Looking at faraway stuff - The Bear and Badger

Armitage_Shankburn

g.man wrote:

Science definitely needs more your mum jokes

Stephen Hawking vocalised on stage, delivering 15 your mum.jokes in quick succession?

g.man

I'd pay to see that

Dinostar77

Science will discover gravatons eventually i hope. Then you can visit gonzo's mum jetsons style

Armitage_Shankburn

Stephen Hawking wrote:

g.man wrote:

I'd pay to see that

I saw your mom stick two Soyuz capsules up her gaping black hole,

And I didn't need to pay.

g.man

cockbeard

My worry/annoyance about this is it cannot be verified, I wondered if it could be something like lensing or wave reinforcement creating a false view. Being as these objects annihilated each other, we can't go back for a second look, which sucks

Roujin

Yeah the article says that they are continuing to search for other similar objects, now that they know they are out there. Although were it not for them colliding in the first place, we still wouldn't know that they exist.

superflyninja

I have a quite possibly idiotic (or genius) question. Do we have any inkling about how gravity actually manifests? We have an object with mass, it has a gravitational force. But what generates that force? Like what property of mass implies gravity? Im probably not explaining myself very well.

Roujin

I don't think we do outside of interpretations of how it might manifest. Relativity basically says that gravity is really just the distortion in space time caused by the mass of an object. There's a "simple" attempt at an explanation here, but even this hurts my head a bit.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/gravity.html

cockbeard

Not yet no, but then we also don't really understand magnetism either, so ...

Theories were that one or more of the fundamental particles (quarks and that) would hold some key or make up a gravitational field, in much the same way that the electron carries electricity, but nothing firm done yet. It's the Wild West, and very few questions are idiotic, though my answer probably is

Armitage_Shankburn

superflyninja wrote:

I have a quite possibly idiotic (or genius) question. Do we have any inkling about how gravity actually manifests? We have an object with mass, it has a gravitational force. But what generates that force? Like what property of mass implies gravity? Im probably not explaining myself very well.

I would read e=mc2 by Jeff forshaw and Brian Cox, it's a really simpl book, the equations have been rationalised so that GCSE maths is enough to follow, and special and general relativity are explained.

It's hard for me to explain, but gravity simply is. It just is a feature of spacetime. Mass curves spacetime, and momentum is increased or decreased depending on whether one approaches the massive pull on spacetime or leaves it. This is observed as gravity when we think only in terms of space. We only think of it as a force because we think about space (over time), that's what we evolved to do - the Newtonian G is just the gravity on earth.

Really, really recommend th Book.

I know nothing about quantum mechanics and deeply mistrust it, even though it clearly is a powerful model. But relativity is lush and mind-blowing.

Dinostar77

What are gravitons, and do they really exist?

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-are-gravitons-and-do-they-really-exist/

Gonz@ quantum mechanics is awesome and mind boggling.

cockbeard

Without wnating to put words in Gonz's mouth (unless the word is plodger of course) I think I might be in a simialr place to him with regards to many of the headlines associated with quantum mechanics. Basically they make a mockery of Occam's razor, which is pretty silly really. Is it really more likely that two completely distant particles can transmit information to each other faster than light, than say, anything else

Dinostar77

Yes they can (entanglement) and its been proven in many experiments over the years repeatedly.

Quantum Gravity (or unified theory) may never happen. However i do like the idea that both theories could coexist.

QM is the equivalent of a chessboard and General Relativity is tye chess pieces. Both need each other to work. I like that idea.

davyK

Gravity of kind created life didn't it? Or am I over simplifying? It certainly created the required matter and the conditions for it.

Dinostar77

Gravity caused the initial gases etc to coalesce and form the first stars. But then again strong and weak nuclear forces and electro magnetism played their part as well in forming the first stars by creating the particles for the gases in the first place, quarks, leptons etc.

This is an interesting article. Theres so much we dont know still.

