MigL

Einstein also thought there was a unified field theory that would unite Electromagnetism, gravity and the strong force, in his later years. Before we uncovered the color interaction , of which a side effect is the strong force, or even the weak interaction. Nobody's perfect; Newton had a lot of 'faulty' thinking also.

Not the center of the atom, but the center of the orbital, or probability distribution, itself. Even when they are 'lobes' about the nucleus, they have a central 'dense' area. They are often, erroneuously depicted with sharp edges, whereas we both know, the probability has no sharp edge, but gradually falls off.

If all you had to go by was a picture of an aye-aye, or a model of one, would you know what it is, or its properties are ? Physicists deal with models of reality; does space-time actually curve, or does the co-ordinate system we assign to space-time only curve ? Is there actually such a thing as space-time ? Our models only describe certain facets of reality, and are incomplete, or only applicable in certain circumstances; the only model that FULLY describes reality, is reality itself. That is the 'reality' of the situation, not an ideology or a philosophy.

Let me offer an alternate viewpoint ... We are considering a quantum mechanical system, so the HUP must come into play. The 'orbitals' of electrons are nothing more than probability distributions of where the electron is located. The outskirts, or distant areas, of the orbital cloud correspond to lower probabilities, while the inner areas have higher pobabilities, and are usually depicted as the shape of the orbital cloud. These higher probabilities 'constrain' the electron's location, and, according to the HUP, introduce greater 'variability' in the electron's momentum. For the positional probability that is very high, its momentum, and speed, is very indeterminate, and possibly relativistic. Orbitals which are more tightly bound would have more indeterminate momentum, and possibly, the highest electron speeds.

In case the two previous replies didn't make it abundantly clear ... Distance and time are two ( of many ) things that are frame dependent. And thanks for asking interesting questions 🙂 .

Only in this context, Studiot. And why is it OK to throw out the cat, but not the dog ?

Would it help if we thhrew out the concept of a 'force' in this context, and said that there are four fundamental interactions ? We don't know the exact nature of these nteactions, but we have various ways of modelling them. None of the models tell us what they are, but they make good predictions where they are applicable.

What is gravity, really ? Short answer; we don't know. We know how it behaves in most circumstances ( not hi energy/small separations ), and our most accurate model, Einstein's GR, is a field'model where geometry is the 'field'. in general, all of the effects that you have termed 'forces', where "material points move under the influence of forces acting between them" have been given the field model treatment, such that we have field theories for Electrodynamics ( QED ) and the color interaction ( QCD ). It is more the case, that our description of the effect's behaviour, can be modelled in different ways, sometimes with equivalent accuracy,sometimes nearly equivalent accuracy, as in Newtonian vs GR.

The argument has always been there that gravity could be considered a fictitious force. Not because the FoR it is apparent in is rotating, but because it is being 'warped' by the mass/energy/momentum in that frame. The fact that rotating frames give rise to forces which are seen to disappear ( fictitious ) when viewed from an 'outside' frame makes me wonder; what 'outside' frame could you view space-time from, to determine that gravity ( the 'warping ) is fictitious ? edit Is MEGO=my eyes glaze over ???

Health care is NOT a joke !

I'm not much of a Philosopher, but this is a Science Forum, and I do know some Quantum Mechanics ... Quantum Mechanics, which does describe all of existence, says wave functions are 'unsubstantiated' and 'remain imaginings' until observations/interactions collapse the wave function to become 'actual' and 'observable'. By your definition, that makes much of the universe unsubstantiated, and simply, imagined, yet it has an effect on us. That seems very different to Studiot's unsustantiated, future grandkids, which have no effect on him till realized. You may want to re-think your definitions.

I don't disagree that we are simply guessing ... But I have to ask you how, exactly, do you think an 'edge' would work ? Universe literally means ' all that there is', so if you are at the 'edge', and you can keep going, you are still in the universe, as information ( and all other effects ) can freely cross the 'edge'. The concept of an 'edge' is simply non-sensical. The representations you see of multiverse 'bubbles' expanding outward, are simply that ... representations. More accurate, would be 4dimensional space-time hyperspheres, which have the propertiy of expanding in every direction, including 'inwards', while your 'bulk' would need to be 5 ( or more ) dimenional, but you can't have a graphical representation of that. You can throw as many dimensions as you want at the problem, but quite often the simplest, less complicated, solution is the best ( at least until we have observations/information that allows for more accurate predictions ).

