The magic nine questions

[xelasnave]

I came across this at Sciencedaily.com

Conceived to make the science as accessible as possible, the Quantum Universe report focuses on nine fundamental questions (see sidebar) in response to a request by two major research funding agencies, the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.””

The Nine Questions
I. Einstein's dream of unified forces
1. Are there undiscovered principles of nature: new symmetries, new physical laws?
2. How can we solve the mystery of dark energy?
..
3. Are there extra dimensions of space?
4. Do all forces become one?
.
II. The particle world
5. Why are there so many kinds of particles?
.
6. What is dark matter? How can we make it in the laboratory?
.
7. What are neutrinos telling us?
8. How did the universe come to be?
.
9. What happened to the antimatter?


I have posted my answers elsewhere:eyepop: ;) ;) ;) :whistle: . Anyone prepared to stick their neck out and provide a view, get them all correct (with proof) and its a Noble Peace Prize for sure:thumbsup: .
You dont need to know what you are talking about to have a go at one or two but if you are brave answer the lot:D .
alex

[xelasnave]

Yes, no, no yes wont cut it an indication of why you draw your conclusions is mandatory to go in the draw as they say..
alex

[seeker372011]

The answer to question 9 can be found in Dan Browns's bestseller Angels and Demons

what a load of horseradish :)

[Doug]

Q1 Yes, our knowledge is incomplete; therefore there remains further discovery.
Q2 This mystery is only hypothetical and therefore has only a hypothetical solution.
Q3 This is an issue awaiting further expansion of our knowledge base.
Q4 No; all forces are one already. Force is manifested in different ways giving the illusion of multiple forces.
Q5 The diversity in particle type is inversely proportional to the inverse of the number of possible particle types.
Q6 dark matter is simply matter in which electrons are bound into inescapable energy shells. This is a hypothetical state which is unknown in nature and therefore beyond any likely experimental production, as there is no applied Mathematical model for such a state as yet.
Q7 The existence of Neutrinos forces the conclusion that within any level of subatomic physics, the balance of particle interaction is repeated.
Q8 The universe came, to be studied and held in awe. It will go when it has achieved its goal.
Q9 There never was 'antimatter' to experience any happening. Anti matter by definition can not exist in any universe.

There now that wasn't so hard was it?:rofl:

[xelasnave]

I salute two brave men.:thumbsup:
Seeker to be the first to respond and you know me ..you should know better:lol: :lol: :lol: well at least you have worked out I am harmless.
Doug you are very brave not many would answer in such depth and reveal their wisdom to the world for fear of being flooded for advice and autographs.
I liked all your answers and I think we agree on some I forget what I said in answer when I posted them.
Top stuff
alex

[xelasnave]

I know you know me also Doug I meant that Seeker has seen me rattle on for a couple of years now in another place...
alex

[Ric]

Isn't the answer to Life, the Universe and everything just "42" :D


cheers

[xelasnave]

Ineed it is:)
and that is why the total of the answers to questions 1 thru to 9 should equal 42 which at present they dont;)
alex

[mill]

The answer to all those questions should be ????????



We just don't know enough of anything.
Why would a world have to have water and a certain temperature to be liveable?
For all i know there are too many variables in the universe we don't know of at all.
Scientists compare just about everything with live here on earth.
In conclusion "just because we can't see or proof it , it doesnt mean it doesnt exist".
Just sticking my neck out here :P .

[Doug]

After lengthy consultation with Prof N Ryte, it seems that the answer to Q3 is an emphatic "No". He maintains that many underachievers in the physics world have erroneously described 'time' as a forth dimension, thus paving the way for speculation on a never ending series of extra dimensions. Prof N Ryte pointed out (rather caustically), "Time is a consequence of the three dimensions, nothing more, nothing less and most certainly not a dimension in its own right. Take away any one of the three dimensions, and time will necessarily cease to be an actuality." he added, "In point of fact we could say that 'time' is what binds the three dimensions in place, stabilizes the universe as it were".
Oh well that seems to be his position on it.

cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

Thanks for your input Mill:thumbsup: ..your neck is not out far enough for me to get a swing at:shrug: ..and believe me I would try:D .
Doug you have made my day..that has been my belief for some time and its in black and white someplace..but I admit been playing with that side of things of late.
Prof Ryte have anyone in particular in mind who is into the time thing I suspect he may have views on string theory as well;) .Not me I hope I have underachieved in many things but not physics:D .Has the Professor ever met Professor Morosopher he has similar views so I believe.
Top stuff :thumbsup:
where can we get an application form for the Noble Prize should not be long now ... it will be for the glory of iceinspace of course.
Seriously thank you and thank you all who so far have had a go at this. I see it as an opportunity to consider the current state of play and feel how it sits with your personal logic.
OK now we are rolling and no arguments:) ..nor will there be Andrew all opinions are being respected and thats what we want is it not?
alex

[xelasnave]

No more takers?
Those who think they know wont answer and those who dont know are not game.
Come on have a go share your opinions this is an area ....it is difficult to say who is wrong or right.
alex

[Dujon]

OK, Alex. My uneducated input:

A) Eienstein's dream of unified forces

1. Probably, in fact likely. There seems to be a number of problems facing the scientific community which are not answered by our current understandings.

2. I have no idea. My guess is that, just as many other discoveries have been made, someone will manage to put together various data from disparate but existing data to concoct a proveable theory.

3. Quantum physics and string theory (although only mathematical constructs) seem to indicate such.

4. Perhaps. There are various substances which pass through phase stages (water is the most commonly known - crystalline/liquid/gas) so why not forces? Add to that the fact that certain combinations of electrons/molecules change characteristics at extreme temperatures then it surely has to be a possibility.


B) The particle world

5. I have no idea. Nevertheless, why should we try to limit (in our minds) the number of sub-atomic particles when we recognise the fact that there is an incredible number of other structures in the larger universe.

6. See my comment in '2' above.

7. Sweet nothing at the moment, despite some rather expensive attempts to change that situation. They seem to be a wee bit like gravitational waves; theoretically probable but, with our current technology, not observable.

8. At this point in time, imponderable.

9. It would take but a small difference between what we call matter and anti-matter to produce the universe as we see it. Using the anthropic viewpoint it's why we see the universe as we do. After all you can only see results of nature's ancient machinations because you are here to see them. Has there been any research (apart from the odd (?) and very short-lived production of particles in some particle accelerator)?

[Richard F]

My best guess for question 8 would be that the big bang was the result of a big crunch,which took place,just moments prior to the the big bang itself(13.7Bl. Yrs.ago)the only evidence i have that MAY support this theory is the recent finding,by scientists,that the universe seems to be eliptical,in shape.
i also believe prior to the big cruch it would have been spinning inwards,to create this "elliptoid"shape(post-big bang),much like what happens during the formation of a star.the only other POSSIBLE support,i have for this theory was shown on "great mysteries of the world"(circa70's),presented by
Leonard Nimoy,during one episode,on the inca,L.N.showed the incan calendar.It had 5 faces in the centre,&each one represented 1 incarnation of the univers,& we are presently in the 5th universe.(according to the ancient incan astronomers)this "universe"the inca refer to,COULD just be the solar system.(as modern astronomers believe sol is a 5th generation star)OR it COULD mean we are living in a universe,which is post the FIFTH big bang!?
Just a theory,hope you enjoy it,agree or not.:thumbsup:

[kosh]

I too know nothing but:

I think the most important question is, What is Gravity?

We can predict its effects, but we can't see it, and I don't think that we can actually create it, yet.

All the questions posed below are very good ones, and will be quite valuable once we understand the answers to them. It just seems to me that mankind does not yet have a completely satisfactory understanding of the four fundamental forces of physics, particularly concerning Gravity. I don't think we can really begin to answer any of the other "Burning" questions until this has been satisfied as many of those questions rely upon 'Gravity' as part of their equation.

