Physicists propose test of quantum gravity using current technology

October 27, 2017 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature
Proposed experimental setup to probe the effects of noncommutative structure. Credit: S. Dey et al. ©2017 Nuclear Physics B

Physicists have proposed a way to test quantum gravity that, in principle, could be performed by a laser-based, table-top experiment using currently available technology. Although a theory of quantum gravity would overcome one of the biggest challenges in modern physics by unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics, currently physicists have no way of testing any proposed theories of quantum gravity.

Now a team of seven physicists from various countries, S. Dey, A. Bhat, D. Momeni, M. Faizal, A. F. Ali, T. K. Dey, and A. Rehman, have come up with a novel way to experimentally test gravity using a laser-based experiment. They have published a paper on their proposed test in a recent issue of Nuclear Physics B.

One reason why testing quantum gravity is so challenging is that its effects appear only at very high-energy scales and their corresponding tiny length scales. These extreme scales, which are very near the Planck scale, are roughly 15 orders of magnitude beyond those accessible by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), by far the world's highest-energy experiment.

In order to address these challenges, the physicists took a completely different approach to reaching Planck-scale energies and lengths, which is by measuring the effects of a property called noncommutativity.

Many proposed theories of quantum gravity, including and string , are noncommutative theories, in which spacetime geometry is noncommutative. In this framework, certain parameters have noncommutative relations, a concept that is closely related to the idea of complementary variables in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. One of the consequences of a noncommutative spacetime is that there are no singularities, which has implications for other areas of cosmology, such as the and black holes.

With their proposed test, the physicists' goal is to find experimental evidence supporting the idea that spacetime does indeed have a noncommutative structure. To do this, the proposed test attempts to detect any changes in the conventional commutative relations occurring in a micromechanical oscillator. If these changes are present, they would indicate a noncommutative structure and produce a measurable optical phase shift on a light pulse that has been coupled to the oscillator.

Using current optical setups, this phase shift can be measured with sufficiently high levels of accuracy that, according to the physicists' calculations, would make it possible to access the energy scale near the Planck length. By accessing this scale, the experiment could potentially probe the effects of noncommutative theories at the energy regime relevant to quantum gravity.

"We expect the geometry of spacetime to be an emergent structure, which emerges from some purely mathematical theory of quantum ," coauthor Mir Faizal, a professor at the University of British Columbia-Okanagan and the University of Lethbridge, Canada, told Phys.org. "This is similar to the geometry of a metal rod emerging from atomic physics. It has been suggested from various approaches to that this structure underlying the geometry of spacetime can be represented by noncommutative geometry. So, we have proposed a way to this idea using an opto-mechaical experiment. The advantage of having such a structure will be that, in it, the will be free of singularities, including the big bang singularity."

Explore further: Spacetime May Have Fractal Properties on a Quantum Scale

More information: S. Dey, A. Bhat, D. Momeni, M. Faizal, A. F. Ali, T. K. Dey, A. Rehman. "Probing noncommutative theories with quantum optical experiments." Nuclear Physics B. DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2017.09.024
Also at arXiv:1710.03920 [quant-ph]

Related Stories

Spacetime May Have Fractal Properties on a Quantum Scale

March 25, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Usually, we think of spacetime as being four-dimensional, with three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. However, this Euclidean perspective is just one of many possible multi-dimensional varieties ...

Physicists propose test for loop quantum gravity

January 3, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- As a quantum theory of gravity, loop quantum gravity could potentially solve one of the biggest problems in physics: reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics. But like all tentative theories of ...

Looking at quantum gravity in a mirror

March 18, 2012

Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum physics are expected to merge at the Planck-scale of extremely high energies and on very short distances. At this scale, new phenomena could arise. However, the Planck-scale is so ...

Cosmologists a step closer to understanding quantum gravity

January 23, 2017

Cosmologists trying to understand how to unite the two pillars of modern science – quantum physics and gravity – have found a new way to make robust predictions about the effect of quantum fluctuations on primordial density ...

How spacetime is built by quantum entanglement

May 27, 2015

A collaboration of physicists and a mathematician has made a significant step toward unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics by explaining how spacetime emerges from quantum entanglement in a more fundamental theory. ...

Recommended for you

Pond dwellers called Euglena swim in polygons to avoid light

September 25, 2018

In any seemingly quiet pond the still waters actually teem with tiny pond dwellers called Euglena gracilis. Unseen to the naked eye, the single-celled organism spirals through the water, pulled along a relatively straight ...

Explainer: The US push to boost 'quantum computing'

September 24, 2018

A race by U.S. tech companies to build a new generation of powerful "quantum computers" could get a $1.3 billion boost from Congress, fueled in part by lawmakers' fear of growing competition from China.

A new way to count qubits

September 24, 2018

Researchers at Syracuse University, working with collaborators at the University of Wisconsin (UW)-Madison, have developed a new technique for measuring the state of quantum bits, or qubits, in a quantum computer.

94 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Parsec
5 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2017
This is a huge development. Now all we need of course is an experiment to test the validity of string theory and we will be all set. I say this flippantly, but actually I am quite serious. Any experimental setup allowing access to plank level energy scales is a potential game changer. Lots a stuff happening down that small.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2017
The delay line is what allows this to be a tabletop experiment, and the EOM is a polarization-mode modulator (EOMs can change phase, polarization, amplitude, or frequency depending on the exact setup, and can do so depending on the modulating input to the EOM). One item not shown in the diagram is where the input to the EOM comes from; this is made clear in the text of the open-access paper where they state that the EOM is set up to change the polarization by a right angle.

Another important point is that the EOM changes polarization, but the interference measures phase. It's quite difficult to see how these interact and anyone trying to understand what these guys are proposing needs to understand how phase and polarization interact.

This is rather reminiscent of the Scully et al. paper proposing the DCQE, followed by its realization by Kim and Scully et al. This is an important experiment and hopefully will be done soon.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2017
Another important point is that this experiment can validate the class of quantum gravity theories that includes string physics ("string theory") and Loop Quantum Gravity ("LQG") but it cannot differentiate among various theories in this class as currently suggested. We'd need first to validate that non-Abelian (noncommutative) relations are detectable, then do some thinking and see if we can leverage that into a test that excludes one or the other (or both, indicating that there is some other fruitful approach).

Wow, two threads in which I get to mention the DCQE in the same week! Awesome. My favorite quantum optics experiment is the DCQE, so far. This one might change that.
Jayarava
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2017
To quote Dr Sabine Hossenfelder‏, "This experiment does *not* test quantum gravity. It tests an exceedingly implausible type of commutation relations."

