beecee

Knowing even less about LQG, I checked out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity extract: "LQG begins with relativity and tries to add quantum features, while string theory, conversely, begins with quantum field theory and tries to add gravity". So as per my second point in the OP,"Is the verification or validating of string theory, hindered by our lack of technical know how and limitations in being able to observe at such infinitesamally small scales?" Reading in that link, certainly LQG, appears to be a more logical path as it is based on the geometry of spacetime itself...which according to Einstein, is all gravity is.

Is string theory, or one of its derivatives still our best chance for a TOE? Is the verification or validating of string theory, hindered by our lack of technical know how and limitations in being able to observe at such infinitesamally small scales? Is the acceptance of multiple dimensions a barrier? Will the LHC or any similar experiment be able to shed more light onto the string regime story? My interest in string theory was first awaken after reading a book called "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku, many years ago, but in the intervening years I have heard other scientists poo-pooing the idea simply because after so many years, it is still only hypothetical. Is this fair?

I came across this paper and would appreciate a basic rundown on essentially what it is suggesting or proposing. From my limited understanding, it seems to be illustrating how through various effects, cosmologists are able to deduce or eliminate alternative gravitational hypotheticals, and further enhance, [or otherwise] GR. Anyway, I would appreciate a professional outline........ https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.5661.pdf Stochastic backgrounds in alternative theories of gravity: overlap reduction functions for pulsar timing arrays: In the next decade gravitational waves might be detected using a pulsar timing array. In an effort to develop optimal detection strategies for stochastic backgrounds of gravitational waves in generic metric theories of gravity, we investigate the overlap reduction functions for these theories and discuss their features. We show that the sensitivity to non-transverse gravitational waves is greater than the sensitivity to transverse gravitational waves and discuss the physical origin of this effect. We calculate the overlap reduction functions for the current NANOGrav Pulsar Timing Array (PTA) and show that the sensitivity to the vector and scalar-longitudinal modes can increase dramatically for pulsar pairs with small angular separations. For example, the J1853+1303–J1857+0943 pulsar pair, with an angular separation of about 3 ◦ , is about 104 times more sensitive to the longitudinal component of the stochastic background, if it is present, than the transverse components. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.5661.pdf

Perhaps forced re-education of the parents in extreme cases may be justified...eg: Showing them film/video of children in the forties and early fifties in Iron lungs suffering from that terrible childhood disease Polio. I remember when the Polio Salk vaccine was discovered in the early fifties...Every child from every school in Australia were given the course of the Salk vaccines, free of charge. It worked. Polio was virtually eliminated. Or show them video of the pain and suffering a child goes through with whooping cough, or the loss of a child that has caught Menningacoccal disease. The more I think about it, the more I'm in favour of taking that last drastic step in removing the child from its parents care in the more extreme cases.

If my memory serves me correctly, the vaccination rates in Australia are around 96%. While hitting the anti vaxxer nuts in the hip pocket is effective, making sure that unvaccinated children are exempted from large gatherings of other children at that age, appears logical to me. As you say, even fining them does not work 100%. It seems no action short of removing the toddlers from their parental care would be 100% effective. I'm not actually suggesting that should be done, [and I'm not saying it shouldn't be done under some circumstances] but if say former rife childhood diseases such as Polio should make a comeback, would it then be justified?

Good question. I suppose it depends on how intelligent such beings were. But irrespective, looking at it simplistically 2+2 will always equal 4.