I know this is a bit off topic, and i'm not saying that Gravity does not exist, but as far as i'm concerned not enough is understood.

[xelasnave]

Had to go out just when I noticed the additiond here.. talk about hurry back this stuff is what I live for.
I agree that gravity is the key and I have been doing my best to solve the problem. My view is gravity does not act in an attractive manner at all..our human experience interprets it so, however I strongly believe that is pushes...contrary to popular views and idioms ...gravity does not suck;) .
Maybe it is impertinent to offer a solution but the reality there is so little out there that gives any approach.. I can not go along with string theory and its attempt to explain gravity as a weak force that is actually a strong force that "leaks" some of its energy into "änother dimention" so as to leave it , in our dimention manifesting as a weak force. I can not review string theory because my math sckill in below the level required to work in that area.
However if gravity acts as an attractive force that requires a sort of "radar"approach..there being required a message to one body to another and back again ..to determine its presence etc and a return of the message. This indicates that gravity must travell at twice the speed of light to get there and back and still show gravitation acts at C. Whereas I see gravity as a universal pressure produced from the outpouring of energy/particles from all bodies in the Universe such that we are not held to this planet by attraction but by this energy or particle pushing us against its surface.
My answers were posted elsewhere including the possibility of such a Universal pressure to answer many of the current dead ends faced by our current understanding.
alex

[xelasnave]

The Nine Questions (and my input)
I. Einstein's dream of unified forces
1. Are there undiscovered principles of nature: new symmetries, new physical laws?
My input…
If one can accept that the idea behind gravity rain, that of the Universe being permeated by infinitely small particles traveling everywhere and in effect creating a universal and infinite pressure then from the acceptance of such an approach an understanding of everything will change to show the Universe provides a continual outflow of particles that manifest gravity as a pushing force. Making sense of observations that local objects move toward each other whereas at a greater distance they are pushed further apart as observed with galaxies.
2. How can we solve the mystery of dark energy?
My input..
If Universal Particle Pressure is accepted the need to have dark matter will disappear its very reason for existence comes from observations made with the fundamental mistaken interpretation that gravity acts as a force of attraction..
3. Are there extra dimensions of space?
My input…
No not in the context of “parallel Universes” however activity continues at a level well below that of plank limit, which is a mental limit set by man not by nature.
4. Do all forces become one?
My input..
Universal pressure is the only force it simply manifests in various ways that will be seen as different not withstanding the same system is responsible for all forces.
II. The particle world
5. Why are there so many kinds of particles?
My input….
There may not be a variety of particles but the same particle manifesting differently when observed the necessity for many particles is to satisfy the exploration of maths not a reflection of what may be.
6. What is dark matter? How can we make it in the laboratory?
My input….
Dark Matter is an invention to make sense of things that don’t make sense when one views the Universe in an environment that gravity acts as a force of attraction, when viewed as a force provided by Universal pressure the need for dark matter disappears.
7. What are neutrinos telling us?
My input….
Neutrinos are the tip of the gravity rain ice berg. Their existence tells us that particles of very small size can travel at near C and that raises the opportunity to entertain gravity rain by the observation of a particle that is acting very much as if it were a “slow” gravity rain particle.
8. How did the universe come to be?
My input….
The Universe always has been it did not appear out of nothing to from a seed that grew to infinite proportion, it was man who gave it a starting point that it never had. The desire to have a start and a finish is dictated by human experience but does not determine the need for the Universe to start at a point. To entertain such a start calls for the intervention of a mythical mystical and non existent force irrespective if man attributes such a force to the hand of God or a piece of Physics beyond his grasp. Observations fit the predominant theory and one leads the other to conclusions that are incorrect.
9. What happened to the antimatter?
My input….Anti matter is an invention to make the big bang theory work and other than that there is no need for it to exist or to have ever existed in the past.

alex

[Doug]

G'day Alex,
The obvious difficulty with Gravity acting as a push instead of a pull, is the demonstrated relationship of gravity to mass.
If a large mass like the Earth, is interacting with an object of minute mass such as a molecule of gas in contact with its surface, there exists no feasible way that the gas molecule would not be repelled or pushed away.
There is no evidence of this happening, even in controlled experiments in the laboratory. As that gas molecule is elevated, there would then be another rush in to fill the void and so on and so on. This would result in an updraught which would see a vacuum created at the Earth's surface, and a perpetual up draught of gas.

