Strange

If it was a repetition, it wouldn't be a clarification. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clarification

Interesting article on what has been found and, just as importantly, not found by the LHC: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-years-after-the-higgs-what-else-has-the-lhc-found-95b3149751b1

Not really. More than 0% explicit would be useful. It seems that several people have no idea what you want to discuss. But let me make a stab at it: what do you think of the price of bananas today?

I guess that is true of many things (world hunger, cure for cancer, eternal life) but societies and commercial interests, quite reasonably decide to apportion their resources based on potential risks and rewards.

By "easy" I mean that we have good theories that can explain what happened from about 10-36 second: https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html Not really. Just that in the grand unification epoch, the particles that existed would have behaved differently than they do now. This is not something I now much about but if the forces were unified, then perhaps the distinct particles we see now were not distinguished. But it probably needs someone like Mordred to comment further. Not just electrical change, though. For example, antiquarks have anti-colour charge. I'm saying we don't know. There are quite a few different models. In some, the universe "starts" with zero energy but in others the matter and energy has always existed. (As has already pointed out, saying that the least amount of energy is "1" is meaningless. And the minimum is zero, anyway.)

I don't think that is possible or sensible. Science itself is blameless and unaccountable. This doe not imply compartmentalisation. It just means that you don't blame a tool for the purpose people put it to. In what way is science a "compartment of human behaviour"? (I ask, because you haven't defined it.) What about them? What are you asking? Are you asking if those are the motivations for people choosing to do science? (If so, then it probably varies enormously. Different people do science for different reasons.)

That is a slightly different thing. To see those, you need to change the alignment of the eyes (as used for binocular vision) as if you were looking a distance, but keep the focus close so the image is in focus. I think the subject of the thread is (voluntarily) changing the focus of the eyes (presumably to infinity - but my distance vision now is so bad, I can't test that!) while keeping the binocular alignment on a closer object.

Sorry, I didn't intend to criticise. But on a science sit4e, you need to provide evidence to support claims (like "it will make your eyes strong"). What what is? Voluntary blurry vision? Well, obviously, it is changing the focus of your eyes voluntarily. I was a bit surprised that anyone thought this was worth discussing. I assumed it was something everyone could do quite naturally. But maybe not. But it is an utterly pointless thing to do.

The uncertainty principle is (or can be considered as) a consequence of the fact that quantum effects can be described as waves. That paper appears to be claiming that the wave function of a particle (e.g. an electron) can be considered to arise as a result of quantum fluctuations. Kind of the opposite of what you said. However, as the non-zero energy if the vacuum and associated quantum fluctuations are a consequence of the fact that fields (and the associated wave functions) are quantised, that argument seems to be a bit backwards.

And if you want more detail https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/

I’m not judging you. But you need to understand that this is a science site.

It is a normal part of human communication. That is not evidence (it is an anecdote). And it doesn’t say anything about “better strength”

In linguistics, there is a subject called "implicature". This is the study of the underlying meaning of a statement that is not explicit in the words. For example, if someone says "do you have $5" they are not necessarily asking about your financial situation. Depending on the context, they may be asking if you will lend them some money, or if you will pay for coffee. So, when I asked if there was evidence, I was not just asking about its existence, I was suggesting that you provide that evidence.

With my words I'm not a (bot)... http://www.cleverbot.com

Similar to Hawking radiation? I though you were talking about Hawking radiation? I assume it could work, or they wouldn't be doing it. Yes.

They are a consequence of the uncertainty principle. As the link explains. (I was going to try and explain it, but then realised I would just be repeating what was one that page.) No.

Any evidence for that?

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production But it requires very special conditions, such as the presence of an atomic nucleus (to conserve momentum). The experiment your link talks about is attempting to do it with no other particles involved. In principle. But, as with all forms of pair production, they will quickly annihilate again to proceed the original photons.

You asked about non-local interactions. Non-locality is a real thing, but it does not allow communication of information or interactions to take place non locally (i.e. faster than light). p.s. the first and last of your links look fairly bogus to me

It is possible. It is what happens. The rest of that sentence makes no sense. I have no idea what you are trying to say. What has "C2" got do with anything.

Not. Expansion is a scaling effect. Simple arithmetic shows that the means that the speed of separation is proportional to distance. Consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light.

I did try. But I just myself wallowing in a quagmire of vague ideas. There didn’t seem anything specific enough to analyse.

It is proportional to the distance you measure it over. No. Expansion only happens on very large scales. Galaxies and galaxy clusters are not affected by expansion.

And dogma? And tradition? Quite the reverse, I would have thought. And I can't see how the others are against advancement, either. Either I am confused or the OP is ...

How do you feel about: “that makes no sense and doesn’t seem to correspond to anything in the real world” We have good theories of gravity already, why would we need some baseless speculation.