beecee

Perhaps as I have suggested previously, we need to define what nothing is. Perhaps the quantum foam, from whence the BB evolved, [is as close to nothing as most of us perceive nothing] as we can get...

I eat everything and anything in moderation except eggs. [other then in cakes fried rice etc]. Still I am a pleasantly plump type of build, that some may label as approaching fat or obese. But health still OK, so I'll keep eating plenty of veggies, chicken, pork beef or fish, and the very occasional KFC and/or Big Mac. ps: If stuff such as the crackling on pork is so bad for you, why did we evolve to find it absolutely scrumptious!

No scientific evidence points to any creator. That claim is totally unscientific and ignorant to make. We do though have plenty of evidence to show that spacetime/universe evolved from t+10-43 seconds up to the present time, plus the fact that the only scientific answer to life is Abiogenesis, either Earth based or via Panspermia.

The only thing that really needs emphasising is the nonsensical unsupported and unevidenced inferences under the guise of questions, on a theory that has been validated time and time again over more then a 100 years by the best brains on Earth. That fact was highlighted with the wise words of another thus,

We have no validated theory of anything before 10-43 seconds, from where space and time [as we know them] evolved from the quantum foam or if you like the spacetime foam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam The large fluctuations characteristic of a spacetime foam would be expected to occur on a length scale on the order of the Planck length.[10]A foamy spacetime would have limits on the accuracy with which distances can be measured because the size of the many quantum bubbles through which light travels will fluctuate. Depending on the spacetime model used, the spacetime uncertainties accumulate at different rates as light travels through the vast distances" Many ideas and speculative scenarios abound, but as yet no observational or experimental evidence to support or validate such concepts.

Simply put, we lack the technological skills to observe at the quantum/Planck level.

What Rabbit hole is that? We are able to give a real logical evidenced based description, of the evolution of spacetime from t+10-43 seconds, up until today, including the creation of our first fundamental particles, atomic nuclei, the lightest elements, gravitational collapse and stars, planets as well, the heavier elements, more stars and planets, abiogenisis and the evolution of life. What more would you like? With regards to spacetime, so far we are able to determine and locate events with this framework, with three spatial coordinates and the time coordinate quite successfully. The concept of this framework devised due to the observation that "ç" is constant and remaining constant independent of the motion or speed of the emmitter or the receiver. Spacetime gives us a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe/space/time irrespective of their relative motions. Your space and time varies from my space and time. And of course when this framework we call spacetime is twisted, warped, curved, we see an effect exhibited that we know as gravity, which along with the BB, describes the overwhelmingly supported GR. If you are inferring a verifiable QGT, and as a professional Astronomer once told me, such a QGT will more then likely entail and encompass the BB and GR, so heavily supported be these models, while extending beyond their zones of applicability. Much as GR extended and described far more precisely, the large scale effects of gravity the likes of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Worth noting at this time that [as far as I know] Newtonian mechanics has been sufficiently accurate enough for all space exploratory endeavours.

Nothing.

Other then perplexing humanity since humanity evolved sufficiently to ask those questions. "Nothing" as I have mentioned previously does need redefining. On the question in hand, I asked myself what is the opposite of infinity. The following would align closest to my views..... https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/what-is-the-opposite-of-infinity.html No, the answer isn’t zero. Infinity is the largest number there is, so the opposite of infinity would be the smallest number there is. Zero would mean nothing, so what we’re looking for is a number just greater than zero. However, as we’ll find out, determining this number isn’t as simple as pointing to the number 1. Infinities are weird Infinity has baffled humanity since antiquity. One must realize that infinity is not a concrete number, but rather an idea; it exists only in abstraction. Infinity cannot be a concrete number, say, x, because we can, by the logic of addition, add 1 to x and create a new infinity. We can then add another 1 to create a larger infinity. We can, in fact, add infinity to infinity to create perhaps the infinity of all infinities, but then we can add to this infinity another 1 and…you know the drill. The microscopic realm isn’t any different. The opposite of infinity is called infinitesimal, and its nature is equally bizarre. Unlike whole numbers, real numbers aren’t rigid. Their splintered nature allows us to find and create infinite numbers between any two numbers. A number can be combined as many times as it can be divided. There could be a hundred numbers between 0 and 1, from 0.01-0.99, or even millions, one just has to add zeroes after the decimal point — divide it increasingly to create new numbers. So, while 0.00000000000000001 seems infinitesimal, one can just divide it by 10 to create a new infinitesimal — 0.000000000000000001. So, infinitesimal, like infinity, exists only in abstraction, yet its uncertain nature is very disconcerting not just for mathematicians, but also physicists. more at link....

I claim like most all people, not to fully understand the application of infinity, no beginning, no end. Perhaps I'm not as bright as you.

That's what I said [But yes, analogies in near all cases are limited in what they illustrate.] as opposed to your total criticism of analogies. That's about all we know with regards to why warped/curved/twisted spacetime, exhibits gravity. This may help.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 I strongly disagree. Your counting "analogy" has a flaw rather then a limitation....You first need to begin counting. The application of infinity is difficult to comprehend. Sure a child may blithely accept the finality of a fairy tale and Prince Charming and his bride living forever and ever amen. Acceptance is not understanding. I accept according to the evidence and validation of GR that mass/energy curves spacetime...I don't know why though. I accept that the universe/space/time as we know them, arose from nothing, as the only true scientific answer. It was nothing [defined as the quantum foam] that has existed [if we can use that word] for eternity. That of course needs "nothing" to be defined as quantum foam. But it certainly has some basis in scientific thinking and application. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Agreed...In the bowling ball/Rubber sheet analogy it certainly is gravity and elasticity as you say, but he point of the analogy was to show how mass distorts spacetime, which we don't really know why...The raisin loaf is another more illustrative analogy. When giving an analogy to facilitate understanding, then we also make sure that it is understood how such analogies are limited to various extents. As a born and bred lay person, that gained my interest in science in later life, analogies served a purpose. The same goes for pop science docos. Limited, yes, sometimes not exactly correct, yes, but if the individual watching them, has any real interest, he will like I did, take it further and check it out in greater depth.

Just clarifying the usefulness of analogies made in your rant.

We don't know if the universe/space/time is either infinite or finite. If it was finite, the topology would be closed, and we would simply arrive back to the point we started from. https://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/SNAP-3.html

What makes the bowling ball push down on the rubber sheet? I could also ask what makes Earth push down on spacetime. It's not gravity...gravity is the effect we feel from when mass affects the geometry of flat spacetime. It's an analogy, rather then just a story to show us in 2D what happens to spacetime in 3D or 4D including time. But yes, analogies in near all cases are limited in what they illustrate. I like the John Wheeler description..."Space tells matter how to move; Matter tells space how to curve" But yes, infinity is a concept that is hard to get one's head around, despite a couple of knowledgable members here once trying to explain it to me. The same for defining nothing. It actually seems like I have been around for infinity, and when I finally kick the bucket, I'll be dead for infinity!

My new next door neighbour actually asked me to turn the volume up of some u-tube videos of a Greek Angel named Nana Mouskouri I was playing. Music [good music that is] sooths the savage beast! or words to that effect!

Yes, and the reason that we obviously had an excess of matter was the quandary that worried physicists and cosmologists. The article confirms that the most fundamental parts of matter [quarks] decay at different rates in matter and anti matter and thus illustrates some differences in matter, anti matter particles, other then simply charge as was once thought. This may give clues with future LHC experiments as to why the obvious excess of matter. And of course what he said, just up there.

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-physicists-reveal-dominates-universe.html Physicists reveal why matter dominates universe March 21, 2019, Syracuse University: Physicists in the College of Arts and Sciences at Syracuse University have confirmed that matter and antimatter decay differently for elementary particles containing charmed quarks. Distinguished Professor Sheldon Stone says the findings are a first, although matter-antimatter asymmetry has been observed before in particles with strange quarks or beauty quarks. He and members of the College's High-Energy Physics (HEP) research group have measured, for the first time and with 99.999-percent certainty, a difference in the way D0 mesons and anti-D0 mesons transform into more stable byproducts. Mesons are subatomic particles composed of one quark and one antiquark, bound together by strong interactions. "There have been many attempts to measure matter-antimatter asymmetry, but, until now, no one has succeeded," says Stone, who collaborates on the Large Hadron Collider beauty (LHCb) experiment at the CERN laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland. "It's a milestone in antimatter research." The findings may also indicate new physics beyond the Standard Model, which describes how fundamental particles interact with one another. "Till then, we need to await theoretical attempts to explain the observation in less esoteric means," he adds. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-physicists-reveal-dominates-universe.html#jCp https://phys.org/news/2019-03-cern-physics-biggest-mysteries-antimatter.html https://cds.cern.ch/record/2668357/ http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/Welcome.html#CPVcharm

I'm sure he was an Archangel. ps: Interesting thought...while its many many years since I have had a bible in my hand, I do seem to recall that all the Angels mentioned in the bible are blokes. The Archangel Gabriel, Micky the Archangel, and of course good old Lucifer himself!

Thanks for the answers. I have been under the impression that Earthquakes are a result of the tectonic plates geography on Earth as well as being seismically active. With regards to Mars, I was under the impression that it is seismically inactive at this time, although certainly has been active in the past. The article suggest that they are waiting for the inevitable Marsquake, which to me suggests tectonic plates. Although tectonic plates on Mars has not yet been fully confirmed, one could point towards huge geographical faults such as the "Valley Marineras" as well as the extinct volcano "Olympic Mons" I did find the following......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Mars extract: "The origin and age of the hemispheric dichotomy are still debated. Hypotheses of origin generally fall into two categories: one, the dichotomy was produced by a mega-impact event or several large impacts early in the planet’s history (exogenic theories)[13][14][15] or two, the dichotomy was produced by crustal thinning in the northern hemisphere by mantle convection, overturning, or other chemical and thermal processes in the planet’s interior (endogenic theories).[16][17] One endogenic model proposes an early episode of plate tectonics producing a thinner crust in the north, similar to what is occurring at spreading plate boundaries on Earth.[18] Whatever its origin, the Martian dichotomy appears to be extremely old. A new theory based on the Southern Polar Giant Impact[19] and validated by the discovery of twelve hemispherical alignments[20] shows that exogenic theories appear to be stronger than endogenic theories and that Mars never had plate tectonics[21][22] that could modify the dichotomy." then I found this.......https://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/how-did-we-first-measure-the-speed-of-light/ extract: "While Mars no longer appears to be geologically active, we see from surface features that it once was very Earth-like in its geological processes. The surface of Mars plays host to the largest volcano in the Solar System, Olympus Mons, and a huge rift valley called Valles Marineris. And it is this rift valley that indicates that Mars does in fact have tectonic plates. When analysing this ‘crack’ in the surface of Mars, scientists have found that the ‘matching sides’ are separated by a horizontal distance of 150 kilometres (93 miles). This suggests that the surface of Mars is effectively two large tectonic plates that were rubbing by each other. However, since Mars cooled down much more rapidly than Earth, and therefore the molten rock beneath the plates has solidified, the process of tectonic plate formation appears to have ground to a halt" Another..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonics_of_Mars extract: "Like the Earth, the crustal properties and structure of the surface of Mars are thought to have evolved through time; in other words, as on Earth, tectonic processes have shaped the planet. However, both the ways this change has happened and the properties of the planet's lithosphere are both very different when compared to the Earth. Today, Mars is believed to be largely tectonically quiescent. However, observational evidence and its interpretation suggests that this was not the case further back in Mars' geological history". another......http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-scientist-discovers-plate-237303 extract: "For years, many scientists had thought that plate tectonics existed nowhere in our solar system but on Earth. Now, a UCLA scientist has discovered that the geological phenomenon, which involves the movement of huge crustal plates beneath a planet's surface, also exists on Mars. "Mars is at a primitive stage of plate tectonics. It gives us a glimpse of how the early Earth may have looked and may help us understand how plate tectonics began on Earth," said An Yin, a UCLA professor of Earth and space sciences and the sole author of the new research." ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I would also say that my question re microseisms on Earth, and the gravitational wave detectors, would certainly have been taken into account considering the incredible accuracy and precision of these detectors. I was interested in getting the views of any online geologists re the article and my questions in general, but again thanks for your interests and answers.