Where you 'went wrong' is considering the universe being finite with an 'edge', and that 'edge' expanding, or inflating, into something else ( other than the universe itself ). The expansion/inflation is simply an increase in separation between things that are not gravitationally bound; Stringy gave the analogous description to your conjecture of an 'explosion', where the flame front travels outward. This is the wrong view, as we can stand 'outside the explosion and see this effect; we cannot do so for the actual universe, as there is no 'outside' view that makes sense. A lot of people seem to be unconfortable with the concept of infinity, and simply can't wrap their head around it. But why is an 'edge' to the universe any less unconfortable ? If you were at the 'edge', could you stick your hand through, or would there be a physical barrier ? Is the physical barrier then, not part of the universe, needing another physical barrier beyond it ( and so on ... ) ? And, if no physical barrier, once you've stuck your hand through, information has passed from 'beyond' to our universe, making'beyond' part of our universe ( and again, so on ... ). Putting an 'edge' on the universe makes things infinitely more complicated. Are you confortable with an infinity of complications ?

The solution seems simple then ... Immediate punishment; no trial. Judge Dredd style.

Why would you think that ? Pain, as an indicator that you are doing something wrong ( touching a hot stove, overexerting yourself, etc ), is a physiological evolutionary process, and seems to keep most people and animals from doing foolish things.

Always liked G Dyer's columns. I suppose his insight on most subjects is due to his background in History.

I have to ask... What's a VB ? And thanks for being honest; nobody likes work. Otherwise they'd call it 'partying'.

If Beecee and Peterkin are conscientious workers, and like working so much, how come they're always online whenever I log on ? 😄 😄

I'm sure you'd feel much safer living next to Russia or China. Ukrainians and Taiwanese have nothing but good things to say about their neighbors. But why bother with evidence when you can just make cute quips about foxes and hens ...

Really ??? The US has been protecting your ass ( and all other Canadians ) for the last 75 years, and shouldering the vast majority of the burden. Through NATO, it has been protecting Europe ( who don't seem able to do anything on their own; remember Kosovo ? ), and expanding that protection to states that have cast off Soviet oppression, again shouldering most of the burden. Through SEATO, it is protecting South East Asian/Oceanian states. It maintains a presence in South Korea, after 70 years, as well as air bases in Japan and the previously mentioned European air bases. These allies seem to be doing great under the 'bus'. All we ever get from Canadian Liberals ( other than useless elections and fawning admiration of oppressive regimes like China and Cuba ) is talk about withdrawing from NATO. Secure in the knowledge that the US will protect us, no matter what stupid decisions we make. Elections are not freedom. They are simply the way we choose a representative government. ( which is an aspect of freedom ) I would think a better metric of freedom for an Afghan family, is whether their daughter can drive the car to school or place of employment, without having acid thrown in her face.

Most western nations were once ruled by tyrants and oppressive regimes, sometimes even overseas regimes in the case of the Americas. And the hard choices were made, at great cost of lives, in cases like the American Revolution, the French Revolution, two world wars for other European countries, etc., to throw off the yoke of oppressive regimes and ideologies. The Afghans haven't had a taste of 'free society' long enough to develop a taste for it, so they have chosen the easy way, and gone back to the status quo. Maybe next time ...

I should have known you were a pessimist, Peterkin, when you posted the status update "Behind every opportunity is a disaster waiting to happen" 😄 😄 Having spent most of my life close to the American border, I have been exposed to, and come to know many Americans. I, being an optimist, choose to see the 'good' Americans have done. You ( and a lot of other Canadians ) choose to see the 'bad'. Now, don't get me wrong, I realize there has been 'bad', but I don't attribute it to nefarious reasons, simply poor planning. And sometimes, the incompetence of those in charge.

Because 9/11 gave them the 'excuse' o do so.

Loved this ... Nobody else understands either.

It is non-sensical to talk about a photon's past, present, or future from their frame of reference, as they have no valid frame. Sometimes, knowing a little science, keeps you from embarking on 'flights of fancy' that quickly crash to the ground when presented to those who know science. ( I mean Swansont, not me )