How the Universe Will End

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

We need not be concerned we are part of animal class that will die even if sea water temperatures change by mere 7-10 degree difference

a) Release of methane gas in oceans will kill water life
also it will polute the air we breath

b) The oceans will be populated by special bectaria that will
thrive , and the water conveyer belth system will stop onces the
ice melts in north/south poles due to global temperatures

It has happend 5 times before before us , there is always a nice meteor strike waiting for us


Our solar system will collapse when sun will die out it will grow in size and eat all the inner planets - before exploding

Our galaxy will die after it will collide with Andromeda galaxy which is on direct collision corse with Milky way galaxy , it will result in a combination effect , and new statrs will be formed from chaos and new planets will shape up

Our galaxies have black holes that will continue to eat away the galaxy from inside , but eventually all the stars will die out one by one.
The black holes will take matter from one end and spit out form other side.

Galaxies are drifting apart from one an other - and there are billions of them , why are they drifting apart ? We don't know ...just speculations

Universe will not end we will

We would be lucky if somone finds our fossil one day and ask I wonder how they lived

 

[Zeluvaa]

I know this idea of "parallel Universe" came after this problem, I guess:


If you could go back in time and killed your grandfather before your father was born then there is no possibility that you were born and if you were not born then there is no possibility that you would travel backward and kill him.


So they came up with saying that, you would actually go into another universe and kill their.

The idea of multi-verse or multiple universes predates the above paradox, which is called the "Grandfather paradox."

Besides travelling back in time is thought to be impossible. Travel to the future in a limited sense, however, is theoretically possible (or lets say less impossible). Time dilation as proposed in Special relativity is one example of how this maybe achieved.

But travelling to the past would require one to travel faster than the speed of light as proposed in special relativity, where the backward motion of time can be perceived in some inertial frame of reference , which is impossible as it would require nearly infinite amount of energy. Or it maybe possible through worm-holes, extra dimensions, etc which are even more in the realm of science fiction than not!

Dark matter is just a hack to explain away observations that do not fit in with existing theories, hence the name 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'. Rather than refine existing theories, we just postulate that 'something is out there' and if we fudge it into our equations, then everything balances out.

Refine which existing theories exactly? All evidence points out to the presence of "something" which is causing the extra gravitational effects. This something MAY not be dark matter, it may just be our plain old gravity misunderstood as some predicts. These predictions range from completely modifying gravitational laws to quantum gravity, both of which are less accepted than the former.

Despite the hype, both theories of relativity are also riddled with holes. Regarding special relativity, if you ask five physicists to explain the twin paradox, you will get ten different answers and in the end they will shrug it away. Similarly, general relativity only talks about motion in a gravitational field; it has absolutely no explanation of why two masses at rest with respect to each other are attracted to each other. In other words, it can't even explain what holds you to your chair.

Enter gravitons, the elusive magic particle, completely unrelated to general relativity, to explain gravity. Leaving aside the horrible inelegance of the ad hoc mish mash that forms the 'particle zoo', the graviton brings with it a host of other problems. Does it travel at the speed of light? How does it interact with other particles?

Agreed that there are few anomalies that relativity has not explained yet, but it has been proven so far to be true. General relativity explains nearly perfectly how gravity works on large scales (curvature in space time). It only fails when it comes to quantum mechanics and behavior at sub atomic scales.

When it comes to gravity, I believe we are just starting to understand it. There is lot of work to be done, but I simply love gravity more than all fundamental forces

Also the "inelegant particle zoo" of standard model is anything but inelegant. Besides nearly all the fermion and bosons are proven to exist.

Coming to string theory, it is not physics. It is philosophy, not science, in the most fundamental sense that it is untestable in the foreseeable future. It is just a bunch of physicists/mathematicians playing games on black boards. And the existence of branes is yet another hack to explain away what happened before the big bang. The obvious question is 'where did the branes come from?'

I kinda think on the same line as you on String and M theory. When I first heard about it, I thought of it as impossible, and I still do. But it is a nice concept, definitely an interesting one. But the biggest problem is that it is impossible to prove, at least for now. But in terms of mathematical model it makes quite sense, who knows something may come out of it after all.

Problems also abound in quantum mechanics. John Bell, the Nobel prize winning quantum physicist who derived the Bell Inequality equation -- considered by physicists to be in the same league as e=mc2 -- famously said that quantum mechanics describes everything but explains nothing. It is just a bunch of equations that describe the what with absolutely no clue about the why. We come up with grandiose names like Uncertainty Principle to hide our ignorance and claim that no one, not even a civilization a million years ahead of us, can ever know the answers that we don't know. Even now, quantum mechanics cannot explain how a simple mirror works -- all we get are the usual probability distribution numbers, but no explanations of the detailed interactions between photons and atoms.

An apt comparison for quantum mechanics is the scenario where you leave a working TV set (with huge power supply) in a primitive village. Some enterprising villagers might push buttons and play around to discover recurring patterns. They would form theories that if you press this button when the sun is this high in the sky, then such and such images will appear on the screen. And they would be right. But it doesn't mean they have the faintest clue about electronics, electromagnetic radiation, microprocessors, program production, etc. etc...