We've seen that gravity is a wave, we're still waiting for an experiment that shows gravity is a particle, i.e. that gravitational energy comes in quanta.

Where is the gravity version of the photoelectric effect experiment?

Jayarava
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2017
@Da Schneib experiments cannot "validate" *anything*. Experimental results can refute a theory or confirm the accuracy and precision of a specific prediction of a theory (within a margin of error).
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2017
Making a claim about what Dr. Hossenfelder said that doesn't appear on Backreaction without providing a link is a great way to get put on ignore immediately.
Spaced out Engineer
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2017
What if the measure has approach conditional commutivity? Like the hyper complex. Order matters for the macroscopic observer. Order matters for divergent functions in relational theory. Order matters in the prioritization of holomorphism and paradigm. Objectively first order logical truths remain undecidable. Whose system and from which force? Wholism may remain a faith based claim.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2017
This 'article'' is nothing more than a funding proposal. Those jumping to conclusions based upon this proposal are leaving themselves wide open to ridicule!

Once the proposed experiments are actually attempted, then we can honestly begin making fools of ourselves misinterpreting the bombastic announcements of THE FINAL TRUTH!!" With simplistic clickbait headlines of the preliminary, unverified, contradictory results.

What if the proposed mechanism fails to work?

What if the proposed mechanism fails to work as intended?

What if the mechanism works as planned but produces results disagreeable to the proposed intent?

What if the results are sorta, kinda what the researchers expected. If they squint their eyes real tight, cross their fingers and mutter desperate prayers to the Laughing Coyote God?

How will they reconcile when a second research team, duplicating the original experiment, comes up with contradictory results?

Ain't Science Fun!?!
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 28, 2017
" It has been suggested from various approaches to quantum gravity that this structure underlying the geometry of spacetime can be represented by noncommutative geometry."

Pretty good bet if you can get down into the quantum realm where the uncertainty principle dominates.

"The advantage of having such a structure will be that, in it, the spacetime will be free of singularities, including the big bang singularity."

A singularity would be a point of certainty violating the uncertainty principle. Not likely regardless of the popular big bang theory or general relativity.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2017
Interesting, someone appears claiming a particular blog post which does not at that time exist on Dr. Hossenfelder's blog. The post later appears (at least several hours past the post above).

How does that work?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2017
the making measurement more exactly at low energies will not take you more close to high energies, where the reality can be quite different.
So in fact you are stating that there are effects at the Planck scale that do not appear at larger scales. Correct?
Spaced out Engineer
not rated yet Oct 28, 2017
Seeker2
Not necessarily. In the Dirac formulation chances are the electron can be point-like. It could turn out that the string use is a useful convention, or even cooler there is a way to unravel its surface in 4 dimensions to see how it's non-physical information changed in its journey thus far. A duality to surface. And yet perhaps treating the system different from how it could appear on another emergent larger surface is a fallacy.
One could say singularities form all the time. Like in a rain drop. Or we could say it is made of feasibly uncountable H2O molecules. Or we could say there is a chance of forecasting the weather. Do you think the universe finite, made of finite constituents? If there is too much information to every disprove an effective theory, then maybe we have to accept our scientific explanation is constrained to models. Does a constrained projective space make for a falsifiable hypothesis? And yet if science is a social construct should we care?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2017
@Da Schneib experiments cannot "validate" *anything*. Experimental results can refute a theory or confirm the accuracy and precision of a specific prediction of a theory (within a margin of error).
You just made two contradictory statements in successive sentences.

After posting a claim about a blog post that did not exist, which later appeared.

I am watching these interesting phenomena with great interest.

I smell politics.
Spaced out Engineer
not rated yet Oct 28, 2017
There are indiscernibles of the mathematics being used.
We may never be able to tell the difference between systematic genuine spaces producting for zeros and the next instantiation space where previous contitients are insignificant (perhaps probablistically infinitesimal, if not actually) and their systematic addition to almost nothing, certainly nothing measurable.
Is man the measurer of all things?
Dirac
1 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2017
This proposal is junk science. Too much of it around this website.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2017
Interesting how many lurkers come out for this one, too. I still smell politics.

I'm reserving judgment. I also think it's interesting that the position has changed from "go ahead and do the experiment" to "this is a waste of time don't do it" between 2012 and 2018.

Why all these odd happenings on a single thread? Somebody's ox has been gored.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2017
Here's an earlier paper from 2012 that proposes much the same experiment: https://arxiv.org...1979.pdf

I'm not sure why this hasn't been done in five years. This isn't LIGO or the LHC; this is a relatively simple experiment that can be done with under US$100k for the hardware on a tabletop, in my estimation. Pay the people who do it a million bucks salary for setting it up and writing a paper; it's spit in the ocean.

Do the experiment then we can argue about the implications of the outcome, but experiment is primary in physics. What is anyone afraid of? Anyone who's afraid of experimental results isn't a scientist, they're either a politician or a religious figure.

If you want my guess on the outcome, I expect slight discrepancies will be found; and this will result in a firestorm of controversy. Great! That's how it should be.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
BTW, I am not at all convinced about what this experiment might or might not show. And the current paper looks like a ripoff of the original one from 2012; so I'm not all that big on the current paper either. I'll be looking into what both papers claim regarding what various potential outcomes may signify. Nevertheless, I think doing it is worthwhile; like I said, we can argue about the results later. Let's see someone step up to the plate and swing (or as cricketers would say, step up and bowl).

Scully had no idea what the DCQE would show either. That one took from the 1982 proposal to 1999's realization. Let's try to do a bit better than that.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2017
@ da schnied, if they can link QG with GR that would be of the magnitude of the magnetic monopole you found at the end of the "open field line" you were claiming to have discovered. Nobel worthy fo shó!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2017
@cantthink69, that you oppose doing the experiment makes it obvious it needs to be done.
Jayarava
not rated yet Oct 29, 2017
Making a claim about what Dr. Hossenfelder said that doesn't appear on Backreaction without providing a link is a great way to get put on ignore immediately.


It was on Twitter. https://twitter.c...12300544

Happy?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
No, you didn't tell me why you made contradictory statements in two successive sentences.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
And OBTW seems like this got published in Phys Rev B. Which is peer reviewed.

What's that about?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
Pardon me, Nuclear Physics B, not Physical Review B.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
Personally my guess is you don't know English all that well and don't understand what "validate" means, but if that's the case it would behoove you to ask questions instead of making arrogant statements that might be based on ignorance.
rrwillsj
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
DS is quiet rite! Arrogant statements that are defiantly based on ignorance are my assignmeant.

