Berenstein.

You forgot to include hurricanes and declining bee populations.

This article is funny:



There are a couple of reasons why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics clash:

1) Quantum Mechanics is probability based. And has to be. This is because any direct observation of a quantum(eigen) state will cause the wave function to collapse, thus rendering a finite, "frozen" state, which could directly affect other states. Truth be told, at the subatomic scale, probability must be used when dealing with anything this small. Einstein protested this when he proclaimed, "God does not roll dice," and along with Erwin Schroedinger, they further protested through the now famous thought experiment "Schroedinger's Cat." No, the cat experiment is not meant to be serious. They were actively making fun of Neils Bohr and his cohorts. Einstein simply disagreed.

2) General and special relativity deal with space and time--the curvature and slope of these two mediums, and their respective combination. They also deal with absolutes. There was the cosmological constant, which was a kludge created by Einstein dealing with the expansion of the Universe, and then there is the maximum velocity of everything, the speed of light (C), which can be defined mathematically using Lorentz transform equations to estimate relativistic mass and graphically by illustrating the slope of space/time relationship as they approach infinity as velocity increases, which likewise explains length contraction.

Absolutes and probabilities simply clash. They're incompatible frameworks. But there's more to this than simple mathematics...

Because relativistic mass itself is a kludge. We know that:

a) Time does vary depending on velocity and gravity, and this relationship can be once again be graphically observed by the slope/time relationship of space. As the slope increases, length of localspace contracts, thus the tick rate decreases on the macro scale, while the local scale remains constant. Basically, the faster you go, time slows down, relative to the outside world(and due to the shape of the relationship curve, effects aren't really noticed until you hit about 80 - 90% the speed of light). Likewise, the deeper a gravity well you enter, the greater the time dilation, i.e., time slows down. If you were to dwell in the center of a black hole, to you, inside, assuming you were still alive, time would feel normal. On the outside, however, you would appear frozen, in stasis, to everyone else. Imagine a graph where a line curves downward until basically the line goes nearly straight down. Time "freezes". The horizontal bar on the graph is the tick rate.

b) Gravity operates "because."

But what we don't know is precisely why.

But we know that these are factual, in that we have measured and tested these facts with atomic clocks.

We also know quantum mechanics works, and has always been accurate, time and time again, because if it were not, then the computer you are posting on simply would not operate. Field dynamics in electrical engineering depend on the reliability of quantum mechanics.


Let's go back to that aforementioned "cosmological constant," or kludge. This deals with the rate of the expansion of the Universe. Which we know is expanding, and accelerating, into infinity. The day you are born you are one size. When you die, you will be larger. This is without dispute. You will inflate over time in volume. You will never notice this, however, because everything else around you is expanding as well. That's why we use the Hubble Constant now, and this has been observed and proven.

Why then, does gravity continue to operate, constantly, without ceasing. If, according to Isaac Newton, energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, only transferred--this is fact, and demonstrated time and time again, then why can gravity, unceasingly, pull something towards the center.

answer: The expansion of the Universe.

There's a relationship here at work that is allowing gravity to operate, which has yet to be proven how or why. What this article does not explain at all are these important factors and relationships.

Why then, does relativistic mass approach infinity as the slope increases, and why can nothing exceed this barrier, and why must this slope climb thus so? This gives us important clues as to the biggest question of all: What is space?

Is this tick rate of time on the horizontal axis, and subsequent relationship with slope, and relativistic mass telling us something important, and elusive, that also relates with quantum mechanics?

Solve this and you can create a unified field theory, i.e., a theory of everything, aka the merged Quantum-Relativity theory.


I have something worth pondering in my extremely lengthy, yet light on details for the layman diatribe:

If there is an absolute maximum velocity due to that infinite relativistic mass causing a virtual "wall" in space, does that allude to a fixed, grid-like framework of space itself. In a grid there is always an absolute minimum amount. You cannot go any smaller. If this is so, then that may tell us some important things as to what space really is. Because up until now, everything in science assumes that reality is analogue, and not "digital" in nature.

Likewise, what exactly is causing this expansion of the Universe to accelerate, unceasingly, if entropy is increasing as time goes on? Entropy is not energy, and energy is remaining constant, just spreading out. If energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, why are we expanding faster?

I don't think this is by mistake. I think there is a relationship between entropy and space itself, which is leading to this expansion, which is also fueling the operation of gravity--i.e. remove the expansion, and everything would break down. Likewise, remove the expansion and we could hop around time, willy nilly to our heart's content. But we cannot, as things are now. This may also explain why entanglement can transcend physical distances and defy the constant of C, and avoid an information paradox--i.e. information of something happening cannot arrive faster than light could to the destination receiving the information. Entanglement, for now, defies this. This framework of space, if defined and solved, could tell us a great deal more, and likely things we do not expect, or maybe even are prepared to accept.

Explain these things and we can unify these theories.


So, as you may now realize, this is not as simple as this article proclaims this to be.

No, our planet will not be devoured by a microscopic black hole, for now.


/end musings. I could go on for days on this subject. It is very complex. But quite fascinating.


p.s. The great news about the entropy part is global warming will eventually be solved, in the end, as all that noise and energy is spread out, fairly evenly, throughout space. The issue will solve itself.

blastman thinks we live in a simulation .DETAIN !

Perhaps.

Which begs the question, Blade_RJ, who is being simulated? You, or me?

If our current reality is indeed a "simulation" wouldn't that by default prove that there is indeed an "afterlife"? I mean, what's the point of running a simulation if our reality is truly the only singular reality?

you are just a word on the internet so its obviously you the fake pixels . i think its neither. all of us are just fragment of a memory being processed and unlike pm to me this prove there is no afterlife because we are bound here by whatever is manipulating the memory looking for something while dilating space to give itself more time,none of us matter as none of us is a real self but a colection of entities residing in a vessel wich could acount for "possesions" or split and multiple personalities.
also water......water shouldnt exist. it cant be real. be afraid of water true nature.