Crazy theories about how different cultivations/spiritualities etc happen

[Nungali]

Well spotted !   Thanks for clearing that up .

 

 

What about this bit though ?

 

" it’s the only substance that allows its solid state to float in the liquid state and in contrast to most other liquids, water unbelievably expands when it is frozen. " ? "

 

When I can ; 

 

" Ermmm    ....   nope  !    I can do that with  a metal even, in my   ' little lab  in the cab '   .      "

[Zhongyongdaoist]

" it’s the only substance that allows its solid state to float in the liquid state and in contrast to most other liquids, water unbelievably expands when it is frozen. " [/size]

 

? "

 

When I can ; 

 

" Ermmm    ....   nope  !    I can do that with  a metal even, in my   ' little lab  in the cab '   .      "

 

It is a relatively common statement, but an informal one and a generalization at that, which is talking about "substances" that are "liquid" at "room temperature" and except for mercury, metals are not liquid at room temperature, and taken as an informal generalization, can be regarded as more or less correct.  Or more simply, I have heard it for years and know enough from high school and college chemistry that it doesn't raise a red flag as "new age" nonsense.

[Nungali]

It is a relatively common statement, but an informal one and a generalization at that, which is talking about "substances" that are "liquid" at "room temperature" and except for mercury, metals are not liquid at room temperature, and taken as an informal generalization, can be regarded as more or less correct.  Or more simply, I have heard it for years and know enough from high school and college chemistry that it doesn't raise a red flag as "new age" nonsense.

 

Huh ?  

 

I domt think I  follow that one . Its doesnt seem to be about what I meant .  

 

I will try again . 

 

The article said ; " it’s the only substance that allows its solid state to float in the liquid state "  ( and I even bolded that bit  to high light it  , now I have added an underline for emphasis .   

 

My protest is that ; I myself physically work with a substance ( in my home 'lab ' , in my cabin ) whose solid state DOES float in its own liquid state. 

 

Therefore I am thinking that the article seems scientifically wrong on  this point.     

 

It is a point of science, as far as I am concerned.    I dont know 'New Age nonsense'  is mentioned   , I see it as  a  mistake in a scientific  description of  properties of substances .  And my experiments were simple science experiments . 

 

..... I didnt even mention mercury          

[Zhongyongdaoist]

What about this bit though ?

 

" it’s the only substance that allows its solid state to float in the liquid state and in contrast to most other liquids, water unbelievably expands when it is frozen. "

? "

 

When I can ;

 

" Ermmm .... nope ! I can do that with a metal even, in my ' little lab in the cab ' .  "

Huh ?

 

I domt think I follow that one . Its doesnt seem to be about what I meant .

 

I will try again .

 

The article said ; " it’s the only substance that allows its solid state to float in the liquid state " ( and I even bolded that bit to high light it , now I have added an underline for emphasis .

 

My protest is that ; I myself physically work with a substance ( in my home 'lab ' , in my cabin ) whose solid state DOES float in its own liquid state.

 

Therefore I am thinking that the article seems scientifically wrong on this point.

 

It is a point of science, as far as I am concerned. I dont know 'New Age nonsense' is mentioned , I see it as a mistake in a scientific description of properties of substances . And my experiments were simple science experiments .

 

..... I didnt even mention mercury

 

I told you that:

 

It is a relatively common statement, but an informal one and a generalization at that, which is talking about "substances" that are "liquid" at "room temperature" and except for mercury, metals are not liquid at room temperature, and taken as an informal generalization, can be regarded as more or less correct. Or more simply, I have heard it for years and know enough from high school and college chemistry that it doesn't raise a red flag as "new age" nonsense.

 

What did I say here? I said that it was an informal statement, by which I meant that it was not part of a rigorous discussion using exacting descriptions, this is why it first says:

 

"it’s the only substance that allows its solid state to float in the liquid state,"

 

and then disagrees with itself by saying that:

 

"and in contrast to most other liquids, water unbelievably expands when it is frozen."

 

Which of course confesses almost immediately to the inaccuracy of the first statement by qualifying it, and then describes this phenomena as an unbelievable expansion, but of course, it is, as a commonplace observation, neither unbelievable, nor unexplained, being based on the type of crystal structure that water assumes when it freezes. Which is the type of thing one learns in high school and college chemistry. Well, at least the part about crystal structure, you can observe ice floating around in a lot of places.  All of which taken together, especially the qualification, is why I didn't find the statement problematic, though I did find it poorly written.

 

I then explicated some of the aspects that I either didn't like about it, such as the use of the word “substance”, which I thought too broad, since it would include all sorts of things that would require special considerations, and two other linked concepts, “liquid” and “room temperature”, which I thought should have been made more explicit if one wanted to speak more rigorously, to exclude such things as metals, with which you mentioned being able to do it, so I mentioned mercury, the only metal that was liquid at room temperature.  If you want, you can research whether frozen mercury floats on metallic mercury, and it might even make a fun piece of scientific trivia to know, but the relatively rare property of what is probably the most common chemical compound on earth, as well as one essential to life as we know it, is usually considered kind of special, which may explain the author's overly enthusiastic discussion of it.

 

I certainly wouldn't have written the passage the way author did, but I did the best I could to explicate my understanding of it in a few words. I am sorry if I was not clear enough for you, and I hope that this clears the matter up, because I don't intend to put any more time into this.

[Deltrus]

Dont take this personally, I am just looking at your post content ; why 'quantum mechanics ' ? It seems to be a term that people use as an overall justification nowadays. Many, without having a clue what the term implies.

 

At least here you offered a type of explanation, but ....

 

What do you mean by 'each particle in our body ' ?

 

Thnx man I haven't been criticising my latest ideas enough. Well in quantum mechanics each atom only has a chance of being in one spot at any point in time. All the points they can be at at a time are a probability field. But I'm unsure if whole molecules also have this probability field or just atoms and smaller particles. But it would make sense if molecules, cells, or even whole people have this property. People have a chance of being in many places at any time, just depends on what they chose. I may be wrong though, not sure. Edited March 22, 2017 by Deltrus

[Nungali]

 

I told you that:

 

 

What did I say here? I said that it was an informal statement, by which I meant that it was not part of a rigorous discussion using exacting descriptions, this is why it first says:

 

"it’s the only substance that allows its solid state to float in the liquid state,"

 

and then disagrees with itself by saying that:

 

"and in contrast to most other liquids, water unbelievably expands when it is frozen."

 

Which of course confesses almost immediately to the inaccuracy of the first statement by qualifying it, and then describes this phenomena as an unbelievable expansion, but of course, it is, as a commonplace observation, neither unbelievable, nor unexplained, being based on the type of crystal structure that water assumes when it freezes. Which is the type of thing one learns in high school and college chemistry. Well, at least the part about crystal structure, you can observe ice floating around in a lot of places.  All of which taken together, especially the qualification, is why I didn't find the statement problematic, though I did find it poorly written.

 

Yes, it is -  agreed, but I was specifically focusing on the one point I mentioned  

 

  [ I acknowledge the general quality was at fault  when I wrote ;   ,"  oops, I  thought the first  (link ) was a scientific article - nope .  " ] 

 

 

 

 

 

I then explicated some of the aspects that I either didn't like about it, such as the use of the word “substance”, which I thought too broad, since it would include all sorts of things that would require special considerations, and two other linked concepts, “liquid” and “room temperature”, which I thought should have been made more explicit if one wanted to speak more rigorously, to exclude such things as metals, with which you mentioned being able to do it,

 

 

'Do it' ?   I never said I could  liquify or melt a metal at room temperature ,  I never broached the subject of any temperature actually, I said I could float a  solid substance on its liquid form . 

 

 

 

so I mentioned mercury, the only metal that was liquid at room temperature. 

 

I know,  but I am not working with mercury or  temperatures any where near 'room temperature ' ..

 

If you want, you can research whether frozen mercury floats on metallic mercury, and it might even make a fun piece of scientific trivia to know,

 

 

   ,  no thanks .... my little bush lab does not have the capacity to   generate a  - 40^o C temperature . . . maybe if I got some 'dry ice' in I could do it . 

 

 

 

 

but the relatively rare property of what is probably the most common chemical compound on earth, as well as one essential to life as we know it, is usually considered kind of special, which may explain the author's overly enthusiastic discussion of it.

 

I certainly wouldn't have written the passage the way author did, but I did the best I could to explicate my understanding of it in a few words. I am sorry if I was not clear enough for you, and I hope that this clears the matter up, because I don't intend to put any more time into this.

 

Thanks for your clarifications, I see you pointing out the general mistakes in the article, and I thanked you for and thank you again for that .

 

 I was focusing on a specific part , the bit I mentioned and I dont mean to take up your time -  you actually didnt need to answer me in the first place and That would have taken up less of your time, because you are explaining things to me that I already know that you seem to think I dont know. 

 

In any case ,  my point was meant to be  that water is not the only substance that can float its  solid form in its liquid form, as I said, I can do that with a metal .  (I even have a thread and posts and pictures of it on here somewhere that I thought you responded to ???  ) .  And actually, that is a pretty rare quality for any substance .  ... as far as I know, If I am wrong, I am interested to see examples  ( Brian ? If you are reading  and this  isnt taking up all your time , maybe you can clear that up ? )

 

As far as   that statement being  'contradicted ' by  " "and in contrast to most other liquids, water unbelievably expands when it is frozen.""

 

I see that as a different quality ; one  that is related  but here it relates to 'most other liquids'  -  and not metal .  I wasnt working with a liquid. 

 

And the metal I work with isnt a liquid at 'room' temperature or anywhere near any temperature in any habitable room . Or again, has no relation to mercury .... more to lead.    When its melted and then 'frozen'  ( a relative term in this case and NOT related to water freezing temperature)  the solidifying metal floats on the liquid 'melted'  or molten metal . 

 

Then  if one knows all the tricks of doing this and  extracting the solidified metal from where it is floating on the surface ( just below it .... the surface has a high 'surface tension' )  .... and one is very careful and can lift the floating solid out, you may get something like this 

 

 

[Nungali]

Thnx man I haven't been criticising my latest ideas enough. Well in quantum mechanics each atom only has a chance of being in one spot at any point in time

 

 

SO THE PARTICLES IN THE BODY YOU REFER TO ARE THESE ATOMS ? 

 

 

. All the points they can be at at a time are a probability field. But I'm unsure if whole molecules also have this probability field or just atoms and smaller particles. But it would make sense if molecules, cells, or even whole people have this property.

 

AS FAR AS I KNOW, WHAT SOME REFER TO AS 'QUANTUM PROPERTIES' , AND WHAT YOU SEEM TO BE DESCRIBING, ONLY OCCUR

 

  AT A VERY SMALL 'SIZE' , AS 'THINGS GET BIGGER' , OR , AS WE OBSERVE 'BIGGER THINGS' THEY DO NOT BEHAVE THAT WAY BUT

 

SEEM TO CONFORM TO THE LAWS OF 'NORMAL PHYSICS'  - IE.   THEY DO NOT DO QUANTUM LEAPS OUT AND IN  OF THE

 

'OBSERVATION FIELD ' . 

 

SO MY GUESS IS  , THAT ATOMS , MOLECULES, CELLS AND PEOPLE DO NOT EXHIBIT THESE PROPERTIES. .

 

 

People have a chance of being in many places at any time, just depends on what they chose. I may be wrong though, not sure.

 

LIKE A PERSON COULD WINK OUT IN FRANCE AND WINK IN  TO VIETNAM ?    ..... OR INTO MY LOUNGE ROOM !   NO THANKS !  

 

( THERE IS AN SF ON THIS THEME, THEY HAD TO HAVE ALL SORTS OF SCREENING MAZES AND SECURITY AGAINST 'WINK INS'  AND ENDED UP BEING MORE RESTRICTED )

 

 

[Deltrus]

Yeah man IDK, this is why I made this thread, I was having some crazy "quantum physics" theories due to having a 2 week long psychosis session, although I made my water theory before that. Now I have to deal with erasing old leaps of logic. I'm doing much better now though. I'm gonna go ahead and delete a few theories I now think of as not true.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Deltrus

[Nungali]

Wait until you settle more , maybe there are some seeds of ideas in there that you can develop better or use later when seen with more clarity ... or chuck  them out then . 

 

'Crazy visions'  can have some symbolic and analytical value  later , as they also hold a little map of whatever journey you went on.  Try not to be too attached to them though . 

Edited March 24, 2017 by Nungali

[Brian]

Thanks for your clarifications, I see you pointing out the general mistakes in the article, and I thanked you for and thank you again for that .

 

I was focusing on a specific part , the bit I mentioned and I dont mean to take up your time - you actually didnt need to answer me in the first place and That would have taken up less of your time, because you are explaining things to me that I already know that you seem to think I dont know.