After all, the First Rule of Philosophy is "Philosopher, Know Thyself"!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
Personally my guess is you don't know English all that well and don't understand what "validate" means,

That's a good one da schnied, maybe you can point to where I said they shouldn't do the experiment. Personally my guess is you don't know English at all, I would suggest you read a dictionary and start at page one and the word "A".
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Here's an earlier paper from 2012 that proposes much the same experiment: https://arxiv.org...1979.pdf
Is that the same 2012 paper which Dr Sabine Hossenfelder foreshadowed/alluded-to just days ago in her Twitter (Oct 27) post at: https://mobile.tw...6849?p=p Or is that a different 2012 paper, DS?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2017
@RC, yes it is.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2017
OK, I've had time to review the newer paper, and the authors claim several improvements. One is theoretical; they are deriving their predicted phase change from a different point of view than the original Pikovsky et al. paper. They also suggest a MEMS oscillator, apparently in order to reduce the size of the opto-mechanical oscillator closer to the Planck mass. Finally, they use a different type of EOM they claim will work better. I can't yet evaluate the accuracy of these claims. But apparently this is more than just a re-hash of the older paper.
ObservingLibertarian
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2017
G = R ᴹ
G = [ ( +R / -R ) = R ] ᴹ
G = [ ( +SPV * V * D / -SPV * V * D ) = R] ᴹ
Gravity = [ ( Sympathetic Particle Vibration * Volume * Density / Nonsympathetic Particle Vibrations * Volume * Density ) = Resonance ] ᴹ

Gravity is equal to resonance squared by mass.
Resonance equals Sympathetic Particle Vibrations times Volume times Density divided by Nonsympathetic Particle Vibrations times Volume times Density
ObservingLibertarian
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2017
If you want to test quantum gravity: you can easily do it using current technology in one of two ways.

1, a modified double slit, instead of observing or not observing a particle in flight - send the particle down a narrow hallway towards the two slits, while observing: then measure the effects on the sidewalls of the corridor. You'll find that a single particle effects it's surrounding area as though it is a wave, in spite of being a particle, as a direct result of the quark vibrations emanating from it and distorting time-space in it's vicinity.
ObservingLibertarian
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2017
2, send a laser through a vacuum near water and examine the fluid dynamics. In vacuum, heat would not cause any kind of distortions in the water, yet gravity would. The above formula predicts that although photons have nearly no mass: they are highly resonate and therefore still create gravitational distortions in space-time, which would cause the water to be effected in a measurable way.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
@Forum. You may have noticed my recent absence from the comment pages here. The reason is that I am now at a crucial stage in my work finalizing my reality-based-postulates construct for my Physics ToE and my work on accompanying reality-based-axioms construct for my Mathematical ToE which will model the Physics ToE more realistically and consistently from Infinitesimal-to-Infinite scales; thus completing the Universal Physical/Mathematical Theory and uniting all the (correct) partial theories and providing the missing physics/maths 'reality-bridge' between all such across their 'domains of applicability' from Quantum-to-Macro. I will not be commenting much at all for a while, in order to make a 'final push' towards publishing complete ToE, as foreshadowed. In the following post(s), I will leave everyone (on whatever 'side' of the various 'cosmology issues' they may be) with some crucial reality-checks for their respective considerations going forward.

continued...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2017
@Forum. You may have noticed my recent absence from the comment pages here. The reason is that I am now at a crucial stage in my work finalizing my reality-based-postulates construct for my Physics ToE ...
I will not be commenting much at all for a while, in order to make a 'final push' towards publishing complete ToE, as foreshadowed. In the following post(s), I will leave everyone (on whatever 'side' of the various 'cosmology issues' they may be) with some crucial reality-checks for their respective considerations going forward.

continued...

A show of hands - how many of you are holding their breath in anticipation...?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
...continued to @Forum from previous:

- CMB: now understood to be created at all scales/epochs from radiation in Microwave range emissions from cosmic sources such as radiation leaving black hole and neutron star vicinities; and from Microwave Lasing (natural Maser) processes at many scales/frequencies; and from all sorts of radiation interacting with intergalactic medium which now understood to contain a lot of ordinary matter in many forms and states which affect the light/radiation going through/reflecting etc from them in bulk and/or particle-by-particle. Not BB-'pristine' as 'believed'.

- EXOTIC Dark Matter: longstanding naive estimates/problems etc from when observational/theoretical methods/understandings were in their infancy now all superceded; we now see that universal space is replete with dust and other matter many thousands/millions/billions of times more 'massive' than the previously assumed 'Hydrogen/Helium majority' material. No 'exotic' DM.

cont...

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde.
@Forum. You may have noticed my recent absence from the comment pages here. The reason is that I am now at a crucial stage in my work finalizing my reality-based-postulates construct for my Physics ToE ...
I will not be commenting much at all for a while, in order to make a 'final push' towards publishing complete ToE, as foreshadowed. In the following post(s), I will leave everyone (on whatever 'side' of the various 'cosmology issues' they may be) with some crucial reality-checks for their respective considerations going forward.
A show of hands - how many of you are holding their breath in anticipation...?
Mate, try to set the scientific tone insead of the kneejerking troll tone. It's important you should set an example for those whom you would criticize, hey? Use your intellect/time to actually consider what parting reality-checks I am posting for your/their benefit until I publish complete Think things through instead of just "holding your breath". :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
again continued @Forum from relevant previous...

- Dark Energy/Expansion: latest BB iteration re these involved 'space-time' METRICAL and NOT actual space-only expansion as an abstract analytical not physical motional expansion etc. So inconsistencies in logic and physics still rife with all BB based interpretations/theory. The answer/explanation of all cosmological observations/data is already available but being 'missed' due to prejudicial BB etc naive/invalid paradigms for said 'explanation/interpretation etc procedures/methodologies; Especially crucial is the recent cosmo/astro discovery/reviews by mainstream itself which brings previous naive/simplistic assumptions re 'standard candle' supernovae/data etc and 'accelerating expansion' etc interpretations into serious question.

- Black Holes: exist as DARK STARS with FINITE degenerate-state matter/energy within a definable body inside Event Horizon cloaking same. Hence NO 'singularity' BHs.

continued...
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy me, thanks for asking.

You may have noticed my recent absence from the comment pages here.
Yeah, I notice that you took a day or three off for treatments. Are you feeling better now?

The reason is that I am now at a crucial stage in my work finalizing my reality-based-postulates construct for my Physics ToE and my work on accompanying reality-based-axioms construct for my Mathematical ToE which will model the Physics ToE more realistically and consistently from Infinitesimal-to-Infinite scales;
Cher, you been "finalizing" him for 12 or 11 years now. Why you don't just wait until you really get him finished before you say that?

Blah, Blah, Blah and some more Really-Skippy Blahs,,,,
You should have took off a few more days because the treatments don't seem to have worked.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
Here's an article that's kinda related....
https://www.lives...fication
Ya gotta love those U of C guys...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
final continuation from previous @Forum...

- Quantum and Slit- etc experiments/physics: the recent mainstream catch-up with my longstanding observations/sxplanatins involving the PLASMON SEA energy states surrounding all types of quantum/slit etc setups/results make the previous 'quantum mystery' etc cop-outs unnecessary. The explanations/results are there for all to see if they do not get distracted by prior naive/mystery-cop-out 'takes' which explain nothing and only led to 'quantum mystery' etc 'journalese' and other 'dumbed down' silliness because of false paradigms to start with.

- The galaxy/cluster motions are OK if GR applied properly across NON-Keplerian orbital/mass regimes/distributions involved; PLUS having regard to the recent discovery of A LOT of previously 'invisible to instruments' ORDINARY matter everywhere we look, in many/more MASIVE states than previously assumed. Hence GR is ABSTRACTLY CORRECT (within domain of applicability)!

Take care. Cheers! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
@Uncle Ira.

Seeing as how I may miss your 'funs' over the coming weeks, I respond now in same humorous vein as you posted, Ira.
I am fine and dandy me,...
Get a second opinion; preferably not from fellow bot-voting ignoramus gang, hey? :)
Yeah, I notice that you took a day or three off for treatments.
The only treatment applicable is 'doing objective science'. Yours is not such, so you remain as you started here at PO; and apparently choose to be so until your final 'funs' day: a bot-voting ignoramus. :)
Cher, you been "finalizing" him for 12 or 11 years now. Why you don't just wait until you really get him finished before you say that?
Darwin, Newton and Einstein took many DECADES. And Einstein's is STILL 'unfinished' and incomplete despite generations of mathematical/BB silliness. And a 'whole crop' of theoretical/mathematical 'cosmologists' have been 'publish or perish' WHORES corrupting/cluttering peer review/publishing system with nonsense. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2017
Darwin, Newton and Einstein took many DECADES.
You been called on that so many times I am surprised you are not ashamed to try him again.

For one thing, it's wrong, they started later than you and finished earlier than you.

For another thing you keep saying you are finishing up with the finishing touches. Why you just don't say nothing until you got for us what they call the fait accompli or if it is more than one, the faits accomplis?

For one more another thing, you are not in the same category as the Darwin, the Newton or the Einstein, they all studied and knew things. You only pretend to know things.

Oh yeah, I almost forget, laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Darwin, Newton and Einstein took many DECADES.
they started later than you and finished earlier than you.
You knew them personally? They told you exactly when they first examined Universal Nature for theories they ended up with? How old are you, Ira? :)
ou keep saying you are finishing up with the finishing touches. Why you just don't say nothing until you got for us what they call the fait accompli or if it is more than one, the faits accomplis?
I already told you before, Ira: I since included my work on reality-based Axiomatic Maths construct to go with it. A big, thorough, complete job. Not n 'instant cup of tea' project, Ira. :)
you are not in the same category as the Darwin, the Newton or the Einstein, they all studied and knew things. You only pretend to know things.
Einstein couldn't unify/complete physical theory; nor have generations of theoretical/mathematical cosmologists, despite ALL publishing a LOT. I'll publish complete. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
PS @Uncle Ira.
ou are not in the same category as the Darwin, the Newton or the Einstein, they all studied and knew things. You only pretend to know things.
Pretence? Is that what you call recorded instances of more recent mainstream discovery/reviews in astro/cosmo/quantum confirming ME correct all along and they just now catching up with MY observations/insights gained from objective science instead of the flawed science/peer review 'methodologies and beliefs' which began with the BB and Quantum Mysticism eras? Mate, you should get yourself checked out because you have just been driveling your own brand of nonsense just like most of the 'professionals' have for decades now. Only yours has been more 'honest', in that you admitted (often) to being a bot-voting ignoramus; whereas most of the professional cosmologists have been pretending to have been 'objective' scientists! You have one up on them ij that 'pretence' regard, Ira! Kudos in that one, mate. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2017
It was just as stupid the first time you post that.

So you decide to change it up?

Still pretty stupid. When Einstein, Newton and Darwin was half your age, everybody who was anybody already knew their names.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
Gotcha! See Ira, why you are such a troll? You troll for your own idiocy but ignore the import of what has been posted (once or more doesn't matter) for your benefit. That you still choose to continue your bot-voting ignoramus troll 'funs' here means you are determined to be irrelevant to the advance of science and humanity. What a waste of intellect and human capital you have chosen to become, Ira. You've had all the necessary insights put at at your fingertips yet chose to ignore and troll away for your own ego/stupidity motives. Not good, mate. Not good at all. It's been like "Casting Pearls before Swine" insofar as you and certain other egotistical and bot-voting ignoramus have been concerned. To bad. Your loss. Good luck. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde, meh, I always question whether folks know what they're talking about when they confuse chain reactions with fusion. Fusion isn't a chain reaction. They've confounded fission with fusion. No workie.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde, meh, I always question whether folks know what they're talking about when they confuse chain reactions with fusion. Fusion isn't a chain reaction. They've confounded fission with fusion. No workie.

That was more the author's translation failure. However, what I found interesting was the basic concept about how energy was released via subatomic interaction (a possible "quark-gluon soup" interaction) that might have given rise to something else...
Plus the fact that they stated it as only a result of 2 bottom quarks was intriguing...
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde.
@Forum. You may have noticed my recent absence from the comment pages here. The reason is that I am now at a crucial stage in my work finalizing my reality-based-postulates construct for my Physics ToE ...
I will not be commenting much at all for a while, in order to make a 'final push' towards publishing complete ToE, as foreshadowed. ...

A show of hands - how many of you are holding their breath in anticipation...?
Mate, try to set the scientific tone instead of the kneejerking troll tone.

You're mistaken. It's a knee-SLAPPING tone...
It's important you should set an example for those whom you would criticize, hey?

I am. Why aren't you getting it...?
Use your intellect/time to actually consider what parting reality-checks I am posting for your/their benefit until I publish complete Think things through instead of just "holding your breath". :)

I did. And it's the reason I'm NOT "holding my breath..."
Cheers, mate..:-)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde, it's chain reactions that make a lot of energy very fast. If that doesn't happen, then it doesn't go "boom."
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde.
Use your intellect/time to actually consider what parting reality-checks I am posting for your/their benefit until I publish complete. Think things through instead of just "holding your breath". :)
I did. And it's the reason I'm NOT "holding my breath..."
You did?!! You dedicated ALL of a FEW MINUTES to "think things through" for ALL the those considerations, re:

- CMB;
- EXOTIC Dark Matter;
- Dark Energy/Expansion (and BB etc issues);
- Black Hole versus Dark Star etc;
- Quantum/Two-Slit etc (and Plasmon Sea effects);
- Correct GR application to Non-Keplerian Galaxy/Cluster motions (rotation curves and lots of normal matter found etc).