Professor N Ryte has explained Gravity in terms of tension. He states that there exists a tension between every object of mass, dependent in intensity only on the magnitude of the masses involved. He says this in part explains why gravity exhibits no polarity, and favours no type of matter over any other. It also accounts for the apparent permeability of all matter to gravity.
In other words Gravity can not be shielded or contained. In fact, this tension that exist with all matter has the tendency to reach out as it were and meld to a greater or lesser degree with other masses. The closer in space these masses are, the more complete the melding phenomena. He said " Consider a mass of 1kg at sea level. That mass will remain 'attracted' to the Earth by the same amount. i.e. it will weigh 9.8 newtons regardless of what it might be at rest on or enclosed in". He suggested I try taking a mass of 1kg plus a set of scales and encasing them within a concrete box, a lead or any convenient metal box, and also a light wood or cardboard box. He said this elementary experiment would show that the action of gravity on the 1kg mass would remain constant. The weight of the mass would remain at 9.8 Newtons regardless of the type of confinement.:thumbsup:

I said "But professor, I've never seen a set of scales that gives a reading in newtons, what are you talking about?" He replied in a somewhat wearied tone, "just get a set of scales and a 1kg bag of sugar; you'll do fine":shrug:

cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

Doug you are so lucky to have such a wise man to call upon His views are very interesting.
I will be talikng with Professor Morosopher later tonight and will run that by him. But I must say at this early stage this is the most advanced opinion on gravity I have had presented and in that respect I will ask Professor Morosopher to consider the implications in detail.
Thanks for you views let me see if we can manage those concerns within the frame work of Universal Pressure and we will get back to you.
Thank you for your excellent contribution to the investigation.
alex

[xelasnave]

The obvious difficulty with Gravity acting as a push instead of a pull, is the demonstrated relationship of gravity to mass.

If a large mass like the Earth, is interacting with an object of minute mass such as a molecule of gas in contact with its surface, there exists no feasible way that the gas molecule would not be repelled or pushed away.

Alex…..On this one I am going to have to speculate somewhat as I don’t have access to equipment that can reveal activity at that level. However one could reasonably expect that this may indeed be the case, not because of the “gravity rain” possibility but because one molecule may be forced “up and away” by the surrounding molecules for other reasons It is a difficult proposition to consider. There is an effect known as the Crompton effect I recall that apparently shows at a macro level ..mmm that’s dangerous ,let’s say an effect of considerable smallness .. of an effect of pushing away from the surface. I recall it is a small effect but detectable never the less. I use the words recall loosely because the recollection is dim and in truth I don’t know if this effect is proven. If it does exist I may be the effect you say would be unlikely. I am grabbing at straws but I am trying to stop the house of cards collapsing.

There is no evidence of this happening, even in controlled experiments in the laboratory.
Alex……I would like to look at the experiments to get a better feel for the proposition you put forward.

As that gas molecule is elevated, there would then be another rush in to fill the void and so on and so on.
Alex…..That sounds reasonable but such a cycle may be the observation of convection.

This would result in an updraught which would see a vacuum created at the Earth's surface, and a perpetual up draught of gas.
Alex…… Again such an effect could be observed as convection I would think However I am not suggesting that the Earth in itself contributes significantly to “Universal Pressure” the point I make is that the Earth acts as a shield so that the “gravity rain” from the under side” is less (having lost some of its energy having traveled through the Earth), however the “gravity rain” from the unshielded side ,that is the heavens above and indeed to the side will by virtue of only having to travel through the atmosphere will be the stronger of the two.

