Skip to main content

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Relativity has been under seige for quite sometime. The more we learn the less it can explain.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Yes. Big Bang is Illusion.

The reality is probably like Game of Life at Planck Scale in 3 dimensions.

Infinite Universe. Always existed.

It will be a difficult model to debug.

No way to measure. No way to test.

A pure Philosophical mental exercise.

But, that is my mental model to conceptualize with.

Whatever model can work, it must be logical.

Otherwise, Heisenberg will show up.

hXXps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

hXXps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

hXXps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Short summary: "Maybe the standard model is just plain wrong"
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

The good news to me is that this matches my own "theory" of how gravity works.
I've always suspected that gravity is due to "particles" (gravitons ?) incoming from the circumference of a sphere (which is the "universe"), toward the center (big bang origin).
So gravity is not actually an attractive force, but one caused by the motion of these particles toward the center, their imparting of energy to what they travel through.
And so I expect that the gravitational constant increases as you get closer to the origin.
Thus, galaxies would form near the origin more quickly than at the periphery.
But I'm just a software engineer...
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

What I love about physics is there will always be another level of mystery to solve. And each time it flips our preconceptions like a judo master in zero gravity.

From "We are the center of everything" to "Oh, that smudge in the night sky is a whole other galaxy" to "Um, hey guys, the universe isn't slowing down but actually expanding faster," we learn the most when we get a moment of "Wut?" and start working on our next quantum leap of knowledge. And I, for one, am enjoying the ride.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I worked in theoretical physics for about 15 years, and I have to say I don't love the way this piece has been written. The justification for their thesis is we have some data in tension. That situation occurs in just about every scientific endeavour. It is really bad journalism to suggest that fundamental theories of physics like GR are about to be binned. Few physicists really believe that.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

ah, I see the NYT has decided not to be compliant with GDPR, seeing as I have no option to opt out of their cookiewall.

Please use a trustworthy source as a news organisation that refuses to comply with EU law has lost all credibility in my book.

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.