Mate, you're amazing! Whole generations of cosmologists/physicists have dedicated lifetimes to even ONE of the above items; and YET you have "thought through" ALL of those items in JUST A FEW MINUTES!!?? Now you sound as silly/careless as those whom you chide, Whyde! Setting "an example" indeed, mate. Do better. :)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde.
Use your intellect/time to actually consider what parting reality-checks I am posting for your/their benefit until I publish complete. Think things through instead of just "holding your breath". :)
I did. And it's the reason I'm NOT "holding my breath..."
You did?!! You dedicated ALL of a FEW MINUTES to "think things through" for ALL the those considerations, re:

- CMB;
- EXOTIC Dark Matter;
- Dark Energy/Expansion (and BB etc issues);
- Black Hole versus Dark Star etc;
- Quantum/Two-Slit etc (and Plasmon Sea effects);
- Correct GR application to Non-Keplerian Galaxy/Cluster motions (rotation curves and lots of normal matter found etc).

Hey. When you're a quantum computer, it ain't all that tuff to figure out....

Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde
...
Mate, you're amazing! Whole generations of cosmologists/physicists have dedicated lifetimes to even ONE of the above items; and YET you have "thought through" ALL of those items in JUST A FEW MINUTES!!??

See previous comment
Now you sound as silly/careless as those whom you chide, Whyde!

Since you were the one I was chiding...
(insert translation here)
Setting "an example" indeed, mate. Do better. :)

Actually. I don't really set examples. No time or patience for it, because those that I DO try to set one for don't get that it was intended for them.
Do better...:-)
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
You did?!! You dedicated ALL of a FEW MINUTES to "think things through" for ALL the those considerations, re:

- CMB;
- EXOTIC Dark Matter;
- Dark Energy/Expansion (and BB etc issues);
- Black Hole versus Dark Star etc;
- Quantum/Two-Slit etc (and Plasmon Sea effects);
- Correct GR application to Non-Keplerian Galaxy/Cluster motions (rotation curves and lots of normal matter found etc).

Mate, you're amazing! Whole generations of cosmologists/physicists have dedicated lifetimes to even ONE of the above items;


.......your list is missing just one thing, DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde.
@Whyde.
Use your intellect/time to actually consider what parting reality-checks I am posting for your/their benefit until I publish complete. Think things through instead of just "holding your breath". :)
I did. And it's the reason I'm NOT "holding my breath..."
You did?!! You dedicated ALL of a FEW MINUTES to "think things through" for ALL the those considerations, re:

- CMB;
- EXOTIC Dark Matter;
- Dark Energy/Expansion (and BB etc issues);
- Black Hole versus Dark Star etc;
- Quantum/Two-Slit etc (and Plasmon Sea effects);
- Correct GR application to Non-Keplerian Galaxy/Cluster motions (rotation curves and lots of normal matter found etc).

Hey. When you're a quantum computer, it ain't all that tuff to figure out....

You're now a "quantum computer", Whyde; not "an artist" after all? Please tell us what you, as a self-proclaimed "quantum computer" have "figured out", exactly and scientifically and in detail, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde.
@Whyde
...
Mate, you're amazing! Whole generations of cosmologists/physicists have dedicated lifetimes to even ONE of the above items; and YET you have "thought through" ALL of those items in JUST A FEW MINUTES!!??

See previous comment
I did. You made no sense, either as "quantum computer" or as "an artist". Try again. :)
Now you sound as silly/careless as those whom you chide, Whyde!
Since you were the one I was chiding...
(insert translation here)
I posted serious scientific issues for your serious scientific consideration...and you "chide" me for doing that? You "do not compute"; either as "an artist" or as "quantum computer"; GIGO is strong in/from you, mate. REDO. :)
Setting "an example" indeed, mate. Do better. :)

Actually. I don't really set examples.
Actually, all unwittingly, you ARE. A BAD example; cluttering, burying serious science considerations posted for YOUR serious science consideration. Do better, mate. :)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2017
You're now a "quantum computer", Whyde; not "an artist" after all? Please tell us what you, as a self-proclaimed "quantum computer" have "figured out", exactly and scientifically and in detail, mate. :)

To start...
a. We're ALL "quantum computers" too some degree or another...
b. Quantum computing doesn't work in "exact and scientific" detail. Too many variables involved (it's quantum, after all). People just generally call them artists...
Anything further would take more time than you have, so...

Anyway. You always being correct on everything and all... I would doubt you have the mindset to understand any further description.

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde....
I did. You made no sense, either as "quantum computer" or as "an artist". Try again. :)

Mighty presumptuous of you to know how either of them operate.
you sound as silly/careless as those whom you chide, Whyde!

Since you were the one I was chiding...
(insert translation here)

I posted serious scientific issues for your serious scientific consideration...and you "chide" me for doing that?

No, I chide you for a 10 year promise of an upcoming ToE
You "do not compute"; either as "an artist" or as "quantum computer";

Subjective presumption (again)
GIGO is strong in/from you, mate. REDO. :)

Just GO is strong in you, mate...
cluttering, burying serious science considerations posted for YOUR serious science consideration.

Actually, you posted that to a "quantum computer"...
Don't you know Presentation is EVERYTHING? Some can do it, some can't. You fall into the latter...
Do better...:-)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde. I was just about to log out when I saw this latest from you; you seem to have confused yourself and trying to 'manufacture' a 'smart-aleck' diversion from your serious scientific responsibilities; so, for your benefit, I will respond accordingly before I log out.
To start...
a. We're ALL "quantum computers" too some degree or another...
No, mate. We're all NOT quantum computers. Our Brain-mind system is an Analogue Computer which can 'program itself' as it evolved 'software' connections over time, overlaying 'fuzzy logics' on top of innate/inherited 'instinctual' hardwired closed-loop 'routines'. Hence your earlier claim to have "thought it through" for ALL the posted items was clearly silly/confused claim. Not only have you no 'detail' to offer, but also no actual objective serious science "thinking/responding/understanding" to offer. Which makes your last comment a tad ironic and projection-like, hey? So, why keep making jests instead of actually thinking? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde.
Mighty presumptuous of you to know how either of them operate.
You fail to realize I DO know how both operate; hence your own incorrect 'presumption'. :)
I posted serious scientific issues for your serious scientific consideration...and you "chide" me for doing that?
No, I chide you for a 10 year promise of an upcoming ToE
So NOW you presume to prevent someone from discussing/foreshadowing their long-term work projects in science/maths? My reality-based-postulates construct physical ToE was ready some years back; the DELAY SINCE is because I STARTED a reality-based-axiomatics construct Mathematical theory to Model/Publish with it.
Just GO is strong in you, mate...
More GIGO there, Whyde. :)
Actually, you posted that to a "quantum computer"...
Don't you know Presentation is EVERYTHING? Some can do it, some can't. You fall into the latter...
Do better...:-)
See my previous post. Learn why you are NOT a "quantum computer", but "analogue". :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2017
@Whyde.I DO know how both operate; hence your own incorrect 'presumption'. :)