https://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/ppcomm/Papers.html Tests of general relativity with the binary black hole signals from the LIGO-Virgo catalog GWTC-1 Summary: Mar 11, 2019 https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-O2TGR/index.php SUMMARY All of the tests performed here have shown that the black hole mergers observed by Advanced LIGO and Virgo are compatible with the predictions of General Relativity. Furthermore, by combining information from the most confident black hole mergers observed to date, we have improved our previous constraints on possible deviations from General Relativity by factors up to 2.4. The future will bring many more observations of black hole binaries, providing even more information on these measurements. Furthermore, we are developing a variety of new ways of testing General Relativity with these signals. We will continue testing Einstein's theory! the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.04467.pdf 11 Mar 2019 Tests of General Relativity with the Binary Black Hole Signals from the LIGO-Virgo Catalog GWTC-1 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration The detection of gravitational waves by Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo provides an opportunity to test general relativity in a regime that is inaccessible to traditional astronomical observations and laboratory tests. We present four tests of the consistency of the data with binary black hole gravitational waveforms predicted by general relativity. One test subtracts the best-fit waveform from the data and checks the consistency of the residual with detector noise. The second test checks the consistency of the low- and high-frequency parts of the observed signals. The third test checks that phenomenological deviations introduced in the waveform model (including in the post-Newtonian coefficients) are consistent with zero. The fourth test constrains modifications to the propagation of gravitational waves due to a modified dispersion relation, including that from a massive graviton. We present results both for individual events and also results obtained by combining together particularly strong events from the first and second observing runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, as collected in the catalog GWTC-1. We do not find any inconsistency of the data with the predictions of general relativity and improve our previously presented combined constraints by factors of 1.1 to 2.4. In particular, we bound the mass of the graviton to be mg ≤ 5.0 × 10−23 eV/c 2 (90% credible level), an improvement of a factor of 1.5 over our previously presented results. Additionally, we check that the four gravitational-wave events published for the first time in GWTC-1 do not lead to stronger constraints on alternative polarizations than those published previously. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: A search for the isotropic stochastic background with Advanced LIGO's second observing run Mar 7, 2019 Summary: https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-O2StochIso/index.php SEARCHING FOR A GRAVITATIONAL WAVE BACKGROUND DURING ADVANCED LIGO'S SECOND OBSERVING RUN: The search for the isotropic stochastic gravitational wave background during Advanced LIGO's second run (November 2016 - August 2017) did not reveal any evidence of the background. However, thanks to the increase in sensitivity of the detector due to hardware and software upgrades, new upper limits were placed on the energy density of the background. This showed an increase in sensitivity by a factor of about 3 relative to the first observing run with Advanced LIGO. In addition to the improved upper limits on the stochastic background, we were also able to place new limits on the string tension of Nambu-Goto cosmic strings and to test the polarization content in the SGWB. Since General Relativity (GR) says that gravitational waves should have one specific type of polarization mode (called tensor modes), we can test the data to find the 'likelihood' that Nature also produces vector and scalar modes of gravitational wave signals. The presence of these other modes would suggest physics beyond GR. Although we cannot test Einstein's theory directly until the SGWB has been detected, we can place constraints on the presence of a background with any kind of polarization modes. The current results are consistent with predictions from General Relativity. the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.02886.pdf A search for the isotropic stochastic background using data from Advanced LIGO’s second observing run: The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and The Virgo Collaboration: The stochastic gravitational-wave background is a superposition of sources that are either too weak or too numerous to detect individually. In this study we present the results from a crosscorrelation analysis on data from Advanced LIGO’s second observing run (O2), which we combine with the results of the first observing run (O1). We do not find evidence for a stochastic background, so we place upper limits on the normalized energy density in gravitational waves at the 95% credible level of ΩGW < 6.0 × 10−8 for a frequency-independent (flat) background and ΩGW < 4.8 × 10−8 at 25 Hz for a background of compact binary coalescences. The upper limit improves over the O1 result by a factor of 2.8. Additionally, we place upper limits on the energy density in an isotropic background of scalar- and vector-polarized gravitational waves, and we discuss the implication of these results for models of compact binaries and cosmic string backgrounds. Finally, we present a conservative estimate of the correlated broadband noise due to the magnetic Schumann resonances in O2, based on magnetometer measurements at both the LIGO Hanford and LIGO Livingston observatories. We find that correlated noise is well below the O2 sensitivity. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: All-sky search for continuous gravitational waves from isolated neutron stars using Advanced LIGO O2 data the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.01901.pdf We present results of an all-sky search for continuous gravitational waves (CWs), which can be produced by fast spinning neutron stars with an asymmetry around their rotation axis, using data from the second observing run of the Advanced LIGO detectors. Three different semi-coherent methods are used to search in a gravitational-wave frequency band from 20 to 1922 Hz and a first frequency derivative from −1 × 10−8 to 2 × 10−9 Hz/s. None of these searches has found clear evidence for a CW signal, so upper limits on the gravitational-wave strain amplitude are calculated, which for this broad range in parameter space are the most sensitive ever achieved. VI. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper we have presented the first results of an all-sky search for CW signals using Advanced LIGO O2 data with three different pipelines, covering a frequency range from 20 to 1922 Hz and a first frequency derivative from −1 × 10−8 to 2 × 10−9 Hz/s. For this broad range in parameter space, this is the most sensitive search up to 1500 Hz. Each search found many outliers which were followed-up but none of them resulted in a credible astrophysical CW signal. On the contrary, they were ascribable to noise disturbances, to hardware injections, or consistent with noise fluctuations. Although no detections have been made, we have placed interesting 95% CL upper limits on the gravitational wave strain amplitude h0, the most sensitive being ' 1.7 × 10−25 in the 123-124 Hz region, as shown in Fig. 3. The improved results over the O1 search are due to the better sensitivity of the detectors, the use of a longer dataset and improvements of the pipelines. By converting the upper limits to an astrophysical reach, as shown in Fig. 4, we see that the searches presented in this paper provide already astrophysical interesting results. For instance, in the “bucket” region (around ' 150 Hz), we would be able to detect a CW signal from a neutron star within a distance of 100 pc if its ellipticity were at least 10−6 . Similarly, in the middle frequency range, around ' 500 Hz, we would be able to detect the CW signal up to a distance of 1 kpc, with > 10−6 . Finally at higher frequencies, around ' 1500 Hz, the same signal would be detectable up to a distance of 10 kpc if > 10−6 and 1 kpc if > 10−7 . Such levels of ellipticity are comparable or below the maximum value we may expect for neutron stars described by a standard equation of state [64]. Further all-sky analyses are planned on O2 data, by extending the parameter space and looking at sub-threshold candidates. The O3 observing run is foreseen to start in April 2019 and will last for approximately 1 year. The full network of LIGO and Virgo detectors is being upgraded and improved, and we expect that the noise floor in O3 run will be significantly better than for O2. This, and the foreseen longer run duration, will make future searches more sensitive, increasing the chances of a CW detection or allowing us to place tighter constraints on the non-asymmetries of neutron stars in our galaxy and to put constraints on the unseen neutron star population. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The incredible science continues!

If I could make a comparison, it would be analogous to how large we see the Sun or Moon on the horizon, compared to at its zenith. Simply put, it is nothing more then an illusion. OK, I misunderstood your "other theory" and thought you were referring to relativity.

Not at all. It gives a reason for how the senses views the passage of time as one ages. Irrespective of one's age, any time dilation and length contraction would be seen as the same by an adult and a child. eg: A child still sees Alpha Centauri as it was 4.3 years ago, the same as an adult does. Or as the article says, "Days seemed to last longer in your youth because the young mind receives more images during one day than the same mind in old age." At least that's the way I see it. But an interesting question which I certainly would like to get more expert opinion on.

a few questions...[1] Could these microquakes indicate or confirm plate tetonics? or as suggested pressure waves known as Rayleigh waves? [2] If not, would the expected fully blown Mars quakes indicate or confirm plate tetonics? [3] If and when they are able to unstick the probe that has only achieved .3 meter before becoming stuck, then re-probe and get to the original 5 meters, allow for more accurate confirmation of what causes these microquakes or as defined in the article, microseisms? [4] And finally, with regards to these microseisms on Earth, could they affect the search for gravitational radiation? Although the confirmation of GW170817 observed with EMR and light would indicate that aLIGO and the other detectors are achieving what they set out to do. Any discovery/detection of Mars quakes would need to be accurately confirmed and assessed as distinct from quakes caused by meteorites and/or landslides...are they capable of accurately discerning those possibilities?

Define nothing. The only scientific answer is that the quantum foam [possibly the closest to nothingness that is ever able to exist] has existed for an infinite amount of time.

Remember as a kid, how it took forever to go from one Christmas to the next? Remember how as a kid, you would always be wishing some forthcoming event you were looking forward to, would hurry up and arrive? Now in old or middle age we complain about how time flies. At last, we have an answer!!! https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-03-physics-flies-age.html According to Adrian Bejan, the J.A. Jones Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Duke, this apparent temporal discrepancy can be blamed on the ever-slowing speed at which images are obtained and processed by the human brain as the body ages. The theory was published online on March 18 in the journal European Review. more at link.....