Professor N Ryte has explained Gravity in terms of tension. He states that there exists a tension between every object of mass, dependent in intensity only on the magnitude of the masses involved.
Alex……Well I don’t know that we are in disagreement here as indeed I see the “gravity rain”or as I prefer to call it Üniversal Pressure “does indeed create such a tension.

He says this in part explains why gravity exhibits no polarity, and favours no type of matter over any other. It also accounts for the apparent permeability of all matter to gravity.
Alex……I think I can relate Üniversal pressure to describe a polarity in the context that I think it may also be the mechanism that in fact is responsible for magnetism.
Consider a bar magnet for a moment. It seems that magnetism some how exists in a bar of iron due to the alignment of I think the molecules (please give me a little room here I am talking off the top of my head as they say) Now consider if “gravity rain exists it may be that it travels along the bar straight through and of course it would be going in both directions at once.
Seeing we are taking about gravity as rain let’s see the bar as a bundle of pipes, the walls of the pipes exclude particles from “side” access but they flow easily down the pipe. The attraction we see say of a piece of metal to one pole is caused by the rain flowing in that direction pushing the piece of metal to the end of the bar.
The difficulty comes in if it could be explained as I suggest why does like poles repel.
..I mean how could this occur if we approach magnetism on the presumption that Universal pressure may exist.
I can not explain this yet so I can’t take the possible relation ship between Universal Pressure and magnetism much further , but I intend to pursue this line of thought and speculation.

In other words Gravity can not be shielded or contained.
I think this is a leap in logic as what you observe does not lead immediately to such a conclusion I believe.

In fact, this tension that exist with all matter has the tendency to reach out as it were and meld to a greater or lesser degree with other masses.
Alex……I believe this is the case however obviously see the tension in a different manner but I think there is a similar view being shared.
The closer in space these masses are, the more complete the melding phenomena.
Alex…..I am not quite sure about the term melding but certainly the observation that the closer in space the masses are the more pronounced the gravitational effect.. Such is supported by the concept of describing gravity in any fashion. Space time says this but of course space time does not explain the presence of any force space time is merely a geometric description to the way to work out math’s to describe the effects we call gravitation.

He said " Consider a mass of 1kg at sea level. That mass will remain 'attracted' to the Earth by the same amount. i.e. it will weigh 9.8 newtons regardless of what it might be at rest on or enclosed in".
Alex……Space time describes gravity including features such as mass and “velocity” so I don’t know that a mass moving at high velocity could be attributed the same gravitation as on at rest. Coming back to an environment as I suggest velocity would be relevant in the context that some thing with a high velocity would encounter more “gravity rain”in the direction of its travel so from that approach also maybe velocity is not to be disregarded .

He suggested I try taking a mass of 1kg plus a set of scales and encasing them within a concrete box, a lead or any convenient metal box, and also a light wood or cardboard box. He said this elementary experiment would show that the action of gravity on the 1kg mass would remain constant.
Alex…..Well I suspect it would also but I think that comes down to a matter that given “gravity rain” can travel through the Earth with little impediment to itsw progress a box of lead 1000 klms thick would show such a slight varience that instruments could not measure it . The difficulty in detecting gravity waves from super nova face a similar problem.

The weight of the mass would remain at 9.8 Newtons regardless of the type of confinement.
Alex……Well would it if we could make a confinement large enough..Lets go the other way remove all confinement and shielding by taking our mass into deep space as far as possible away from anything that could be deemed to shield it from the gravity rain. We now have a situation where the mass will be observed to be weightless. What would our scales show now I expect nothing at all. How can this be explained in the gravity rain concept..well the gravity rain comes from everywhere and is not experiencing any imbalance due to shielding. I suspect however if we increased its velocity this could create and imbalance and in effect produce and effect we may well interpret as gravity.

I said "But professor, I've never seen a set of scales that gives a reading in newtons, what are you talking about?" He replied in a somewhat wearied tone, "just get a set of scales and a 1kg bag of sugar; you'll do fine"
Alex…..I don’t think that balance scales will help us in outer space even if you strapped everything down balance scales could only show that both masses are equal. To determine gravity due to acceleration I expect we could use scales dependant on a spring mechanism. Such would reveal different pressures. pressures due to the encounter with more gravity rain if we were to accelerate the mass in a particular direction.

