surreptitious57

What is the most popular hypothesis for what dark energy is

Saw two figures for the speed the black holes were rotating at before merging One was fifty per cent light speed and the other was sixty per cent light speed

If special relativity is literally true one would be able to traverse the entire universe within a lifetime by travelling at less than the speed of light and return to find this galaxy long dead. If one could travel at the speed of light then the universe would not even exist. And if one could travel faster than the speed of light one would have returned to this galaxy before having actually set off

Either space is relative to time. Or time is relative to space. Now the Minkowski block universe model makes no distinction between past and present and future. This is why quantum mechanics makes no sense. But if space is made relative to time then it is at least being made relative to something that is actually known to be physical

Can photons travel infinitely in a vacuum? What happens to time inside a black hole? What happens to photons inside a black hole? How can it be that energy has always existed?

Why is it the speed of light in vacuum is not affected by relative clock speed

In the brane hypothesis of Steinhardt and Turok where two collided to create the Big Bang is there a force of attraction such as gravity operating between them or was the collision entirely random? Why are collisions between them supposedly rare? What are they actually made of - matter / energy / strings? So if the Universe does actually reside up on one or two of them would it not be evidence of their existence? Could this be determined and if not why not? What would have existed between these two branes before they collided with each other - space / time / spacetime? Were these two branes part of another Universe before they collided or did they exist out side of them? Do they exist at the quantum or at the classical level? How did they originally come to exist? How popular is brane theory among physicists? Does it have any major flaws?

Is time a dimension without any past or present or future? Does one move through it at the rate of one second per second? That is to say the same rate as the second hand ticking on a clock is also the same rate one experiences time in real time? Is there a reason why the three arrows of time [ biological / thermodynamic / cosmological ] move in only the one direction? Why is the Second Law Of Thermodynamics the one major one that is actually non reversible from a temporal perspective? Is time what space expands into? What happens to time once it passes the event horizon? Does it speed up or slow down? Or stay just the same? How is it possible for a photon not to experience time but travel through it? Has time always existed?

Absolute nothing cannot be measured as such because it has no dimension or property. It is by definition non physical and is practically invisible space. Indeed the very notion of it existing is nonsensical because it is non existent. What is referred to as absolute nothing can exist at the quantum level although only infinitesimally so But if that were absolute nothing in the truly literal sense then it could not exist at all even allowing for quantum weirdness. Because something which does not exist cannot simultaneously exist. As that makes precisely zero sense so cannot be true. And any confusion is more so a problem pertaining to language rather than to physics. .

It is important to understand the distinction between nothing and absolute nothing for they are not the same. Nothing is defined as the absence of matter and is more commonly known as a vacuum. Absolute nothing as the name implies is the absence of absolutely everything so not just matter. It can actually exist though only at the quantum level and only infinitesimally so from a temporal perspective. Now anti matter and matter particles cancel each other out but there is still something as there are more matter particles. Otherwise the Universe could not exist as it is composed of matter

Science in general and physics in particular does not investigate reality because that pertains to philosophy. Specifically ontology. And mathematical models of so called reality are imperfect and always shall be because all observation is a construct of human consciousness which is subjective by default. However even allowing for that models can still high light the difference between what we experience and what is actually real for want of a better word. Ninety nine per cent of an atom is empty space yet our eyes see solid matter. This is the most powerful illusion of all. So when so called reality is being investigated it is important not to assume it can be done objectively as that is physically impossible An approximation is the best that ever be hoped for. For there is no such thing as objectivity in that respect

Mathematical models and physical reality do not always correspond with each other. The ones pertaining to general relativity and quantum mechanics are famously incompatible although in reality they happily co exist. Einstein himself said that his spacetime model was an approximation of physical reality not physical reality itself so should not be treated as if it was. Given how every physicist on the planet knows all of this then why are models of reality given more credence over reality itself. The spacetime model suggests that the Universe is expanding because of dark energy. But is it more true to say that dark energy does not actually exist and too much attention is being focused on the model not actual reality. Then why has no one taken heed of what Einstein said. For the map [ mathematics ] is being confused with the territory [ physics ] and they are not the same