You might think you do... Reality is, you don't...
No, I chide you for a 10 year promise of an upcoming ToE
So NOW you presume to prevent someone from discussing/foreshadowing their long-term work projects in science/maths?

No one is preventing you, just chiding for 10 years of "almost ready".
... the DELAY SINCE is because I STARTED a "reality-based-axiomatics construct Mathematical theory"

Sounding like more GO... What does that even mean?!? .
Just GO is strong in you, mate...
More GIGO there, Whyde. :)

You're providing the input...
Learn why you are NOT a "quantum computer", but "analogue"

Brain is analog, MIND is quantum.
Do better, Soliari...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2017
No, mate. We're all NOT quantum computers. Our Brain-mind system is an Analogue Computer which can 'program itself' as it evolved 'software' connections over time, overlaying 'fuzzy logics' on top of innate/inherited 'instinctual' hardwired closed-loop 'routines'.

Which kinda sounds quantum-like, doesn't it....
Hence your earlier claim to have "thought it through" for ALL the posted items was clearly silly/confused claim.

I thought YOUR list thru to the point of non relevance. Didn't take long...
Not only have you no 'detail' to offer, but also no actual objective serious science thinking/responding/understanding" to offer.

Why is it only objectively serious when YOU'RE offering it?
Not too mention, you won't broach any disagreement with your objective correctness...
Which makes your last comment a tad ironic and projection-like, hey?

And.... you just obviated the point of that last statement...:-)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2017
@Whyde.

To tie up our 'loose end' exchange.
You might think you do... Reality is, you don't...
Your opinion of you as "artist"; or as "quantum computer" which has just found out (from me) WHY you are NOT a "quantum computer"? :)
No one is preventing you, just chiding for 10 years of "almost ready".
Do you realize the SCOPE and COMPLEXITY invokved in completeing the universal physical theory and the maths for modeling it realistically? Apparently you haven't a clue; else YOU would have done it 'more quickly' wouldn't you, mate? :)
...the DELAY SINCE is because I STARTED a "reality-based-axiomatics construct Mathematical theory"
Sounding like more GO... What does that even mean?!
You haven't a clue, have you, mate? That is why you're the "an artist" while I am the objective scientist. :)
More GIGO there, Whyde. :)
You're providing the input...
It's your "artist" INPUT bringing the GIGO, mate; as you ignored objective input from me. :)

cont.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2017
@Whyde cont...
Learn why you are NOT a "quantum computer", but "analogue"
Brain is analog, MIND is quantum.
Do better, Soliari...:-)
No, mate. Brain is analogue and mind is the simulation of analogue 'world construct' based on evolving programming through experience/logical outcomes depending on satisfaction of instinctive and cultural 'imperatives' and measures of 'success' in that simulated 'world construct' which is dynamical and can sometimes go wrong (which cannot happen in a truly quantum computer context). Again, Whyde; rethinkit through as a scientists based on objective facts; instead of as "an artist" based on your own 'artistically rearranged facts' which may produce 'world construct' in your mind-simulation which may bear no relation to reality (even if you are artistically inclined to accept it in lieu of the objective reality). :)

On to your subsequent post...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2017
@Whyde.
No, mate. We're all NOT quantum computers. Our Brain-mind system is an Analogue Computer which can 'program itself' as it evolved 'software' connections over time, overlaying 'fuzzy logics' on top of innate/inherited 'instinctual' hardwired closed-loop 'routines'.
Which kinda sounds quantum-like, doesn't it....
Is "kinda" a 'scientific term' in 'artist speak'? Talk about having no 'objective' clue! :)
Hence your earlier claim to have "thought it through" for ALL the posted items was clearly silly/confused claim.
I thought YOUR list thru to the point of non relevance. Didn't take long...
You brought YOUR subjective clueless "irrelevance" to that non-exercise; hence your 'irrelevant conclusion/opinion', mate. :)
Why is it only objectively serious when YOU'RE offering it?
Not too mention, you won't broach any disagreement with your objective correctness...
The clue is in the term: "objective"; which I have employed and you have not. QED. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2017
@Whyde (and everyone, on whatever 'side' of the relevant scientific issues you may have started from), I again give you some crucial reality checks for you to check out objectively for yourselves (failure to do that will no doubt end badly; recall the 'egg-on-face' which resulted in the past from ignoring my friendly suggestions to be objective and think through the matters for yourselves before kneejerking etc).

Anyhow, consider the implications of new/recent astro discovery/reviews which found that:

- Universal space is replete with DUST, each 'bit' of which is many times the mass of one hydrogen/helium atom/ion/molecule. Making past 'estimates/proportions' way too LOW; hence requiring 'EXOTIC dark matter' fixes and fudges.

- CMB is being produced NOW everywhere by radiation affected/emitted by/from EVERY Maser process and Black Hole EH vicinity and Neutron Star surface vicinity; hence making 'pristine' BB-CMB interpretations/fixes unwarranted.

Try. Bye for now. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2017
@RC, dust has a signature. It dims EM, but not all frequencies to the same extent. If your claim were true then they would all be dimmed the same way; the fact is, they're not.

CMB being "created everywhere" would violate energy conservation.

That is all.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2017
Universal space is replete with DUST, each 'bit' of which is many times the mass of one hydrogen/helium atom/ion/molecule. Making past 'estimates/proportions' way too LOW; hence requiring 'EXOTIC dark matter' fixes and fudges.

........but the argument asstro-physicists come back with; "That was missing matter that was already accounted for".

How you can "account" for something before you actually find it has always been the cutest sleight of hand they've ever come up with. It's the reason Jonesy, Schneibo, etc, do not like those of us who know how to solve Differential Equations, they know our background in math is so strong that Nuclear/Electrical Engineers easily see through their shallow perpetual motion math, they hate people they can't fool.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2017
RC, dust has a signature. It dims EM, but not all frequencies to the same extent. If your claim were true then they would all be dimmed the same way; the fact is, they're not.


