Strange

And that is why videos are such a terrible source. How can I know what they said in the video. But I do know what physics says, and it says that what you claim they said is wrong. Fibre optics and prisms only work because the photons do interact with the atoms in the material.

Under 0 what? Feet? And you may "understand" that but you certainly didn't read it in that article.

In what way is that a "special" position in time? How is it different from being far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy? You have this bizarre misunderstanding of relativity as if it says that everything must always look the same for everyone everywhere, which is obviously wrong.

The universe has cooled from about 4000 degrees to 2.7 degrees over the last 13.8 billion years. That is still continuing. There are no new or sudden changes. It is not. It is a few millionths of a degree below 2.73 degrees. You are suggesting it is below absolute zero, which is impossible. And, obviously, it doesn't say that in the article. Nonsense.

So that is 150 millionths of a degree colder. Or 0.00015 degrees colder. No it doesn't. It says nothing like that. Stop making things up. Well obviously.

! Moderator Note Reopened at the request of the OP. Remember: Speculative theories need to be supported. You need to present your case here on there forum, not by posting documents.

It says: "the so-called “CMB cold spot” is about 70 μK colder than the average CMB temperature" That is 70 millionths of a degree colder. Or 0.00007 degrees colder. Light (microwaves) is reaching us now. It has taken 13.8 billion years to reach us. Maybe this will help: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

OK. This article is about how different ways of measuring the Hubble constant (the current rate of expansion) give slightly different results. This is intriguing and may tell us that our models of the universe are not quite right. But it certainly doesn't imply any recent or sudden changes. It doesn't say any such thing. It says there is a small area of the sky where the radiation is fractionally cooler than elsewhere. It then discusses several possible xplanations. None of this has anything to do with vacuum decay (or collapse, whatever that means). You are just making stuff up that has no connection with the contents of the articles. I'm not sure you are even reading them. Are you just posting random links?

Your link doesn't go to an article about the Hubble constant or lambda. So you might want to post the correct link. But there is no evidence it has changed. If the universe had changed to a new (false) vacuum state then the universe would not exist and we would not be having the conversation. And that reply pointed out that it happened 13.8 billion years ago and is not going to happen again. All that is "hitting us" now is microwave radiation from 13.8 billion years ago. (You have had all of this explained to you multiple times on another forum, but it seems you haven't learned anything.)

You have completely changed the subject from the fine structure constant to, now, the Hubble constant (which, oddly, is not a constant). The measured value of the Hubble constant has changed quite a lot since the initial value as more accurate ways of measuring it are found. This is common for many scientific measurements. Then about 20 years ago it was found that the value changes over time because the rate of expansion is accelerating. This has nothing to do the topic of this thread (a galaxy that stopped making new stars), nothing to do with the fine structure constant (which also has nothing to do with that galaxy), nothing to do with vacuum decay, etc. And the link you provided says nothing about this, anyway. You are just throwing irrelevant random facts into the thread for no apparent purpose. I'm not sure what that sentence means but: 1. This is another completely unrelated topic 2. It has been known for a long time that there are (small) variations in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. These are tiny, millionths of a degree, but they can tell us a lot about the early universe. 3. No one said anything about this "above" because it is the first time the CMB has been mentioned. 4. This has got nothing to do with something happening "anytime soon" because we are looking at things that happened 13.8 billion years ago.

There is no reason to think it will happen soon. There is very little reason to think it will ever happen. So clearly you have not understood what you have read.

I am not convinced there is any phenomenon to be explained. (I think flaws in the experiments or analysis of the results is a much more plausible explanation.) IF there is a phenomenon to be explained, I would not start with quantum physics as a possible explanation. Any analogous concepts that we are aware of (transmitting signals from one place to another) rely entirely on classical concepts. So I would start there. But there aren't really any plausible mechanisms.

As they also say, there is no evidence that this is due to psychic abilities. I imagine the research was shut down because any effect was small, unreproducible and not of much value. For example, imagine you have someone who is able, slightly more often than chance able to give an accurate description of a remote location (I don't know what that means in numbers) and the rest of the time they are wrong. You have no idea of knowing whether any particular "viewing" is one of the correct ones or one of the wrong ones. If the success rate is only slightly better than chance, you might as well roll a dice. I can't see any reason why quantum effects should be involved (any more than they are involved in everything anyway). And they don't suggest that in the report.

Computers can recognise human expressions and gestures and modify their responses appropriately. They can also have (physical or virtual) avatars that create appropriate expressions and gestures.

! Moderator Note I don't think this qualifies as Science News. Moving the The Lounge for more general discussion.

This is not really a scientific question. It normally has identical properties. In which case the question doesn't really mean anything. Unless the material has some property such as changing polarization or performing parametric down conversion (splitting the photon into two photons with half the energy) or similar. In which case whether you consider it to be the same photon or not depends how you choose to define "same". There is no void it interacts with the electrons it encounters. As this is an interaction with the field created by all the electrons in the material, I believe this is a continuous process (unlike, for example, the photoelectric effect where a photon is completely absorbed and later emitted by an atom).

! Moderator Note 1. This is not science news. 2. It isn't true: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/why-amazon-doesnt-produce-20-percent-worlds-oxygen/ 3. We already have a thread for "amazing science facts" and similar": https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103996-today-i-learned/ Thread closed

Actually, it had always bothered mathematicians (including Euclid). But it wasn't until Gaus, Bolyai, Lobachevsky and others that non-Euclidean geometry was invented/discovered. (A good 50 years or more before Einstein was born, by the way.) There have been at least three massive paradigm shifts just in my lifetime (and just in fields I am aware of). I would love to know if the graffiti is by a genuinely angry "not all men" type or a brilliant comedian.

Quantum mechanics

People have looked to see if the fine structure constant (or any other fundamental constants) have changed over time. There is no evidence that they have or can change. You might as well worry about whether gravity might stop working tomorrow.

Thank you. That is a much more balanced summary. (I would probably vote my own post down, if I were able!)

! Moderator Note Thanks for asking the question. I think it has had a pretty clear answer. We do not like to encourage conspiracy theories on this forum, so I am going to close this now.

And there is the problem with using video as a source.

I think the first part is spot on. Not so sure about the last sentence. Yes, the macroscopic concepts we are familiar with in everyday life emerge from the underlying quantum reality, in ways we don't fully understand. But I think it would be going a bit too far to say we do not understand the quantum realm "at all". Arguably, we understand it as well as any other area that we have accurate models for. Perhaps it feels like we don't understand it as well because it is less intuitive than some of the other models we have.

It doesn't.