Just for the record, here in Australia, any person who for any reason ignores or rejects vaccinations, for pre schoolers, are refused entry into schools and kindergartens and any welfare payments are ceased. http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/no-childcare-or-kindergarten-unvaccinated-australian-kids/

Mission status continuing updates at.... https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/voyager/mission/status/ and this relevant paper....... https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1708/1708.02315.pdf A Galactic Cosmic Ray Electron Intensity Increase of a factor of up to 100 At Energies between 3 and 50 MeV in the Heliosheath between the Termination Shock and the Heliopause Due to Solar Modulation As Measured by Voyager 1 ABSTRACT: We have derived background corrected intensities of 3-50 MeV galactic electrons observed by Voyager 1 as it passes through the heliosheath from 95 to 122 AU. The overall intensity change of the background corrected data from the inner to the outer boundary of the heliosheath is a maximum of a factor ~100 at 15 MeV. At lower energies this fractional change becomes less and the corrected electron spectra in the heliosheath becomes progressively steeper, reaching values ~ -2.5 for the spectral index just outside of the termination shock. At higher energies the spectra of electrons has an exponent changing from the negative LIS spectral index of -1.3 to values approaching zero in the heliosheath as a result of the solar modulation of the galactic electron component. The large modulation effects observed below ~100 MV are possible evidence for enhanced diffusion as part of the modulation process for electrons in the heliosheath.

Totally agree with your first sentence On your second sentence, I am reluctant to comment on why a nation generally seen as the leader of the free world, would elect the likes of whom they did elect..Flabbergasted is an understatement.

So am I as well as I believe scientists do all the time: afterall it is a discipline in eternal progress. Gods are simply part of the mythical explanation early man needed to explain the universe around him. Singularities in essence are not thought to really exist, except as an indication of the limitation of our current theories. Interestingly, time travel is allowed for in GR, plus the fact that both space and time are not absolute. The BB was the evolution of space and time, [spacetime] in the first instance...matter came later. Gravitons are an aspect of quantum theory. The gravity of a BH does not need to "get out" it is a fossil field of the star/mass that collapsed to form the BH. We do not need any contraction or absorption of spacetime, as it is readily explained by spacetime curvature/warpage. Quantum foam is a "reasonable" but still speculative scenario of spacetime at the quantum/Planck level. Matter can be broken down into its most basic fundamentals such as quarks, electrons. BH's most probably emit Hawking Radiation, which I believe we would see as X-Rays, although still nothing ever crosses the EH from inside to outside. Virtual particle pairs that are created just this side of the EH of a BH, will mostly annihilate each other, except if by chance one gets sucked into the BH while the other escapes. If the negative particle is sucked in it detracts from the overall mass of the BH, and its escaping partner is seen as Hawking Radiation. That is a rough layman's take on Hawking radiation that may need correction from our professionals out there. Perhaps you have not researched the BB model properly or understood it adequately enough, because it makes perfect sense to me. All galaxies I believe are now thought to have BHs at their core, and supernova have been adequately observed and explained as the end of the main sequence life of a large star. Really, you don't need to fabricate unobserved, speculative nonsense scenarios. Gods, and Gods or mythical beliefs are really superfluous when one can understand how cosmology explains the universe from t+10-43 seconds, and is then able to speculate reasonably and logically into the quantum/Planck realm. https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ Let me conclude by saying that for one to criticise current accepted cosmology, one really needs to research such current accepted cosmology first, and explicitly understand it and the finer details.

Most lovers of classical music would be familiar with the great voice of Luciano Pavarotti singing Nessun Dorma..... Listen to this rendition by Sarah Brightman......

