means that since QM and GR are incompatable, QM is not a "true" theory in the sense that it is complete and self contained.

I understand that the QM and GR twain have not met, my point is simply that QM has practical applications . . . that have been applied materially. So, at least, there is truth in part of the theory.

FWIW.

edit: Did I say my knowledge base of QM is apparently very limited compared to that of yours and Mike B.'s ?

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by DARISC

So, I heard a while back that the universe is actually speeding up rather than slowing down. Does this mean that "the BIG BANG" is still banging?

I'm gonna have to get busy Googling.

Aha! Now we get into my field of expertise...

Here's the deal...the big Bang gave a smack that started the expansion of the Universe. The problem is, that rotten gravity causes the structure of space to want to pull back on itself, thereby slowing down the expansion. This was the modern Inflationary Theory.

Now, a few years ago, they found that, in fact, the Universe is expanding FASTER now that before...huh? How?

Well, turns out that there is a repulsive force (it pushes things apart, opposite of gravity). It's called "quintessence", or in the liberal media, Dark Energy. It also acts like Einstein's Cosmological Constant...turns out his first round of General Relativity was right, whouda thunk it!


So, the thing is, this quintessence only manifests itself on huge distance scales...we're talking billions of lightyears. So, in all of the sky surveys we did earlier, it never appeared, because the strength of it was almost nil. It was only when the surveys started looking far enough out in space that it was seen.

On the distance scales that the Universe is now, it's becoming more powerful than gravity, and so has restarted the expansionary era of the Universe.


does your brain hurt yet?

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

I understand that the QM and GR twain have not met, my point is simply that QM has practical applications . . . that have been applied materially. So, at least, there is truth in part of the theory.

FWIW.

True, QM does describe some things (and has predicted some things) that are real.


So did Newtonian mechanics, yet we know that it is not only wrong, but was built on a completely wrong basis.

Eventually, one of several things will happen:

1) QM will be shown to be wrong because Gravity will be applied to the microworld
2) Both Gravity and QM will be proven wrong by a totally new theory
3) Someone will find a way to install nonlinear mechanics into QM, and it may or may not meld with Gravity

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

True, QM does describe some things (and has predicted some things) that are real.


So did Newtonian mechanics, yet we know that it is not only wrong, but was built on a completely wrong basis.

Eventually, one of several things will happen:

1) QM will be shown to be wrong because Gravity will be applied to the microworld
2) Both Gravity and QM will be proven wrong by a totally new theory
3) Someone will find a way to install nonlinear mechanics into QM, and it may or may not meld with Gravity

That's good for my world view, since I don't believe in gravity.

I am disciple of "Intelligent Falling" - see: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Best,

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

I understand that the QM and GR twain have not met, my point is simply that QM has practical applications . . . that have been applied materially. So, at least, there is truth in part of the theory.

FWIW.

edit: Did I say my knowledge base of QM is apparently very limited compared to that of yours and Mike B.'s ?

LOL, that is why my first reaction was to ask if someone had falsified quantum non-locality.

[Pazuzu]

I am impressed...it's rare that I have to actually watch my words when discussing stuff like this. Normally, I can say stuff like "General relativity means that time is relative...ohh ahh!!" and people pretend like you're a god.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by sjf911

LOL, that is why my first reaction was to ask if someone had falsified quantum non-locality.

Well, I would be pretty proud of myself if I ever reported such news to you.

That would be quite a scoop.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

does your brain hurt yet?

Why, yes it does. I believe I have a quintessential headache (from reading too much liberal media?).

Rotten gravity? I didn't know gravity decayed.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by DARISC

. . . snip . . .

Rotten gravity? I didn't know gravity decayed.

Look no further than the moon!

Since it is composed almost entirely of cheese, and cheese "decays", the moon only has 1/6 of the gravity of Earth, which is made of mostly fauna poop. Poop turns to rock eventually, which is heavier than old cheese.

The elegance of science.

Best,

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

So, the thing is, this quintessence only manifests itself on huge distance scales...we're talking billions of lightyears.

Is that it, or is it that on huge distance scales, the volume of space, and thus quintessence, is large enough to aggregate this repulsive force to a level that exceeds the gravitational force (which, of course, weakens w.r.t. distance)?

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

That's good for my world view, since I don't believe in gravity.

I am disciple of "Intelligent Falling" - see: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Best,

Me too. That's the hot theory.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Look no further than the moon!

Since it is composed almost entirely of cheese, and cheese "decays", the moon only has 1/6 of the gravity of Earth, which is made of mostly fauna poop. Poop turns to rock eventually, which is heavier than old cheese.

The elegance of science.

Best,

I don't know, I've come across some pretty hard, aged cheeses.

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Look no further than the moon!

Since it is composed almost entirely of cheese, and cheese "decays", the moon only has 1/6 of the gravity of Earth, which is made of mostly fauna poop. Poop turns to rock eventually, which is heavier than old cheese.

The elegance of science.

Best,

I love it, earth as a coprolite. God's fossilized turd. Some kind of symmetry there .

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Is that it, or is it that on huge distance scales, the volume of space, and thus quintessence, is large enough to aggregate this repulsive force to a level that exceeds the gravitational force (which, of course, weakens w.r.t. distance)?

Eh, depends on what kind of words you want to use. Every natural force has a representative distance scale for it's strength, kind of like the time constant in a RC circuit. Nuclear is very small (the force is huge across nanometers, and drops off quickly to near zero beyond that). Electromagnetism is medium scaled (force is strong to a few meters, then drops off quickly). Gravity is much larger (a scale of 10^25 meters), and quintessence is much larger still (who knows, 10^35, 10^40 meters?)

Each force however is weaker overall at that representative distance as the distance gets larger (ie. nuclear at 1 nm is MUCH stronger than gravity at 10^25 meters).

We don't yet know the details on quintessence enough to quantify it much, but we're working on it.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Look no further than the moon!

D'oh! Like, there it is, staring me in the face...with its face!

Could string cheese theory apply here? Or is that just cheese pie in the sky?

[IROC]

This is a great thread. Too bad I barely understand what is being discussed even though I find it so interesting.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Eh, depends on what kind of words you want to use.

English will suffice.