Are we just living in a black hole??

Discussion in 'Physics' started by asdf arfw, Dec 15, 2017.

  1. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    4,090
    4,295
    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. ;)
     
    cmartinez likes this.
  2. bogosort

    Active Member

    Sep 24, 2011
    47
    15
    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.
     
  3. cmartinez

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 17, 2007
    4,616
    5,435
    Rub it in dude... next thing you're gonna break my heart telling me there's no such thing as leprechauns ... :( ...

    :D
     
  4. MrAl

    Distinguished Member

    Jun 17, 2014
    4,403
    958
    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.
     
  5. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    4,090
    4,295
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
    cmartinez likes this.
  6. MrAl

    Distinguished Member

    Jun 17, 2014
    4,403
    958
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
  7. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    4,090
    4,295
    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


     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
  8. MrAl

    Distinguished Member

    Jun 17, 2014
    4,403
    958
    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 :)
     
  9. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    4,090
    4,295
    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.
     
    cmartinez likes this.
  10. bogosort

    Active Member

    Sep 24, 2011
    47
    15
    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.

    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.
     
    cmartinez and nsaspook like this.
  11. MrAl

    Distinguished Member

    Jun 17, 2014
    4,403
    958
    Hello,

    That's what i did.
     
Loading...