- Joined Jun 17, 2014
Indeed. There are several things the media typically get wrong about science/physics (and a lot of things, frankly), the most frequent of which are things related to time (especially time-reversal and the abominably-named "time crystal" - though blame the physicists for the bad naming conventions) and parallel universes. So lemme attempt clarify a few terms we physicists tend to casually throw around, for those who are curious or care (ignore the monologue if you aren't or don't)....Moral of the Story: Don't believe everything you hear on the news. Better yet, don't believe ANYTHING you hear on the news.
I've seen this before as well (if you're curious, the original paper can be seen here), and, after having given it thought when I first saw it, remain unconvinced, just like I am with Stephen Wolfram's recent theory of quantum gravity: while the hypothesis is interesting, it has its issues (which, in this particular case, are severe-enough that I remain unconvinced).This idea has been around for a while.
Ah, I see you posted this between when I began typing my wall-o'-text and when I refreshed the page. My bad! The forum apparently doesn't notify you as you're typing that someone has posted a new comment. Or it does and I just missed that update."Jumping straight to "parallel universes" is a little over-the-top, and there are less mind-boggling theories that could explain what ANITA has detected."
Just one thing...Indeed. There are several things the media typically get wrong about science/physics (and a lot of things, frankly), the most frequent of which are things related to time (especially time-reversal and the abominably-named "time crystal" - though blame the physicists for the bad naming conventions) and parallel universes. So lemme attempt clarify a few terms we physicists tend to casually throw around, for those who are curious or care (ignore the monologue if you aren't or don't)....
Time cannot be reversed - "time-reversal" in physics typically refers to a reverse of momentum or transfer of energy (an energy decay replaced with an energy gain, but NOT by passive means). It does not mean to "literally go backwards in time." That is impossible (requires superluminal speeds, imaginary mass, and some other mind-bending and physics-breaking things). The concept of "time reversal" is a subset of the study of CPT-symmetry - charge, parity, and time symmetry (for example: for every particle created from an equivalent amount of energy with a specific charge, spin/helicity, and direction of motion, there is an equivalent antiparticle created with opposite charge (charge reversal), spin/helicity (parity reversal), and momentum (time reversal). Likewise, a system of coupled oscillators, one with passive decay and the other with active energy gain (from some external source) is PT-symmetric (in that if you flip the position of the oscillators and reverse the behavior so gain becomes loss and vice-versa, the system should appear the same as the original - this is one area of my research, actually).
The "time crystal," which was a somewhat sensational topic a year or so back, is a real crystal structure that is periodic in space (per the definition of a crystal) and in time. What that means, for those who don't know, is the crystal's structure may vary over time, but ALWAYS returns to its previous form and starts over. They're very hard to create, apparently. They aren't, however, literal particles of crystallized time (that makes no sense, as time is largely perceived from motion and is not considered a "force," and thus has no particle representation/interaction, unlike the fundamental forces we do know if - it's just a property of the universe, particularly the "geometry" of it).
When it comes to "parallel universes," those are the results of PURELY MATHEMATICAL models of the universe that are, themselves, untestable (I'm looking at you, string theory, with your 11 dimensions). It has been shown (by people like the late Dr. Hawking) that if parallel universes do exist (for which there is no evidence), then we will NEVER be able to interact with them (i.e.: experimentally determine their existence). Basically, if we live in a multiverse, we'll never know it.
Now, as to the sources of these rogue neutrinos, we know they're from Earth (if I recall correctly), but where is another mystery. However, "new physics" doesn't need to be brought into it - any time an atom undergoes beta decay, a neutron becomes a proton and releases an electron and antielectron neutrino (called \beta^- decay). Another form that few people are aware of is if a proton somehow undergoes the same process, spitting out an antielectron and an electron neutrino (called \beta^+ decay). There's even a version called "electron capture beta decay" which has a proton somehow "absorbing" an electron and becoming a neutron and electron neutrino. So, basically, a possible source of these neutrinos is anything undergoing beta decay, especially isotopes of those nuclei that have an overabundance of neutrons or protons. Where these isotopes are? Who knows. THAT is what future research will need to determine.
Now, as a disclaimer, if these neutrinos are a more "exotic" type (i.e.: not electron or antielectron neutrinos, which are the most common kind), then more research (unrelated to radioactive decays) will need to be done. But again: we most likely don't need to bring "new physics" into it, and definitely not "parallel universes."
Tl;dr: To reiterate what other folks on this forum have said, don't rely on news media for any kind of accurate scientific reporting. Even be a little wary of Scientific American or Popular Science - they may be science journalists, but even they aren't "the experts," and can over-sensationalize stuff or misreport things (though they typically are more accurate than regular news for science stuff).
Yes, we could have even been 'paused' for a million years 1 second ago then restarted.The end of the universe. So, that time is actually getting shorter and shorter every second.
What it was first run ((((( the "first" however is not so certain ((and might have been artificial)) ))))) . . . it's not an answer - i'm just thinkingWith respect to what?
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|E||Powering a parallel array of 4x 70x70mm computer fans||Power Electronics||29|
|Problem with DPDT Rocker Switch and Electric DC Actuators wired in parallel||General Electronics Chat||26|
|F||Serial In-Parallel Out IC with current sink or source of 500mA per output||General Electronics Chat||16|
|M||Common emitter amplifier - A/C source and DC source in parallel question||Homework Help||2|
|Parallel port base address remapping||Programming & Languages||3|
|Powering a parallel array of 4x 70x70mm computer fans|
|Problem with DPDT Rocker Switch and Electric DC Actuators wired in parallel|
|Serial In-Parallel Out IC with current sink or source of 500mA per output|
|Common emitter amplifier - A/C source and DC source in parallel question|
|Parallel port base address remapping|
by Luke James
by Jake Hertz
by Gary Elinoff
by Luke James