The universe as we know it

November 17, 2015 by Darrin S. Joy
Scientists must reconcile the fundamental components of reality if humankind is ever to comprehend the cosmos.

Sitting in a small French bistro across from Pershing Square in downtown Los Angeles, Clifford Johnson held the pumpkin-hued drinking straw parallel to the table.

"Essentially, this straw has two to it. I can walk along the straw," he explained, running his index finger along the length, "or I can walk around the straw." His finger traced the object's glossy curved surface.

Johnson, professor of physics and astronomy at USC Dornsife, was explaining how the universe could hold extra, hidden dimensions.

"But let's imagine the straw is really, really long and thin, and I'm walking along the length and I don't have the equipment to look at very, very small distances." With those limitations, a traveler would only be able to see the one dimension of length ahead and behind.

Johnson motioned toward a point past the noisy traffic and pedestrians passing by, across the street. "It's basically the same as if I took the straw over there. You would see its orange length, but you wouldn't see the roundness. Still," he said, his finger again circling the straw, "notice everywhere I am in the one-dimensional universe, I could go around if I wanted to. That extra dimension is always with me."

In a similar way, the four-dimensional universe that humans know, comprising three dimensions of space and one of time, could actually harbor other dimensions that are too small to detect, Johnson said.

Why is that important? One word: strings.

Johnson, who describes his research as an attempt to under-stand the basic fabric of nature, is a renowned expert in string theory, the closest thing scientists have to a single theory that explains everything in the universe—all of reality.

If he and his fellow physicists are right, strings may be the most basic unit of existence. Every particle of force or matter may boil down to a simple, one-dimensional, vibrating string.

The large and small of it

For most of history, humankind's view of the universe and how it works focused on large-scale phenomena—planetary motion, visible properties of light and effects of magnetic fields, for example. Around the turn of the 20th century, as physicists began to examine the microscopic universe of atoms and their constituent pieces, they found that the subatomic world seemed to be governed by a very different set of rules. Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and a host of brilliantly creative scientists began exploring this realm through mathematics and direct experimentation.

Stated simply, different kinds of bosons transfer forces between different kinds of fermions. Photons, for example, transmit the electromagnetic force between charged fer-mions such as electrons.

"This major breakthrough—that there are particles that can communicate forces or interactions—that was an amazing piece of that was understood in the middle of the last century," Johnson said.

This quantum system seems to work nicely for three of the four known forces of nature—the strong nuclear force, which holds the particles in the atomic nuclei together; the , which strains to break those nuclei apart as radioactive decay; and electromagnetism.

In other words, these subatomic forces fit a single, unified theory of quantum physics.

The one force that seems to resist following quantum rules—and therefore confounds a of every-thing—is gravity.

A curvaceous conundrum

Einstein famously described gravity as a curvature in the fabric of space-time. His revolutionary general theory of relativity—which marks its centennial anniversary in November 2015—seems to work almost entirely on large scales (the level of planets, stars and galaxies) and at low energies. It breaks down in the tiny, high-energy spaces where bosons and fermions play.

Put another way, quantum physics works best where gravity is ignored, and general relativity works best on large systems—far above the subatomic scale—where quantum effects are very small.

In addition, physicists have yet to find a particle that conveys the force of gravity—the so-called graviton.

"We think it's inevitable that there's something like a graviton if you quantize gravity, and we'd be surprised if gravity isn't quantum mechanical," Johnson said. "The fact that we haven't succeeded in doing it yet is our failure, not nature's."

The attempt hasn't been completely fruitless, however.

Pulling strings

In the late 1960s and early '70s, physicists began to take a different look at the bosons and fermions in the nuclei of atoms. They found the particles involved could be described as incredibly small, one-dimensional, vibrating strings.

This string theory quickly captured attention, but just as quickly fell out of favor as other models of particle interaction arose. This oscillation in interest would continue for some time.

"[The theory] has gone in and out of favor for quite a few years," explained Nicholas Warner, professor of physics and astronomy and mathematics. "It was first invented as a theory of the strong interaction, and it was a failure at that. But then it resurged in the '80s as a theory of quantum gravity, and it works extremely well."

In fact, one very important observation stood out from early on—these vibrating strings were able to describe, to a T, the expected properties of gravitons.

"The coolest thing about string theory is it's the only theory out there that reconciles quantum mechanics and general relativity," said Warner, who uses string theory to understand the quantum physics of black holes, the most gravitationally intense phenomena in the universe. "It does seem to do that to the extent we've been able to calculate."

Those calculations require a key caveat, however. The universe must contain extra dimensions.

Beyond 4D

Fortunately, need not be a problem. As Johnson illustrated with his orange straw, the universe may contain countless dimensions that are just too small to detect. But, because strings also are incredibly minute—smaller than anything previously conceived—and only one-dimensional, they can vibrate in essentially any of those dimensions. That's important, because while string theory works very well to describe all of the observed particles—and even gravitons—it only succeeds if the strings can vibrate in as many as 10 dimensions.

"When you start writing down the mathematics, the strings come back and they tell you that the mathematics isn't going to work out unless you allow us the freedom to vibrate in other dimensions as well," Johnson said.

"When you allow the strings to be extra-dimensional … then it gives you a much richer range of possibilities, and the possibility that you can incorporate everything we've observed into string theory suddenly becomes viable," he added.

In other words, each specific particle can be described as a string vibrating in a particular dimension.

"String theorists are trying to say there's only one basic kind of particle and everything is just some different vibrational state of the string," Warner explained. "The graviton is one fluctuation or vibration of the string, the photon is another … and so forth."

So in the end, everything may boil down, essentially, to the same basic thing—strings.

Except, maybe not …

While string theory is remarkably adept at potentially describing all of the known particles of matter and force, it has yet to be tested.

"There's always the possibility that the framework is incomplete, or just plain wrong," Johnson said. "We need a way of getting measurable predictions from the theory that we can go away and test—a key step in any scientific endeavor."

Strings, however, are likely too tiny to be seen directly by any experiment that scientists can hope to design soon, he said. So they need to look for indirect signs of strings, and string theory so far is not understood well enough to predict what those signs are.

But there is hope. String theory may get an indirect test when applied to what appears to be the most abundant material in the universe.

Observations show that dark matter and energy constitute more than 95 percent of the . Scientists have established that they are new forms of matter and energy, but so far their precise nature is unknown. They may hold the key to confirming the veracity of theory, Johnson said.

"It's really kind of amazing—and humbling. There are forms of matter that seem to show up naturally in that could well be good candidates to be dark matter," he said. "People are hoping that this could be a key to making contact between theory and nature."

Explore further: String theory researchers simulate big-bang on supercomputer

Related Stories

String theory researchers simulate big-bang on supercomputer

December 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A trio of Japanese physicists have applied a reformulation of string theory, called IIB, whereby matrices are used to describe the properties of the physical universe, on a supercomputer, to effectively show ...

New work gives credence to theory of universe as a hologram

December 13, 2013

(Phys.org) —In publishing a story regarding work reported by Japanese physicists last month, Nature News has set off a bit of a tabloid firestorm by describing an obscure bit of physics theory as "the clearest evidence ...

After 100 years, Einstein's theory stands test of time

October 20, 2015

Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity is about to celebrate its 100th anniversary, and his revolutionary hypothesis has withstood the test of time, despite numerous expert attempts to find flaws.

Recommended for you

Counting down to the new ampere

August 29, 2016

After it's all over, your lights will be just as bright, and your refrigerator just as cold. But very soon the ampere—the SI base unit of electrical current—will take on an entirely new identity, and NIST scientists are ...

54 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SuperThunder
3.1 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2015
I have questions.
1.) How do you quantify a "tinier" dimension of space?
2.)What would a dimension larger than the ones I now consciously inhabit look like, and how is it even comprehensible as "bigger"?
3.) From the point of view of a tiny dimension, how old would the universe look?
4.) What about from the POV of a bigger one?
5.) Does this imply the laws of physics really do work differently depending on what direction you're facing?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2015
1) How do you quantify a "tinier" dimension of space?

By the only universal ruler we have: The amount of time it would take something going at the fastest possible speed - presumably c in these dimensions as well - to get back to where it started. Since these extra dimensions are said to be 'rolled up' very small that time is very short compared to something trying the same stunt in macroscopic dimensions.

2.)What would a dimension larger than the ones I now consciously inhabit look like

See answer above.

3.) From the point of view of a tiny dimension, how old would the universe look?

No different. You always inhabit all dimensions. Not one subset looking at another. (For answer to 4) see answer to 3) )

5.) Does this imply the laws of physics really do work differently depending on what direction you're facing?

No. Why should it?
SuperThunder
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2015
Sorry if the questions seemed stupid, they didn't to me at the time.
The amount of time it would take something going at the fastest possible speed - presumably c in these dimensions as well - to get back to where it started.

But isn't this supposed to answer why entanglement happens seemingly faster than light? It would imply information can be passed, or even accessed, differently in different dimensions.
You always inhabit all dimensions.

Quantum mechanically, sure, but not as a thinking structure. These dimensions aren't open to me for conscious interaction. I found the article's implication that we could utilize them if we wanted to, though we can't experience them, dubious.
No. Why should it?

The speed of entanglement question.

I probably made myself look even more moon-howler stupid by responding, and I very nearly didn't. I apologize in advance.
flag
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2015
New ideas for interactions and particles: This paper examines the possibility to origin the Spontaneously Broken Symmetries from the Planck Distribution Law. This way we get a Unification of the Strong, Electromagnetic, and Weak Interactions from the interference occurrences of oscillators. Understanding that the relativistic mass change is the result of the magnetic induction we arrive to the conclusion that the Gravitational Force is also based on the electromagnetic forces, getting a Unified Relativistic Quantum Theory of all 4 Interactions.
https://www.acade...g_Theory
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2015
Sorry if the questions seemed stupid, they didn't to me at the time.

They aren't. It does get weird when you think about what _other_ universes would look like (i.e. whether other universes in brane-space are 'bigger' or smaller' or 'earlier' or 'later'...there the comparisons actually make no sense because speed of light/number of dimensions/meaning of dismension does not -presumably- need to be the same accross universes...but since 'other universes' are a big unknown your guess is as good as anybody's)

But isn't this supposed to answer why entanglement happens seemingly faster than light? It would imply information can be passed, or even accessed, differently in different dimensions.

Careful. Entanglement does not allow passing information faster than light (there's a reason why it's called "spooky action at a distance" (german: Fernwirkung) - "not spooky information transmission at a distance". Einstein chose his words very deliberatly/carefully, here)
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2015
These dimensions aren't open to me for conscious interaction.

Neither is time. Yet you still cannot look "outside it" or "at it". Those rolled up dimensions are part of every particle you're made up of and you can't step outside them (if String Theory is correct).
JIMBO
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2015
Sheer Fluff is what this intvw w/Cliff Johnson is. A stringer's wet dream, full of exaggerations & distortions:
1. The soda straw analogy is ~ 30 yrs old & is great. Only one problem. Extra dimensions have never been observed @ LHC.

2. "Subatomic forces fit a single, unified theory of quantum physics"; Only approximately. To make a GUT, SUSY is req'd, but again, over a decade of zero evidence for SUSY (sparticles).
3. " "It was first invented as a theory of the strong interaction, and it was a failure at that. But then it resurged in the '80s as a theory of quantum gravity (QG), and it works extremely well". A total distortion. It works `well' only w/in the confines anti-deSitter space. Only one problem: Our universe is Not an a-dS space. There's another Very impressive theory of QG called `Loop Quantum Gravity", which has also predicted the Hawking entropy of black holes, & obey's Einstein's requirement of background independence of space-time. Strings does not.
Scroofinator
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2015
Einstein famously described gravity as a curvature in the fabric of space-time

An therein lies a problem: fabric implies 2d. It's a good way to understand the mechanisms but not really how it works, unless objects are on the same plane. Things don't "fall" in a gravity well, they are pulled in. Reimannian mechanics are the best illustration of what warped space time actually looks like.

https://orbismedi...ace1.jpg
Doug_Huffman
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2015
Faith in unfalsifiable explanation is not different from faith in the supernatural. It's quarks, quarks and gluons all the way down is not different from "It's turtles all the way down."

Unfalsifiable are the Standard Models of cosmology and particle physics, ad-hoc models shoring up dreams of physicists.
Captain Stumpy
1.9 / 5 (28) Nov 17, 2015
Sorry if the questions seemed stupid, they didn't to me at the time
@Super
don't worry about what people downrate... questions are how we learn and find information... and i thought they were good questions
(and thanks to AA_P for answering)

My biggest problem with string theory is this
While string theory is remarkably adept at potentially describing all of the known particles of matter and force, it has yet to be tested.
Johnson said. "We need a way of getting measurable predictions from the theory that we can go away and test—a key step in any scientific endeavor."
this is why i tend to enjoy the show but ignore the details...
until there is evidence, then...
Captain Stumpy
1.9 / 5 (28) Nov 17, 2015
Faith in unfalsifiable explanation is not different from faith in the supernatural
@doug
whereas i agree with this... there is a huge problem with the rest of your post
especially this part
Unfalsifiable are the Standard Models of cosmology and particle physics, ad-hoc models shoring up dreams of physicists.
this shows a serious disconnect with reality
you can't leap from something speculative like string theory and then assume that this applies to all standard model astrophysics and particle physics...

especially when QM is the single most successful theory in history, and the reason you are using computers instead of Morse code

your comment is called a False Claim
http://www.auburn...ion.html
antigoracle
2.8 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2015
1) How do you quantify a "tinier" dimension of space?

By the only universal ruler we have: The amount of time it would take something going at the fastest possible speed - presumably c in these dimensions as well - to get back to where it started.

I presume that you are referring to time, as measured by an external observer of that "something". But then, in that dimension, time itself could be running at a different rate. So, I would argue that time is an inappropriate ruler.
Scroofinator
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2015
Also, to go along with my previous post, to use the "fabric" analogy implies a medium is required. One of Einstein's greatest disappointments was the fact that he essentially killed the ether theory, and then tried to make amends for it after the fact.

From Einstein's "Ether and the Theory of Relativity"

"More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity."

http://www-histor...her.html

Great read btw

Captain Stumpy
2.4 / 5 (32) Nov 17, 2015
One of Einstein's greatest disappointments was the fact that he essentially killed the ether theory
@scroof
Einstein didn't really kill it... the evidence killed it

Einstein can say whatever he likes... and it is interesting only in watching how a mind works or thinks... but WRT aether, it was evidence that disproved it

the latest (that i know of) evidence: http://www.nature...174.html

Scroofinator
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2015
Well Stumpy either you did not read his speech or did not comprehend, but the ether is undetectable:

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

Your link is just an elaboration of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is useless in proving/disproving ether as described above.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2015
"Essentially, this straw has two dimensions to it. I can walk along the straw," he explained, running his index finger along the length, "or I can walk around the straw."

-Yabut...

He can only walk around the straw because it exists in a 3D universe. This might be moot but he then says he could walk around a point in a 1D universe as proof that an extra dimension is always with you.

This seems like a clumsy metaphor at best. He would probably say at this point "well here's the math" and avoid the issue of trying to explain complex physics with words like philos always try to do... and fail.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2015
Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things...
Zephyr? That you buddy?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2015
It is rather interesting that another article about the discovery (and proof, therefore) of a magnetic soliton(particle, if you will), seems to indicate evidence of magnetism's abilities to act as a "medium"...
By the way - anybody else notice the loss of ability to see who up or down votes your comments?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (16) Nov 17, 2015
An therein lies a problem: fabric implies 2d.

Huh? Where do you get the notion he was talking about 2D (all the math is squarely 4D).
Don't make the mistake of using colloquial interpretation of words in a scientific setting where they have a very precisely defined meaning.

Things don't "fall" in a gravity well, they are pulled in

No. They move straight in a bent spacetime. Best proof of this is the bending of light in a gravity field. But light can only move straight (if it was truly bent around a corner then it would have to radiate energy away because of conservation of momentum). So Einstein realized that light wasn't bent. It's spacetime that's warped.
baudrunner
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2015
They found the particles involved could be described as incredibly small, one-dimensional, vibrating strings.
Yes, the mathematicians did that, but that doesn't mean that it is so. Einstein doctored his relativity equations to meet the requirements for his paradigm of the universe as a static one by introducing an anti-gravity component to keep gravity from bringing all the objects in that universe together into one big clump of matter. The math was right, the reality is different.

The graviton is one fluctuation or vibration of the string, the photon is another … and so forth.
Except that we shouldn't look at atoms for the existence of a graviton, because they exist independently in the fabric of the cosmos. Photons don't exist. Light is a perception of the brain created by EM particle oscillations on the retina.

Observations show that dark matter and energy constitute more than 95 percent of the universe.
That assumption is based on bogus theory.
vlaaing peerd
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2015
this is why i tend to enjoy the show but ignore the details...
until there is evidence, then...


As a layman, I'm usually hopping between these 2 questions.

1. String theory describes nature just as well as QM and RT in one theory, it is so remarkable, how can it not be true?

2. you need a whole lot of extra dimensions, aren't we just adding so many variables that we "make it work"?
viko_mx
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2015
"Essentially, this straw has two dimensions to it. I can walk along the straw," he explained, running his index finger along the length, "or I can walk around the straw." His finger traced the object's glossy curved surface""

With mathematics we can curve the space and 3D geometric shapes without limitations because these are not real physical objects. In reality physical objects have physical properties and physical restrictions to be possible to support originally established order in the universe. Some people seem to find it difficult to distinguish between real and imaginary.

This is the main problem of the GR. Its mathematical apparatus not work with real physical objects and is not interested in the physical characteristics and limitations of physical vacuum that fills the geometric space. GR works only with geometric space, but not with physical vacuum filled this space which transport medium for electromagnetic waves
and ...
viko_mx
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2015
controls physical interactions between constituent particles of the matter.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2015
By the way - anybody else notice the loss of ability to see who up or down votes your comments?


Not until you mentioned it. Is it true? I don't need to know or care. You need to validate yourself here, right? Or maybe you frame your comments to be part of a particular gang?

Good dog. Pats WG on head.

* puts Bourbon back on shelf and looks suspiciously at WG *
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2015
Zephyr? That you buddy?

Na, that was a quote from Einstein.

So Einstein realized that light wasn't bent. It's spacetime that's warped.

Right, but in the presence of a very large gravitational field light takes the path of least resistance(gravitationally speaking). It's not like the photon just loops around the edge of a hypothetical 2D gravity well.

https://orbismedi...ace1.jpg

Notice toward the center of this image the field lines are much more dense, and light will take the path that keeps it traveling at c so it goes around the denser parts of the field.

Also notice that the field lines are being pulled inward from all directions, a much more accurate way to conceptualize gravity.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2015
Not until you mentioned it. Is it true? I don't need to know or care. You need to validate yourself here, right? Or maybe you frame your comments to be part of a particular gang?

Good dog. Pats WG on head.

* puts Bourbon back on shelf and looks suspiciously at WG *

Silly rabbit - I used it to satisfy curiousity about downvotes of OTHER commentators...
NOT to condition my vote on a comment. My numerous 5s of zephyr comments should have told you that...:-) Artistically, it aided in seeing truths...
Now, bring that bourbon back down off the shelf...
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (20) Nov 18, 2015
Is it true? I don't need to know or care. You need to validate yourself here, right?
@blue
it isn't about validation, it is about tracking socks like zeph's army- and now that it is impossible, he has free reign of the site to promote her pseudoscience (along with all the other trolls here)

IOW- the site has just caved to the pressure of the crackpots and all the cranks/pseudoscience promoters out there

.

