James Webb Just Broke the Universe .... Again !

a reply to: dave5426

Gravity is the interaction between mass and spacetime. ...

Another classic example of the attribution of a solution to fit the theory. This is tunnel vision. Einstein went to his grave trying to figure out gravity's relationship to the other forces in nature. This is merely an explanation of a 'symptom' not a solution to the 'disease'.

... So if there is Dark Matter, there must be Dark Gravity, and by extension, there must also be Dark Time.

...and Dark Electromagnetic Force, and, and, Dark Weak (nuclear) Force, and Dark Strong Force...and, and, Dark Dark Force, Darkly...in a Dark sort of way.

BTW...time is not one of the forces of nature/physics. Time is a dimension, not a force.



Darkly yours,
FCD

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: dave5426

Gravity is the interaction between mass and spacetime. ...

Another classic example of the attribution of a solution to fit the theory. This is tunnel vision. Einstein went to his grave trying to figure out gravity's relationship to the other forces in nature. This is merely an explanation of a 'symptom' not a solution to the 'disease'.

... So if there is Dark Matter, there must be Dark Gravity, and by extension, there must also be Dark Time.

...and Dark Electromagnetic Force, and, and, Dark Weak (nuclear) Force, and Dark Strong Force...and, and, Dark Dark Force, Darkly...in a Dark sort of way.

BTW...time is not one of the forces of nature/physics. Time is a dimension, not a force.

Darkly yours,
FCD

That is under current definitions and criteria. Who is to say the current model is the correct one? Old models are discarded and new ones take their place as new understandings of the previous unknowns develop. I have little doubt future physicists will look back on our current model and laugh "How could they be so wrong?"

As a circle of light grows, the circumference of darkness surrounding it also grows.

a reply to: dave5426

I have little doubt future physicists will look back on our current model and laugh "How could they be so wrong?"

Do you think present-day physicists laugh at their predecessors the same way? You are dead wrong.

It is only the rabble, and the trash media they consume, that does things like that. In physics, the names of past contributors are revered even when their predictions turned out to be wrong. Do we laugh at Newton because his optics and colour theory were all wrong? Do we laugh at Einstein because he rejected quantum mechanics? Dammit, do we laugh at Aristotle because he taught that everything above the Moon was changeless and perfect?

Who is to say the current model is the correct one?

If you want to say it is wrong, you have show where it fails. We await your personal Theory of Cosmology with interest.

Not only is time relative, reality is relative also.

The universe is a maze of mirrors with no entrance or exit. Every possible path is correct. Every possible path is wrong. Your perception of whether it is correct or not is all that matters. Dead ends are opportunities and progress is a barrier.

a reply to: Astyanax

Do we laugh at Einstein because he rejected quantum mechanics?

I actually pat him on the back for that!!

I still take exception to a number of theories in quantum physics, or more specifically to some of the theories of their applicability to us lowly humans. Though I am not about to suggest we stop research in these areas just because of that.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I still take exception to a number of theories in quantum physics

Which conclusions (not theory, quantum mechanics itself is the theory) do you object to, and why?

Would JWST's discoveries have anything to do with your objections?

a reply to: Astyanax

No, JWST discoveries have nothing to do with my objections.

Beyond that, I'd have to think of a simplified way to quantify what my objections are without getting way down into the weeds, and I'd also want to do a fair amount of cross-checking to see if some of those proposals have now been retracted and/or superseded by things which make more sense.

If I were to just generalize (very, very, broadly) one of my objections has been that quantum physics, historically, has been a convenient place to stick stuff that people can't explain and then throw a bunch of scientific techno-jargon at it to make it look like they knew what they were talking about when it was really just hot air and BS. Then others would come along and draw all manner of crazy conclusions from it. Beyond this, I guess I would point you two the notoriously horrible source of Wikipedia to see some great examples of what I'm talking about. I think you will quickly see the amount of effort it takes to unpack and untangle some of that bullsh!t, only to find out it's just that, bullsh!t, is not worth the effort.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I guess I would point you two the notoriously horrible source of Wikipedia to see some great examples of what I'm talking about.

Oh, we can do better than that. Any of these?

– wave-particle duality
- objects in superposition
- virtual particles
- 'no hidden variables'
- entanglement
- decoherence

...or something else altogether?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

"Time, is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so."

- HHGTTG.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

one of my objections has been that quantum physics, historically, has been a convenient place to stick stuff that people can't explain and then throw a bunch of scientific techno-jargon at it to make it look like they knew what they were talking about when it was really just hot air and BS

Well, go on then. Eagerly waiting to hear about your objections to ‘quantum physics’. Looking forward to a good discussion!

