Does this explain what generates gravity?

@Galu,

Puts on the voice of the Bard of Stratford upon Avon, Warwickshire. Wherein I used to dwell. Master William Shakespeare. "Thou speaketh rubbish on this occasion!". A rare letdown.

Hath thou not read "The Ambidextrous Universe" by Martin Gardner?

The Ambidextrous Universe Martin Gardner.png

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

A top Mathematician, even if I usually solved his puzzles quickly.

It's a chirality problem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics)
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to understand how there can be 120 orders of magnitude difference in the vacuum energy prediction between Einstein on the one hand and the Quantum mechanicians on the other.

120 orders of magnitude. Apparently the worst prediction in all of science.

Something is amiss.
 
A rare letdown.

A not so rare letdown is when you post images and links, but supply no explanation as to why you have posted them.

Where possible, I make the effort to connect with the subject matter you introduce and supply missing context.

Don't know why I bother, other than I am learning a lot more about physics by doing so. However I generally avoid the advanced maths! 😱
 
Clearly the boffins are not boffins 😉

I quote from Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/...onstant-is-physics-most-embarrassing-problem/

Not everyone agrees that this is a problem in need of fixing. The cosmological constant is technically just a constant of nature, a number in an equation that can take on any value, says Sabine Hossenfelder. “All these debates about why does it have the value it has are not scientifically good questions,” she says. Nothing about quantum field theory was falsified when its prediction didn't match astronomical measurements, and the theory is still as useful as it ever was. “I think most people in the cosmology and astrophysics community believe it's a problem because they've been told that for a long time [since 1967].”

Yet many physicists cannot let it go.
 
A not so rare letdown is when you post images and links, but supply no explanation as to why you have posted them.

Where possible, I make the effort to connect with the subject matter you introduce and supply missing context.

Don't know why I bother, other than I am learning a lot more about physics by doing so. However I generally avoid the advanced maths! 😱

On the subject of Greek Philosophy many things have been said:.

"Leave your ego at the door".

"Seek not to make a penny from Mathematics".

Pythagoreans.jpg


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

Mathematical Discussions in Ancient Greece.jpg


But evidently an inclusive society. FWIW, I came top in Greek at school. So have bragging rights. 🙂
 
The BBC Universe was interesting again last night. Plenty on what this interesting beast has found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)#
Maybe some detail on this particular finding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radcliffe_wave
Need to look for more to be sure.

Plenty of running water as usual plus an idea on formation of the sun. Caused by a satellite galaxy passing through the milky way which generated a period of star formation.

😵 Seems the universe could expand at a rate greater than the speed of light,

One of the problems with an expanding universe is radio waves that are rather hard to detect 😉 What happens when red shifted to zero. However they are trying but seems to be the usual red shifted hydrogen lines so just what are those radio jets?
The more reading links are needed.