 

In any case , my point was meant to be that water is not the only substance that can float its solid form in its liquid form, as I said, I can do that with a metal . (I even have a thread and posts and pictures of it on here somewhere that I thought you responded to ??? ) . And actually, that is a pretty rare quality for any substance . ... as far as I know, If I am wrong, I am interested to see examples ( Brian ? If you are reading and this isnt taking up all your time , maybe you can clear that up ? )

 

As far as that statement being 'contradicted ' by " "and in contrast to most other liquids, water unbelievably expands when it is frozen.""

 

I see that as a different quality ; one that is related but here it relates to 'most other liquids' - and not metal . I wasnt working with a liquid.

 

And the metal I work with isnt a liquid at 'room' temperature or anywhere near any temperature in any habitable room . Or again, has no relation to mercury .... more to lead. When its melted and then 'frozen' ( a relative term in this case and NOT related to water freezing temperature) the solidifying metal floats on the liquid 'melted' or molten metal .

 

Then if one knows all the tricks of doing this and extracting the solidified metal from where it is floating on the surface ( just below it .... the surface has a high 'surface tension' ) .... and one is very careful and can lift the floating solid out, you may get something like this

 

 

Just noticed my name had been invoked...

 

 

There are quite a few substances which are less dense in solid form than in liquid form. There are some which are liquid under standard conditions ("room temperature" and "normal sea-level pressure", for instance). Water is rather unusual, though, in that its solid-liquid phase-change is within typical temperature range for much of the surface of the Earth (predominantly in liquid form) AND it is more dense as a solid. In fact, it continues expanding as it cools beyond freezing. Add to that the ease with which it converts from liquid to gas (even below that standard "boiling point') AND the fact that it is a powerful solvent and you've got a most curious molecule.

 

That article tried to go someplace it needn't have gone, though, and did it poorly.

[Gerry]

Theory: The big bang happens in cycles, the universe explodes out  and then comes back inward over time. Scientists have theorized that it has happened many times by now. Right now we are 13.8 billion years old as a universe, and 4.5 billion years old as a planet, and 60 thousand years old as homosapiens and I'm currently 24 years old as a human.

 

My theory is that  the big bang happens like a phoenix, destruction and creation intertwined in a ying yang duality type life form. And perhaps this is related to all phoenix mythology, flying phoenix chi kung in particular. 

Can there be multiple big bangs, and resultant universes going on at the same time?

[Gerry]

Big Bang?

 

The Big Bang maybe had no sound at all,plus no one to hear it.

No light to be seen.

[Gerry]

What makes this particularly curious (other than it being right under our noses) is that this is the second time in the last few years that we've discovered "a fourth state of water" -- and those two new states are very different!

 

What makes the second so interesting, for me, is the little tubies they did this in. 

[Brian]

Can there be multiple big bangs, and resultant universes going on at the same time?

Hard to say, isn't it. We aren't even sure what "the big bang" was, or necessarily that it really happened according to the models. In fact, I would venture to say that, based on our track-record with other models, that we can rest assured that the model is probably wrong in some substantial way.

 

FWIW, there's a new model being worked on which sets aside the assumption that the structure of the universe is essentially homogenous and allows for local variations in the expansion of space consistent with general relativity -- and the need for "dark energy" goes away. Curious, eh?

[Gerry]

Hard to say, isn't it. We aren't even sure what "the big bang" was, or necessarily that it really happened according to the models. In fact, I would venture to say that, based on our track-record with other models, that we can rest assured that the model is probably wrong in some substantial way.

 

FWIW, there's a new model being worked on which sets aside the assumption that the structure of the universe is essentially homogenous and allows for local variations in the expansion of space consistent with general relativity -- and the need for "dark energy" goes away. Curious, eh?

I do not think that is excluded by current thinking, but I think the Higgs energy might have an effect on that.  But then it is not like I know more than what becomes "common" knowledge.

 

It makes sense to a lot of the physics community, but I know it is not settled.  I recently read a book that described the "Time Line" for the big-bang.  A lot of strange stuff took place in that first second!  It was a book for the non-particle folk, sort of "the Universe for the Poet" approach.  I kept getting lost.  Reading again and again.  I still can't catch up to the train.  But I was impressed that all that happened in that time.  I never knew it was dark when it went boom.

 

also, I do not think there is the math do confirm any of it.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Gerry

[Nungali]

Hard to say, isn't it. We aren't even sure what "the big bang" was, or necessarily that it really happened according to the models. In fact, I would venture to say that, based on our track-record with other models, that we can rest assured that the model is probably wrong in some substantial way.

 

FWIW, there's a new model being worked on which sets aside the assumption that the structure of the universe is essentially homogenous and allows for local variations in the expansion of space consistent with general relativity -- and the need for "dark energy" goes away. Curious, eh?

 

Whats the other term they use ;  naturally balanced  ....   aesthetics ....  'naturalness'  ...  or something ?  I read a physicist arguing with another about why the Universe should have to comply to our standards and we should throw some concepts out .

 

The rest ^ is rather interesting .   Elsewhere I have been unpopular for suggesting that Multiverse . dimension  concept  is a mathematical exercise to fill in the holes and gaps ( mistakes ? )  that were percieved to have been in the 'Standard Model' ... and some variations that came after it . 

 

"  I finished high school in 1995. It was the year the top quark was discovered, a prediction dating back to 1973. As I read the articles in the news, I was fascinated by the mathematics that allowed physicists to reconstruct the structure of elementary matter. It wouldn’t have been difficult to predict in 1995 that I’d go on to make a PhD in theoretical high energy physics.

 

Little did I realize that for more than 20 years the so provisional looking standard model would remain undefeated world-champion of accuracy, irritatingly successful in its arbitrariness and yet impossible to surpass. We added neutrino masses in the late 1990s, but this idea dates back to the 1950s. The prediction of the Higgs, discovered 2012, originated in the early 1960s. And while the poor standard model has been discounted as “ugly” by everyone from Stephen Hawking to Michio Kaku to Paul Davies, it’s still the best we can do.

 

Since I entered physics, I’ve seen grand unified models proposed and falsified. I’ve seen loads of dark matter candidates not being found, followed by a ritual parameter adjustment to explain the lack of detection. I’ve seen supersymmetric particles being “predicted” with constantly increasing masses, from some GeV to some 100 GeV to LHC energies of some TeV. And now that the LHC hasn’t seen any superpartners either, particle physicists are more than willing to once again move the goalposts.

 

During my professional career, all I have seen is failure. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have. Yes, failure is part of science – it’s frustrating, but not worrisome. What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we’ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

 

When I look at the data what I see is that our reliance on gauge-symmetry and the attempt at unification, the use of naturalness as guidance, and the trust in beauty and simplicity aren’t working. The cosmological constant isn’t natural. The Higgs mass isn’t natural. The standard model isn’t pretty, and the concordance model isn’t simple. Grand unification failed. It failed again. And yet we haven’t drawn any consequences from this: Particle physicists are still playing today by the same rules as in 1973.

 

For the last ten years you’ve been told that the LHC must see some new physics besides the Higgs because otherwise nature isn’t “natural” – a technical term invented to describe the degree of numerical coincidence of a theory. I’ve been laughed at when I explained that I don’t buy into naturalness because it’s a philosophical criterion, not a scientific one. But on that matter I got the last laugh: Nature, it turns out, doesn’t like to be told what’s presumably natural.

 

The idea of naturalness that has been preached for so long is plainly not compatible with the LHC data, regardless of what else will be found in the data yet to come. And now that naturalness is in the way of moving predictions for so-far undiscovered particles – yet again! – to higher energies, particle physicists, opportunistic as always, are suddenly more than willing to discard of naturalness to justify the next larger collider.

 

Now that the diphoton bump is gone, we’ve entered what has become known as the “nightmare scenario” for the LHC: The Higgs and nothing else. Many particle physicists thought of this as the worst possible outcome. It has left them without guidance, lost in a thicket of rapidly multiplying models. Without some new physics, they have nothing to work with that they haven’t already had for 50 years, no new input that can tell them in which direction to look for the ultimate goal of unification and/or quantum gravity.

 

That the LHC hasn’t seen evidence for new physics is to me a clear signal that we’ve been doing something wrong, that our experience from constructing the standard model is no longer a promising direction to continue. We’ve maneuvered ourselves into a dead end by relying on aesthetic guidance to decide which experiments are the most promising. I hope that this latest null result will send a clear message that you can’t trust the judgement of scientists whose future funding depends on their continued optimism.

 

 

Things can only get better. "

 

-  Matt Strassler.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Nungali

[Brian]

Whats the other term they use ; naturally balanced .... aesthetics .... 'naturalness' ... or something ? I read a physicist arguing with another about why the Universe should have to comply to our standards and we should throw some concepts out .

