Yes, very interesting indeed! Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by (and largely ignored in) the book, physicist Sean M. Carroll asks "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don’t see how they could."[6] ... Samantha Nelson, writing for The A.V. Club, gave A Universe from Nothing a 'B' grade and commented that it "is solidly in the New Atheism camp, a cosmologist’s version of Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker" but noted that "the concepts he explores are so complex, and filled with so many factors that top physicists and cosmologists don’t understand, expanding on them in print actually makes them more confusing".[10] In New Scientist, Michael Brooks wrote that "Krauss will be preaching only to the converted. That said, we should be happy to be preached to so intelligently. The same can't be said about the Dawkins afterword, which is both superfluous and silly."[11] UQ
Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity Quantum gravity (QG) is a field of theoretical physics that seeks to describe the force of gravity according to the principles of quantum mechanics. The current understanding of gravity is based on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which is formulated within the framework of classical physics. On the other hand, the nongravitational forces are described within the framework of quantum mechanics, a radically different formalism for describing physical phenomena based on probability.[1] The necessity of a quantum mechanical description of gravity follows from the fact that one cannot consistently couple a classical system to a quantum one.[2] Although a quantum theory of gravity is needed in order to reconcile general relativity with the principles of quantum mechanics, difficulties arise when one attempts to apply the usual prescriptions of quantum field theory to the force of gravity.[3] From a technical point of view, the problem is that the theory one gets in this way is not renormalizable and therefore cannot be used to make meaningful physical predictions. As a result, theorists have taken up more radical approaches to the problem of quantum gravity, the most popular approaches being string theory and loop quantum gravity.[4] A recent development is the theory of causal fermion systems which gives quantum mechanics, general relativity, and quantum field theory as limiting cases.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Strictly speaking, the aim of quantum gravity is only to describe the quantum behavior of the gravitational field and should not be confused with the objective of unifying all fundamental interactions into a single mathematical framework. While any substantial improvement into the present understanding of gravity would aid further work towards unification, study of quantum gravity is a field in its own right with various branches having different approaches to unification. Although some quantum gravity theories, such as string theory, try to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces, others, such as loop quantum gravity, make no such attempt; instead, they make an effort to quantize the gravitational field while it is kept separate from the other forces. A theory of quantum gravity that is also a grand unification of all known interactions is sometimes referred to as a theory of everything (TOE). One of the difficulties of quantum gravity is that quantum gravitational effects are only expected to become apparent near the Planck scale, a scale far smaller in distance (equivalently, far larger in energy) than what is currently accessible at high energy particle accelerators. As a result, quantum gravity is a mainly theoretical enterprise, although there are speculations about how quantum gravity effects might be observed in existing experiments.[11] UQ
ODD, some developements that may interest you. Physicists Make Big Leap In Quantum Teleportation http://www.businessinsider.com/physicists-make-huge-leap-in-quantum-teleportation-2014-9 Weyl fermions: http://www.techrepublic.com/article...making-could-change-how-we-build-electronics/ http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/12/visible-light-super-vision/?ncid=rss_truncated
Thanks. I like this note: "Originally proposed as an alternate theory to Einstein's theory of relativity, the Weyl fermion has eluded scientists for decades. Now that it has been observed, the particle could upend the way we produce powerful electronics. "
The counter-intuitive nature of sub-atomic phenomena does not signify caprice, or "anything goes". Just that, counter-intuitive to our cave-man senses, and nothing more. The RULZ still apply!
2000+ yrs ago we called spooky action God. And we were happy with that explanation. Hope we are wiser now. It;s ok to say, we just don't know, yet.
Q Magnetic anomaly that cast doubt on Voyager 1's entry of interstellar space explained http://www.gizmag.com/magnetic-field-inconsistencies-voyager-1/40147/ One question that has been vexing space scientists for the past three years is whether NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft is or isn't in interstellar space. The unmanned explorer was supposed to have passed out of the sphere of the Sun's influence and into galactic space in August 2012, but a magnetic anomaly threw a question mark over the event. ... By triangulating the observations of IBEX and the other spacecraft, the team discovered that when this ribbon approaches the heliopause, it bends around it like an elastic band wrapped around a beach ball. This distortion of the magnetic field in the region where Voyager 1 is currently travelling throws off the direction of "north" and will continue to do so until the probe enters pristine interstellar space around 2025. This indicates that not only that Voyager 1 has left the heliosphere, but that the region is much more complex than previously thought. UQ
Thanks for elevating the conversation from - "you suck, no you suck" on some forums. LOL. IMO, Einstein changed near the end of his life when he realized that the impossible must be true. For a man that based all his younger discoveries on "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light", it must have been very hard to make the following statement: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." It's a credit to the towering genious of the man. The book Zen and the Art of Motocycle maintenance did the same thing to math, which may be the closest thing to the exit from Plato's cave IMO. At the farthest reaches of modern math and physics (and IMO trading and Mark Twain), the comments and realizations would truly astound some folks. Some are unable to make the shift and hence the book - "The structure of scientific revolutions." Einstein did! Thanks for the post.
Today we call it the ONE - as hollywood says - you are the One Neo. Of course if Neo is the One and One is all there is, then who the hell was Morpheus (perhaps spooky action at a distance? LOL).
My guess is many of the best brains in science/physics had/has been attracted by the finance jobs in Wall Street for the challenge of $, partly due to lack of resources invested in science research. To understand the nature/universe, our progress in the past 100 years has been quite slow, relatively to other $-making fields, such as FinTech, Pharmaceutical, weapons, etc. Rather than environmental, sustainability, humanity, poverty, equality, peacebuilding, etc. that do not make $, basically. Fire-fighting is definitely not good enough, as we can do better in fire-preventing! Asylum seekers is a typical issue about fires (aka, wars)! A big typical issue that we could learn to solve future problems in a long-term systemic way, rather than merely seeking local optimisation answer for winning voters! Need many more statesman-like politicians! Investing national resources in the right and productive directions/issues to be beneficial to voters in long-run! Just chit chat!