What is the Universe expanding into..

Do you think there was anything before the big bang?

  • I don't think there was anything before the Big Bang

    Votes: 56 12.5%

  • I think something existed before the Big Bang

    Votes: 200 44.7%

  • I don't think the big bang happened

    Votes: 54 12.1%

  • I think the universe is part of a mutiverse

    Votes: 201 45.0%
  • Total voters
    447
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#9,562
Sabine Hossenfelder has written a book entitled Lost in Math.

In the book she says that theoretical physicists waste a lot of time trying to solve problems that don’t exist. They do this because they are unhappy that the current theories are not beautiful enough to their taste. She regards this as bad scientific methodology which has to stop.

She thinks the public has been misinformed. We have been told that theories like supersymmetry and string theory and multiverses can be tested, even though it’s not true.

Sabine sums it up thus: "If it’s not testable, it’s not science. Why do we even have to discuss this?"

https://orbitermag.com/theoretical-physics-bad-science/

 

Attachments

  • Lost in Math.jpg
    Lost in Math.jpg
    86.9 KB · Views: 62
#9,563
Steve, these 24-cell 4D space time models are tools or concepts that help us translate physical reality (a separate thing altogether) into something we can consider in mathematical terms. The problem modern physics has, if I understand SH correctly, is that we’re throwing up equations and looking for phenomena to fit. Einstein started from the other perspective.

just listen to Brian Greene on string theory. The guy is a good evangelist, I’ll grant you that.
🙂
 
#9,564
system7 said:
But conceded that Albert's intuition was superb. Therefore amicably conceded the result to him.
Click to expand...

From your Wikipedia link: Hilbert published "The Foundations of Physics", an axiomatic derivation of the field equations of gravitation. Hilbert fully credited Einstein as the originator of the theory and no public priority dispute concerning the field equations ever arose between the two men during their lives.
 
#9,565
Doctor Becky certainly noticed the same things I did about recent Cosmology Black Hole discoveries:


The Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search (GIMPS) has discovered the largest known prime number, 2^82,589,933 - 1, having 24,862,048 digits. A computer volunteered by Patrick Laroche from Ocala, Florida, made the find on December 7, 2018. The new prime number, also known as M82589933, is calculated by multiplying together 82,589,933 twos and then subtracting one. It is more than one and a half million digits larger than the previous record prime number.
Click to expand...

TBH, I spend more time on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis

https://newsroom.unl.edu/announce/csmce/9393/54550

Up to M51! 😀

https://www.mersenneforum.org/
 
#9,567
Galu said:
Sabine Hossenfelder has written a book entitled Lost in Math.

In the book she says that theoretical physicists waste a lot of time trying to solve problems that don’t exist. They do this because they are unhappy that the current theories are not beautiful enough to their taste. She regards this as bad scientific methodology which has to stop.

She thinks the public has been misinformed. We have been told that theories like supersymmetry and string theory and multiverses can be tested, even though it’s not true.

Sabine sums it up thus: "If it’s not testable, it’s not science. Why do we even have to discuss this?"

https://orbitermag.com/theoretical-physics-bad-science/

Click to expand...
She has some very fixed views.... But given that she espouses the idea that everything is predetermined - why would she worry? 😀

Mostly though - it's likely those things can be tested, just not yet. And maths has it's own set of probably untestables too...

Oh, and I didn't know she was American: "Lost in Math" - not Maths... 🙂
 
#9,568
We are missing new experimental results.
So far we got those from experiments becoming more and more expensive asking for more power.
It seems we are reaching the limit power wise. The largest so far is CERN Large Hadron Collider. There is a project to supersede LHC, a ten times larger ring collider, but there is trouble to finance it and that would for 2050.
Have we reached a power limit ?
Are they, ways, out of more power, to get new experimental results ?
 
#9,571
gpauk said:
She has some very fixed views.... But given that she espouses the idea that everything is predetermined - why would she worry? 😀
Click to expand...

She, Sabine Hossenfelder, is working on Superdeterminism, which could provide the key to uniting quantum theory with relativity to create the final theory of the universe.

Superdeterminism makes sense of the quantum world by suggesting it is not as random as it seems, but critics say it undermines the whole premise of science.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full
 
#9,573
An illustration of determinism in physics may be helpful:

Newton's laws allow you to calculate where a ball will land given its initial position and velocity. That's determinism - everything that happens follows from what happened earlier.

However, quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities for measurement outcomes, rather than determine the actual outcomes themselves. That makes quantum mechanics indeterministic.

And superdeterminism? Watch the video contained within this transcript: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/12/does-superdeterminism-save-quantum.html
 
Last edited:
#9,575
In the double slit experiment, we can calculate the probability of measuring the particle in a particular place from its wave-function, but we can’t calculate the actual place.

From Hossenfelder's transcript:

Here’s the weird bit. If you measure which slit the particles go through, the interference pattern vanishes. Why? Well, remember that the wave-function – even that of a single particle – describes probabilities for measurement outcomes. In this case the wave-function would first tell you the particle goes through the left and right slit with 50% probability each. But once you measure the particle you know 100% where it is.
Click to expand...
 
#9,579
You can use say Newtons universal laws to predict the flight of a ball, so as Galu says, it’s deterministic. But how do you predict the path of a water molecule bring hit by other molecules in a jug of warm water? You can use statistics and get some probabilities but you can never say for certain what path it will take in the future. However you will always know what path it took in the past.
 
#9,580
Certain experiment results came out. Hear is the experiment setup. I mixed wheat flour with tomato paste. Put some water in it. And cooked it like pizza dough.
Results : hmm
1) I don't recommend it
2) it was rather unpleasant
Output : have you ever tasted something and it taste odd first time. But after some time after some more tries it taste decent. That thing was radiation that energy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom