MigL

Marilyn Monroe ??? ( someone was born in the early 50s )

I doubt it very much Beecee. The current Pope was trained as a Chemist, and worked in a lab ( as well as a bouncer in a club ). Previous Popes have been Mathematicians and Astronomers. Galileo was an exception; the Vatican, and the Roman Catholic Church, have a long history of supporting the Sciences. Church has long history of supporting science - Vatican - Chicago Catholic As for Prof Reza Sanaye ... What, exactly, are you a Professor of ? Obfuscation and confusing use of the English language ? And who is the wide-eyed crazy guy in your avatar ?

GM is old school; they actually make something. I found this, in today's news, quite interesting ... "Throughout the last few months the internet has seen a surge in meme stocks (stocks which an online community, like Reddit's retail investor forum Wall Street Bets, decide to trade en masse) and cryptocurrency purchases. Another cryptocurrency called Dogecoin was created as a meme coin but experienced a meteoric rise earlier this month because Musk was tweeting about taking the coin's value "to the moon," at $1 per share (so far, it's peaked at about 7 cents). Bitcoin's value is also experiencing a steep plunge; the cryptocurrency fell about 12% Tuesday." From How Elon Musk Lost $30 Billion Overnight – and the Title of World's Richest Man (msn.com) Something is wrong, when one person ( E Musk ) with 47 Million followers, can affect the population as to the perceived value of a currency, service or even product, for their own benefit.

I can assign value to a hierarchy, and a lot of people will agree with me, and invest. Yet I ( and they ) will be charged with running a pyramid scheme. I may sell you an imaginary bridge, which you believe has value. And I'll be charged with fraud. Believing something has value, may induce you to part with your hard-earned money, but we ( and the Government ) take a dim view of some such scams. Again, you are explaining the similarities. I'm more interested in knowing why we treat them differently.

What you like to call the Big Bang 'singularity is a misnomer. Singularities of infinite density cannot exist in nature ( but of course, science has been wrong before ). It was more like a small volume of spacetime ( after t=10-43 sec ), in causal ( local ) contact, that underwent a symmetry break ( at t=10-35 sec ), and then undewent an inflationary period ( until t=10-32 sec ) which vastly increased the size of the universe, and traded false minimum vacuum energy for potential energy of inflation, such that areas outside the observable universe are no longer in causal contact. And you can see these different eras at the narrow end of the 'trumpet' pictograph. It was only after the symmetry break that particles aquired mass, and were able to move slower than c , to form atoms and matter. Google 'symmetry break', 'electro-weak unification', 'Higgs mechanism', and 'false zero vacuum energy'.

Greenbacks ( or whatever country's currency ) is backed by that country. You would have to lose confidence in the whole country, for its currency to brcome worthless. ( don't get me wrong, currencies are devalued all the time ) And gold has an inherent value based on its scarcity. I can easily see a bunch of kids on Reddit, starting nd pushing a new cryptocurrency, until it gains popularity, and value. They then sell at huge profits, and 'investors' are left holding the bag. As there was nothing of value actually produced, how is this any different from a scam ?

And things like 'color' of an object don't really exist. They are an interpretation of a particular property of the object. Images we get from sonar or long wave radar are 'fuzzy' compared to shorter wavelength imaging, but they still depict a 'representation' of the object at that wavelength.

That is the problem with cryptocurrencies, and the stock market in general. They are not based on anything of actual, inherent value, but a 'confidence' that they are somehow valuable. Elon Musk buys some verson of bitcoin for his son ( whatever his name is ) and that currency jumps in value because of E Musk's popularity/celebrity status. A bunch of kids push the failing stock of a gaming company on Reddit, and its stock goes up two orders of magnitude. The big problem is, that without inherent value, that confidence can be lost just as quick. A few people start selling, confidence is lost, everybody sells, and you lose your shirt. I have a big problem with any currency that started out 30 odd years ago, by being 'mined' on computers with fast video cards. How exactly does that bestow a value to something ?

Which is exactly HOW we see things. By reconstructing ( in our brain ) what happens when light scatters off those things. Using the same method, one could 'visualize' how any particle looks by scattering increasingly shorter wavelength/higher energy particles off it.

That shows your ignorance of the concepts, again. The length ( x axis ) of the 'trumpet' is the dimension of time. By visualizing it in three dimensions, you have one time, and two spatial dimensions. IOW, you are one dimension short of spacetime.

Tom Jones used to have women toss their panties at him on a regular basis while he was on stage, performing. His wife didn't care; in one interview she said "It doesn't matter who pumps up the tires, as long as I'm the only one who gets to ride the bike" Seems a practical philosophy.

Hey, I'm the only one still here from the original discussion ... The property of space we would label 'pressure' imparts energy to that space. Just like a compressed/stretched spring or elastic band, have more energy than a relaxed one. This energy due to 'pressure' provides a positive contribution to the Einstein Field Equations, resulting in greater overall curvature, which we experience as gravity, and a 'brake' to expansion of that space. A negative pressure, on the other hand, would reduce curvature, and allow any positive Cosmological Constant to overcome gravitational binding, and expand that space. This is one aspect of universal expnsion where gas laws don't apply. While one would normally think of a volume of spave as a balloon, and if the pressure inside is greater than outside, the balloon expands, while, if the differential pressure is lower, it contracts, the opposite is true for pressure of space. And this is attributable to the fact that 'pressure' implies a certain amount of energy to that space, like mass, momentum, and any other stresses.

I would suggest moving this to the Linguistics forum, but we don't have one ... Notjhng is generally understood to mean zero, or no, 'things'. We then have to take a look at what is commonly defined as 'things'. A 'thing', in common english, usually means something that can be interacted with by one of our senses ( touch, sight, smell, hear or taste ). Quantum foam, on the other hand, is a hand-wavy description ( people are still working on quantifying it, see spin foam ) of the 'fluctuations' of spacetime at extremely small distances due to the HUP. The vacuum fluctuations ( an inherent property of Quantum theory and the 'source' of vacuum energy ) would localize ( relatively ) large amounts of energy in extremely small volumes and extremel short times creating ( micro worm ) holes and 'bubbles' of spacetime, such that spacetime would not be smooth at these scales, but look 'foamy'. IOW, there is no 'foam', and it is not a thing; just a possible description of spacetime ( the co-ordinate system, if you will ) at its most fundamental level. And you CANNOT get any more fundamental in this universe, so your version of nothing cannot exist. Quantum foam - Wikipedia We have a thread in Astronomy and Cosmology that also deals with this ... Why is there something rather than nothing? - Astronomy and Cosmology - Science Forums You might wanna have a read.

Is this a Language Forum or a Science Forum ? I suggest we discuss the concepts, or any theories, not the terminology.

The 'trumpet' is a pictograph in one space and one time dimension. It is not a model for anything. Who said singularities can exist ? I suggest you do some reading, and get a clue as to the actual BigBang model. Start with this Big Bang - Wikipedia then do some serious reading. Not the misconceptions supported by your 'buddies'. Maybe you guys should get a different hobby; you're failing miserably at this one. ( consider girls, sports, or, if you really wanna be nerds, video games )

The actual reality is that such a state cannot possibly exist in our Universe ! The next closest thing, Quantum foam, is not a thing, but set of rules ( or lack thereof ) that govern spacetime, at extremely small scales. "Quantum foam or spacetime foam is the quantum fluctuation of spacetime on very small scales due to quantum mechanics. The idea was devised by John Wheeler in 1955." From Quantum foam - Wikipedia

Surely that presumes that there is always at least one time dimension in each expression of the universe? Can you demonstrate that is a necessity? Exactly! What does 'always existed' mean, before time arose in spacetime geometry ?

My thinking also John. The OP wasn't "What is an elementary particle ?", but "What would it look like ?". And we can use higher and higher energy probing to get a reasonable 'image' of it. ( of course HUP would then deny us other information )

The problem, as I see it, is that you cannot measure the field of a single charged particle. You need to 'probe' it with a second charged particle. This then gives rise to more and more Feinman paths ( virtual ) as they approach, which when summed, lead to infinities. ( and must be removed by renormalization ) This is only a problem with the model, and how we handle it. I don't expect fields to have any infinities anywhere; just a density distribution of energy, which, if above a threshold makes that virtual interaction, a real particle.

I gotta ask ... Who is 'we' ? Is there more than one of you, in this 49th parallel group, that has severe misconceptions about Cosmology ?

Hey, stop picking on Canada 🙂

Assuming of course you are 'using' visible light to picture the particle in your head ... It will look like a 'fuzzy' volume. Denser 'fuzz' near the center, more rarefied 'fuzz' toward the edges, but never actually ending ( no abrupt cut-off ) You can shrink this fuzzy volume down, by imagining it with higher energy x-rays, or gamma rays, but you can never bring it into 'focus'. It will always be 'fuzzy'.

Not that I habitually insult people ( or, at least, I try not to ), but you don't seem to understand the concept of an insult. The point of an insult would seem to be, to 'hurt' the intended victim by disparaging something of a personal nature. Sexuality, gender, ethnicity, hair color, speech patterns, etc. all fall into that category, and are thus used. And it may have nothing to do with any biases on the part of the insultor.

I don't think you'd be breathing anyway, at anything over 10 g, never mind 850 g. Sorry Halc. I meant only that subset of tidal effects which originate from the fact that field lines are not parallel in a gravitational field, but spread out from the CoM. ( but I didn't know how to put that in a few words )

I walked into a coffee shop one day, where some guys were having an interesting conversation, so I joined in the conversation. I got something out of it, and I gave something back. I've since returned to this coffee shop every day, met the same people, and had interesting coversations/discussions about many subjects; as long as I keep getting something out of the discussions, and my imput is welcome, I'll keep coming back. Why should I care who originally built the coffee shop, or what its intended purpose was ? Don't overthink it; it's just a discussion forum.