There's a Giant Mystery Hiding Inside Every Atom in the Universe

No one really knows what happens inside an atom.

https://www.livescience.com/amp/mystery-of-proton-neutron-behavior-in-nucleus.html

b0r1s

Quantum Theory exists because we all live in VR: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf

Old but a good read.

Armitage_Shankburn

A penny for spacegazelle's thoughts about vox Pop science.

cockbeard

Dinostar77 wrote:

Yes they can (entanglement) and its been proven in many experiments over the years repeatedly. Quantum Gravity (or unified theory) may never happen. However i do like the idea that both theories could coexist. QM is the equivalent of a chessboard and General Relativity is tye chess pieces. Both need each other to work. I like that idea.

Genuinely, I'm not sure that the interference pattern actually proves anything, but I've not got enough time to go into details that only I might think, and get bogged down in maths that will take me years to untangle

But about the maths, you have to remember that probability 0 is not impossible, and all the quatum stuff is based on probability, not observation

SpaceGazelle

Love this time of year. The sun setting is pretty.

SpaceGazelle

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

A penny for spacegazelle's thoughts about vox Pop science.

The sunsets are still pretty.

Armitage_Shankburn

Was just in garden, watching Jupiter and Saturn rise above the horizon, always fun seeing sky outside London.

Then my eye wanders and I get that disorienting feeling when the sky's moving, I realise it's the space station..must be, was moving quite fast, very bright, too far and too fast for a plane.

Armitage_Shankburn

Jeez another one..right above my head. What is this

GooberTheHat

Them Elon musk satellites?

Armitage_Shankburn

It's one at a time, different paths. But could be. First one had to be the ISS though - so fast and so bright. The other two were fainter and not as fast. No blinking, so not planes.

g.man

superflyninja

I'll check out the book at some stage cheers. I tried NDGTs audiobook Astrophysics for people in a hurry but he was too much of a dick for me to stick with it .
Ah gravity tied with space time, I remember that YouTube vid of the guys dropping balls in a taut blanket to demonstrate it.
Fascinating stuff.........

cockbeard

Yeah it's a pain, seems time is not the constant we thought it to be, it's affected by gravity. Luckily we so rarely see tne gravity big enough to make a difference that we can just stick with relativityt

voices

superflyninja wrote:

I have a quite possibly idiotic (or genius) question. Do we have any inkling about how gravity actually manifests? We have an object with mass, it has a gravitational force. But what generates that force? Like what property of mass implies gravity? Im probably not explaining myself very well.

I think (not an expert) that inertial mass and gravitational mass being the same is a bit of a mystery.

In terms of how forces actually work - I thought we had a very good explanation for forces that aren't gravity, but it's not clear how gravity works on the quantum scale.

The laymen explanation for how (non-gravity) forces work is usually given by particles exchanging other, force carrying particles between themselves, but that isn't 100% representative of the actual maths. If this works for gravity then there's a graviton particle, but it creates problems (infinite infinities) when you do the maths.

cockbeard wrote:

Without wnating to put words in Gonz's mouth (unless the word is plodger of course) I think I might be in a simialr place to him with regards to many of the headlines associated with quantum mechanics. Basically they make a mockery of Occam's razor, which is pretty silly really. Is it really more likely that two completely distant particles can transmit information to each other faster than light, than say, anything else

This is an interesting video that outlines why 'spooky action at a distance' is a thing, rather than something which seems simpler (i.e. things are determined when they happen, so it's no surprise that they are a certain way when we measure them - the video outlines the evidence which shows that this can't be the case).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFozGfxmi8A

One solution to the spooky action at a distance problem outlined in the video is the 'many worlds' interpretation, where everything that could possible happen does, and we are experiencing one strand of possibilities along the space of everything. When we measure, the world we're in is determined.

It's a bit of a mind fuck, and I can't get everything I'm thinking into words, let alone text.

davyK

Entanglement seems to me to be something we only get a peek of because of our limited view of the universe.

Whether that's to do with higher dimensions or not I would have no idea.

To me it's a bit like someone who lives on a flat plane not being able to look up or down and not understanding how things could be connected in a 3D world.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories