Laws of physics vary throughout the universe, new study suggests

[Write4U]

W4U, this text can't be seen in your post #77 aboveMy bold.
Are you saying a point can be a three dimensional sphere?

This is the point where the theoretical object becomes diffused, and not definable.

 

[sweetpea]

This is the point where the theoretical object becomes diffused, and not definable.

But, you say a sphere can be a point and go on to say there are points ''below the Planck scale''. So, your saying there are spheres ''below the Planck scale''. Please see my post #80...we cross posted.

 

[NotEinstein]

I guess it's time someone moved this nonsense about fractals to the appropriate sub-forum...

 

[sweetpea]

I guess it's time someone moved this nonsense about fractals to the appropriate sub-forum...

It's hard enough just trying to learn mainstream ideas, I can never understand why people on forums use their own understanding of mainstream models to make their own models!

 

[NotEinstein]

It's hard enough just trying to learn mainstream ideas,

True in general, although the concept of a fractal is relatively easy to understand.

I can never understand why people on forums use their own understanding of mainstream models to make their own models!

Well, I think the two are connected. If they actually understood the mainstream models, they would have no need to come up with their own. That's why you don't see many scientists coming up with such silly models.

 

[Write4U]

deleted for duplication

 

[Write4U]

Well folks, it seems we have nothing to talk about then, it's all been settled......"mainstream is the end-all of modeling the universe".

An important fact to face here is that there are cases where mainstream scientific opinion is bad science--where scientific positions are maintained long after their invalidity becomes clear to any who will unblinkingly examine the refutory evidence. When reputations and incomes have been made and maintained by the "established wisdom" and the interests of funding agencies, there are strong personal and institutional incentives to hold off any changes as long as possible, pleading that we still do not know enough for sure, and a little more research money may make the situation clearer.

This situation can damage the integrity and credibility of the entire scientific enterprise if the mainstream opinion is later shown to be invalid and was under serious challenge by other credible scientists at the time in question. If opposing views are openly and honestly debated, there is no problem. The problem arises when the challengers are numerous and credible, and the challenges are not adequately considered and responded to by the mainstream science establishment.

https://www.the-scientist.com/?arti.../Scientific-Integrity-and-Mainstream-Science/

p.s. I don't think that I have ever argued against "mainstream science", but rather attempted to introduce some new (maybe old) perspectives, by trying to find "common denominators" which are fundamental to all states of the universe, which directly addresses the OP question.

Musika post: 3515305, member:
A team of astrophysicists based in Australia and England has uncovered evidence that the laws of physics are different in different parts of the universe. The report describes how one of the supposed fundamental constants of Nature appears not to be constant after all. Instead, this 'magic number' known as the fine-structure constant -- 'alpha' for short -- appears to vary throughout the universe.

287543"]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm

But from all the above it seems these guys and gals in Australia and England don't have a clue about "mainstream science". How dare they challenge what everyone "knows to be true"?
Apparently Bohm and deBroglie were fools to even propose variables.

Bohm's aim was not to set out a deterministic, mechanical viewpoint but to show that it was possible to attribute properties to an underlying reality, in contrast to the conventional approach.[15] He began to develop his own interpretation (the De Broglie–Bohm theory, also called the pilot wave theory), the predictions of which agreed perfectly with the non-deterministic quantum theory. He initially called his approach a hidden variable theory, but he later called it ontological theory, reflecting his view that a stochastic process underlying the phenomena described by his theory might one day be found.

Bohm and his colleague Basil Hiley later stated that they had found their own choice of terms of an "interpretation in terms of hidden variables" to be too restrictive, especially since their variables, position, and momentum "are not actually hidden."

But not yet "discovered"

Bohm's work and the EPR argument became the major factor motivating John Stewart Bell's inequality, which rules out local hidden variable theories; the full consequences of Bell's work are still being investigated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm

 

[Write4U]

So, are you saying you can build a sphere with fractals and still show the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is Pi ?
So, if a circumference is consisdered to be a circle of points, you would them be saying points are made of points??
So, are you now saying there is a geometry ''below planck scale''? Can you give an example of this relationship between points ''below planck scale''?
And that these points ''below planck scale'' can be a sphere...'' Theoretically a sphere can be of any size, down to a single point yet share the same property of Pi as larger speheres.''

OK, I'll give it a shot from what I have read.

The extra dimensions would form the analogous of a sphere in 7 dimensions, which is one of the most symmetrical and simple structures. The equations derived from supergravity offer however quantities with infinite values, not having therefore physical interpretation.

.....

The procedure can be simply described as follows: it shrinks a sphere inside a C-Y space to the size of a point, operating a sort of bottleneck in space; space tears and produces a sphere which, by swelling, makes again smooth its surface. The original (initial) sphere has in this way undergone a procedure called “flop”.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/442/1/012068/pdf

 

[NotEinstein]

Well folks, it seems we have nothing to talk about then, it's all been settled......"mainstream is the end-all of modeling the universe".
https://www.the-scientist.com/?arti.../Scientific-Integrity-and-Mainstream-Science/

That's a perfect example of an argument from authority you just made. (It's an opinion piece from March 2000, written by a nuclear engineer, focusing the article on radiation protection standards.)

Also, it's true: scientists are not above mistakes or fraud. But this isn't something new, and the different fields of science are affected in differing amount. Check this out: https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/

p.s. I don't think that I have ever argued against "mainstream science", but rather attempted to introduce some new (maybe old) perspectives, by trying to find "common denominators" which are fundamental to all states of the universe, which directly addresses the OP question.

And that's the problem: you have argued against mainstream science, but you don't understand mainstream science well enough to realize you did.

But from all the above it seems these guys and gals in Australia and England don't have a clue about "mainstream science". How dare they challenge what everyone "knows to be true"?

You really don't know how science is done, do you?

 

[exchemist]

That's a perfect example of an argument from authority you just made. (It's an opinion piece from March 2000, written by a nuclear engineer, focusing the article on radiation protection standards.)

Also, it's true: scientists are not above mistakes or fraud. But this isn't something new, and the different fields of science are affected in differing amount. Check this out: https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/


And that's the problem: you have argued against mainstream science, but you don't understand mainstream science well enough to realize you did.


You really don't know how science is done, do you?

No. It's a religion we have here.

Write4U worships that which he does not comprehend. There is no God but Mathematics, and Tegmark/Shapiro is His prophet.

 

[NotEinstein]

No. It's a religion we have here.

Write4U worships that which he does not comprehend.

Shouldn't Write4U be worshipping mainstream science then?

There is no God but Mathematics, and Tegmark/Shapiro is His prophet.

It's indeed remarkable how often Write4U feels the need to bring them up, even if their mention is totally irrelevant to the discussion. It's indeed quite close to preaching (which is against the forum rules).

 

[sweetpea]

OK, I'll give it a shot from what I have read. ..... http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/442/1/012068/pdf

W4U, Now your going into String Theory...What you quote there is for spheres in a Calabi-Yau (C-Y) space.
Your quote tells you what a C-Y space is...My bold. So, your now assuming we have extra compacted diemensions in our universe.

In 1987 it was discovered that it is possilble to transform some Calabi-Yau (C-Y) spaces (spaces in which are compactified the extra dimensions) in to others by making a puncture on their surface and then mending the hole according to a precise mathematical process.
The procedure can be simply described as follows: it shrinks a sphere inside a C-Y space to the size of a point, operating a sort of bottleneck.....

Can you give a link to where a sphere in our three dimensional universe can shrink to a point and still have the property of Pi ?

Theoretically a sphere can be of any size, down to a single point yet share the same property of Pi as larger speheres

So, your saying the ratio of a point's diameter to its circumference is Pi?
This seems to ask the question..how large is a point in geometry?

 

[TheFrogger]

What, the theory of relativity? Everything is relative to the observer?

 

[Write4U]

What, the theory of relativity? Everything is relative to the observer?

I would say that's true.

Ever seen a curved space made from straight lines, dependent on the POV from the observer?
Watch this little demonstration by Roger Antonsen.

 

[Farsight]

Changing your perspective won't tell you how gravity works. Or how a magnet works.

However reading a whole pile of old papers will. It will also tell you that a great deal of mainstream physics is wrong.

 

[NotEinstein]

Changing your perspective won't tell you how gravity works. Or how a magnet works.

However reading a whole pile of old papers will. It will also tell you that a great deal of mainstream physics is wrong.

Might I suggest reading some more up-to-date material then?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Changing your perspective won't tell you how gravity works. Or how a magnet works.

However reading a whole pile of old papers will. It will also tell you that a great deal of mainstream physics is wrong.

References? And why?

 

[Farsight]

Here's a few references:

1913: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis".
1914: “In the case where we drop the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light, there exists, a priori, no privileged coordinate systems.”
1915: "the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned".
1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity”.
1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.

A good number of modern authors think light curves because spacetime is curved. It isn't true. They don't understand gravity. So they don't understand black holes, or other aspects of cosmology. I think this Hawking quote in https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 is rather telling:

"I still get two or three letters a week telling me Einstein was wrong. Nevertheless, the theory of relativity is now completely accepted by the scientific community, and its predictions have been verified in countless applications. [...] His idea was that mass and energy would warp spacetime in some manner ... Objects like apples or planets would try to move on straight lines through space-time, but their paths would appear bent by a gravitational field because space-time is curved".

Might I suggest reading some more up-to-date material then?

I've read that too.

 

[NotEinstein]

Here's a few references:

1913: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis".
1914: “In the case where we drop the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light, there exists, a priori, no privileged coordinate systems.”
1915: "the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned".
1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity”.
1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.

A good number of modern authors think light curves because spacetime is curved. It isn't true. They don't understand gravity. So they don't understand black holes, or other aspects of cosmology. I think this Hawking quote in https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 is rather telling:

"I still get two or three letters a week telling me Einstein was wrong. Nevertheless, the theory of relativity is now completely accepted by the scientific community, and its predictions have been verified in countless applications. [...] His idea was that mass and energy would warp spacetime in some manner ... Objects like apples or planets would try to move on straight lines through space-time, but their paths would appear bent by a gravitational field because space-time is curved".

Guess I was right; you're almost a hundred years out-of-date. There's some good textbooks somewhat more recently. The Feynman lectures, Weinberg, Carroll, etc. Perhaps those more up-to-date texts can shed some light for you on the current scientific situation.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Here's a few references:

1913: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis".
1914: “In the case where we drop the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light, there exists, a priori, no privileged coordinate systems.”
1915: "the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned".
1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity”.
1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.

A good number of modern authors think light curves because spacetime is curved. It isn't true. They don't understand gravity. So they don't understand black holes, or other aspects of cosmology. I think this Hawking quote in https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 is rather telling:

"I still get two or three letters a week telling me Einstein was wrong. Nevertheless, the theory of relativity is now completely accepted by the scientific community, and its predictions have been verified in countless applications. [...] His idea was that mass and energy would warp spacetime in some manner ... Objects like apples or planets would try to move on straight lines through space-time, but their paths would appear bent by a gravitational field because space-time is curved".

I've read that too.

And those are all anecdotal.

And with that evidence you would proclaim you understand gravity?