I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that all theoretical physicist are "hacks" for trying to come up with theories? Or that the theories you mentioned are not true?

Do you want everything to be explained instantly by a single theory?
No one said theories like quantum theory is absolute, unchanging and all explaining. As we progress, we will learn more and make changes to the theories we have or come up with new ones.

Not all the question can be answered, as few are solved, many more arises. For example look at the short story you posted, even it had one unanswered question till the end (about entropy which I simply love and cannot wrap my brains around

Same with quantum mechanics - I've been trying for years now to understand it, but every time I decide to delve into it, I get scared by its complexity hehe. But it is absolutely fascinating branch of physics, what with Entanglement, Quantum tunnelling, Uncertainity principle, Schrödinger's cat - I love these theories)


Btw thanks for posting "The Last Question"! It is my favourite sci-fi short story.

And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the direction of entropy.

But there was now no man to whom AC might give the answer of the last question. No matter. The answer -- by demonstration -- would take care of that, too.

For another timeless interval, AC thought how best to do this. Carefully, AC organized the program.

The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe and brooded over what was now Chaos. Step by step, it must be done.

And AC said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"

And there was light----

Thats my favourite part, the philosophical implications, the possibilities posed by it, is simply amazing.

 

[Jade]

This whole business of dark matter, dark energy, gravitons, axions, strings is fancy bullshit by physicists who don't know jack.

Bottom line is we don't know why the galaxies don't fly apart. Does it require a fundamental rethink of gravity, the way the concept of time was redefined by Einstein? It is now postulated that the speed of light has changed during the course of the universe's history. What is dark matter and dark energy and how can we even predict the characteristics, let alone future characteristics, of something that is dreamed up to fill holes in existing theories?

And there was light----

It is rather hard to convince anyone who thinks modern theories are fancy. Since most of the modern theories are hard to prove by physical experiments.

There are numerous evidences to prove that there is missing mass that is invisible that are holding galaxies together or cluster of galaxies. Scientists call it Dark Matter. Similarly there is some force which until now has not been properly accounted for is forcing the galaxies apart. That force Scientists call Dark energy. A lot research need to be done to find out more on both these forces.

Should there be a rethink on gravity? I think not. The present theory of gravity is perfectly doing it's job.

As regarding the speed of light, Variability of speed of light is more of a consequence of the medium rather than of the Light itself. Even if it were that the speed of light is variable, it doesn't matter much. Please remember that the fundamentals of physics does not depends on the variability of speed of light but on the postulate that nothing can travel faster than light

Anyway in Physics, like all fundamental sciences, even if you think that the whole business of dark matter, dark energy, gravitons etc.. etc...is fancy, then you have to prove your point scientifically. Just saying won’t matter.

 

[Jade]

Dark matter is just a hack to explain away observations that do not fit in with existing theories, hence the name 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'. Rather than refine existing theories, we just postulate that 'something is out there' and if we fudge it into our equations, then everything balances out.

Despite the hype, both theories of relativity are also riddled with holes. Regarding special relativity, if you ask five physicists to explain the twin paradox, you will get ten different answers and in the end they will shrug it away. Similarly, general relativity only talks about motion in a gravitational field; it has absolutely no explanation of why two masses at rest with respect to each other are attracted to each other. In other words, it can't even explain what holds you to your chair.

Enter gravitons, the elusive magic particle, completely unrelated to general relativity, to explain gravity. Leaving aside the horrible inelegance of the ad hoc mish mash that forms the 'particle zoo', the graviton brings with it a host of other problems. Does it travel at the speed of light? How does it interact with other particles?

Coming to string theory, it is not physics. It is philosophy, not science, in the most fundamental sense that it is untestable in the foreseeable future. It is just a bunch of physicists/mathematicians playing games on black boards. And the existence of branes is yet another hack to explain away what happened before the big bang. The obvious question is 'where did the branes come from?'

Problems also abound in quantum mechanics. John Bell, the Nobel prize winning quantum physicist who derived the Bell Inequality equation -- considered by physicists to be in the same league as e=mc2 -- famously said that quantum mechanics describes everything but explains nothing. It is just a bunch of equations that describe the what with absolutely no clue about the why. We come up with grandiose names like Uncertainty Principle to hide our ignorance and claim that no one, not even a civilization a million years ahead of us, can ever know the answers that we don't know. Even now, quantum mechanics cannot explain how a simple mirror works -- all we get are the usual probability distribution numbers, but no explanations of the detailed interactions between photons and atoms.

An apt comparison for quantum mechanics is the scenario where you leave a working TV set (with huge power supply) in a primitive village. Some enterprising villagers might push buttons and play around to discover recurring patterns. They would form theories that if you press this button when the sun is this high in the sky, then such and such images will appear on the screen. And they would be right. But it doesn't mean they have the faintest clue about electronics, electromagnetic radiation, microprocessors, program production, etc. etc...

Nobody is arguing here that theories don’t need refinements; because they do need….and most theories are not good at explaining everything. Anyway just because a theory could not account for everything doesn’t mean it need to be discarded

 

[Developereo]

Refine which existing theories exactly? All evidence points out to the presence of "something" which is causing the extra gravitational effects. This something MAY not be dark matter, it may just be our plain old gravity misunderstood as some predicts. These predictions range from completely modifying gravitational laws to quantum gravity, both of which are less accepted than the former.

