- #1
SimonA
- 176
- 0
There seemed no board where these were all appropriate. Rather than spreading them around the place I'm hoping this may be the place to start with these.
1) If the Higs Bosun gives particles mass, what gives the Higgs mass ? And considering our best understanding of mass and gravity to date comes from einstein and space-time being distorted by mass, is there no way to consider this to be the same thing in the quantum world by considering the ZPF to be kind of related to space-time ?
2) What is the exact difference between dark energy and the cosmological constant. I don't want to know what they are in terms of derivation - just the difference between them in actuality ?
3) What is the difference betweeen dark matter and the fact that all particles rise out of the ZPF ? Again not the definitions of each, just something basic. You could even include in your answer an explanation why the fact matter drags space-time with it is not enough to explain the reason we speculate on "dark matter" ?
4) Why are we so confident on our predictions of the de sitter universe and accelerating expansion of the it based on supernovae when we don't even know what type of supernova our closest one is ?
5) Why do quantum interpretations of the quantum formalism never work from first principles in relativity that from the perspective of light there is no time ?
6) Why do cosmologists and quantum physicists have such different values for the amount of energy in the ZP vacuum ?
7) If the space-time started in the big bang, how can any aspect of it be infinite ?
8) If science considers occams razor to be a useful tool, how can the multiverse be considered good theory ?
9) If M theory comes purely from the maths and its only the maths that has given us the idea of extra dimensions, why do theorists spend (waste) so much time considering the "shape" of these dimensions ? Is it anything like considering the sound of a banana ?
10) Is the idea of quantisation (as in photons) purely a result of the fact that both the emitter and the detector in experiments are made of quantised matter ?
11) Is the idea of two branes colliding instigating the big bang at best wild speculation, and at worst crazy fumbling ?
12) What is mass ?
13) What is gravity ?
14) How come cosmologists use Cantor's maths, when he started counting off members of sets (when counting plainly doesn't come to an end in this case), and considered he could quantify the end of counting ?
15) Considering all the anthropic based factors that permeate almost every aspect of science as "extremely unlikely", is there any way in which science should concentrate on admitting how little it understands some pretty fundamental things more openly to the public ? Is there any chance this would take the rug out from under the feet of all the pseudo scientists and new age crazies ?
16) If our best scientists are claiming that the known universe comprises at most 4% of everything, is there space to consider the creationsits are almost as crazy for insisting that the world was made in a few thousand years, as any physicist is to claim that god does not exist ?
17) Is there any space for us to go back to the concept of an atom as a kind of vortex ?
18) Relativity predicts anti-gravity - but so small that gravity will always overcome it. Has this effect ever been experimetally proven ?
19) If I can use numbers, well perhaps better to say if Maxwell, Newton and Einstein could use numbers, to predict reality, must it be true that numbers connect deeper to reality than plain labels ? If so, is that platonic ?
20) If light in a vacuum always travels at c, but in a medium always rests at each particle in the medium for a period set by the nature of the medium (and ignoring quantum tunelling filters and the like for now), when "photons" depart each particle they meet in a medium, do they have infinite acceleration and jump to c immediately on departure ?
21) If the whole universe began in the big bang, are all particles entangled at some level ? If so does that cause inertia, if not, what does cause inertia ?
22) Is not entanglement a fairly natural thing if all particles rise out of a non local and non temporal ZPF ? And would this be a clear boundary or would it have phases and levels just as electrons do in their orbits ?
23) Is there any chance we see things upside down, and that the only things that are truly firm and stable is that which has infinite frequency ?
You don't have to answer all - any suggestions on any of them are welcome :)
Simon
1) If the Higs Bosun gives particles mass, what gives the Higgs mass ? And considering our best understanding of mass and gravity to date comes from einstein and space-time being distorted by mass, is there no way to consider this to be the same thing in the quantum world by considering the ZPF to be kind of related to space-time ?
2) What is the exact difference between dark energy and the cosmological constant. I don't want to know what they are in terms of derivation - just the difference between them in actuality ?
3) What is the difference betweeen dark matter and the fact that all particles rise out of the ZPF ? Again not the definitions of each, just something basic. You could even include in your answer an explanation why the fact matter drags space-time with it is not enough to explain the reason we speculate on "dark matter" ?
4) Why are we so confident on our predictions of the de sitter universe and accelerating expansion of the it based on supernovae when we don't even know what type of supernova our closest one is ?
5) Why do quantum interpretations of the quantum formalism never work from first principles in relativity that from the perspective of light there is no time ?
6) Why do cosmologists and quantum physicists have such different values for the amount of energy in the ZP vacuum ?
7) If the space-time started in the big bang, how can any aspect of it be infinite ?
8) If science considers occams razor to be a useful tool, how can the multiverse be considered good theory ?
9) If M theory comes purely from the maths and its only the maths that has given us the idea of extra dimensions, why do theorists spend (waste) so much time considering the "shape" of these dimensions ? Is it anything like considering the sound of a banana ?
10) Is the idea of quantisation (as in photons) purely a result of the fact that both the emitter and the detector in experiments are made of quantised matter ?
11) Is the idea of two branes colliding instigating the big bang at best wild speculation, and at worst crazy fumbling ?
12) What is mass ?
13) What is gravity ?
14) How come cosmologists use Cantor's maths, when he started counting off members of sets (when counting plainly doesn't come to an end in this case), and considered he could quantify the end of counting ?
15) Considering all the anthropic based factors that permeate almost every aspect of science as "extremely unlikely", is there any way in which science should concentrate on admitting how little it understands some pretty fundamental things more openly to the public ? Is there any chance this would take the rug out from under the feet of all the pseudo scientists and new age crazies ?
16) If our best scientists are claiming that the known universe comprises at most 4% of everything, is there space to consider the creationsits are almost as crazy for insisting that the world was made in a few thousand years, as any physicist is to claim that god does not exist ?
17) Is there any space for us to go back to the concept of an atom as a kind of vortex ?
18) Relativity predicts anti-gravity - but so small that gravity will always overcome it. Has this effect ever been experimetally proven ?
19) If I can use numbers, well perhaps better to say if Maxwell, Newton and Einstein could use numbers, to predict reality, must it be true that numbers connect deeper to reality than plain labels ? If so, is that platonic ?
20) If light in a vacuum always travels at c, but in a medium always rests at each particle in the medium for a period set by the nature of the medium (and ignoring quantum tunelling filters and the like for now), when "photons" depart each particle they meet in a medium, do they have infinite acceleration and jump to c immediately on departure ?
21) If the whole universe began in the big bang, are all particles entangled at some level ? If so does that cause inertia, if not, what does cause inertia ?
22) Is not entanglement a fairly natural thing if all particles rise out of a non local and non temporal ZPF ? And would this be a clear boundary or would it have phases and levels just as electrons do in their orbits ?
23) Is there any chance we see things upside down, and that the only things that are truly firm and stable is that which has infinite frequency ?
You don't have to answer all - any suggestions on any of them are welcome :)
Simon