Any Physicists Here?

The Casimir effect is real and can be measured in the lab. There have also been many particle accelerator/collider experiments done since the 90s that have proven these particle pairs can be generated on demand albeit with a large amount of energy input input into the system to induce the quantum fluctuations to a measurable extent.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/
https://physics.aps.org/story/v2/st28

What I meant was popping in and out of existence from "absolute nothing". Whereas Krauss struggles to justify this quantum nothing as "nothing" and a "nothing" that credibly explains universes popping into existence out of this "nothing" and the process being perfectly "natural".

"Empty space is actually full of quark-and-gluon field fluctuations"



What this is saying is that space "Is Not Empty" lol....yet it's called "Empty space"
 
I have to wonder how much human perception plays into all of this? What if what we perceive as reality is actually sampled and quantized slices by our brain, the missing information between samples could be vast and explain why we can't really predict anything and explains why we only have probability. Perhaps the energy source(s) that drive the universe are pulsed or are waves and our version of reality exists in a tiny sampled area of those phenomenon. All of the other information or potential sample locations could be other realities existing along side or right on top of this one. Actions in this reality version could trigger changes in the co-existing and vice versa. The energy field that powers all of this could have fluctuations and if there are more than one source that could create some really complex interactions. There has to be consistency in the energy field(s) because we see stability in our version of reality, at least for the brief moment of human existence.

The fascinating thing for me is how every bit of this falls apart when you throw life into any of these theories. We can study and record the action of particles and form theories about them. Still, there exists these collections of particles (us) that can manipulate and change other particles into completely different versions at will? Then there is all of these molecular machines inside of us that convert atoms and particles to different versions which sustain a larger mass of atoms that stick together and roam around interacting with other masses of particles, that are completely different but have an attraction to do similar things in a nearly infinite set of possibilities!
 
Last edited:
I have to wonder how much human perception plays into all of this? What if what we perceive as reality is actually sampled and quantized slices by our brain, the missing information between samples could be vast and explain why we can't really predict anything and explains why we only have probability. Perhaps the energy source(s) that drive the universe are pulsed or are waves and our version of reality exists in a tiny sampled area of those phenomenon. All of the other information or potential sample locations could be other realities existing along side or right on top of this one. Actions in this reality version could trigger changes in the co-existing and vice versa. The energy field that powers all of this could have fluctuations and if there are more than one source that could create some really complex interactions. There has to be consistency in the energy field(s) because we see stability in our version of reality, at least for the brief moment of human existence.

The fascinating thing for me is how every bit of this falls apart when you throw life into any of these theories. We can study and record the action of particles and form theories about them. Still, there exists these collections of particles (us) that can manipulate and change other particles into completely different versions at will? Then there is all of these molecular machines inside of us that convert atoms and particles to different versions which sustain a larger mass of atoms that stick together and roam around interacting with other masses of particles, that are completely different but have an attraction to do similar things in a nearly infinite set of possibilities!

Einstein disdained any formal religion or a God to be answerable to. He believed in Spinoza's God who is indifferent and takes no part in his creation after he created it. Kind like "wind up the universe and let it go" and be on his merry way.

Yet when quantum mechanics came onto the scene, Einstein was steadfast against.

"God does not play dice." Is a quotation attributed to him. There are 2 sources for this quote.

The quotation says, ā€œQuantum theory yields much, but it hardly brings us close to the Old Oneā€™s secrets. I, in any case, am convinced He does not play dice with the universe.ā€ It was addressed by Einstein to Max Born (one of the fathers of Quantum Mechanics) in a letter that he wrote to Born in 1926.


1) Einsteinā€™s disagreement with the fundamental concept of Quantum Mechanics that at the quantum (i.e. atomic) level nature and the universe are totally random, namely events happen by mere chance;

2) Einsteinā€™s views about religion and God.

He died down working on his Unified Field Theory.
 
Einstein disdained any formal religion or a God to be answerable to. He believed in Spinoza's God who is indifferent and takes no part in his creation after he created it. Kind like "wind up the universe and let it go" and be on his merry way.

Yet he said that he felt God was leading him and stayed one step ahead just enough that he couldn't see him. He also said that even though he believed in God it wasn't the version that we see in religion.

If you knew where every single particle was, and the nature of energy and/or forces that drive them all things are predictable. Then, does such a thing as free will exist outside of that or are we playing out a script that was written long ago?

We know human perception and consciousness have many filters that trick, protect or we simply don't have the capacity to comprehend all of the information presented to us. We may or may not figure out a way around that. Imo time dilation will be the key to studying things outside of our perception limits, that is if we ever learn to manipulate it in controllable ways, even in small amounts.
 
What I meant was popping in and out of existence from "absolute nothing". Whereas Krauss struggles to justify this quantum nothing as "nothing" and a "nothing" that credibly explains universes popping into existence out of this "nothing" and the process being perfectly "natural".

"Empty space is actually full of quark-and-gluon field fluctuations"



What this is saying is that space "Is Not Empty" lol....yet it's called "Empty space"



According to string theory there is a lot going on everywhere, in a very tiny 'space' of six dimensions. At some point three of nine tiny dimensions got away from the rest and began to expand and have never stopped expanding, while the remaining six dimensions remain locked at that tiny 'space' way smaller than a proton. The vibrations in all nine dimensions define the characteristics of the various 'particles'.

Scientists suggest imagining that space is everywhere composed of the the three dimensions we are familiar with and the six tiny dimensions we are not - the six tiny dimensions also exist everywhere, in every part of the three dimensions. So now I'm wondering if that means those six tiny dimensions are extremely crowded and every particle in the universe is never more than say.. a Plank length away from any other, at least inside the six tiny dimensions. That might account for spooky action at a distance within the three extended dimensions of experience. If all the particles in the universe were actually as close to each other as can be (plank length?) in six out of the nine dimensions. Of coarse the purpose of science to be shown to be wrong. If this is a dumb idea bring it on. So far science has not found a realistic way to test the theory but they know what they are looking for, and they have some promising ideas.
 
Last edited:
According to string theory there is a lot going on everywhere, in a very tiny 'space' of six dimensions. At some point three of nine tiny dimensions got away from the rest and began to expand and have never stopped expanding, while the remaining six dimensions remain locked at that tiny 'space' way smaller than a proton. The vibrations in all nine dimensions define the characteristics of the various 'particles'.

I'm assuming you are referencing the Calibi-Yau manifold construct of space-time geometry. I've literally read Shing-Tung Yau's book 4 times and still don't fully understand it. It's amazing that any human can visualize 10 dimensions. While I can follow the math, I still cannot begin to grasp the physical construct of it all. It's one of those things that, to me, exists only on paper. Yet, there are gifted individuals out there who can actually visualize these concepts. Mind blowing.
 
I'm assuming you are referencing the Calibi-Yau manifold construct of space-time geometry. I've literally read Shing-Tung Yau's book 4 times and still don't fully understand it. It's amazing that any human can visualize 10 dimensions. While I can follow the math, I still cannot begin to grasp the physical construct of it all. It's one of those things that, to me, exists only on paper. Yet, there are gifted individuals out there who can actually visualize these concepts. Mind blowing.

Certain people have the gift of such a great memory, they can lock these collections of thoughts and contemplations in, return, add to and update that collection of information at anytime. Given that ability, a good imagination and reasonable problem solving skills there's not much one can't figure out with enough time. Most of these theories discussed here have decades with thousands and millions of hours of thought put into them.

Edit: I would like to add that people with great information recording and organization skills don't really need a photographic, or near photographic memory, but the other skills are probably necessary if you wish to take things farther than you found them.

Einstein said he was no smarter than anyone else, it was just he didn't give up on a problem until it was solved. He also said imagination was better than education. We are made of the very stuff that we think of in these studies, so how can we not be pulled toward the truth?

Something really triggered great thinking in the late 1700's and early 1800's (quality universities and information organization/curation?), then the next generation around the late 1800's and early 1900's took that to the next level. People are still taking those things up another notch every day.
 
Last edited:
Einstein said he was no smarter than anyone else, it was just he didn't give up on a problem until it was solved. He also said imagination was better than education. We are made of the very stuff that we think of in these studies, so how can we not be pulled toward the truth?

Something really triggered great thinking in the late 1700's and early 1800's (quality universities and information organization/curation?), then the next generation around the late 1800's and early 1900's took that to the next level. People are still taking those things up another notch every day.

Actually problems arose in the late 19th century with huge mis-steps by the science elite as empirical evidence started to go "against the preferred grain."

For instance....Edwin Hubble....could interpret red shifts 2 ways. The first way interpreted the Earth in the center of the universe in which Hubble described as "horrible" and would bring science back to that ancient notion of an central Earth. This is because from Earth's vantage point, the galaxies red shifts indicated that the galaxies distribution were proportional in distance to the Earth.

So he went with the 2nd way interpreting red shifts using the doppler effect...as the expansion of the universe. He incorporated Einstein's spatial curvature to do this.

However, if this is not entirely a proper method ...then science has started on the wrong foot and ever since it's research and subsequent findings are compromised.

Halton Arp (worked with Hubble) has shown quasars with very high red shifts ejected from galaxies with low red shifts. He found them also ejected in pairs from either side of the same galaxies. Arp's attempt to record and publish his findings was met with much resistance. His telescope time ended up being diminished and then halted altogether. Then let go. He left for Europe and was able to publish 2 books on red shifts. "Seeing Red" and "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies".





Cosmologist John Hartnett's take on Arp's hypothesis.


x-rays shows hydrogen gas from the low red shift galaxy enveloping quasars.

It certainly appears Arp is right and this whole lamdaCDM Big Bang with it's dark matter and dark energy suppositions is in serious crisis.

To be forthright....falsified?šŸ¤·šŸ»ā€ā™‚ļø

The Standard Model is based on Hubble's Law and his red shift interpretations.

Einstein himself is not without scrutiny. His "failings" are not for the faint of heart for sure.
 
Because I was looking this stuff up in google, now I am getting new feeds on the subject. But I'm not getting anything on divine intervention. Science is winning.
 
Gravity itself does not attract matter... matter attracts matter. Rather, matter results in a gravitational field due to warping of space-time. But you are correct that antimatter would be equally affected by the known forces that affect regular ....

The gravity variable is where they got it wrong... since they haven't mastered the topic....safe to say.
So they can't test any ideas.. which is the missing link. Gravity does in fact attract matter... per law of equal and opposite attraction.

Might better just keep the space odyssey for asteroid hunting and get a better grasp on gravity.

I would prefer to visit the anti gravity room as opposed to a risky expensive trip into space.

Then we could develop advanced propulsion systems like warp speed.
 
I donā€™t know if Iā€™m too late or not, but some people have discussed similar theories before without much success.
A different way to see this, is that since space-time is a sort of fabric that gets deformed by mass, and gravity waves are a thing now, eventually a particle would produce oscilations around its vicinity.

If youā€™re into perceiving space as a fluid like structure, you should get into quantum field theory and algebraic structures.

Regarding general relativity and proof by math as some have mentioned heree, donā€™t mind it much. It only goes so far until it raises more questions than whatever answers it may provide. It all makes sense until things like Tachyons happen.
 
Because I was looking this stuff up in google, now I am getting new feeds on the subject. But I'm not getting anything on divine intervention. Science is winning.

I understand your results since the elite media ignores all the ā€œdivine interventionā€ findings and not to mention the corrupt science preferred model(s).

They are there though ...though suppressed
 
As it should...

there is no battle ....empirical evidence is empirical evidence.

True religion and religious have no qualms with theories and observations.

The issues come into play in the interpretations of observations (empirical evidence).

When an interpretation is favored or given preference over another interpretation that is equally valid or more so....this is where the struggles take place.
 
there is no battle ....empirical evidence is empirical evidence.

True religion and religious have no qualms with theories and observations.

The issues come into play in the interpretations of observations (empirical evidence).

When an interpretation is favored or given preference over another interpretation that is equally valid or more so....this is where the struggles take place.
Yep... just like T-Rex.
First he's king of the dinosaur jungle.
Then his arms are just too short... he can't risk being aggressive... if she/he falls down they wont ever be able to get up.
Now the say the vultures of today are the genealogy descendants of yesterday's Trex.. scavenger.

Not to mention the Bogdanoff brothers have a physics thesis on the Big Bang Theory that was published and accepted.. thier not physicists....and indicates that much of outter space type of science theology is a spoof...

So, this thread could make it into the minds...create a new idea

A particle can become a wave and then back into a particle. I call upon the "BVG Cake" model.
A simple analogy would be... you have a bowl full of dry cake mix..these are the particles. We add egg, milk... mix... and we now turn particle into wave. Then we bake the cake... and wave returns to particle.
 
True religion and religious have no qualms with theories and observations.

What is 'true religion'?

The issues come into play in the interpretations of observations (empirical evidence).
When an interpretation is favored or given preference over another interpretation that is equally valid or more so....this is where the struggles take place.

Some interpretations are more likely than others. And if this interpretation can be validated through experiments and predicitions its the preferred interpretation. At least until something doesn't add up.

A particle can become a wave and then back into a particle.

That's not quite how it works. It's both at the same time, kind of.


Just out of curiosity are there other scientists than physicists here?
 
What is 'true religion'?

In the context of my post ....Religious organizations and religious people who accept creation as it is and walks hand in hand with the sciences. Empirical evidence is revered ...but the interpretations of these of course are not taken conclusively but given more weight and consideration should the interpretation have more weight. Especially if the interpretations are beyond reasonable doubt.

Some interpretations are more likely than others. And if this interpretation can be validated through experiments and predicitions its the preferred interpretation. At least until something doesn't add up.

Agreed. But when a preferred interpretation is given weight over other equally ā€œweightyā€ interpretations.....a bias ensues.

And then the bias continues after things donā€™t add up.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom