has this hubble mystery been solved?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hubble Pictures Too Crisp, Challenging Theories of Time and Space http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/quantum_bits_030402.html <br />Posted by redbert</DIV></p><p>I think that article garbled some of the science in the translation.&nbsp; There currently is no quantum theory that is compatible with general relativity, and the search to find such a theory is a major part of the research in theoretical physics.&nbsp; The notions of "foam" and quanta of time are also quite speculative and not part of any proven theory, so the article seems to be addressing not a contradiction in accepted physics but rather a problem with some ideas that have been advanced on the road to a quantum theory of gravity.</p><p>Nobody know what goes on at the Planck length or with respect to the Planck unit of time.&nbsp;Any contradiction is a contradiction of a hypotheses and not of any known physical law. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think that article garbled some of the science in the translation.&nbsp; There currently is no quantum theory that is compatible with general relativity, and the search to find such a theory is a major part of the research in theoretical physics.&nbsp; The notions of "foam" and quanta of time are also quite speculative and not part of any proven theory, so the article seems to be addressing not a contradiction in accepted physics but rather a problem with some ideas that have been advanced on the road to a quantum theory of gravity.Nobody know what goes on at the Planck length or with respect to the Planck unit of time.&nbsp;Any contradiction is a contradiction of a hypotheses and not of any known physical law. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Ah, so the commandments you speak of so "rightly" are really just guesses&nbsp;based on mathmatics and not based on known physical law.&nbsp; Maybe we should back up and try again without quantum mechanics and general relativity.&nbsp; This is a fabulous stepping stone, Doctor. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ah, so the commandments you speak of so "rightly" are really just guesses&nbsp;based on mathmatics and not based on known physical law.&nbsp; Maybe we should back up and try again without quantum mechanics and general relativity.&nbsp; This is a fabulous stepping stone, Doctor. <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Commandments ?&nbsp; What are you talking about ?</p><p>Are you suggesting that we abandon both quantum mechanics and general relativity without having a theory to supplant them ?&nbsp; We know that they are very good approximations, so long as you don't go outside the known domains of validity.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">Maybe not abandon them.<span>&nbsp; </span>Just don&rsquo;t rely on them so much.<span>&nbsp; </span>I can write an equation to define the curve of that road over there, for this particular section.<span>&nbsp; </span>If I monkey with a few variables, I can define lots of roads.<span>&nbsp; </span>But that kind of accounting system can&rsquo;t be re-used to reinforce outdated theories and then create new physical properties to verify it.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;Because I have eleven coefficients in my equation for a road,&nbsp;there are eleven dimensions in nature.&nbsp; You must see how math is used to explain science, not to&nbsp;create science.</span></font></font></p><p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">Maybe I don&rsquo;t know everything that happened in the last century, but we lost something along the way, and&nbsp;that we have to keep creating linear equations and maneuvering around a bunch of mathematics should raise red flags in the scientific community.&nbsp; The fact that two systems&nbsp;that will never agree and are both accepted as true should make astronomy stop and think.&nbsp;&nbsp;Quantum mechanics works as an accounting system for the small "electrical" nature of atoms, but the math blows up at higher levels.&nbsp; General relativity is a neat notion that&nbsp;tries to&nbsp;describe what we see, but it blows up too.&nbsp; </font></font></p><p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">We have to stick to what we can perform in a lab to recreate the laws of nature, and postulate from there.&nbsp;<span>&nbsp;</span></font></font></p><p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><span>http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/2008_05.html&nbsp; About half way thorough the document:</span></font></font></p><p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><span>"<font face="Verdana">Alven&rsquo;s student Anthony Peratt continued research into plasma universe theory and developed Particle in Cell simulation using the Maxwell-Lorentz equations to model plasma behaviour. One type of simulation involved a pair of Birkeland currents in parallel and looking top row left to right, then next row left to right, was able to produce a spiral galaxy formation, (see Figure 1). The accuracy of PIC simulation is shown in its astonishing ability to mimic known galaxy shapes (Figure 2) without using gravity."</font></span></font></font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"></font></font></p><p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"></font></font></p><p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"></font></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe not abandon them.