 

The rest ^ is rather interesting . Elsewhere I have been unpopular for suggesting that Multiverse . dimension concept is a mathematical exercise to fill in the holes and gaps ( mistakes ? ) that were percieved to have been in the 'Standard Model' ... and some variations that came after it .

 

" I finished high school in 1995. It was the year the top quark was discovered, a prediction dating back to 1973. As I read the articles in the news, I was fascinated by the mathematics that allowed physicists to reconstruct the structure of elementary matter. It wouldn’t have been difficult to predict in 1995 that I’d go on to make a PhD in theoretical high energy physics.

 

Little did I realize that for more than 20 years the so provisional looking standard model would remain undefeated world-champion of accuracy, irritatingly successful in its arbitrariness and yet impossible to surpass. We added neutrino masses in the late 1990s, but this idea dates back to the 1950s. The prediction of the Higgs, discovered 2012, originated in the early 1960s. And while the poor standard model has been discounted as “ugly” by everyone from Stephen Hawking to Michio Kaku to Paul Davies, it’s still the best we can do.

 

Since I entered physics, I’ve seen grand unified models proposed and falsified. I’ve seen loads of dark matter candidates not being found, followed by a ritual parameter adjustment to explain the lack of detection. I’ve seen supersymmetric particles being “predicted” with constantly increasing masses, from some GeV to some 100 GeV to LHC energies of some TeV. And now that the LHC hasn’t seen any superpartners either, particle physicists are more than willing to once again move the goalposts.

 

During my professional career, all I have seen is failure. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have. Yes, failure is part of science – it’s frustrating, but not worrisome. What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we’ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

 

When I look at the data what I see is that our reliance on gauge-symmetry and the attempt at unification, the use of naturalness as guidance, and the trust in beauty and simplicity aren’t working. The cosmological constant isn’t natural. The Higgs mass isn’t natural. The standard model isn’t pretty, and the concordance model isn’t simple. Grand unification failed. It failed again. And yet we haven’t drawn any consequences from this: Particle physicists are still playing today by the same rules as in 1973.

 

For the last ten years you’ve been told that the LHC must see some new physics besides the Higgs because otherwise nature isn’t “natural” – a technical term invented to describe the degree of numerical coincidence of a theory. I’ve been laughed at when I explained that I don’t buy into naturalness because it’s a philosophical criterion, not a scientific one. But on that matter I got the last laugh: Nature, it turns out, doesn’t like to be told what’s presumably natural.

 

The idea of naturalness that has been preached for so long is plainly not compatible with the LHC data, regardless of what else will be found in the data yet to come. And now that naturalness is in the way of moving predictions for so-far undiscovered particles – yet again! – to higher energies, particle physicists, opportunistic as always, are suddenly more than willing to discard of naturalness to justify the next larger collider.

 

Now that the diphoton bump is gone, we’ve entered what has become known as the “nightmare scenario” for the LHC: The Higgs and nothing else. Many particle physicists thought of this as the worst possible outcome. It has left them without guidance, lost in a thicket of rapidly multiplying models. Without some new physics, they have nothing to work with that they haven’t already had for 50 years, no new input that can tell them in which direction to look for the ultimate goal of unification and/or quantum gravity.

 

That the LHC hasn’t seen evidence for new physics is to me a clear signal that we’ve been doing something wrong, that our experience from constructing the standard model is no longer a promising direction to continue. We’ve maneuvered ourselves into a dead end by relying on aesthetic guidance to decide which experiments are the most promising. I hope that this latest null result will send a clear message that you can’t trust the judgement of scientists whose future funding depends on their continued optimism.

 

 

Things can only get better. "

 

- Matt Strassler.

I've been saying for years, including on this forum, that the standard model is fundamentally deficient, that "dark matter" and "dark energy" are indicative of a misunderstanding, and that we are on the verge of an upheaval as significant as the dawning in the 1800s of quantum theory & relativity. It isn't that these ideas were wrong, any more than Newton was "wrong" -- and the next vision of "how things really work" will be largely consistent with all that has come before. With each iteration, we get closer but still we miss the mark.

[Nungali]

In 'nature'  my observations have been , regarding 'systems of four' that , the first 3  can be 'unified' but the fourth cannot be unified with the other three - in the same manner - but is either a resultant, a  'pendant to' or  form of the 'original impetus' . 

 

So it makes me wonder IF  the 4 forces can every be 'unified ' ,  perhaps G standing 'alone'   IS  the 'natural order'  ?  

Edited April 1, 2017 by Nungali