https://getpocket.com/explore/item/...e-with-string-theory?utm_source=pocket-newtab Now this is odd, maybe string theory is wrong or we've gotten dark matter wrong or possibly both. No matter where you land it is an interesting read.
True. The problems we face in physics are incredibly difficult as the methods we have for getting evidence are seriously limited by our technology.
In recent years I have been under the impression that popular theories, like String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity, don't match up with observations of the physical universe. At least observations of the Universe, in recent years, have narrowed down the list of possibilities by constraining what values/ranges are still available to make a theory out of them.
The problem with the conflict between quantum mechanics and Einstein gravity may be worse than that, I think. One of the root issues is what they predict about the expansion of the universe. It's my understanding that there are several methods of measuring that expansion that depend on one or the other. And, the results look to a guy like me to be pretty close. But, physicists point out that once you add the error bars to show how accurate the measurements are, the results don't even overlap each other - leaving multiple distinct answers that so far can't be resolved. And, as accuracy improves, the answers have just gotten more distinct. I haven't heard that this problem with physics today is a significant factor in the decline of popularity of string theory. Besides, it hits me that several of the theories at that level don't actually go back to first principles. String theory postulates strings. But, what caused these strings, which are theorized to be actual structures? It seems like it only pushes back the evelope a little, limiting that push to be consistent with the math describing what we have today. That doesn't sound satisfying to me. Of course, I'm not a physicist. Dr. Sean Carroll and collaborators (and other groups?) are working from the other end, attempting to show how our universe could arise from wave functions that would be at the root of everything - what these physicists hope to be the most primary possible starting point. I find that idea appealing. He has a podcast called Mindscape where he interviews people from a very wide range of disciplines, but there are episodes which are focused on this issue. He includes physicists who do not agree with him and he is marvelous in ensuring they get the run of the interview to fully express their ideas as Carroll helps clarify. He keeps the discussion reasonably accessible to the public, once in a while encouraging a deeper dive.
The interesting problem is of course that human logic has certain inherent limits placed upon it by the fact that we are neither omniscient nor omnipresent and frankly I'd have it no other way.
The latter is better. Our Heavenly Parents loved us as their spirit children and we could not progress to their level without physical bodies like they have. So, they were given the ability to establish their universe and here we are. Learning to be like them and given the way to do so.
Maybe it's not for us to know in this earth life. Perhaps it's saved for us to know in the Celestial Kingdom.
More questions than answers. Saturday, November 30, 2019 Dark energy might not exist after all Last week I told you what dark energy is and why astrophysicists believe it exists. This week I want to tell you about a recent paper that claims dark energy does not exist.
Limitations? Nope. Their are three kingdoms in Heaven. Celestial is the highest. 1corinthians chapter 15. That's where we continue to increase in joy and posterity. Anywhere else is limited in the eternities. Including increased of intelligence.
You want physics? We got physics. Warp Drive News. Seriously! [This is a transcript of the video embedded below.] As many others, I became interested in physics by reading too much science fiction. Teleportation, levitation, wormholes, time-travel, warp drives, and all that, I thought was super-fascinating. But of course the depressing part of science fiction is that you know it’s not real. So, to some extent, I became a physicist to find out which science fiction technologies have a chance to one day become real technologies. Today I want to talk about warp drives because I think on the spectrum from fiction to science, warp drives are on the more scientific end. And just a few weeks ago, a new paper appeared about warp drives that puts the idea on a much more solid basis. But first of all, what is a warp drive? In the science fiction literature, a warp drive is a technology that allows you to travel faster than the speed of light or “superluminally” by “warping” or deforming space-time. The idea is that by warping space-time, you can beat the speed of light barrier. This is not entirely crazy, for the following reason. Einstein’s theory of general relativity says you cannot accelerate objects from below to above the speed of light because that would take an infinite amount of energy. However, this restriction applies to objects in space-time, not to space-time itself. Space-time can bend, expand, or warp at any speed. Indeed, physicists think that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light in its very early phase. General Relativity does not forbid this. . . . Let me then get to the new paper. The new paper is titled “Introducing Physical Warp Drives” and was written by Alexey Bobrick and Gianni Martire. I have to warn you that this paper has not yet been peer reviewed. But I have read it and I am pretty confident it will make it through peer review. . . .
Yes, in fact expansion of the universe could be faster than the speed of light today - at least over a stupendous distance. As you probably know, expansion of space is expected to be the same across space. So, every mile of space is expanding. If one adds up the expansion of each mile of space, one eventually gets to a distance where the expansion sums to faster than light speed. And thus light from some star at that distance will never reach Earth. It will be in the portion of the unierse the we have no possibility of observing.
From the cited article: I just love that part about how this idea COULD have some value IF General Relativity is all wrong, or IF we find some "negative energy", or (I suppose) if unicorns let us hitch a ride. I don't mean to be too negative. But, let's remember this is a paper from theoretical physics - where there is NO experimentation, NO verification through examining our universe, and where the objective is to extend beyond what we actually know about physics by making mathmatical models that do not get used or tested in the experimental sciences that we call "science". We need theoretical physics, but its usefulness is in helping experimentalists come up with ideas on where to look. Unlike with "warp drive", experimental physicists (science) actually study dark matter - which is detectable because it has gravity. So, I'm not overly excited about pretending that astrophysicists are making it up as they go along - as if they were theoretical physicists.
Yep boring. I am always more interested in exploring what I don’t know that no exploiting what I do know. But then the more I learn, the more questions I have, so I don’t have much fear of impending boredom.Then too, there’s the uncertainty principle, you know as soon as you think you figure out women...then....