That's my point. The answer may lie in a fundamental rethink of gravity since, despite the hype over relativity, we don't understand gravity at all.

Agreed that there are few anomalies that relativity has not explained yet, but it has been proven so far to be true. General relativity explains nearly perfectly how gravity works on large scales (curvature in space time). It only fails when it comes to quantum mechanics and behavior at sub atomic scales.

As I stated earlier, GR cannot even explain why the apple falls in the first place. This is neither micro, nor macro, just ordinary scale. I would say that's a pretty basic requirement for any theory that purports to explain gravity.

Also the "inelegant particle zoo" of standard model is anything but inelegant. Besides nearly all the fermion and bosons are proven to exist.

The whole particle zoo thing is very dodgy. I am not saying the particles don't exist -- certainly something is making those tracks in cloud chambers -- but the whole business of quarks, axions, etc. seems very ad hoc to me. There is no elegance, just another 'dimension' tacked on to these building blocks every time new particles are discovered.

String and M theory. [,,,] the biggest problem is that it is impossible to prove, at least for now.

Which makes it philosophy, not science. Might as well assert that the universe rests on the shoulders of an indetectable giant standing on the back of a turtle. Or that the branes are petals of a lily floating in a pond. Couch it in fancy mathematics, and you have a valid competitor to string or branes theory.

I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that all theoretical physicist are "hacks"

That is the crux of the matter, for I do believe that much of modern physics, especially quantum physics, has abandoned a basic principle of physics, which is to explain reality.

Quantum mechanics is content to describe events in probabilistic terms and makes no effort to explain the how and the why. To add insult to injury, it elevates ignorance to a scientific Principle, and says that nobody -- not in the fullness of time or with millions of years of advanced knowledge -- can know these things because they are inherently unknowable.

To me that's not what science is about. Describing things is the job of reporters and librarians. Science, especially a hard science like physics, should be in the business of explaining the reasons why things work the way they do. Quantum mechanics drops the ball, and seems proud of it. Like I said, it cannot even explain the workings of a simple mirror.

Or that the theories you mentioned are not true?

Theories are neither absolutely true nor false, merely testable. They are an attempt to explain reality and they refine over time. But they should at least attempt to explain reality, not just describe it. Relativity, for all its flaws, at least tries to explain reality.

Do you want everything to be explained instantly by a single theory?

I want the crown jewels of modern physics to propose an explanation of why an apple falls to the ground, or how a mirror works. The answer may not prove right, but the theory/ies should at least attempt an explanation.

Entanglement, Quantum tunnelling, Uncertainity principle, Schrödinger's cat - I love these theories)

Every single one of those things are descriptions of observations, not an explanation of why the given results are observed.

Btw thanks for posting "The Last Question"! It is my favourite sci-fi short story.

No worries. Mine too.

It is rather hard to convince anyone who thinks modern theories are fancy. Since most of the modern theories are hard to prove by physical experiments.

I meant fancy in a derogative way, as in vaporware, smoke and mirrors. And if a theory cannot be proven (or disproven) then it doesn't belong in science.

There are numerous evidences to prove that there is missing mass that is invisible that are holding galaxies together or cluster of galaxies. Scientists call it Dark Matter.

That's the point. The evidence simply says that, given our current understanding of gravity and observed mass, the galaxies should be flying apart. Since they are not, something is amiss. Either there is more mass, or we don't understand how gravity works at large distances.

Why doesn't this dark matter, evidently so abundant, display any gravitational lensing? Since it is seven times as abundant as normal matter and omnipresent, we should be seeing all sorts of lensing effects all around us.

Similarly there is some force which until now has not been properly accounted for is forcing the galaxies apart. That force Scientists call Dark energy. A lot research need to be done to find out more on both these forces.

Exactly my point. Something is amiss and, fair enough, for now we can call it dark energy. But that's about it. We know nothing more about it. Again, does it have something to do with gravity or the fabric of space, neither of which we understand.

Should there be a rethink on gravity? I think not. The present theory of gravity is perfectly doing it's job.

As did Newton's theory until we came up with a better model to explain Mercury's orbit. It is precisely the presence of anomalous observations that triggers a fundamental rethink of basic 'truths'.

Please remember that the fundamentals of physics does not depends on the variability of speed of light but on the postulate that nothing can travel faster than light

That's not true. That is a postulate of special relativity only. Quantum mechanics requires faster-than-light communication and experiments as far back as 1970s (Alain Aspect) have demonstrated FTL communication.

Anyway in Physics, like all fundamental sciences, even if you think that the whole business of dark matter, dark energy, gravitons etc.. etc...is fancy, then you have to prove your point scientifically. Just saying won’t matter.

Physics has become like a religion, complete with sacred cows (relativity), an ordained priesthood, and untouchable deities (Einsten, Heisenberg). Anybody who points out uncomfortable truths is deemed a heretic and suffers professionally.

