Funny how arguing about the fundamentals can become such a big deal among geeks...

I'm not used to this sort of discussion, so I'm guessing there's a "school" out there that argues against the equivalence principle...

Sure, there are plenty of alternative theories, just no tested at the highest possible human level alternative facts. The odds that either side is exactly right is zero, that's what makes it interesting unless it's a totally crackpot idea like EMDrives.

 

What they have is an amount of energy with an equivalent mass ... but in reality they have no mass ... otherwise they wouldn't be able to travel at the speed of light.

The photon has zero rest mass and always moves at the speed of light within a vacuum.​

Again, notice the qualification of rest mass. Saying that a photon has zero rest mass is precisely the same as saying that it has zero rest energy: E = mc^2. If m = 0, then E = 0, right? So by your criterion, photons "in reality" don't have energy, either.

But we know that photons have nonzero total (relativistic) energy. The confusion arises because you're using the word "energy" to mean total energy, while using the word "mass" to mean rest mass. But if you're going to talk about total energy, then you should be talking about total mass.

This may seem like quibbling semantics, but it's hard enough to understand modern physics without making such distinctions explicit.

 

Sure, there are plenty of alternative theories, just no tested at the highest possible human level alternative facts. The odds that either side is exactly right is zero, that's what makes it interesting unless it's a totally crackpot idea like EMDrives.

Rub it in dude... next thing you're gonna break my heart telling me there's no such thing as leprechauns ... ...

 

Hi,

I can see that i was asking too much of the community by asking to look for a more fundamental theory than that which everyone has already learned. If a theory is already fundamental to your point of view, you'll never look for a better one. There are people looking for better ones so we just have to wait and see what comes of it.

There's an old saying in the chess world:
If you see a good move, sit on your hands and look for a better one.

 

Hi,

I can see that i was asking too much of the community by asking to look for a more fundamental theory than that which everyone has already learned. If a theory is already fundamental to your point of view, you'll never look for a better one. There are people looking for better ones so we just have to wait and see what comes of it.

There's an old saying in the chess world:
If you see a good move, sit on your hands and look for a better one.

So the answer is ?
http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/01/12/why-is-light-pure-energy/

Why should we change when it's currently the best scientific explanation for what's happening? The idea of fundamental 'pure energy' or 'isolated energy' is misguided in any scientific theory using proven physics. It's long past the time for those people looking for better ones to provide scientific evidence and proof instead of writing pretty stories in pop-sci magazines.

 

So the answer is ?
http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/01/12/why-is-light-pure-energy/

Why should we change when it's currently the best scientific explanation for what's happening? The idea of fundamental 'pure energy' or 'isolated energy' is misguided in any scientific theory using proven physics. It's long past the time for those people looking for better ones to provide scientific evidence and proof instead of writing pretty stories in pop-sci magazines.

Hello again,

Not sure why you would digress into the past to pull up another controversy about what has already been discussed.
It's clear that you dont like anything beyond your comfort zone. You seem to want to play armchair theoretical physicist and that's not a sin or anything but you shouldnt be telling people that everything is already known so let's just relax, have a cup of coffee, and forget that we're still looking for a TOE. If you are comfortable with what is already known, good for you. Many people are not, whether you like it or not.
Sorry but you just insist that we already have all the answers when clearly we dont and everybody seems to know that. That's why we have research. If you look back into the past there have always been people who dont agree on things that have not been totally proved yet. So you disagree with some things, that's up to you. But you'll never get me to believe that there is nothing more to be found. You're welcome to keep trying though as long as you dont mind wasting your time
I do have to commend you though that there has been no name calling, YET he he.

If you could get past this energy or no energy thing for a minute, i'd love to hear your take on inertia, what that is in full.

 

Hello again,

Not sure why you would digress into the past to pull up another controversy about what has already been discussed.
It's clear that you dont like anything beyond your comfort zone. You seem to want to play armchair theoretical physicist and that's not a sin or anything but you shouldnt be telling people that everything is already known so let's just relax, have a cup of coffee, and forget that we're still looking for a TOE. If you are comfortable with what is already known, good for you. Many people are not, whether you like it or not.
Sorry but you just insist that we already have all the answers when clearly we dont and everybody seems to know that. That's why we have research. If you look back into the past there have always been people who dont agree on things that have not been totally proved yet. So you disagree with some things, that's up to you. But you'll never get me to believe that there is nothing more to be found. You're welcome to keep trying though as long as you dont mind wasting your time
I do have to commend you though that there has been no name calling, YET he he.

If you could get past this energy or no energy thing for a minute, i'd love to hear your take on inertia, what that is in full.

STOP putting words in my mouth, I've never said everything is already known. What I've said is there is a hell of a lot of information you don't need to be a theoretical physicist (real or armchair) to see being tossed about here and elsewhere that's been taken as gospel when we should question how scientifically valid it really is. Sure I disagree with nonsense and easily disproved misstated concepts. Calling you names for your unwarranted untrue comments in your last post is a waste of time and impure energy.

https://www.nature.com/articles/542031c
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

As Wolfgang Pauli is said to have put it, skewering one student’s apparently unfalsifiable idea, “This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.”

“The fear is that it would become difficult to separate such ‘science’ from New Age thinking, or science fiction,” says Ellis. If scientists backpedal on falsifiability, Ellis fears, intellectual disputes that were once resolved by experiment will devolve into never-ending philosophical feuds, and both the progress and the reputation of science will suffer.

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

We agree with theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder: post-empirical science is an oxymoron (see go.nature.com/p3upwp and go.nature.com/68rijj). Theories such as quantum mechanics and relativity turned out well because they made predictions that survived testing. Yet numerous historical examples point to how, in the absence of adequate data, elegant and compelling ideas led researchers in the wrong direction, from Ptolemy's geocentric theories of the cosmos to Lord Kelvin's 'vortex theory' of the atom and Fred Hoyle's perpetual steady-state Universe.

 

STOP putting words in my mouth, I've never said everything is already known. What I've said is there is a hell of a lot of information you don't need to be a theoretical physicist (real or armchair) to see being tossed about here and elsewhere that's been taken as gospel when we should question how scientifically valid it really is. Sure I disagree with nonsense and easily disproved misstated concepts. Calling you names for your unwarranted untrue comments in your last post is a waste of time and impure energy.

https://www.nature.com/articles/542031c
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

As Wolfgang Pauli is said to have put it, skewering one student’s apparently unfalsifiable idea, “This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.”


http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

Hi,

You hit on something interesting here. That is the question of when does the philosophy turn into pure reality.

There are a couple ways to look at this, so i have a hard time agreeing with that one quote that states that the debate could go on forever if we dont have a foundational method to test such things. There are two ways this can go i think. One way is to go on arguing forever as was mentioned, the other way is to simply realize that there may be more than one interpretation and this is when people agree but still hold their view a little stronger perhaps. Note that sometimes it may just be a dilemma but then both parties can recognize what is happening and come to a resolution that includes both views. The probl;ems start when one party does not like to drop their strong view even in part and recognize that there is more to it.
One time when this shouldnt happen though is when one theory subsumes another theory. If the working theory is working for a lot fo things, then they might be happy with it while the next guy who comes along sees something new and must question the long standing assumptions when they find a deeper truth or think they have. This happens so much i cant help but think it's the norm.

One thing we see in history though is that it all starts with philosophy. Without the thinking process of pondering the workings of a system we'd never develop any theory that works ... in fact we'd never develop any theory at all

 

10^500 power possible (a heavily qualified estimate) vacuum solutions or 10^500 different theories each with its own predictions for universes in string theory in 10, 11 or more dimensions compacted to 4. Yes, it's better than yielding infinities so there is hope it will eventually be tested and work as a TOE of one of the many universes eventually.
https://www.aps.org/meetings/multimedia/april2007/upload/kachru.pdf

Now the number of possible (from “first principles) Standard Models is just as high but at least we can actually experiment, verify that model for correctness and make predictions consistent with experiment.

 

Hi,

I can see that i was asking too much of the community by asking to look for a more fundamental theory than that which everyone has already learned. If a theory is already fundamental to your point of view, you'll never look for a better one. There are people looking for better ones so we just have to wait and see what comes of it.

More fundamental than the Standard Model? That's string theory territory, and as of yet string theory is more speculation than science. But I think you're missing the point that, regardless of what the next theory or model looks like, it will have to include the Standard Model. Just as general relativity becomes Newton's law of gravitation in the low-gravity limit, the Next Model will reduce to the Standard Model in its low-energy limit. No one denies that SM is incomplete (after all, it's missing gravity). But in terms of its predictive accuracy, SM is by far the most successful scientific theory ever; any theory that turns out to be more fundamental will incorporate SM, not replace it.

So, if we're going to talk fundamental physics, using the language of physics, then the terms we use should reflect their usage in that domain. Doing otherwise only leads to confusion and frustration. We're conditioned to think of concepts such as energy, mass, and angular momentum in aggregate, large-scale systems: thermodynamic energy is the ability to do work, mass is the Newtonian charge of inertia, etc. But in the quantum domain, energy, mass, angular momentum, etc., are the physical properties we ascribe to certain mathematical invariants. This is immensely useful, as these conserved quantities serve as the constraints that bound the space of possible physics. But the energy of a quark and the energy of a car have little to do with each other.

There's an old saying in the chess world:
If you see a good move, sit on your hands and look for a better one.

Another old saying in chess: choose the best available move, lest you run out of time trying to find a better move that may not exist.

 

Another old saying in chess: choose the best available move, lest you run out of time trying to find a better move that may not exist.

Hello,

That's what i did.

 

All bow to the mighty Unibrow!

 

RIP Mr. Hawkings
Here is an article about Black holes.
There are many mystery outside Earth and Black hole is one of them.

 

All bow to the mighty Unibrow!

Hi,

I watched the video. Kind of liked it really, well, the way he put things like how the laws we know today did not exist yet at the instant of the big bang.

I watched another of his videos after that and got a good laugh. He charged up a capacitor with a 120vac source and diode, then when he went to measure the voltage acorss the cap he shorted the leads by accident and the cap burst open and started spewing a lot of smoke, like a smoke bomb. Funny

What else is interesting to think about is what our universe would look like to a very large person that could look in from outside of the universe. What the black holes look like spikes or needles sticking out. We think of black holes as being contained inside our universe, but if we compare to the big bang, each singularity is like a point almost like a point where the big bang occurred. That doesnt mean it's a big bang, just that somewhere inside it it might behave like a point like the big bang except for the expansion. We believe that time slows down to zero, but apparently gravity still exists there. The video implies that gravity did not yet exist as we know it at the start of the big bang, so that would be different. A question i wonder about is if gravity exits outside of our universe. Based on spacetime it doesnt, but i've read that universes might attract each other so im not sure yet.

 

That doesnt mean it's a big bang, just that somewhere inside it it might behave like a point like the big bang except for the expansion.

I suspect the moment of creation of a black hole looks a helluvalot like a big bang -- from inside the black hole. Including inflationary expansion.

 

I suspect the moment of creation of a black hole looks a helluvalot like a big bang -- from inside the black hole. Including inflationary expansion.

If only there were a way to confirm your suspicions...

 

If only there were a way to confirm your suspicions...

Sure, if every human jumped inside a black hole then we would all know the truth for all human observers.

We just need to make a banana black hole from 3200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 bananas

 

3200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 bananas

That's a lot of bananas!

 

Sure, if every human jumped inside a black hole then we would all know the truth for all human observers.

We just need to make a banana black hole from 3200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 bananas

Hi,

Cant do it in this universe, that's more than the esimated number of atoms in this universe.
Divide by 320, then every atom in the universe would have to go into making up the bananas.
There would be no monkeys to eat them
They wouldnt rot though, no air to oxidize.
It would just be another banana republic

 

That's a lot of bananas!

Let get started.