The Planck scale [length, time, volume[ is a mathematically derived, fundamental, non physical scale, calculated from some basic physical constants such as the speed of light, and the gravitational constant. It also aligns with the quantum scale and where our current laws of physics and GR, fail and where quantum effects take over. As of this time we do not have a observationally verifiable QGT that describes spacetime at this level...eg: The BB is a theory of the evolution of space and time [spacetime] from 10-43 seconds after t=0......or a BH singularity existing at Planck/quantum level.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-08-prostate-cancer-cells-shapeshifters-distant.html Prostate cancer cells become 'shapeshifters' to spread to distant organs Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center scientists report they have discovered a biochemical process that gives prostate cancer cells the almost unnatural ability to change their shape, squeeze into other organs and take root in other parts of the body. The scientists say their cell culture and mouse studies of the process, which involves a cancer-related protein called AIM1, suggest potential ways to intercept or reverse the ability of cancers to metastasize, or spread. Results of the research are described in the July 26 issue of Nature Communications. For the study, the Johns Hopkins scientists mined publically available research data on the genetics and chemistry of hundreds of primary and metastatic cancers included in five studies of men with prostate cancer. They found that a gene called AIM1 (aka "absent in melanoma 1"), which makes proteins also called AIM1, is deleted in approximately 20 - 30 percent of prostate cancers confined to the gland and about 40 percent of metastatic prostate cancers. In addition, the scientists found, on average, two- to fourfold less amounts of AIM1 expression in metastatic prostate cancers compared with normal prostate cells or those from men with prostate cancers confined to the prostate, suggesting that reduction of AIM1 proteins is somehow linked to tumor spread. more at https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-08-prostate-cancer-cells-shapeshifters-distant.html the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00084-8 Abstract A defining hallmark of primary and metastatic cancers is the migration and invasion of malignant cells. These invasive properties involve altered dynamics of the cytoskeleton and one of its major structural components β-actin. Here we identify AIM1 (absent in melanoma 1) as an actin-binding protein that suppresses pro-invasive properties in benign prostate epithelium. Depletion of AIM1 in prostate epithelial cells increases cytoskeletal remodeling, intracellular traction forces, cell migration and invasion, and anchorage-independent growth. In addition, decreased AIM1 expression results in increased metastatic dissemination in vivo. AIM1 strongly associates with the actin cytoskeleton in prostate epithelial cells in normal tissues, but not in prostate cancers. In addition to a mislocalization of AIM1 from the actin cytoskeleton in invasive cancers, advanced prostate cancers often harbor AIM1 deletion and reduced expression. These findings implicate AIM1 as a key suppressor of invasive phenotypes that becomes dysregulated in primary and metastatic prostate cancer. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I have just recently lost a mater who was diagnosed with aggressive Prostate cancer which has spread to his bones. He was given 2 months to live and was dead in 7 weeks.

Yep, thanks for those corrections. I should have been more clear. My main inference was with the gravitational navigation to enable close encounters with all the outer planets [at least with Voyage 2] and the primary Satellites. ( Yes certainly some serendipitous aspect involved with all the planets involved being on the same side of the Sun) I was also well aware of the Pioneer craft being the first to leave our solar system, but you have certainly enlightened my faulty memory re the Sagan plaque which I thought was with the Voyager/s. No one respects the skill, knowledge and tenacity of Stephen Hawking more then I. But on this issue I disagree. My reasoning being that any recovery of these craft would be by advanced civilisations, and my optimism and reason tells me that such an advanced species, should really have realized the utter futility of war and aggression, and of course, any of the desired elements or water that is abundant on Earth, is also abundant throughout the Universe. Add that reasoning to the fact that such species would be many light years from Earth, and then its not hard to realise that time and distance are also barriers for any thought of conquest or aggression. In essence I believe Sagan's idea and the records on Voyager/s were well worth it and if one day found by an advanced species, should prompt them to send a signal to our region of the solar system and answer a life long question for us all in that we are not alone. PS: This could be the basis for a lively debate.

Join the club....They didn't have a ticker tape parade for me either. While I personally believe as do most scientists that we are certainly not alone in this big wide wonderous universe, there is as yet no evidence indicating other life anywhere, and there is absolutely no convincing evidence of any Alien visitation to Earth, nor for any other type of supernatural/paranormal happening. 99% of UFO's for example, have been scientifically and logically explained away by other means, and the remaining 1% remains as unexplained or unidentified. That's what the U stands for. The same goes for most paranormal and supernatural claims. The point to consider in reality is that any confirmation of ETL, would be a momentous event in human history for many reasons, and as such, and as Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. That of course also applies to any and all paranormal and supernatural claims.

The best book I have ever read and I recommend anyone with any interest in science should read it, is "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. Not so much about what the title says, but more a complete history of late 19th century, and 20th century physics, from Curie, Bequeral, Rhotegen and Rutherford, through to Mitner, Fermi, Szillard, Bohr and Einstein, up to the Manhatten project and the likes of Feynman and Oppenheimer and culminating of course in the dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man and a vivid account of the results. A truly inspirational read.