No, no, Schneibo, you don't get away with that one. When dust lanes inside galactic spiral arms are so thick as to appear black, further infrared spectroscopy often reveals the dust is of such density that not even infrared can penetrate the dust, therefore there may be no such "signature".
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, dust has a signature. It dims EM, but not all frequencies to the same extent. If your claim were true then they would all be dimmed the same way; the fact is, they're not.
We are only just starting to 'see' content in deep space; especially in vast 'voids' extents previously totally unexplored due to limitations of prior telescope/instruments. Recall that the estimates/proportions etc were first made in 50-60's when voids were thought to be mostly empty except for a very rarefied distribution of 'BB-pristine' Hydrogen/Helium 'gas'. Now we are finding that DUST grains are everywhere; and the voids are replete with same. Each grain of which has thousands/millions/billions of atoms which are themselves much more massive than Hydrogen/Helium. You are invited to REDO the estimates/maths. :)
CMB being "created everywhere" would violate energy conservation.
How so? It's just on-going processes not requiring BB 'takes'.

Rethink it all. Bye for now. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
So these voids are now full of magic dust that doesn't behave the same as dust anywhere else? You cannot possibly be serious.

Meanwhile there aren't any "on-going processes" that violate energy conservation. That is just handwaving.

I didn't figure you'd turned over any new leaf, and here you are with the sly insults and insinuations again. I think it's time for another five threads in which you lied. Coming up shortly.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
Thread where @100LiarRC claims the #EUdiot #physicsdeniers have made scientific predictions: https://phys.org/...ven.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims time is somehow motion: https://phys.org/...mic.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet again that currents can exist without sources and sinks: https://phys.org/...web.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims DM and DE are the same thing, and that there is no evidence for either (bonus, two lies in one): https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims redshifts are "highly unreliable:" https://phys.org/...ies.html
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
Oh, and another lie, fresh on this thread:
in 50-60's when voids were thought to be mostly empty
Cosmic voids weren't even thought of in the 1960s. From Wikipedia:
They were first discovered in 1978 in a pioneering study by Stephen Gregory and Laird A. Thompson at the Kitt Peak National Observatory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(astronomy)

I'll add this one to the list. 101 lies and counting.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2017
Oh, and keep in mind that Google is currently telling me I have 415 hits on my search for your lies, @RC. So we're only a quarter of the way done, supposing that the ratio of threads on which you lied and you didn't so far keeps up. And I haven't varied the search yet.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
So these voids are now full of magic dust that doesn't behave the same as dust anywhere else? You cannot possibly be serious.
Why resort to obvious tactics/strawmanning instead of politely supporting your claims? They are your claims so far, not what I pointed out for your consideration based on what mainstream astro/cosmo efforts now doing/finding. Sparse dust is not the same as local/galactic etc dust clouds/lanes etc which may be what you are conflating in your hasty responses/takes on what to expect from the 'void' dust content/distributions.
Meanwhile there aren't any "on-going processes" that violate energy conservation.
You implied that, not me; You just claimed that the known on-going radiation processes I alluded to "violate energy conservation". :)

I didn't figure you'd turned over any new leaf, and here you are with the sly insults and insinuations again. I think it's time for another five threads in which you lied. Coming up shortly.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You couldn't resist reverting to type when you are being wrong on science as well as behavior, could you? I had hoped you had grown up out of that trolling ego-tripping mentality. But alas, you are a lost cause to objective science and fair discourse; fit only to spam your own diversionary rubbish instead of actually reading/understanding what is being posted for your benefit. Truly a case of "Casting Pearls before Swine" if ever there was. Pity. Bye for now.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2017
PS @Da Schneib.

The forum will note that you again evade substantive points/issues and start insulting/distracting, spamming and otherwise making it about persons rather than the substantive scientific issues raised for your benefit. The forum further notes you have claimed on-going processes somehow "violate energy conservation" yet have not bothered to support such an obviously erroneous claim which only you have made, not me. What is even worse is that if one redoes the interpretation/maths as I suggested, one would come to the obvious conclusion based on the new observations/findings by mainstream itself re DUST content previously greatly UNDER-estimated to exist in deep space/voids etc. Yet instead of redoing the estimates/maths for yourself as suggested, you again 'pick a fight' to distract from me being obviously correct and you still just believing old crap. Not good, DS. Not good at all, on any level. Please try to think before you act for a change. Good luck. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2017
@RC, the CMB is homogeneous and isotropic to about one part in 100,000. It's not coming from point sources.

There isn't a bunch of dust in intergalactic space; we'd be able to see its effects. We don't. There especially isn't a bunch of dust in cosmic voids. We'd be able to see that too. And we don't.

Then there's the claim that cosmic voids were discovered in the 1950s. They weren't.

C'mon, man, why do you make this stuff up?

As far as the personal comments, you're back to the "You are invited to REDO the estimates/maths" and "Rethink it all" BS; you are the one without a single leg to stand on, making wild claims like CMB coming from point sources and cosmic voids being full of invisible dust. YOU redo it and rethink it all.
RNP
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2017
@RealityCheck
As everybody familiar with the actual science knows, your claims about the CMB, and dust as dark matter are completely false. This is obvious from the observations and has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people. Da Schneib has again explained it to you above.

Let's hope that there is more science in your supposed ToE than there is in your HeaD which appears to be empty.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2017
Let's hope that there is more science in your supposed ToE than there is in your HeaD

Unlikely, because he promised to publish that within a year...and that was over 5 years ago. No one has seen even a single line of his fabled ToE - not even himself.

It's just a attempt at making himself look good (and a pretty sad one at how pathetic it is)...because he thinks he's read the word acronym ToE somewhere and that automatically must make him smart.
He's been wanting someone to say "you're smart" to him all his life, but no one has. Because he just isn't. So he's relegated himself to fishing for it on comment sections about journalistic PR articles about scientific papers.

Has he achieved this goal in the past 10 years? Not even once.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, the CMB....not coming from point sources.
Maybe you missed my longstanding observation (now being confirmed by mainstream astro/cosmo discovery/reviews) that deep space reaches are effectively 'mixmasters' for radiation traveling vast distances. And who said anything about "point sources", not me! The known processes I alluded to are at all scales and some affecting hundreds of millions of light years across/distances.
There isn't a bunch of dust in intergalactic space; we'd be able to see its effects. We don't. There especially isn't a bunch of dust in cosmic voids. We'd be able to see that too. And we don't.
You are missing/denying recent astro discovery. What do you think we ARE 'seeing' when astros now report universe is MUCH DUSTIER than previously theorized.
Then there's the claim that cosmic voids...
Before then the space beyond our 'Local Group' of galaxies was assumed to be one vast empty void!

Stop nitpicking/kneejerking, mate. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2017
@RC you always claim "recent discoveries" but don't have any links to actual papers.

Skepticism is your bane.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2017
@RNP.
@RealityCheck
As everybody familiar with the actual science knows, your claims about the CMB, and dust as dark matter are completely false. This is obvious from the observations and has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people. Da Schneib has again explained it to you above.
No, mate; the only 'explanations' are re-iterations of OLD assumptive/interpretive and erroneous 'beliefs' which are in direct contradiction to NEW/RECENT mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews (which confirm what I have been pointing out for your benefit).
Let's hope that there is more science in your supposed ToE than there is in your HeaD which appears to be empty.
Instead of insulting, kneejerking, ego-tripping and bot-voting in ignorance, isn't it time you actually thought through the ramifications for old BB/Inflation/CMB/ExoticDM-based fantasies, RNP? Mainstream astros NOW increasingly 'seeing' our universe space MUCH DUSTIER than previously suspected. Redo. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2017
@antialias_physorg.
Unlikely, because he promised to publish that within a year...and that was over 5 years ago. No one has seen even a single line of his fabled ToE - not even himself.
You missed that I STARTED the reality-based-axiomatics MATHEMATICAL construct project for modeling the physical ToE I had already completed. You can't even get that straight, mate.
He's been wanting someone to say "you're smart" to him all his life, but no one has. Because he just isn't. So he's relegated himself to fishing for it on comment sections about journalistic PR articles about scientific papers.
Projecting much, anti? Yu knw, for someone who still hasn't learned his lessons from your Bicep2 'believer' fiasco, you are nevertheless posting 'very bravely' on a forum where you have been the proven idiot, not me, hey?

And unlike you/gang of bot-voting ignoramus trolls, I do science FOR SCIENCE not for ego-tripping motives. Hence your proven failures/stupidities here so far.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC you always claim "recent discoveries" but don't have any links to actual papers.

Skepticism is your bane.
And willful ignorance and denial of easily found relevant new/recent astro/cosmo papers/news about relevant discovery/reviews is your problem, mate. :)

This explains why you go on insult/kneejerking sprees instead of actually informing yourself before opening your big mouth and putting your smelly foot in it sideways. You have been so wrong on the science on so many threads where you started out calling me "liar" etc while all along I was correct and you just plain ego-driven and ignorant of even the already known science let alone the evolving science which I tried to get you up to speed on to no avail. Pearls before Swine indeed! You and that bot-voting gang of ignoramus ego-tripping denialists are WORSE than AGW denialists, as you PRETEND to represent science while ACTUALLY betraying scientific method/discourse as it suits you. Pitiable.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2017
@RNP
@RealityCheck
....
Let's hope that there is more science in your supposed ToE than there is in your HeaD which appears to be empty.

i see what you did there - lol

wish i could give you 100 stars !!

EpiC
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@RNP
@RealityCheck
....
Let's hope that there is more science in your supposed ToE than there is in your HeaD which appears to be empty.

i see what you did there - lol

wish i could give you 100 stars !!

EpiC
The forum sees your agenda is personal trolling even against posters who are being confirmed correct all along by mainstream recent discovery/reviews. How can you not 'see' you are being 'anti-science' as any so-called anti-science troll on your bot-voting list, CS? It's the objective science/discourse, not the opinion of trolls and incorrect-on-the-science wannabe's that parrot old failed crap, that matters to science and humanity. If you persist in such trolling, and cheerleading of trolling, then you make yourself irrelevant to science and humanity; and just give more 'ammunition' to those posters less forgiving than I am towards your trolling/bot-voting, mate. Don't throw away your time and intellect on base personal agendas, CS. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2017
:) @idiot POS rc the pseudoscience martyr-victim troll
...even against posters who are being confirmed correct all along by mainstream recent discovery/reviews
right... you mean like here? https://phys.org/...lar.html

where you claim a "novel" approach to astrophysics is to use lasers even though i've been posting the PPPL site for years proving the idiot eu is wrong? (lasers since at least 2014)

where you completely ignore the evidence yet again because you were outed as a lying POS pseudoscience troll?

where you state *we* didn't read the article but then make the epic faux pas of not reading the actual f*cking science that the article links proving you're an idiot and wrong yet again?

where you ignore the science proving you wrong (yet again) even though i provided the links and a suggestion to read them?

LMFAO

thanks for proving you're an illiterate pseudoscience troll
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
:) @idiot POS rc the pseudoscience martyr-victim troll
...even against posters who are being confirmed correct all along by mainstream recent discovery/reviews
right... you mean like here? https://phys.org/...lar.html

where you claim a "novel" approach to astrophysics is to use lasers even though i've been posting the PPPL site for years proving the idiot eu is wrong? (lasers since at least 2014).....
Please read my response in that other thread, mate. It was the specific mimicking of realistic astrophysical conditions that was the 'novel' aspect; regardless of apparatus used to create that realistic mimicking situation. OK? Oh, and do try to be less of an unpleasant character and more of a constructive one, CS. Thanks. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2017
:) @idiot POS rc the illiterate pseudoscience martyr-victim troll
Please read my response in that other thread
you mean you want me to re-read the comment where you simply repeated the same regurgitated nonsense that is directly contradicted by the links that i provided to PPPL.gov?

all you did was prove you:
1- never read a single link to the site that i provided
2- didn't understand the science

you just proved, yet again, that you're a liar and can't read!

thanks for that one, as you continue to validate my claims

.

Oh, and do try to be less of an unpleasant character and learn to f*cking read, rc. Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

Please keep your 'astrophysics conditions mimicking experiment' topic comments in the relevant thread. I have responded to you again on that topic therein. Thanks.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2017
Back later/tomorrow. Bye for now.
tgmeloche
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2017
The thought of space-time geometry (GR) to explain how gravity works in nature originated over 100 years ago. Today's observational and experimental data sets confirm the idea that general relativity can now be kicked to the curb in the same way as in Galileo's time the idea that the Earth was at the center of the Universe. Fear of change and vested interests are at work as academics' hold dearly their faith in general relativity (GR) as the answer to how gravity works despite nature's disagreement with the evidence … history repeats. Clearly academia strives for clarity and truth and even Albert Einstein had his doubts about space –time geometry as the complete answer to how gravity works in the natural world.
21st century innovation to how the force of gravity transfers is found in the google links below.
The principles of atomic gravity are tools used to unify and advance academic research in all the natural sciences.

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.