Nobody is arguing here that theories don’t need refinements; because they do need….and most theories are not good at explaining everything. Anyway just because a theory could not account for everything doesn’t mean it need to be discarded

Some 'theories' should be discarded, along with their proponents because they are not science. The idea that oscillating strings or membranes account for physical reality with no experiment to prove or disprove the assertion is just a fancy mathematical game. The idea that the entire universe instantly clones itself at every quantum event, with no reference to conservation of matter/energy, is another piece of junk 'science'. Just because this nonsense comes from within the ordained priesthood, instead of some insane asylum resident, does not make it any more respectable.

 

[Jade]

I meant fancy in a derogative way, as in vaporware, smoke and mirrors. And if a theory cannot be proven (or disproven) then it doesn't belong in science.

I said “prove by physical experiments”. There are lots of ways to prove theories. One of the prominent one is observation, especially, while dealing with large bodies. There are also other indirect ways of proving theories such as using mathematics.

That's the point. The evidence simply says that, given our current understanding of gravity and observed mass, the galaxies should be flying apart. Since they are not, something is amiss. Either there is more mass, or we don't understand how gravity works at large distances.

Why doesn't this dark matter, evidently so abundant, display any gravitational lensing? Since it is seven times as abundant as normal matter and omnipresent, we should be seeing all sorts of lensing effects all around us.

You are coming my way. Dark matters do exhibit gravitational lensing…and precisely in one experiment gravitational lensing is used to detect the Dark Matter.

Please refer to the link below on how gravitational lensing was used to find dark matter

Evidence for Dark Matter Found: A Ring of Dark Matter Has Been Discovered in a Galaxy Cluster

In fundamental terms there is no difference between dark matters and visible matter. May I ask you why we are not able to see microwave radiations while can see visible light? The same analogy here. Dark matter does emit dark radiation that is invisible to us, but could still have visible effects.

Exactly my point. Something is amiss and, fair enough, for now we can call it dark energy. But that's about it. We know nothing more about it. Again, does it have something to do with gravity or the fabric of space, neither of which we understand.

Please refer to my previous paragraph and the link.

As did Newton's theory until we came up with a better model to explain Mercury's orbit. It is precisely the presence of anomalous observations that triggers a fundamental rethink of basic 'truths'.

That is precisely my point. Until Einstein’s theory is perfectly doing it's job, why bother over another theory

That's not true. That is a postulate of special relativity only. Quantum mechanics requires faster-than-light communication and experiments as far back as 1970s (Alain Aspect) have demonstrated FTL communication.

Please remember that there is a difference between faster-than-light communications and speed of light. Speed of light is regardless of the relative speeds of the observer is always constant.

Although, Alain Aspect has failed in his FTL experiment, the possibility of travelling faster than light is not excluded from general relativity. For a mass that has no infinite energy the possibility of travelling faster than light is possible but not through space but out of space or by distorting space time curvature

Physics has become like a religion, complete with sacred cows (relativity), an ordained priesthood, and untouchable deities (Einsten, Heisenberg). Anybody who points out uncomfortable truths is deemed a heretic and suffers professionally.

Some 'theories' should be discarded, along with their proponents because they are not science. The idea that oscillating strings or membranes account for physical reality with no experiment to prove or disprove the assertion is just a fancy mathematical game. The idea that the entire universe instantly clones itself at every quantum event, with no reference to conservation of matter/energy, is another piece of junk 'science'. Just because this nonsense comes from within the ordained priesthood, instead of some insane asylum resident, does not make it any more respectable.

Physics is a science. Mathematics, measurements, observations are its characteristics. While proving or disproving any theory, scientific methodologies are the only ways.

 

[Developereo]

I said “prove by physical experiments”. There are lots of ways to prove theories. One of the prominent one is observation, especially, while dealing with large bodies. There are also other indirect ways of proving theories such as using mathematics.

The difference between observation and experimentation is a semantic red herring. Observation and experimentation usually go hand-in-hand. You perform an experiment and you observe the results. In some cases, as in astronomical observations, you only observe. The point is that a scientific theory is falsifiable. It either agrees with observed behavior or it doesn't. A good theory even makes predictions that can be used to confirm or refute it.

Mathematics never proves a physical theory. All it can offer is that the theory is mathematically consistent. It doesn't say anything about its validity or relevance to reality.

You are coming my way. Dark matters do exhibit gravitational lensing…and precisely in one experiment gravitational lensing is used to detect the Dark Matter.

Please refer to the link below on how gravitational lensing was used to find dark matter

Evidence for Dark Matter Found: A Ring of Dark Matter Has Been Discovered in a Galaxy Cluster

Don't buy that. The lensing could just as easily be done by a dust cloud or black hole. Once again, if there is 7x as much dark matter, and all around us to boot, we should be seeing massive gravitational lensing every time we look up at the sky.

In fundamental terms there is no difference between dark matters and visible matter.

There is all the difference. Dark matter is called as such because it is not made up of known particles. All the mass of known particles falls short of explaining galactic cohesion, hence the need for the mysterious dark matter.

May I ask you why we are not able to see microwave radiations while can see visible light?

Ordinary electromagnetic radiation is all composed of photons, of varying degrees of energy content. The receptors in our eyes contain chemicals that only respond when photons within a limited set of energy content impact. Hence we only 'see' that radiation.

The same analogy here. Dark matter does emit dark radiation that is invisible to us, but could still have visible effects.

I don't know if anyone has postulated any such thing as dark radiation. If they did, that would be yet another hack to dream up imaginary entities to balance mathematical equations.

That is precisely my point. Until Einstein’s theory is perfectly doing it's job, why bother over another theory

But GR is not doing the job. There is galactic cohesion, there is the unexplained expansion, and there is still no explanation for why an apple falls in the first place.

Please remember that there is a difference between faster-than-light communications and speed of light. Speed of light is regardless of the relative speeds of the observer is always constant.

SR postulates that no information can travel FTL. Quantum theory demands that information must travel FTL. Experiments have demonstrated conclusively that FTL transfer for information does, indeed, occur.

For another example of FTL information transfer, look up Gunter Nimtz and how he transmitted Mozart's 40th symphony FTL.

Although, Alain Aspect has failed in his FTL experiment,

Controversial.

the possibility of travelling faster than light is not excluded from general relativity. For a mass that has no infinite energy the possibility of travelling faster than light is possible but not through space but out of space or by distorting space time curvature

Tachyons and wormholes are strictly science fiction. Some physicists may entertain these ideas on popular TV shows, but there is not much serious scientific effort devoted to them.

Physics is a science. Mathematics, measurements, observations are its characteristics. While proving or disproving any theory, scientific methodologies are the only ways.

Physics is practised by humans, and humans have a tendency to form religious bonds to their favorite beliefs. Even scientists.

 

[Valiant_Soul]

Speaking by my experience, broadly the two questions that surely takes a person away from science (i.e. application of logical intellect and observational facts) are how the universe/world began and how will it end.

If you really want to know the answer to these questions, then first and foremost, you will have to find out "what is this world". Because without knowing the nature of this world or more precisely the nature of the reality that we perceive, it is simply impossible to know the answer to these questions.

But in order to know the nature of this world, the only window is the sub-atomic world - and the sub-atomic world is insanely unnatural, even more weird than Alice's wonderland. It is hard to find any regularity or any pattern or any single way of behavior of the various entities of that world.

So eventually the whole thing boils down to the fact that points towards the horizon of our intellectual and observational capabilities. Some questions simply cannot be answered through these capabilities.

Even Paul Davies, the famous physicist and inherently atheist, gives up
in his book "The Mind of God" and says that perhaps, it is only for the mystics to "realize" what this world really is.

 

[Jade]

The difference between observation and experimentation is a semantic red herring. Observation and experimentation usually go hand-in-hand. You perform an experiment and you observe the results. In some cases, as in astronomical observations, you only observe. The point is that a scientific theory is falsifiable. It either agrees with observed behavior or it doesn't. A good theory even makes predictions that can be used to confirm or refute it.

Mathematics never proves a physical theory. All it can offer is that the theory is mathematically consistent. It doesn't say anything about its validity or relevance to reality.

Here the point is not the differences between observation and experiment, but the ways of proving the theories. However, there is a heck of a difference between observation and experiment, while experiments are controllable, observations are not.

“Mathematics never proves a physical theory” is really a bold statement. Mathematics never exist in isolation, it the language of science. Let me put this way when I say 2+2=4, is the statement validity? Or are there any other different inferences that can be made?.

Don't buy that. The lensing could just as easily be done by a dust cloud or black hole. Once again, if there is 7x as much dark matter, and all around us to boot, we should be seeing massive gravitational lensing every time we look up at the sky.

You are going very far. We see gravitational lensing that includes the combined effects of both visible matter and Dark matter. Dust cloud and black holes are part of visible matter

There is all the difference. Dark matter is called as such because it is not made up of known particles. All the mass of known particles falls short of explaining galactic cohesion, hence the need for the mysterious dark matter.

That’s your postulate. Ok, when agree that: when all the mass of known particles falls short of explaining galactic cohesion, then what is holding Galaxy together?

Ordinary electromagnetic radiation is all composed of photons, of varying degrees of energy content. The receptors in our eyes contain chemicals that only respond when photons within a limited set of energy content impact. Hence we only 'see' that radiation.

When you agree this, then you should not have any problem agreeing with Dark Matter. After all you haven’t observed microwave radiations either

I don't know if anyone has postulated any such thing as dark radiation. If they did, that would be yet another hack to dream up imaginary entities to balance mathematical equations.

Nobody has observed gravitons, but all believe in gravity. The same case here

But GR is not doing the job. There is galactic cohesion, there is the unexplained expansion, and there is still no explanation for why an apple falls in the first place.

That’s your personal opinion. If you have any credible link please provide it. Saying in thin air won't matter.

SR postulates that no information can travel FTL. Quantum theory demands that information must travel FTL. Experiments have demonstrated conclusively that FTL transfer for information does, indeed, occur.

For another example of FTL information transfer, look up Gunter Nimtz and how he transmitted Mozart's 40th symphony FTL.

Here I was explaining the constant c as defined by Special Relatively. Regarding the FTL, it is theoretically possible. Special Relatively never excluded that possibility

Controversial.

Alain Aspect himself is controversial

Tachyons and wormholes are strictly science fiction. Some physicists may entertain these ideas on popular TV shows, but there is not much serious scientific effort devoted to them.

Here I am not talking of Tachyons and wormholes, although they were not observed, mathematically they can exist. Here I am talking of space time curvature….and the effects of space time curvature has been proved number of times. Black holes are one such example.

Physics is practised by humans, and humans have a tendency to form religious bonds to their favorite beliefs. Even scientists.

There is a heck of a difference between Science and Religion. Science is rational while religion is irrational.

 

[Jade]

Speaking by my experience, broadly the two questions that surely takes a person away from science (i.e. application of logical intellect and observational facts) are how the universe/world began and how will it end.

If you really want to know the answer to these questions, then first and foremost, you will have to find out "what is this world". Because without knowing the nature of this world or more precisely the nature of the reality that we perceive, it is simply impossible to know the answer to these questions.

But in order to know the nature of this world, the only window is the sub-atomic world - and the sub-atomic world is insanely unnatural, even more weird than Alice's wonderland. It is hard to find any regularity or any pattern or any single way of behavior of the various entities of that world.

So eventually the whole thing boils down to the fact that points towards the horizon of our intellectual and observational capabilities. Some questions simply cannot be answered through these capabilities.

Even Paul Davies, the famous physicist and inherently atheist, gives up
in his book "The Mind of God" and says that perhaps, it is only for the mystics to "realize" what this world really is.

That true, however the problem is we ourselves are the part of the Universe, hence we can never have the true picture of the Universe

 

[Zeluvaa]

That's my point. The answer may lie in a fundamental rethink of gravity since, despite the hype over relativity, we don't understand gravity at all.

We have come a long way in our understanding of Gravity. We understand gravity very well when it comes to large scales, the mathematical formulas given by Newton hundreds of years ago still give accurate results.

As I mentioned earlier, it is at sub-atomic level where the gravitational force is least understood partially due to its negligible effect being the weakest of the fundamental force.

Good news is physicist have been working on connecting gravity to quantum mechanics or what some people call "The Theory of Everything"

As I stated earlier, GR cannot even explain why the apple falls in the first place. This is neither micro, nor macro, just ordinary scale. I would say that's a pretty basic requirement for any theory that purports to explain gravity.

Relativity does explain such stuff......that it is the result of curvature of space-time. Of course, there are lots of questions still unanswered in this regard, but we are progressing towards reconciliation between gravity and other fundamental forces which will explain a lot.

The whole particle zoo thing is very dodgy. I am not saying the particles don't exist -- certainly something is making those tracks in cloud chambers -- but the whole business of quarks, axions, etc. seems very ad hoc to me. There is no elegance, just another 'dimension' tacked on to these building blocks every time new particles are discovered.

What do you mean by "Ad Hoc"? The scientists found it in experiments, not placed it there for their convenience.
And elegance, like many other things are relative. What you may consider "dodgy and inelegant" may not be thought of in the same wa by others

Which makes it philosophy, not science. Might as well assert that the universe rests on the shoulders of an indetectable giant standing on the back of a turtle. Or that the branes are petals of a lily floating in a pond. Couch it in fancy mathematics, and you have a valid competitor to string or branes theory.

Only thing is, the theory that undetectable giant holding up the universe or lily branes do not make mathematical sense nor has mathematical backing, but string theory does.

Now this does not mean, that I believe that string theory is true just because math supports it. But it certainly distinguishes it from philosophy and puts it in the realm of science.

That is the crux of the matter, for I do believe that much of modern physics, especially quantum physics, has abandoned a basic principle of physics, which is to explain reality.

Quantum mechanics is content to describe events in probabilistic terms and makes no effort to explain the how and the why. To add insult to injury, it elevates ignorance to a scientific Principle, and says that nobody -- not in the fullness of time or with millions of years of advanced knowledge -- can know these things because they are inherently unknowable.

To me that's not what science is about. Describing things is the job of reporters and librarians. Science, especially a hard science like physics, should be in the business of explaining the reasons why things work the way they do. Quantum mechanics drops the ball, and seems proud of it. Like I said, it cannot even explain the workings of a simple mirror.

Doesn't most theories originate from observations and then proceed to explain why and how the observed effect did happen?
Similarly Quantum mechanics have put forth theories on observations and has in the past and is currently giving explanation as to the "why" and the "how"

As for the mirror problem, there have been proposed explanation on how it works. One possible explanation comes from Richard Feynman - The Vega Science Trust - Richard Feynman - Science Videos - the link has few videos where he explains some background on reflection and transmission in terms of quantum mechanics - view them if you're interested

I want the crown jewels of modern physics to propose an explanation of why an apple falls to the ground, or how a mirror works. The answer may not prove right, but the theory/ies should at least attempt an explanation.

As I have mentioned earlier, if you everything explained right now with just one theory, then that is not going to happen. Many questions have been answered and many remains. But work is going on to answer these questions, who knows the 'theory of everything' may just answer everything. Btw there are theories which do attempt to explain why the apple falls and how does the mirror works.

Every single one of those things are descriptions of observations, not an explanation of why the given results are observed.

There are explanation to both entanglement and tunneling as well as applications for both of these phenomenon. If you want just a general explanation, then Wikipedia may/does provide some background on these topics, for details you will have to look up journals . And Schrödinger's cat is just a thought experiment

That's not true. That is a postulate of special relativity only. Quantum mechanics requires faster-than-light communication and experiments as far back as 1970s (Alain Aspect) have demonstrated FTL communication.

=========================================

SR postulates that no information can travel FTL. Quantum theory demands that information must travel FTL. Experiments have demonstrated conclusively that FTL transfer for information does, indeed, occur.

For another example of FTL information transfer, look up Gunter Nimtz and how he transmitted Mozart's 40th symphony FTL.


Tachyons and wormholes are strictly science fiction. Some physicists may entertain these ideas on popular TV shows, but there is not much serious scientific effort devoted to them.

There are provisions under General Relativity which does allow for FTL travel in some scenarios. Tachyon is one such way.
Another is distortion of space-time itself which will allow for FTL travel, an example of this being wormhole. Of course there are problem to this approach, one being violation of causality.

As for Gunter Nimtz, many physicist have disputed his claims on FTL travel. Many physicist believe quantum tunneling is compatible with relativity and Einsteins experiments and quantum tunneling does not violate causality.

Most of the claims of FTL travel stems from confusion regarding what may appear to travel faster than light, but actually does not convey information FTL. For example, when people talk about something being FTL, they usually are referring to group velocities or phase velocity , both of which does not violate special relativity.

 

[Developereo]

“Mathematics never proves a physical theory” is really a bold statement. Mathematics never exist in isolation, it the language of science. Let me put this way when I say 2+2=4, is the statement validity? Or are there any other different inferences that can be made?.

Let me repeat it again: mathematics never proves a physical theory. A theory that fails mathematics is not worth testing and can probably be rejectrd outright, but the reverse is not necessarily true. Passing the test of mathematics has no relevance on a theory's physical validity.

Given enough skill, you can come up with a perfectly consistent mathematical theory that says the universe floats on a pond of kitchen grease. It doesn't mean it has any relevance to reality.

You are going very far. We see gravitational lensing that includes the combined effects of both visible matter and Dark matter. Dust cloud and black holes are part of visible matter

No we don't. All we have is an observation; we postulate that the observed effect is due to gravitational lensing, and we futher postulate the cause for it. It could be dark matter, it could be a dust cloud, or it could be a black hole.

Occam's Razor dictates that we exhaust known explanations before dreaming up magical entities like 'dark matter'.

That’s your postulate. Ok, when agree that: when all the mass of known particles falls short of explaining galactic cohesion, then what is holding Galaxy together?

No, it is not my postulate. Dark matter is called as such because it is not composed of ordinary particles.

I would say that an equally valid approach would be to revise our notion of gravity, especially given the glaring holes in GR. It sounds extreme but, to me, it is also extreme to say that 95% of the universe's mass is composed of magical entities called dark matter/energy with equally magical properties like antigravity.

When you agree this, then you should not have any problem agreeing with Dark Matter. After all you haven’t observed microwave radiations either

Not at all. I explained to you why our eyes cannot see microwave radiation. It doesn't mean we can't construct instruments to detect it, and we have. We even transmit it.

Dark matter is nothing like it. There are no instruments to detect it. All it is is a bunch of numbers in mathematical formulae to balance out the equations. It is a mathematical game on physicists's blackboards.

That’s your personal opinion. If you have any credible link please provide it. Saying in thin air won't matter.

That is not my personal opinion. Every single one of those assertions is true and is a failure of GR.

GR cannot exdplain galactic cohesion, so we had to invent dark matter.
GR cannot explain the rate of universal expansion, so we had to invent dark energy.
GR cannot explain why two masses at rest with respect to each other attract each other in the first place; it only talks about particles already in motion. Ask your physics professor.

Here I was explaining the constant c as defined by Special Relatively. Regarding the FTL, it is theoretically possible. Special Relatively never excluded that possibility

Nobody is denying that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. The whole discussion is about FTL causation (i.e. information transfer).

SR forbids it; QM demands it.

There is a heck of a difference between Science and Religion. Science is rational while religion is irrational.

All I am saying is that scientists are not immune to stubborn emotions and politics. It happens far more than people think.

 

[Valiant_Soul]

To Developereo

There are has been a significant change in the way scientists look at the world post quantum physics. I think the problem with your approach is that you have missed this fine line.

Post quantum physics the world of modern science (specifically modern physics) is no longer "concrete". Concreteness is an attribute of classical physics, which is basically to describe the macro world world we live in. The micro world, however, is enormously different. There you do not find definiteness in anything. In that world, contradictions and dichotomies are highly frequent, and not because of the scientists, but because of the subjects. And many subjects of macro world, inevitably leads us to the micro world, for example the subject of gravity.

Einsteins general relativity and special relativity have been tried and tested time again in various conditions, and each time they give the same results. And regarding the Uncertainty Principle - it is simply invincible, not even once have scientists noted any exceptions to it. So if you are rubbishing these scientific theories because they do not give the complete picture, then it is your understanding that is at fault, not those theories. And they are not figment of imagination, they are proper results of mathematical equations and that have also been verified time again in various experimentations and observations.