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys4220.html?foxtrotcallback=true Thermonuclear reactions probed at stellar-core conditions with laser-based inertial-confinement fusion: Abstract• Stars are giant thermonuclear plasma furnaces that slowly fuse the lighter elements in the universe into heavier elements, releasing energy, and generating the pressure required to prevent collapse. To understand stars, we must rely on nuclear reaction rate data obtained, up to now, under conditions very different from those of stellar cores. Here we show thermonuclear measurements of the 2H(d, n)3He and 3H(t,2n)4He S-factors at a range of densities (1.2–16 g cm−3) and temperatures (2.1–5.4 keV) that allow us to test the conditions of the hydrogen-burning phase of main-sequence stars. The relevant conditions are created using inertial-confinement fusion implosions at the National Ignition Facility. Our data agree within uncertainty with previous accelerator-based measurements and establish this approach for future experiments to measure other reactions and to test plasma-nuclear effects present in stellar interiors, such as plasma electron screening, directly in the environments where they occur.

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-scientists-probe-conditions-stellar-interiors.html Scientists probe the conditions of stellar interiors to measure nuclear reactions August 7, 2017 Most of the nuclear reactions that drive the nucleosynthesis of the elements in our universe occur in very extreme stellar plasma conditions. This intense environment found in the deep interiors of stars has made it nearly impossible for scientists to perform nuclear measurements in these conditions - until now. In a unique cross-disciplinary collaboration between the fields of plasma physics, nuclear astrophysics and laser fusion, a team of researchers including scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Ohio University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), describe experiments performed in conditions like those of stellar interiors. The team's findings were published today by Nature Physics.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-scientists-probe-conditions-stellar-interiors.html#jCp

As per a couple of other replies, my knowledge of science pales into insignificance to the obvious professionals on this site. In answering questions, I will make known my lay person's knowledge, and give those answers I believe in simple layman's terminology. I then welcome any clarification by these experts on my answers, and try and add to my knowledge base for the future in those clarifications. In the main I will avoid religious or political debate, unless in my opinion, I see a "cloaked" question or claim that specifically sets out to denigrate science and the scientific method. Others of course as most will have noticed, are those that ask a question, with absolutely no intention of accepting any answer. Mostly they seem to have a religious agenda, closeted maybe, but in the end quite obvious. Discuss religion sure, that is anyone's right and privilege, but it needs to be remembered that this is first and foremost a science forum. On more blunt language, I believe many people come to a science forum with an agenda. That annoys me no end. After all, I don't burst into a church on a Sunday, informing the congregation of their mythical beliefs and promoting cosmology! Others of course believe that they are a reincarnation of Einstein, and purport to have over thrown 21st century cosmology, with their obvious delusions of grandeur. Those will always counter any objection/s to their generally unsupported and unevidenced ideas, with the claim that they are not sheep and are thinking outside the box, while the rest of us are blindly following mainstream.This is my third science forum I have participated in, the first was one run by the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Commission] which is now defunct, the second a forum where content was more important then science answers, and pseudoscience, religion, and those claiming to have rewritten 21st century cosmology were given "pride of place", and as a consequence, I left. Sadly, it seems to me that those with the anti mainstream science agendas, and those with delusions of grandeur, are always going to be prominent and the best the moderators can do is to make sure their claims and nonsense are confined to the proper sections. That is OK and certainly leads to interesting back and forth debate, but again, first and foremost, this is a science forum, and those pushing non scientific scenarios and beliefs, must accept that fact. So far I can say this forum is maintaining a happy medium, and the number of obvious experts in the field of astronomy/cosmology, [my main interests] are a great source of knowledge, and the admins and mods seem pretty consistent in their rulings and the application thereof. You're doing OK! I am an avid reader of science sites and articles I find interesting, I will always add those articles to this site for interest and comment.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/ extract: "For concepts like “time,” which are unambiguously part of a useful vocabulary we have for describing the world, talking about “reality” is just a bit of harmless gassing. They may be emergent or fundamental, but they’re definitely there. (Feel free to substitute “free will” for “time” if you like.) Temperature and pressure didn’t stop being real once we understood them as emergent properties of an underlying atomic description. The question of whether time is fundamental or emergent is, on the other hand, crucially important. I have no idea what the answer is (and neither does anybody else). Modern theories of fundamental physics and cosmology include both possibilities among the respectable proposals".

You joined 38 minutes ago just to tell us this? Do you have some sort of agenda?...If not do you have some evidence or at least some logical argument as to why you demand this to be so? That's not how science/physics works, sorry.

Actually what doesn't make sense is the OP and your own continuation posts defending that same nonsense. Firstly as others have told you, the universe has no center to speak of, except the center of our observable universe, and the centers of any other species' observable universe no matter where they be. The BB occurred everywhere at the same time, because everywhere was packed within the Singularity from whence the BB arose. Singularity in this case means the level of spacetime [the quantum/Planck level] at which as yet we do not have a meaningful description. Your apparent definition of a BH also appears somewhat askew. A BH is simply a result of where a mass is squeezed to beyond its Schwarzchild limit. Also the BB was a "Singularity" of spacetime, while a BH is a Singularity in spacetime. At this time the universe has been observed to be accelerating in its expansion rate, simply because it has reached a stage where the large scale gravitational attraction due to the constant mass/energy density, is gradually and continually being overcome by a vacuum energy component that we call DE and whose effects has been felt for around 5 billion years. Note at this time, that isolated regions of the universe/spacetime, in which mass/energy density is still relatively high, [like our local group of galaxies and other isolated groups of galaxies] are decoupled from this overall expansion rate due to gravity. We can go further down the scale then to isolated bodies within the galaxies, like stars, planets etc...These are held together by the other forces as well as gravity, like the EMF, and strong and weak nuclear forces. While certainly at this time, other explanations are sometimes offered, the above "Lambda CDM model" appears to fit the evidence best and is generally the one accepted and best fits within the framework of GR. You do not have a theory in any scientific sense...You have an unsupported hypothesis that you seemed to have dreamed up, based on some misunderstandings.

“It is natural to doubt when you don’t know much about it. Most people read the headline and make assumptions" Chris Lewicki: President and chief Engineer Planetary Resources. Asteroid mining is still probably at this time, a solution for the long term. Planetary Resources are still in the early stages of designing the infrastructure and developing the technical know how to mine Asteroids. Water of course [I don't believe I have seen that mentioned as yet] would be the prime objective in the early stages, particularly for potential outposts on the Moon or other outposts on Asteroids for that matter. http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/asteroids.html extract: Conclusion Although asteroid mining is capable of producing significant amounts of critical elements, Mission 2016 recommends that funding for asteroid mining come from the private sector. At present, the high start-up costs, high risk, and long timescales on investment returns make it difficult for governments to safely invest in asteroid mining. Since some resources are projected to become critically low very soon, Mission 2016 suggests that governments focus on more easily available resources and technologies. Timeline 2012-2025: Launch of space probes and telescopes to prospect and collect data on near earth asteroids, such as the LEO Space telescope and the ARKYD Series 100 Interceptor, and ARKYD Series 300 Rendezvous Prospector ("Technology," 2012) 2025-2035: NASA lands an astronaut on an asteroid 2035-2045: Space development and infrastructure necessary to further space exploration and exploitation 2045+: Asteroid mining prospers, as well as humankind's expansion in space

Not going to be easy, and certainly all the details and methodology are as yet uncertain, but as earth based resources will become increasingly harder and scarcer to obtain, this future endeavour is already being actuated by at least two companies so far. Of course asteroid mining in time will certainly be a doable objective. http://www.planetaryresources.com/#home-asteroids http://deepspaceindustries.com/

Asteroid mining of course is only one of the many valid and reasonable logical reasons why space exploration will continue as it indeed must.