For this reason, it was refreshing to hear from CERN this week, that they may grudgingly have to admit that another previously unknown force may exist in nature. This may fit in with the long term concerns about our inability to detect something that should be everywhere - and in profusion - Dark Energy. — Gary Enfield
Here we have evidence for the existence of the force. — Gary Enfield
I did find the post quite difficult to follow in terms of emphasis. — Gary Enfield
It should be mentioned though, the need to define models which for example 'explain light as a particle or a wave because it can't be both' has led to awfully misguided debates — ernest meyer
I would say that light isn't either a particle or a wave — Enrique
So, what's this new information? — Metaphysician Undercover
'Particles', as temporary excitations of the permanent underlying quantum fields, go through both slits because, well, as hinted, they are field quanta at heart. — PoeticUniverse
A medley of multiple posts I had already made at this site, so not organized in a seamless linear argument, and much of the material is very spatial, requiring the reader to spend some effort envisioning the image I have in mind, so I'm not that surprised. To really get it I think the reader has to pause at points and give the thought experimentation some deep contemplating. — Enrique
Your mission if you choose to accept it: explain skipping a stone to me as temporary excitations of the permanent underlying quantum fields. — Enrique
Particles can be long-lasting as excitations due to their unit strength/charge as energy quanta…and from there we know the rest of the story. — PoeticUniverse
oh well, it was a world while it lasted. — Enrique
Oh no! The muon is a fiction and now the whole Standard Model is fucked. Oh well, I'm sure the physicists can apply the appropriate mathematical smoke and mirrors to make it all work out just fine. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think a basic problem with your idea is that the first experiments were conducted with light, and therefore an electric field wouldn't apply. I can't help believing that whatever mechanism applies - it would apply to both mediums equally. — Gary Enfield
Doesn't the evidence of the cosmological background radiation put the earth at the center of the universe? — Metaphysician Undercover
How come we can tell what motion we have with respect to the CMB?
Doesn't this mean there's an absolute frame of reference?
The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!
However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics.
You're off on some strange tangent. Someone alluded to a recent discovery in physics. You asked what it was. I gave you a link to a New York Times article on the subject. Your next post was bizarre and off the wall. I know you think you're making a point, but you're not. — fishfry
I am not personally sure of why we appear to be at the center of it, or if an observer in a distant galaxy would also see themselves at the center. — fishfry
We appear to be at the center, because this is a map of the expanding universe. If the substratum of the universe, space-time itself, is expanding, then it must expand from every point. The result is that any point becomes the center point, when mapped in this way. — Metaphysician Undercover
If some other force is at play to cause the different rates, then I guess I might not be at the center so long as there was an equally spaced, equal number of parts speeding away at their various rates. — James Riley
I would say the evidence suggests that gravity is the other force which is at play here, causing different rates of expansion. But gravity and expansion might actually just be two aspects of, or two ways that we approach, the very same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
there's no point to thinking that any of the models which physicists or cosmologists come up with are correct models. — Metaphysician Undercover
That makes sense to me. It was my understanding though, that space only grow between those aspects of non-space that are so far apart that gravity no longer influences them? I don't know if that is a cluster, or super cluster or what, but space is not increasing the distance between us and the earth, earth from sun, sun from galaxy etc. — James Riley
Thanks for the link fishfry, I do appreciate it. If I had a bad attitude at the time, it was probably because you started the post with "2+2=4". — Metaphysician Undercover
That was a bit of cheap bait. — fishfry
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.