Also your assertion that mathematics has nothing to do with proving the theories is again wrong. History is evident that all the theories that have been proved using mathematics has also been confirmed through experiments and observations. And in fact, scientific theories are written and developed in mathematical language, so your this saying is not making any sense.

And regarding your comment about scientists being prone to their beliefs, religious or otherwise, yes they are, but when a scientist produces a result, it is verified and tested by the whole scientific community - and that community is not prone to "personal beliefs".

P.S. Do not make the mistake of considering this world being definitive in nature - that is a blunder approach to end with. On the contrary, it is terrifyingly dynamic, akin to our mind.

 

[Valiant_Soul]

And another very significant scientific principle was given by Wolfgang Pauli, known as the Pauli's exclusion principle. This exclusion principle tells us why we experience solidity in nature and why everything does not dissolves down into subatomic ghetto. It broadly says that two subatomic particles cannot stay in the same quantum state, which means particles belonging to a certain class cannot be put together in the same "space", and that gives us the solidity we experience in nature. But there is absolutely no clue regarding how this exclusion principle is in place, all we know is that it is and it has been both mathematically and experimentally established.

Similarly, we do not know how there is attraction and repulsion between particles., but we do know that there is always attraction or repulsion. We do not know how the energy-loan mechanism works, but we do not that it does and which is what produces the "tunnel effect".

So basically, post quantum physics, we do not get the answers of "hows" but only "whys" and that is because, that is the nature of the modern physicist's business. The subatomic world, it seems, forbids the answers to "hows".

 

[Developereo]

To Developereo

There are has been a significant change in the way scientists look at the world post quantum physics. I think the problem with your approach is that you have missed this fine line.

On the contrary, it is precisely the change you mentioned whose validity I am questioning. As I stated earlier, QM is content to describe the what rather than try to explain the why and how. Not just me, but one of most pre-eminent QM Nobel laureates, John Bell himself, has made this statement about QM.

I maintain that the job of physics is to explain the underlying workings of reality, not just describe it. If it cannot do so, it should be humble enough to acknowledge its limitations, rather than elevating its inadequacies into universal Principles of ignorance.

The villagers in my earlier analogy can get a lot of mileage from their careful observations of TV programs, but it doesn't mean they have a clue about the underlying technology. They may even issue religious proclamations and lofty Principles that the technology of TV sets is forever unknowable and, with their level of technical knowledge, it would be.

In the case of QM, just because the ordained priesthood makes these claims of eternal ignorance, and the uninspired sheeple chant it religiously to excuse their own mediocrity, doesn't make it true.

If there is one thing we have learned from the history of science, it is that the scientific dogma of the day is overturned by revolutionary ideas -- ideas that are triggered precisely to explain observations that the reigning dogma fails to explain.

Einsteins general relativity and special relativity have been tried and tested time again in various conditions, and each time they give the same results.

A fundamental postulate of SR has been violated experimentally with FTL information transfer. The scientists involved are smart enough to couch their results in diplomatic terms, so as not to endanger their professional careers. It doesn't necessarily invalidate all of SR, it just means the reality is a lot more complex and a more comprehensive theory is needed.

Same for GR. Remember that Newton's physics also explained most of observed reality for several centuries; it was only Mercury's orbit and a few other anomalies that bugged people until GR provided a more complete explanation. GR is in the same boat now; there are a number of observations that it can't explain, including the proverbial apple, and, again, a new theory is needed to augment, or completely replace, GR. It doesn't mean GR is 'bad', only inadequate -- as all scientific theories are, no matter how good.

And regarding the Uncertainty Principle - it is simply invincible, not even once have scientists noted any exceptions to it. So if you are rubbishing these scientific theories because they do not give the complete picture, then it is your understanding that is at fault, not those theories. And they are not figment of imagination, they are proper results of mathematical equations and that have also been verified time again in various experimentations and observations.

It is a tautological argument -- just because we cannot observe something with our current technology and scientific knowledge, it is therefore inhererently unobservable. It is one thing to say we cannot do something today; it is quite another to say that something is forever impossible.

Also your assertion that mathematics has nothing to do with proving the theories is again wrong. History is evident that all the theories that have been proved using mathematics has also been confirmed through experiments and observations. And in fact, scientific theories are written and developed in mathematical language, so your this saying is not making any sense.

Mathematics is a tool to describe scientific theories -- all it can say is whether a theory is mathematically consistent. The only thing that ultimately proves or disproves a physical theory is experimental results and/or observations. Mathematics never proves a physical theory, although it can disprove it if it is mathematically inconsistent.

Here's an example: if you put two unicorns in a room, and then add four dragons, then you will have six creatures in the room. That statement is mathematically consistent -- you can even 'prove' it mathematically -- but it doesn't mean that unicorns and dragons exist.

And regarding your comment about scientists being prone to their beliefs, religious or otherwise, yes they are, but when a scientist produces a result, it is verified and tested by the whole scientific community - and that community is not prone to "personal beliefs".

The history of science is replete with personal agendas, professional blackmail and stubbornness. Certainly, good ideas win out eventually, but the establishment often plays dirty. For example, look up the ugly feud between Newton and Leibniz.

PS. I know about the Pauli exclusion principle and zero point energy. In these cases, QM is at least trying to explain a few things, which is commendable.