Alex…….Thank you for your input Doug I enjoyed considering what is before us hope my lack of total understanding does not upset your Professor he no doubt has a greater understanding of the current thinking than do I but I will be interested I he is prepared to comment on my humble attempts to seek a force that is responsible for bending the space time grid lines on his plan of space.
alex

[Doug]

Sorry Alex, I have been caught up with other things.
"Alex……Well would it if we could make a confinement large enough..Lets go the other way remove all confinement and shielding by taking our mass into deep space as far as possible away from anything that could be deemed to shield it from the gravity rain. We now have a situation where the mass will be observed to be weightless. What would our scales show now I expect nothing at all. How can this be explained in the gravity rain concept..well the gravity rain comes from everywhere and is not experiencing any imbalance due to shielding. I suspect however if we increased its velocity this could create and imbalance and in effect produce and effect we may well interpret as gravity."
In point of fact, if such a hypothetical experiment could be conducted, we would need a very sensitive set of scales. We would then find that the 1kg mass was still 1kg. instead of having a measured weight of 9.8 newtons, our test mass would have a weight equivalent to the 1kg x acceleration due to the mass/gravity effect of itself and the scales, but in theory it would be a measurable quantity.

Going back to the professor's understanding of 3D space, and since you mention it somewhat in connection with a singularity in another thread, I thought I should share with you an experiment he had me conduct.

First let us consider a plain sheet of paper set before us, and the ink, pencil etc we will later draw with to be of zero thickness. We now have before us a 2 dimensional space. In your mind's eye, move down into that 2 dimensional space until you become a part of it. That 2D space is, for the sake of this experiment limitless. Look around, what do you see? Remember you can only look in the 2 dimensions that sheet of paper represents. OK, now with the 2d pencil that you brought with you, draw a straight line.
That straight line has only one dimension.
With your minds eye, move forward into that line. Now what do you see?
You now have only one dimension to perceive, and that dimension you will notice is a point of zero size; it is a singularity. It worked for me, though the professor was fairly having kittens along the way because he could not explain things with mathematics basic enough for my 'primitive' brain to comprehend! ( hey thanks professor, I respect your feelings too:poke:)
Can you see now why in real terms, the removal of any one dimension must necessarily remove the other 2?

He went on to explain that the transition interval where a singularity blossoms out to become a 3d universe can only happen instantaniously. The three dimensions can not grow or expand; either they are or they are not.
(A fact overlooked by expanding universe proponents.)
He went on to say that given the instantaneous eruption of the 3Ds from a singularity, all matter will be in place in zero time. This does not mean that vast distances can be traversed in zero time., nor does it mean that once in place, matter can not move about. He said that he was still working on Mathematics which would explain why inertia and a few other anomalous factors, could not be part of the instantaneous coming into being of the 3 dimensions, but for now it is sufficient to accept the fact as an actuality.

have fun,
Cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

Hi Doug
Yes I see the point. T is indeed a necessary ingredient of many formulea.
I try to incorporate T in a sort of frame be frame view like a cartoon but looking at each page for a long time. C is finite and will make T inescapable.
Lets go out in space with a hydrogen atom.. space will be bent towards it under the gravity rain idea by gr from one direction giving up energy as it passes the atom thereby being less energetic when encountering the gr on the other side. The effect is pressure bias, for the want of a better expression. But it is the bend in space time we would call gravity ..defined by one line but replicated in 3d with t I dont know where to fit.
I then asked if this could be the way it works how does a gr packet give up energy ..maybe it is this that powers the electron ..the electron taking from the constant supply of gr all the energy it needs to continue its orbit...There not only gravity but atomic energy explained:eyepop: :lol: :thumbsup: .
alex

[xelasnave]

Hey how good is a chicken you draw a line like that and they will look at the end of it in deep thought for ages.. no doubt they are considering the implications:lol: :lol: :lol: .
alex