Well Stumpy either you did not read his speech or did not comprehend, but the ether is undetectable
@scroof
i understood it, but the evidence says it isn't there... just because some believe it may be, doesn't mean it IS

and i don't care if it is all the scientists in the world... without evidence proving it, or the means to falsify it, it is not something i am even interested in (like string theory- sounds great, but if you cant test or falsify it, i ignore it except for the occasional lulz)
Hat1208
4.7 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2015
@baudrunner

Isn't that one big clump a way of describing a black hole?
Scroofinator
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2015
but the evidence says it isn't there

The evidence says nothing, I'm sure you understand what a null result is....

Stumpy, do you acknowledge GR? If yes, then by default you accept ether. Those are Einstein's words. It is necessary for GR to work, end of story.
SuperThunder
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2015
Antialias, Cap'n, thank you for responding! You're right about my sloppy use of terminology, it actually didn't sit right with me once I reread my post. I have a real fear of looking like an idiot, so I am super reluctant to ask questions off the cuff.

You guys are wracking up downvotes in the 20s and 30s. I would actually be proud that you're a resource worth gaming.
SuperThunder
3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2015
This is the main problem of the GR. Its mathematical apparatus not work with real physical objects and is not interested in the physical characteristics and limitations of physical vacuum that fills the geometric space.


That's weird, since Einstein used relativity to argue against Kant's philosophy of using a mathematical apparatus to determine real physics.
viko_mx
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2015
I do not know what he wanted to achieve, but if it was what you claim to be, certantly not achieved the desired result?

Can you point where in GR its mathematical apparatus take into account the physical properties of the actual physical environment - the cosmic vacuum that fills 3D space of the universe?

SuperThunder
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2015
where in GR its mathematical apparatus take into account the physical properties of the actual physical environment


Sometimes what we see in our everyday lives is so amazing we don't realize what it is we're actually looking at.
https://www.youtu...lBIcHre0
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2015
it isn't about validation, it is about tracking socks like zeph's army- and now that it is impossible, he has free reign of the site to promote her pseudoscience (along with all the other trolls here)...

Not exactly true, Cap'n...
You still have the "report" button...:-)
Vietvet
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2015
it isn't about validation, it is about tracking socks like zeph's army- and now that it is impossible, he has free reign of the site to promote her pseudoscience (along with all the other trolls here)...

Not exactly true, Cap'n...
You still have the "report" button...:-)


The report button is useless unless it's commercial spam. Using the "Contact" function at the bottom of the page isn't much better.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2015
Not exactly true, Cap'n...
You still have the "report" button...:-)


@ Wydening-Skippy. How you are? Oh yeah, I am good.

About the voting rankings pages, I can tell you a little bit about that me. During the last two weeks (for two Skippys) and five or weeks for another Skippy the front office has been getting bombardeded with hate mail about the rankings. Those three in particular seemed to think that is was unfair that they dropped from 4.1 to 3.8, and 3.4 to 1.9, and 4.0 to 3.8. So for the next 28 days from today, you can not look at those pages.

Those three people got it to blow up in their faces, eh? They are now at 3.7 and 1.8 and 3.6. So when the pages get back to where peoples can do the lookie-loo, they are going to be even lower than they started.

But ol Ira-Skippy has the super duper CIA blackbox NASA grade computer. I can still see them me. You are at 3.9 right now, okayeei? Yeah, that means I see who is being naughty and nice too me.

SuperThunder
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2015
*five stars Uncle Ira to suck up*

I actually didn't know you could ever see who votes for you, I just don't pay too much attention to it one way or the other. It doesn't matter how the numbers swing, moon-howlin' is self-evident.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2015
do you acknowledge GR? If yes, then by default you accept ether
@scroof
because he said so? LMFAO
his views are irrelevant!

& that is not how science works
science tried to measure and prove it WAS real and instead proved it couldn't be: https://en.wikipe...periment

also note: "Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity" [Kostro, L. (1992), "An outline of the history of Einstein's relativistic ether concept"]

zeph even noted that modern physicists talked about it... keyword "talked".. this in NO way proved it existed, only that the idea was being talked about

if you test/predict something (aether) and it proves out that it cannot possibly exist then it isn't a matter of moving the goalpost to keep it alive
it is a matter of finding evidence for it's existence (as i told zeph)

so.. until you can prove it does exist, the evidence says it doesn't
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2015
You guys are wracking up downvotes in the 20s and 30s
@Super
the zephir socks... and now that no one can see even their own voting history/ratings, then he has free reign... of course, it also means the honest people should consider making their own sock army and fighting back against the TROLLS and idiots

don't care about "ratings"-zephs army is actually validating what i post
i do care about tracking trolls

.

Not exactly true, Cap'n...
You still have the "report" button
@whyde
if the "report" button worked, zeph would have disappeared long ago, with jvk... and viko wouldn't be here... nor would benni, bschott or most of the others because i know of certain posters who regularly downrate and report their posts

this site has given up on science and has caved to the pseudoscience and troll crowd
all hail zeph, the king of the TROLLS

.

I can still see them me
@Ira
you should start pushing for the removal of the sock army then
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2015
@Ira
you should start pushing for the removal of the sock army then
sorry about that Ira... didn't mean to post something that sounded judgmental.

you have a great nose for the pseudoscience and trolls...

problem is: the site doesn't give a sh*t about them, and because it pads their account numbers it brings them in money while giving a false account of actual interested parties

& by interested parties, i don't mean the religious nut-jobs or pseudoscience cranks like the eu, anti-gravity.expansion theorists, anti-GR/SR, anti-evolution, no AGW... they are here to troll or to promote their crack-pot delusions and find acolytes to follow them and worship together

i guess because they can't find acceptance even on their own nutter sites... even when they own/operate them, like zeph

too much stupid, even in the face of the information age
http://media-cach...f521.jpg
SuperThunder
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
As was once told me by a very wise old preacher : "God's punishment for being a dumbass is being a dumbass."

http://rationalwi...tupidity
bluehigh
5 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2015
I used it to satisfy curiousity about downvotes of OTHER commentators...
- WG

Now that would have been interesting. Several years and I never explored the ratings options. I guess once again I owe you an apology for being a bit quick to bite. Maybe put it down to a warm 36 C and one too many.

* places bourbon bottle on coffee table - Ice? *

Bloodyorphan
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2015
Based on this article, I think you are confusing Aether with Ether CaptianStumpy ...
http://www-histor...her.html
(Care of someone else from another post , many thanks, great site)

My interpretation of the ether in this article is the substance of space itself.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2015
I think you are confusing Aether with Ether CaptianStumpy ...
@Bloodyorphan
there are three terms used for "aether"
In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether, æther or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the postulated medium for the propagation of light. It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do
https://en.wikipe...s_aether

in astrophysics, the "luminiferous aether, æther or ether" are all synonymous and most americans tend to call it "ether"
(which i've always personally thought a bad idea as ether is a flammable liquid used historically for anesthesia, and still today in various other ways)

& i know that recently a physicist has alluded to "aether" as the substance of space itself, however this is also a claim, not proof of aether (had that convo with zeph)
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2015
@Bloodyorphan cont'd
My interpretation of the ether in this article is the substance of space itself.
yeah, and that is fine... however, there is still no evidence supporting that it exists, and given the past definitions of aether and it's predicted parameters, it is falsified by the Michelson-Morely experiment

when predictions don't pan out and are falsified thru experiment (still today as well) then it is pretty dead

that was my point WRT the evidence re: aether in case it wasn't clear- there is just no evidence of it's existence and there is evidence that it can't exist

anything else WRT to it is speculation at best, and opinion/hearsay doesn't validate aether any more than it proves religious deities are real

- and that is one major point that i tried to make WRT Einstein & claims
http://www.auburn...ion.html

Thanks for the link and feedback so that i could clarify
Bloodyorphan
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2015
Fair enough CS, but if space is curved by Gravity it must have some kind of substance to be "bent", time will tell I guess :-)
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
but if space is curved by Gravity it must have some kind of substance to be "bent"
@bloodyorphan
this is called assumption

it doesn't matter what we "think" should be correct, or what we call "common sense" or anything else...

people tried to apply the known physics (relativity) to the atom... it failed

we ended up with QM and things like tunneling

the evidence shows tunneling is a very real and useful phenomenon, and QM is the single most effective theory we've ever had (computers, cell phones, etc) to explain the very small

so when you say "if space is curved by Gravity it must have some kind of substance to be "bent" " then you are making assumptions based upon what you think should be real because of what you think we know... not what you can prove to be real

make sense??
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2015
@bloodyorphan cont'd
this really can be summed up in a short, concise post

i don't care what the result is, as long as there is evidence and validation
i follow the evidence
period

this really is the case... i also don't really accept singular studies as anything but interesting and potential... a singular study may well be a fluke... or wrong

this is why validation is also incredibly important to science
this is why GR/SR are so powerful... and why QM is the most successful theory ever

this is why a claim or a quote has no value, even if from Einstein, unless it has evidence that can validate or justify it

otherwise we would be teaching the bible in school as a historical document with factual scientific evidence of creation and the birth of the Jewish man/woman (the rest of us are monkeys, according to the bible)

science follows the evidence... just like any good investigator

i follow the evidence
Bloodyorphan
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2015
Of course CS, it's not an assumption, just an observation.

If string theorists are looking to prove 7 extra dimensions to account for particle persistence perhaps we can accept concepts of more substance to space as well.

The reality is we discover through experimentation, and will never be able to do more than observe what happens in our reality, and then create formulas to describe those events.
viko_mx
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2015
@SuperThunder

So you do not have the answer to the questions where in GR we can find the mathematical model which operate on real physical environment as it is cosmic vacuum which fills the 3D space. The GR works with geometric space and ignoring physical properties of cosmic vacuum. The reason is simple. It could not propose relativism if work with real physical environment. It can not bend or stretch the cosmic vacuum because of Its rigidness and physical limitations, Therefore bend only the geometric 3D space for which imagination have no restrictions.

Can you define the fundamental physicаl forces, laws and constants without absolute reference point?
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2015
Right, but in the presence of a very large gravitational field light takes the path of least resistance(gravitationally speaking).

Which is the straight path. Remember: space is bent around a gravitational object. What you think of as warped (e.g. lensing) are the straightest lines possible. You always have to consider the following: what is the shortest path between two objects and what do you have to measure this path by? A ruler doesn't work because it is affected by warped space - so you have to take something that is constant. And the only thing we know of that is constant is the speed of light (you get this from the Lorenz transform).

So your 'ruler' says: "straight path between A and B is the one by which light takes the shortes time to get from A to B".
Near a high gravity objects such a path appears -to an outside observer- to be 'bent', but it really isn't.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2015

About the voting rankings pages, I can tell you a little bit about that me. During the last two weeks (for two Skippys) and five or weeks for another Skippy the front office has been getting bombardeded with hate mail about the rankings. Those three in particular seemed to think that is was unfair that they dropped from 4.1 to 3.8, and 3.4 to 1.9, and 4.0 to 3.8. So for the next 28 days from today, you can not look at those pages.

Those three people got it to blow up in their faces, eh? They are now at 3.7 and 1.8 and 3.6. So when the pages get back to where peoples can do the lookie-loo, they are going to be even lower than they started.

But ol Ira-Skippy has the super duper CIA blackbox NASA grade computer. I can still see them me. You are at 3.9 right now, okayeei? Yeah, that means I see who is being naughty and nice too me.

As I've said before - there's more to ol' Ira than he lets on...:-)
pongobongo
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
As was once told me by a very wise old preacher : "God's punishment for being a dumbass is being a dumbass."


Yes, I do suspect he was wise. Did he also tell you that you seemed to have been given a double dose of dumbass? He punished you by making you a retard.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2015
Isn't that one big clump a way of describing a black hole?
I suppose it is, really. There's nothing in RT that stands in the way of localization in the fabric of space-time, that would support multiple black holes existing, which is the way it is. In fact, I think that's what Einstein was getting at, wasn't he?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.