&nbsp; Just don&rsquo;t rely on them so much.&nbsp; I can write an equation to define the curve of that road over there, for this particular section.&nbsp; If I monkey with a few variables, I can define lots of roads.&nbsp; But that kind of accounting system can&rsquo;t be re-used to reinforce outdated theories and then create new physical properties to verify it.&nbsp;&nbsp;Because I have eleven coefficients in my equation for a road,&nbsp;there are eleven dimensions in nature.&nbsp; You must see how math is used to explain science, not to&nbsp;create science.Maybe I don&rsquo;t know everything that happened in the last century, but we lost something along the way, and&nbsp;that we have to keep creating linear equations and maneuvering around a bunch of mathematics should raise red flags in the scientific community.&nbsp; The fact that two systems&nbsp;that will never agree and are both accepted as true should make astronomy stop and think.&nbsp;&nbsp;Quantum mechanics works as an accounting system for the small "electrical" nature of atoms, but the math blows up at higher levels.&nbsp; General relativity is a neat notion that&nbsp;tries to&nbsp;describe what we see, but it blows up too.&nbsp; We have to stick to what we can perform in a lab to recreate the laws of nature, and postulate from there.&nbsp;&nbsp;http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/2008_05.html About half way thorough the document:"Alven&rsquo;s student Anthony Peratt continued research into plasma universe theory and developed Particle in Cell simulation using the Maxwell-Lorentz equations to model plasma behaviour. One type of simulation involved a pair of Birkeland currents in parallel and looking top row left to right, then next row left to right, was able to produce a spiral galaxy formation, (see Figure 1). The accuracy of PIC simulation is shown in its astonishing ability to mimic known galaxy shapes (Figure 2) without using gravity." <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>What you can do in a laboratory is&nbsp;often not a good simulation of the physics that is at work on cosmological scales.&nbsp; That is why you need careful measurements and observations of what goes on in the real universe, and mathematical models based on physics that has been repeatedly verified experimentally.&nbsp; General relativity is known to be a very good approximation to reality in all but the most extreme situations.&nbsp; Similarly quantum mechanics has been shown to be very accurate within known domains of validity.</p><p>Yes there are problems with both quantum field theories and with general relativity.&nbsp; Those problems are the subject of active research.&nbsp; But in the meantime they can be used very effectively to understand the natural world, so long as one recognizes the limitations involved, which in fact are not that great.</p><p>Peratt and other EU wackos are generally ignored and deservedly so.&nbsp; They have taken irrelevant laboratory scale demonstrations and extrapolated them far beyond reason, compounding their mistakes.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What you can do in a laboratory is&nbsp;often not a good simulation of the physics that is at work on cosmological scales.&nbsp; Peratt and other EU wackos are generally ignored and deservedly so.&nbsp; They have taken irrelevant laboratory scale demonstrations and extrapolated them far beyond reason, compounding their mistakes. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Doctor, </p><p>Scale does not harm electromagnetic theory.&nbsp; In fact, it's clear that once you get a distance outside a charged object, it acts more and more like a point charge.&nbsp; This is why it is so interesting that it works on atomic scales and scales we can recognize, and to top it off, it explains the phenomenon we see in the cosmos.&nbsp; Why is it so saught after to mute?&nbsp; Peer review?&nbsp; Careers ruined?&nbsp; I don't know, but it's a shame to mislead all of these people to save a few egos.</p><p>-Kick</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Doctor, Scale does not harm electromagnetic theory.&nbsp; In fact, it's clear that once you get a distance outside a charged object, it acts more and more like a point charge.</DIV></p><p>True.&nbsp; But there is more involved than just the prediction of electromagnetic fields.&nbsp; It is important in science to consider all phenomena that are at work and not to focus on only one and ignore what is really going on.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;This is why it is so interesting that it works on atomic scales and scales we can recognize, and to top it off, it explains the phenomenon we see in the cosmos.</DIV>&nbsp;</p><p>No it does not.&nbsp;&nbsp;You need to look at all of the physics involved.&nbsp;&nbsp;Gravity is generally more important on large scales that is the electromagnetic force for precisely the reason that you noted earlier.&nbsp; Once you reach a significant distance from a charged object is acts very much like a point charge.&nbsp; Since there are generally an equal number of positive and negatively charged point particles in a macroscopic piece of mass once you are&nbsp;even&nbsp;a small&nbsp;distance away it&nbsp;appears as a single neutral body.&nbsp;&nbsp;Gravity on the other hand is always attractive between massive bodies so the force tends to add up when large masses are involved.