JCC Go science?

The universe has the equivalent of a "north" and "south," and some things about electromagnetism/electrons/photons that should be universal actually aren't, but change according to how "north/south" they are.

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-laws-nature-downright-weird-constant.html


Also, this one is a little old, but Phosphorus (critical for life) might actually be super-rare and could be an explanation for Fermi's paradox:
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/phosphorus-rare-universe-05892.html

 

Wow. I wonder if this will have an effect on a different speed of light limit, applicable to VSL Theory.

 

A video on the above:



If this is true, which is a big IF, this finally expands our understanding of the universe beyond the Standard Model of fundamental particles and interactions.Could explain other weird things about the universe too, like the mater/antimatter problem, and so many other imbalances and questions. And if quantum mechanics are inconsistent over spacetime, perhaps gravity is the only immutable constant, which is why we haven't found a theory of everything yet. So many possibilities.

 

I really like this channel:





https://youtu.be/ZihywtixUYo
https://youtu.be/SzJ46YA_RaA

 

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-electrical-tomato.html

@Lord Vivec -- how far are we from The Happening please?

 

This is one of the best explanations I've seen:

 

@Lord Vivec

 

The presentation starts at 49 minutes with a Q&A after.



Future issues with BMI:
1. Brain hacking. Right now if someone breaks into my computer nothing happens to me. But what if the computer is merged with my brain?
2. A future version may allow me to record everything simply by listening and seeing. So how many spiteful exes are going to use this to show everyone sexual encounters? Personal conversations? Pirated movies?

 

Are there any physicists here who could answer the question of a lay person?

 

I might be able to

 

I've got a physics degree, and a couple published papers, but I'm not a physicist by any stretch of the imagination - I can give it a go as well.

 

Okay, so I know that all the theories I'm about to mention are not proven and are highly theoretical. I'm mainly asking if there are theoretical inconsistencies in the following (I've tried my best to get a very basic understanding, but I could still be way off):

Let's say that M-Theory is correct - our universe exists attached to a three dimensional 'brane' within a higher (11?) dimensional hyperspace. Is it possible that this 'hyper-verse' could also be 'split' when the quantum wave function breaks down (ala, Many Worlds interpretation), creating multiple (possibly static and possibly infinite) 'hyper-verses' within an infinite dimensional Hilbert Space?

 

Can I answer by saying I don't want to say that M-Theory is correct. I am not a proponent of String Theory. I don't believe its proponents have acted in good faith. Furthermore string theory is flawed in that it doesn't make predictions that can be tested in labs.

 

I've always been fascinated by the False Vacuum theory, but it's also confused me at the same time. Could someone explain it itt?

 

Sure thing. The best way to understand this is to look at two primer concepts. Quantum Tunneling and then Local Minimum vs Absolute Minimum,

Quantum Tunnelling: One of the consequences of quantum mechanics is that through no apparent physical processes, a particle or system can find itself in an energy state or a location where it shouldn't have been able to go through standard classical processes. This is because quantum mechanics works with probabilities. A particle in a system will have what's called a wavefunction, and when you calculate the probability that, say, a particle is located somewhere in a room, it is possible for it to be somewhere that it couldn't have travelled by classical physics. It's a bit more complicated, but the main point is that you might find a particle somewhere that it couldn't not have physically traveled to. It's said to have "quantum tunneled."

Local vs Absolute Minimum: It mathematics, when analyzing a graph of a function, you'll note certain properties, such as minima and maxima. A minimum occurs when at a given x coordinate (in your standard x-y graph), the y values increase on both sides. So the bottom of a parabola, for example, is a minimum. A local minimum is when you look at a certain set of x values and you find the minimum (the lowest y value). Because you haven't looked at the whole graph, it's possible that outside the set, there were even lower y values. The lowest y value over the whole graph is the absolute minimum.



So note how if we were only looking at the graph past x=0.6, the local minimum would be at x=1. But that's not the absolute minimum (what this graph is calling the global minimum but i looked for this graph after all this typing so I am not going to go back and change my words lol). The absolute (or global) minimum is at x=0.3

False Vacuum: So what does all this have to do with False vacuum? Well a vacuum is space with a minimum of energy. That local minimum in the graph above. The universe wants to be at a minimum. The ground state. Our existence, our universe's existence, relies on the current laws of physics (the standard model of high energy physics, general relativity, etc). Now, if we're at the absolute minimum on the graph, all's good. But if we're not at the absolute minimum, if we're at a local minimum and there's an even lower energy state of the universe, then the universe is gonna want to be in that energy state, Since we're at a minimum, classically speaking, there's no where else for us to go without energy to move us up the graph. Like if the graph were a real life hill, you need energy to move up the hill. Classically, that is. But earlier I talked about Quantum tunnelling. Which means that probabilities come in, and there's a probability that we will just end up being at the absolute minimum through quantum tunnelling. That would completely erase how the laws of physics work currently and we probably wouldn't exist.



Note how classically, you would have to put energy to move the universe up that hill and then get to the lower absolute minimum. But because of quantum tunneling, the universe might just end up being at a lower energy state because probability said that it had some percentage chance of being there.

I wouldn't let this keep you up at night, though. There are a million things that can destroy us. After all, you're nothing but a collection of quantum fields at excited states.

 

That's fair enough. I was more wondering whether these two concept are theoretically incompatible or not.

Do you have similar thoughts on the Many Worlds Interpretation?

 

I don't follow the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, no. I'm a Copenhagen guy. I will say, this comes up a lot less in the doing of physics than you think. There's no scientifically correct answer to many worlds vs Copenhagen as it's more of a philosophical choice.

 

Yeah I assumed as much. There is just more money in publicising these ideas to the public than nose-to-the-ground science.

The most interesting topic I find in science is whether the block universe is in fact the nature of reality. Is that still considered the case?

 

Was it ever? It's not something that ever came up in anything I ever did. I really was more about the "boring" (well I didn't find it boring heh) nose-to-the-ground science.

As for where the money is, it goes back to why I considered String theorists to not be acting I'm good faith. Because string theory did not have any predictions that could be tested in labs, their papers were heavily theoretical and eschewed experimentalism. Because of that, they had a hard time making headway in academics. So they did what any fringe scientist does: go to the general public. It's a very irresponsible thing to do on a normal day to take your unverified hypotheses and push it onto the laypeople who don't know any better. Only string theorists went one step further in the underhanded. The didn't just go to a news website like the "gravity doesn't exist" fellow. They collaborated with each other to create PBS and Nova specials explaining the universe. Viewers go in thinking it's a normal "watch pretty footage of space while you get explained what the weak force is" type of show only at the end they brought up string theory and made it seem like it's as accepted as the standard model. The "you're actually a time share pitch" switcheroo. Only laypeople haven't done the years of physics we have so they don't know that they're being fed nonsense.

 

I thought the block universe was the natural consequence of Einstein's General Relativity?

 

Never came up in the little general relativity I studied. My area of expertise was high energy physics.

 

Teaching science to the general public is a very good things. For complicated concepts, though, sometimes there is a problem related to the use of metaphors. The expert explains a phenomenon with an everyday life metaphor. The audience understands the metaphor, then they erroneously think that since the metaphor is clear, they must have understood the concept as well.

The best example is when they say "it's like a spinning coin" to explain quantum states.

Understanding the spinning coin has nothing to do with understanding quantum physics, sadly.
I understand the spinning coin. I'm still confused about quantum physics, like most people.

 

Yeah when I was explaining the false vacuum earlier I had to weigh how to use metaphors.

 

Fair enough. It must have been a personal opinion of Einstein's which I've mistaken as inherent in his theories.

I could be completely incorrect, but I thought the 'slit experiment' was a good way to conceptualise it (I think that's what it's called). Because we can't observe the reason for the particle choosing one direct or the other (up or down), some say that both must happen and others say that it doesn't matter.