Just to jump in to this as I kind of agree with Flyingclaydisk...
My objection to much around quantum theory is the inelegance of the maths.

If you look at E=MC²
It's a profoundly elegant equation, you can even get your calculator out and work out how much energy is in a grain of sand, or a sugar lump or something,

Gravitational acceleration is almost as elegant. A=(GmM)/r²

Pretty much everything to do with quantum theory seems clunky and inelegant by comparison, which leads me to lack faith in it's truth.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Just to jump in to this as I kind of agree with Flyingclaydisk...
My objection to much around quantum theory is the inelegance of the maths.

If you look at E=MC²
It's a profoundly elegant equation, you can even get your calculator out and work out how much energy is in a grain of sand, or a sugar lump or something,

Gravitational acceleration is almost as elegant. A=(GmM)/r²

Pretty much everything to do with quantum theory seems clunky and inelegant by comparison, which leads me to lack faith in it's truth.

Have you learned to use Calculus yet? That is what they use in Quantum Physics. I recall Calculus getting into the weeds on "imaginary numbers". There is some sound logic in Calculus. All the equations were physical locations on a line/circle/square etc... Each type of line like a parabolic curve are unique equation patterns. The e=mc2 one is separated out into components and defined. Where other components of other equations are the same like say the speed of light, we can bridge other affects into a cluster of shared probabilities. Making it possible there can even be connections to the quantum string data and professors trying to explain it to the students. IMO.

Calculus was their base language. I am not very good at it anymore as my computer runs those calculations in the software we use, and I am out of practice for a test I can assure everyone. However, I do know the concept well enough still to understand what I am reading in those equations.

originally posted by: dave5426
Not only is time relative, reality is relative also.

The universe is a maze of mirrors with no entrance or exit. Every possible path is correct. Every possible path is wrong. Your perception of whether it is correct or not is all that matters. Dead ends are opportunities and progress is a barrier.

Instead of perception I would have thought objective, other than that 🤷🏽‍♂️

a reply to: Justoneman

No, its not that I dont understand calculus.
I do actually.

Some of the clunkiness that I dislike about the quantum world are things like the Pauli Exclusion Principle, Quantum entanglement in general, such things as observer effects The list goes on.

a reply to: Astyanax

Well, go on then. Eagerly waiting to hear about your objections to ‘quantum physics’. Looking forward to a good discussion!

Sorry, but I am not going to oblige you. I have said all I intend to say about the matter.

I said I salute Albert Einstein for his objections to areas of Quantum Mechanics/Physics. I meant what I said, and I continue to maintain that posture. Make of that what you will.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Justoneman

No, its not that I dont understand calculus.
I do actually.

Some of the clunkiness that I dislike about the quantum world are things like the Pauli Exclusion Principle, Quantum entanglement in general, such things as observer effects The list goes on.

Those are those pesky ones that just work. I know from studying a similar field that it is frustrating to figure out why something just works like entanglement, but it shouldn't.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Justoneman

No, its not that I dont understand calculus.
I do actually.

Some of the clunkiness that I dislike about the quantum world are things like the Pauli Exclusion Principle, Quantum entanglement in general, such things as observer effects The list goes on.

Those are those pesky ones that just work. I know from studying a similar field that it is frustrating to figure out why something just works like entanglement, but it shouldn't.

Yep and it's that inelegance that turns me off

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Justoneman

No, its not that I dont understand calculus.
I do actually.

Some of the clunkiness that I dislike about the quantum world are things like the Pauli Exclusion Principle, Quantum entanglement in general, such things as observer effects The list goes on.

Those are those pesky ones that just work. I know from studying a similar field that it is frustrating to figure out why something just works like entanglement, but it shouldn't.

Yep and it's that inelegance that turns me off

Whereas the explorer in me takes off with this. It gave me a reason to say "I CAN INDEED think something into existence". So far, very little to say I can... HA HAhaha. Perhaps I am missing the "faith as big as a grain of mustard"?

Webb has taken a look at a small Galaxy that existed 350 million years after the Big Bang and once again found something that isn't supposed to be there , Carbon.

Our model says Carbon comes into existence around 1 Billion years after the Big Bang.

"We were surprised to see carbon so early in the universe, since it was thought that the earliest stars produced much more oxygen than carbon," Maiolino said. "We had thought that carbon was enriched much later, through entirely different processes, but the fact that it appears so early tells us that the very first stars may have operated very differently
www.livescience.com... ife-could-have-emerged

So now we have "surprisingly vigorous" Galaxies containing differently operating Stars at the dawn of the Universe .... what a time to be alive.

a reply to: gortex

This type of data is just awesome. I can't tell you how much I love the views we have been getting on top of the new information and their physics implication will cause issues with theories and maybe even "laws".