&nbsp; You must consider all relevant phenomena and forces and beyond the nuclear scale (where the strong and weak forces are also important) those forces are gravity and electromagnetism.&nbsp; When the bodies are neutral in charge, as is often the case, gravity is dominant.</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why is it so saught after to mute?&nbsp; Peer review?&nbsp; Careers ruined?&nbsp; I don't know, but it's a shame to mislead all of these people to save a few egos.-KickPosted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>It is indeed a shame to mislead people, and the EU wackos are trying to mislead in spades.&nbsp; Peer review serves a very necessary purpose. It provides a means whereby the very limited resources for publication of scientific papers can be applied to those ideas that are deserving of consideration by the research community.&nbsp; All papers that are submitted are considered by expert reviewers and therefore have a "day in court".&nbsp; Deserving papers are then published to a wider audience.&nbsp; There is little point in expending the resources of research journals to publish junk.</p><p>This has nothing whatever to do with egos, at least on the part of the mainstream scientists.&nbsp; It has to do with scientific integrity and value.&nbsp; If you are looking for people who are in it for ego alone you need look no farther than the EU proponents.</p><p>There is clearly an ego problem.&nbsp; When the EU wackos are told that they are indeed wackos it is a bit bruising to their egos.&nbsp; But better to damage the egos of a few nut cases than to damage and mislead the public at large with nonsensical "theories" or to de-rail the development of young future scientists who may&nbsp;have the ability to make real contributions in the future.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Gravity is generally more important on large scales that is the electromagnetic force for precisely the reason that you noted earlier.&nbsp; Once you reach a significant distance from a charged object is acts very much like a point charge.&nbsp; Since there are generally an equal number of positive and negatively charged point particles in a macroscopic piece of mass once you are&nbsp;even&nbsp;a small&nbsp;distance away it&nbsp;appears as a single neutral body.&nbsp;&nbsp;Gravity on the other hand is always attractive between massive bodies so the force tends to add up when large masses are involved.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>I'm not&nbsp;sure where you decided that the net charge in the universe is zero, so therefore, it's zero no matter what corner you're looking in.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Peer review serves a very necessary purpose. It provides a means whereby the very limited resources for publication of scientific papers can be applied to those ideas that are deserving of consideration by the research community.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>If they had peer review during the times of Galileo, Copernacus, and Kepler, we would be even further behind than we are now.&nbsp; They went against mainstream, they were outcast, and&nbsp;they were right.&nbsp; Now you say mainstream is right and anyone who thinks outside that box is simply not to be published, and you think that's a smart way to utilize limited resources.&nbsp; Has history taught you nothing?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not&nbsp;sure where you decided that the net charge in the universe is zero, so therefore, it's zero no matter what corner you're looking in.&nbsp; If they had peer review during the times of Galileo, Copernacus, and Kepler, we would be even further behind than we are now.&nbsp; They went against mainstream, they were outcast, and&nbsp;they were right.&nbsp; Now you say mainstream is right and anyone who thinks outside that box is simply not to be published, and you think that's a smart way to utilize limited resources.&nbsp; Has history taught you nothing? <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV><br />&nbsp;</p><p>Like the general EU crowd you like to twist words.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>I did not say that because the net charge in the universe is zero, which is does most certainly appear to be, that it is zero on all scales and in all locations.&nbsp;&nbsp;If it were, we would not have need of electrodynamics, we would not have electrical power, and we would not have electronic devices.&nbsp; There is charge all around us and in some situations that charge is a factor.&nbsp; But at large scales and in most cases the positive and negative charges balance one another.&nbsp; Even ioniized materials, plasmas, are, in most cases, treated on a macroscopic scale as charge neutral -- reference: <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics</em> by Hannes Alfven.&nbsp; </p><p>I did not say that anyone who thinks outside the box should not be published.&nbsp; People who think oustside the box are regularly published and lauded.&nbsp; Perleman thought outside the box and solved the Riemann conjecture.&nbsp; Wiles thought outside the box and provided the link to prove Fermat's last theorem.&nbsp; Einstein thought outside the box and we have relativity.&nbsp; Feynman thought outside the box and we have quantum electrodynamics.</p><p>But there is a big difference between&nbsp;vision and halucination.&nbsp; Peer review serves, in part, to cull the wacky from the prescient.&nbsp; There has been peer review throughout science, in one form or another.&nbsp; When applied by scientists it has proved to be most beneficial.&nbsp; When applied by religious authorities, as with Galileo it has not been so beneficial.&nbsp; But today peer review means what it says and it is applied by scientists in a generally objective manner.</p><p>Peer review is necessary precisely because of the limited resources available for the publication of solid science.&nbsp; It is a very effective means of allocating those resources so that maximum scientific progress can result from use of those resources.&nbsp; Peer review is a good thing.</p><p>You objection arises solely because you are an advocate for one of the more irrational proposals in the history of science, the so-called "Electrical Universe".&nbsp;&nbsp; The fact that&nbsp;wacko rantings of EU advocates&nbsp;are not generally published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals is a sign that the system is working well and that precious journal pages are not being wasted on notions that violate known observational data and predictions from well-established theories in domains in which those theories are known to be valid.&nbsp; The review process culls the correct but unimportant.&nbsp; It most certainly culls, as it should, the ridiculous and irrational.&nbsp;</p><p>There are many scientists who do not adhere to the currently fashionable research perspectives.&nbsp; Roger Penrose is one.&nbsp; Lee Smolin is another.&nbsp; They follow a path different from the majority.&nbsp; But that path is consistent with that which is known to be valid.&nbsp; They have no trouble publishing their ideas and their reasoning.&nbsp; I personally think that their perspectives may, in the long run, win out.&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp; What I do know is that they are receiving and will receive appropriate consideratin for their rational and well-supported views.&nbsp; Science does not discriminate against ideas simply because they are not in fashion.&nbsp; Science does discriminate against positions that have been demonstrated to be incorrect by principles that have themselves been demonstrated to be correct.&nbsp; Wackos need not apply.</p><p>History has taught a great deal.&nbsp; Among the things that is has taught is that those theories of science that have stood the test of time and of many experiments ought not be cast aside lightly,&nbsp;and that &nbsp;the predictions of those theories derived from the application of rigorous mathematics are valid.&nbsp; It has taught that many wacko theories are proposed, and wacko proponents are legion, but they have no validity and in time they fade away and are forgotten.&nbsp; It has taught that the scientific method and the scientific community that adhere to that method provide great progress in the search for understanding.</p><p>In short&nbsp;history has taught that wacko theories are indeed wacko.&nbsp; It has taught that scientists have shown great and disciplined imagination and continue to do so.&nbsp; It has taught that imagination must be disciplined.&nbsp; It has taught that people who do not know the difference between the purely imagined and the objectively real are not visionaries, but rather are simply wacko.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If they had peer review during the times of Galileo, Copernacus, and Kepler, we would be even further behind than we are now.&nbsp; They went against mainstream, they were outcast, and&nbsp;they were right.&nbsp; Now you say mainstream is right and anyone who thinks outside that box is simply not to be published, and you think that's a smart way to utilize limited resources.&nbsp; Has history taught you nothing? <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Those three that you mention gave birth to the scientific revolution.&nbsp; If peer review was the same back then as it is today, their peers would have been few and far in between.</p><p>The mainstream you are referring to was the religious ruling class by whom they challenged and were "outcast".&nbsp;&nbsp; The religious ruling class are not the peers of today, nor where they their peers 400 years ago.&nbsp; What few peers they actually had back then certainly supported them... just not very openly.&nbsp; Completely different culture back then and to make a peer review comparison as you have is a bit ludicrous.</p><p>Today's mainstream is a scientific conscensus built upon a large population of disciplined and skilled inidividuals within their respective fields working mainly within the rules of the scientific method.&nbsp; Science is developing at a much fast pace today because those gentlemen you mentioned open the doors that allowed others to work more freely from the constraints of religious doctrine.</p><p>Today's peer review process is absolutely nothing like facing an inquisition from the Roman Catholic Church 400 years ago and making such an anology is, quite simply, silly.&nbsp; Today's peer review will openly accept "outside the box thinking".&nbsp; It has done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.&nbsp; As long as your paper is based in sound fundamentals of the physics of science, you will get published.&nbsp; If the paper you present is riddled with error, has a flawed analysis, or is unsupportable... you will not.&nbsp; </p><p>You need to understand what is going on insdie the box before you should start thinking outside of it.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY